NFL wants to cut player costs by $40M

[oldnotdead]

The NFL is considering a draconian cut of about $40M / team in player costs. The original thought is to do it over several years. But others want it done in one year so the NFL can then move on. The NFLPA is vehemently opposing this move. But IMO they have no leverage. Since players get paid per game per the CBA the easiest way for the NFL to achieve this is simply reducing the number of games this season.

This is why I was saying simply shortening the season to 14 games was likely. However, if $40M is their target then the reduction would have to be at least 3 games more likely 4 games. They could shorten the season by 2 games much like I have suggested and drop the expanded playoff formula for this year and that will get them close to the $40M they want. The NFLPA wouldn't have any leverage to stop them.

This is why I have always thought that reducing the games this season is the most likely route they will take. Talk has been centered around reducing the cap but that is unworkable for teams that are right at the cap limit now. It's counterproductive to the long term of the NFL also. That would involve the NFLPA as well. I think this "red herring" is being floated to scare the players into accepting a shorten season which will then be offered as a "compromise" as it would seem more reasonable.

I think the 14 game 2020 season is coming and the expanded playoff format will be dropped for this year if the NFL is really serious about this player pay reduction. There is no other way to achieve it without prolonged NFLPA legal interference. If I understand the CBA the NFL has complete authority to do it now.

 

[Loyal]

I almost don't care. Whatever the NFL line is, I don't think there is a workable, fair solution if a team has 10 starting players out for a few weeks in the heart of the season. How can that be fair? Don't use the injury excuse and how it's "next man up," because this could be the next 10 men up with the season on the line.

 

[Dick84]

The NFL projections, from what I understand, would be based on their losses if they had a full slate of games. Cutting games would cut NFL revenue, so, I don't think that's a legitimate tool for cost control.

 

[oldnotdead]

I think that the lost revenue for fewer games is factored in. In fact, I think that is exactly why they are asking for a reduction in player salaries. They are targeting ONLY player salaries nothing else. They don't need anyone's approval except owners for cap reductions over the next few years. If they are going to reduce the cap they only need to notify the owners and FOs. The NFLPA would only be involved in that they would also be notified to alert the agents on pending contracts. IMO this sounds like the lead into an announcement of a shortened season.

 

[Dick84]

I think that the lost revenue for fewer games is factored in. In fact, I think that is exactly why they are asking for a reduction in player salaries. They are targeting ONLY player salaries nothing else. They don't need anyone's approval except owners for cap reductions over the next few years. If they are going to reduce the cap they only need to notify the owners and FOs. The NFLPA would only be involved in that they would also be notified to alert the agents on pending contracts. IMO this sounds like the lead into an announcement of a shortened season.

I do not think that.
I think it's to cover the loss of gameday revenue.

It's pretty much accepted that preseason will only be two games, but I don't see them settling for a shorter regular season.
40 million a team wouldn't even cover full losses of gameday revenue, estimated at an average of about $130 million per team.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

so the owners want the players to share their loss of gameday revenue but they don't give them a cent of it when they make huge profits from it?

what a bunch of cocksuckers.

.

 

[CGI_Ram]

NFL’s proposal dramatically cuts player pay if season is canceled

The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not include a force majeure clause. The league is essentially trying to force the players to accept one after the fact. The most recent proposal from the NFL to the NFL Players Association sets forth a lengthy and detailed schedule of payments to be made...

sports.yahoo.com

NFL’s proposal dramatically cuts player pay if season is canceled

The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not include a force majeure clause. The league is essentially trying to force the players to accept one after the fact.

The most recent proposal from the NFL to the NFL Players Association sets forth a lengthy and detailed schedule of payments to be made in the event the season is suspended or canceled.

For starters, players would keep all signing, roster, reporting, or workout bonuses earned before cancellation of the season, along with base salary and per-game roster bonuses or per-game payments earned for any regular-season games actually played.

If the season is canceled before training camp opens, the players would get no further payment. If the season is canceled after training camp starts and before final roster cuts, all players on the 90-man roster who received a credited/accrued season in 2019 or who were drafted in 2020 would receive a $250,000 stipend, reduced by all other payments already made to the player this year. (For example, if a player received a $100,000 signing bonus, he’d receive $150,000 upon cancellation of the season. Any player who has received $250,000 or more this year would get nothing.)

If the season is canceled after the final roster cuts and before Week One, players on the 53-man roster and injured reserve or reserve/PUP would be eligible for the $250,000 stipend. Players on the practice squad would be eligible for a $100,000 stipend.

If the season is canceled during the regular season, players on the 53-man roster and injured reserve or reserve/PUP would be eligible for the $250,000 stipend, but money earned from regular-season games already played would also count against the stipend. Players on the practice squad would be eligible for a $100,000 stipend, minus other money earned.

For players who join the active roster after Week One, they would receive the lesser of $250,000 or their remaining prorated base salary. Players who join the practice squad after Week One would receive the lesser of $10,000 or their remaining prorated practice squad pay.

Incentives would be prorated and partially earned, as long as at least eight regular-season games are played by the player’s team. If, for example, a player has an incentive that pays him $1.6 million for 16 sacks, the incentive would drop to $1.2 million and the threshold would drop to 12 sacks if only 12 games are played.

Apart from the stipends, players will not be paid for games not actually played — even if player salaries are guaranteed for injury, skill, and/or salary cap.

Again, this is the league’s proposal. The players can adhere to the current status quo, which gives players their full salaries if only one game is played. The approach proposed by the league would reduce player pay dramatically, but it also would reduce the eventual financial consequences of the pandemic.

 

[Ram65]

Too much crap to get worked up about. Either play or don't play.

 

[dieterbrock]

Too much crap to get worked up about. Either play or don't play.

Cheers
Taking sides over an argument that doesnt even exist, (yet) just seems to be a waste of energy

 

[Merlin]

This is why I was saying simply shortening the season to 14 games was likely.

Shortening the season takes money from the owners. Which complicates shit.

What they want is to pay less to players WITHOUT decreasing income. Only way that's gonna happen is if they break the union (i.e. going with smaller roster sizes, etc which the PA would fight). Which isn't hard outside of dealing with government influence and threats due to the league's exemption status on monopoly. So right now they're weighing all that I'm sure.

 

[OldSchool]

.

so the owners want the players to share their loss of gameday revenue but they don't give them a cent of it when they make huge profits from it?

what a bunch of cocksuckers.

.

You mean other than increased salary cap the next year which we've seen go up more and more each year for several years now? This year sucks for all parties involved players owners and fans. Changes gonna have to be made and adults going to have to work out a deal.

 

[kurtfaulk]

You mean other than increased salary cap the next year which we've seen go up more and more each year for several years now? This year sucks for all parties involved players owners and fans. Changes gonna have to be made and adults going to have to work out a deal.

the salary cap is tied to the nfl's revenue.

whatever money made from stadium game day activities is going straight into that owner's pockets.

.

 

[OldSchool]

the salary cap is tied to the nfl's revenue.

whatever money made from stadium game day activities is going straight into that owner's pockets.

.

hahaha
Incorrect but thank you for playing. It's funny how people automatically say players good owners bad. They two groups that have one goal in mind, separating us from our money so they can divide it among themselves yet fans have this fascination with assuming the owners are bad and the players are good.

 

[kurtfaulk]

hahaha
Incorrect but thank you for playing. It's funny how people automatically say players good owners bad. They two groups that have one goal in mind, separating us from our money so they can divide it among themselves yet fans have this fascination with assuming the owners are bad and the players are good.

hmmm, yes, i seem to have been under the wrong impression. must have read an incorrect article on the subject way back.

.

 

[dieterbrock]

the salary cap is tied to the nfl's revenue.

whatever money made from stadium game day activities is going straight into that owner's pockets.

.

And the owners still have all the stadium expenses to pay.
Games or not, fans or not

 

[Loyal]

And the owners still have all the stadium expenses to pay.
Games or not, fans or not

Life in the big city. Suck it up, buttercup(s)

 

[OldSchool]

hmmm, yes, i seem to have been under the wrong impression. must have read an incorrect article on the subject way back.

.

It's a very very small portion of the revenue for certain but it is part of it. Essentially the NFL is 32 independent businesses that pool together to form one larger business and all their revenues are pooled together for the larger organization. Absolutely TV is the lions share but tickets, food and drink as well as gear sold online and at stadiums all contribute to it.

 

[OldSchool]

Life in the big city. Suck it up, buttercup(s)

Speaking of sucking, how your posts doing

/hides

 

[Ramstien]

All this shit makes me sick. I'd like to see all these SOBs have to get out and really work for a living, like the rest of us. Never lose sight of the fact if it was not for us fans wanting to see them play a game they would be working at Walmart.

 

[Loyal]

Speaking of sucking, how your posts doing

/hides

"My words are correct, nothing short of perfect.
Vernacular's pure, and I can ensure,
Life or death with my breath, my voice is a cure.
I heal life with the words that I spread,
I'll make a sick man rock in his death bed....
How ya like me now?"