We Have Football (But At What Price?)

Now that the circus that was the litigation over a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) has finally concluded, America can now rest easy knowing that there will be no material disruption to their Sunday viewing pleasure in the fall. Despite all the posturing and tying up the calendars of the US District Court in Minneapolis and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis with legal maneuverings that were best left to the collective bargaining table, once the prospect of losing actual money became apparent, the sides were finally able to reach a deal.

For those of us with an abiding respect for the legal process and collective bargaining, there’s little, if anything to celebrate. In our post of March 15th (“Failure”), we made a case that the only losers in this protracted negotiation were the consumer.

There is a (rare) time and place when litigation is the only option in collective bargaining disputes and no one should question the role of counsel in protecting the legal rights of the parties. But the NFLPA’s strategy of decertifying and allowing individuals to proceed as plaintiffs in an antitrust suit only to have to recertify in order to ratify the CBA is a sham. On that point, we will concede that the employer’s argument had merit.

The NFLPA’s course of action showed an appalling lack of respect for the history of labor in America. Since the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Laughlin Steel (which upheld the National Labor Relations Act in the 1930’s) tens of millions of working men and women have materially benefited from membership in unions and the collective bargaining process. There have been tremendous sacrifices made along the way through strikes and lockouts but no one (except union-haters) can dispute the impact that unions have made toward the betterment of working people and the economy. Working people innately understood that their voices over wages and working conditions were best heard collectively. Most working people understand (in most situations) that they have virtually no bargaining power standing alone against a corporation.

Granted, professional football is a unique industry where the players have the benefits of union protection coupled with private representation over wages, bonuses and contract length. And it’s also true that the shelf life of a professional footballer is generally brief when taken into consideration with most other professions. No one argues that players should settle for any less than what the market will bear for their services. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry and players deserve every dollar they can get considering the toll this business takes on their bodies.

The players previously acknowledged that the vehicle by which working conditions are determined is the collective bargaining process with the union as sole collective bargaining agent. When they elected to abandon the union in favor of litigation, it didn’t take long for the “trade association” to resume discussions under a federal mediator once the Eighth Circuit upheld the lockout. As a condition of ratifying this new CBA, they have to re-certify as a “union” again. It’s simply a fact that being a union member through thick and thin still matters to a lot of folks. The very idea that a “better deal” could be had through disunity is repugnant.

In the end, who do we have to “thank” for finalizing the CBA? The lawyers? It’s funny that the closer that the CBA came to fruition the further the lawyers were pushed to the sidelines. It was tried n’ true labor and management that finally got this deal done, with counsel in an advisory role, not driving the bus. Thanks go out to people like Mr. Kraft and Kevin Mawae, men who understood business and labor and who respected the collective bargaining process.

Now that this unpleasant episode has reached a “happy ending” we’ll all eagerly await the opening of free agency to see what teams will spend like drunken sailors.

What do you say? Are you (finally) ready for some football?