The Greedy 9

With free agency ready to begin on March 3rd, the owners and the NFLPA still have not come to terms on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. A failure to extend the current CBA, or come up with a new one, would be devastating to the NFL.

And what is keeping an agreement from getting done? An expanded system of revenue sharing.

Currently, the 32 billionaires who own and operate NFL franchises equally divide a certain portion of the league revenue. Teams share all broadcasting, sponsorship, licensing and revenue generated by visiting team's ticket sales. These elements comprise what is called the "Defined Gross Revenue", which determines what the annual salary cap is for the league.

What isn't shared is the revenue generated locally (tv/radio, ticket sales, stadium-related revenue such as parking, concessions, advertising, luxury suites), and the league and union tentatively agreed that this money should be included in the defined gross revenue. This would mean that the salary cap would go up, and by sharing the revenue, the smaller market teams could remain competitive by receiving a healthy boost from the shared money.

23 teams are on board with sharing that local revenue, and they're doing so because they recognize that it's in the league's best interest to do so. Unfortunately, there are 9 owners who aren't willing to share what they grow locally, and since the measure needs 24 "yes" votes to pass, those 9 are holding the rest of the league by the short and curlies.

So who are the 9 teams that unwilling to share locally-generated revenue? The answers are fairly obvious. Owners with teams in large media markets (like say, the two New York teams), or huge stadiums (Washington, Denver), or in stadiums that generate truckloads of cash by having high ticket prices and copious amounts of luxury suite revenue (Philadelphia, Houston, New England). You could also look at owners with a history of belligerence (Jerry Jones in Dallas) to be a part of the Greedy 9.

There's only one team rumored to be voting "No" on this issue (and I stress "rumored", since none of the teams have been confirmed publicly) whose rationale I do not understand. The Carolina Panthers, who don't play in a new stadium, nor do they sell out their stadium on a regular basis, apparently are the 9th dissenting team. Plus, they play in what is technically a small market, and would benefit greatly from this plan.

What are the ramifications of going forth without a collective bargaining agreement?

Good question. If no agreement is reached, 2007 will be an "uncapped year". Before you start thinking that a team with deep pockets can go out and buy themselves a Lombardi Trophy, there are severe restrictions in place for the "uncapped year".

For starters, there's whats called a "30% Rule", wherein a player's salary (everything except the signing bonus) cannot increase by more than 30% from the last capped season (2006) to the first uncapped year (2007) and any future years. This harshly penalizes the player, and it's presence is there for a purpose. To get the NFLPA to agree to an extension of the CBA before the current one expires.

Also, any incentives earned during 2006 would count directly in 2006, which would screw things up next month for contract negotiators since they can't move this money into 2007 (like they normally do). What this means is if a team signs a player to an incentive-laden contract, and the player meets those incentives, the team may have to release players to fit that incentive money under the 2006 cap. Again, it's set up like this to penalize the team, and to get them to the bargaining table before the current CBA expires.

There are other rule changes as well, which I won't get into at this time. Suffice to say, teams and players will be spending more on lawyers than they will on anything else, if a labor agreement isn't reached.

We're approaching zero hour, and it's time for the owners and players to get their act together. Leave it to Matt Birk, a Harvard grad, to shed some light on the current labor situation in his recent interview with PFT.com: "...but players are making a lot of money, owners are making a lot of money, and the league is as strong as it's ever been. Why would they screw everything up?"

Exactly. The league is as strong as it's ever been, and it's the model that other professional sports leagues are attempting to emulate. The current system works, and messing around with it right now makes no sense. We may never know who the 9 owners voting "No" actually are, but it shouldn't be too hard, since they're likely wearing t-shirts like this.