Maybe union bolted when deal was possible
Shortly after NFL labor talks collapsed a week ago and the NFL Players Association announced its decertification, DeMaurice Smith said something I still can't get out of my mind. Something that leads me to believe there might have been a new collective-bargaining agreement by now instead of pending litigation and mudslinging from both sides.
This was less than two hours after talks between the league and the union ended, with each side blaming the other for the failure. Smith had gathered a handful of reporters in a conference room at the NFLPA's offices, about three blocks from the federal mediator's office where the talks broke down. I listened closely as Smith, an attorney by trade, laid out his case.
Smith spoke of how far apart the sides were in negotiations and how there was no trust on either side, particularly among the players. He kept hammering away on the issue he has spoken about for much of the last two years: financial transparency.
But something else Smith said that evening convinced me there was a deal to be made if only they had continued negotiating and Smith had not pushed the decertification button. He talked to us about how at one point the union actually was willing to sacrifice a significant amount of money without demanding that the NFL "open the books."
"If the union was lockstep aimed at decertification and if it was only going to a litigation strategy," Smith said, "why would we provide one of the most successful businesses in the history of American business -- with $550 million of investment and, most importantly, our players taking less money than they would be entitled to if the [salary] cap continued?"
He underscored his point by saying the union was willing to offer those givebacks without seeing "a shred of financial information," a far cry from his constant demands to see the NFL's books. Instead, Smith and the union's negotiators missed a critical opportunity by going the decertification route. Too bad, because hours before the decertification/lockout scenario materialized, the owners were in full retreat, coming off their initial $1 billion request for givebacks and slicing it to $320 million.
I'm convinced the owners would have lowered their demands even further had the union been willing to build on the stunning momentum it had created with its hard-line stance. With NFL negotiators seemingly desperate to do a deal, there was no better time to extend the talks, twist the owners' arms some more and get a new deal that would have been fair for both sides. Several owners say they were willing to continue, suggesting there was plenty of room for further negotiation.
Instead, here's what we're left with: Each side accusing the other of negotiating in bad faith -- Smith Thursday called the NFL's final offer "the worst deal in the history of pro sports" in an interview with WFAN's Mike Francesa -- and court dates in which one side or the other will claim victory. The one thing we don't have: football for the foreseeable future.
Gentlemen, there is $9 billion a year at stake here, and, just as importantly, there is the loyalty of your fans, who make that $9 billion possible. It is time to work out a deal that will give the players the money they rightly deserve and give the owners a means to grow the game and create enough money for everyone's benefit.
It is time to talk to each other across a negotiating table, not in front of a judge.
