Washington Post: NFLPA preparing collusion suit vs. NFL teams

[peplaw06]

Sources say NFLPA is preparing collusion case against NFL teams

[SIZE=-1]By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 9, 2010; 12:34 AM
[/SIZE]
The NFL Players Association is preparing a possible collusion case accusing teams of improperly conspiring to restrict players' salaries last offseason, people familiar with the preparation of the case said Friday.

The case potentially will be filed within the next month, said one individual, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity because the union has made no announcement about its intentions.

The collective bargaining agreement between the league and the players' union prohibits a team from entering "into any agreement, express or implied" with another team "to restrict or limit" contract negotiations with players or players' salaries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100806270.html

 

[Future]

technically, isn't the league doing exactly that by adding two more games? I mean the players still make the same money, but have to play more....and a lot of them don't want it from what I've heard. They should sue for that, not because owners don't want to overpay for overhyped guys.

 

[Cover 2]

The players are stupid. They're making great money right now and they're going to throw it all away. It wouldn't surprise me if the popularity of football took a hit if there is a lock out. In the long run the players may make less money if they keep it up with actions like this.

 

[THUMPER]

The players are stupid. They're making great money right now and they're going to throw it all away. It wouldn't surprise me if the popularity of football took a hit if there is a lock out. In the long run the players may make less money if they keep it up with actions like this.

I agree. I was a lifelong Dodgers fan until the 1994 MLB strike. Since then I couldn't care less about baseball and don't know any of the players or how the teams are doing.

I am already liking the NFL less and less every year. The rules changes are making the game less enjoyable for me to watch and the new ones they are proposing (18 game season, overseas games, etc.) will only continue that trend IMO.

A lockout/strike will definitely influence me to watch fewer games in the future as the league becomes less and less relevant to me. I am sick of the players, sick of the owners, sick of the business that the NFL has become.

As for the NBA, I am down now to just watching the Lakers when they play (can you tell I grew up in L.A.?) and don't really care much what the other teams are doing until the conference finals. If the Lakers are not in contention then I may only catch part of a couple of finals games.

It is likely that the NFL will be the same way if this continues, I'll watch the Cowboys when they are on but not much else.

Maybe I'm just getting old and have a hard time accepting change but I simply cannot see how anything the league has done over the past 30 years has improved the game significantly and in fact it has been the opposite. :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

Just the opinion of an old fan. :geezer:

 

[utrunner07]

I am already liking the NFL less and less every year. The rules changes are making the game less enjoyable for me to watch and the new ones they are proposing (18 game season, overseas games, etc.) will only continue that trend IMO.

A lockout/strike will definitely influence me to watch fewer games in the future as the league becomes less and less relevant to me. I am sick of the players, sick of the owners, sick of the business that the NFL has become.

Just the opinion of an old fan. :geezer:

As a younger fan, I agree completely.

The league is just too money hungry right now, that seems to be the root of every problem, the league trying to get more money...rule changes (to make more money), more games (to make more money), the threatening strike (so players or ownership can make more money), overseas (to expand the market and...make more money), just on and on and on.

Nothing wrong with making more money but at this point they are doing it at the sacrifice of the game.

I don't really see how but part of me hopes there is a strike and that perhaps its will make some things better (but probably not).

I have already gotten to the point to where I would much rather watch NCAAF than NFL with any team except the Cowboys, solely because of the direction the NFL has taken.

 

[mwj473]

technically, isn't the league doing exactly that by adding two more games? I mean the players still make the same money, but have to play more....and a lot of them don't want it from what I've heard. They should sue for that, not because owners don't want to overpay for overhyped guys.

Actually, the season (spribg training to Pro-Bowl) would be identical, so they are working the exact same amount of hours or days under either scenrio.

You are just switching out 2 pre-season games for 2 regular season games.

Are they more exposed to injury? yes....a little, but that is different than "more work, less pay"

 

[T-RO]

Not close to the situation, but from afar...

it seemed there was some strange stuff going on last offseason that seemed to suppress player movement.

 

[T-RO]

As a younger fan, I agree completely.

The league is just too money hungry right now..

That makes three of us.

Even this year I've been a lot less plugged in. I haven't even watched all of the Cowboys games.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Not close to the situation, but from afar...

it seemed there was some strange stuff going on last offseason that seemed to suppress player movement.

anything to slow down the overpaying of NFL players I support.... Balance has to happen and less demand should help bring prices down some.

 

[burmafrd]

Actually it was more likely that a lot of owners and GMs decided to be especially cautious facing the uncertain labor situation. Which is frankly the smarter way to operate. I think Smith is leading the NFLPA down a road that they will regret. A strike/lockout would be the dumbest thing of all for the NFL.

 

[The Realist]

technically, isn't the league doing exactly that by adding two more games? I mean the players still make the same money, but have to play more....and a lot of them don't want it from what I've heard. They should sue for that, not because owners don't want to overpay for overhyped guys.

The players would be suing for something they already agreed to.

Up to 22 games is already in the CBA.

 

[burmafrd]

but since the CBA expired, the NFL would still have to get the players to buy off on it.

 

[The Realist]

but since the CBA expired, the NFL would still have to get the players to buy off on it.

Hasn't expired yet.