NFLPA goes on the offensive about reported TV deals

While many football fans find labor discussions about as interesting as the ingredient list on the back of a breakfast cereal box, things are amping up on the side of the NFL Players Association. The NFLPA's latest move could affect now only how, but whether you will see your favorite sport in the near future.

We recently went over the Supreme Court's interpretation of the American Needle case, which walled the owners off from permanent antitrust immunity. Now that they, unlike the lords of baseball, are required to act in good faith, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has fired the next shot in what looks to be a protracted border war. On Wednesday, the players association filed a Special Master claim, contesting that the league took lower revenue (the kind that would be shared with the players under any agreement) in exchange for guaranteed money in the event of a lockout in 2011 (not a cent of which the players would see) in a renegotiation of television contracts. Smith and the players say that this is a direct violation of the fiduciary duty the owners are required to act under — they must seek revenue with an equal eye for the good of the players as for themselves.

Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth(notes), a member of the NFLPA's Executive Committee, doesn't believe that the league has done so. "It appears that the owners bought a strategy to lock players and fans out and nonetheless financially protect themselves," he told NFLPA.com. "The players want to leave no stone unturned to make sure that CBA negotiations proceed in good faith and that next season is played in its entirety."

NFLPA counsel Jeffrey Kessler had a more pointed take in the same article: "In essence, the NFL knowingly left money on the table ... at the expense of the players. The NFL thus has acted in bad faith."

In an NFLPA conference call on Wednesday afternoon, Smith said that in this particular legal proceeding, the NFLPA would ask for discovery, especially to clarify the notion that the owners would be required to pay back the lockout guarantees, estimated to be approximately $4 billion, in the event that football would not be played over a period of time. And while that would come out in discovery, one wonders if larger fish might not be caught — would discovery in this case force the owners to open up their books? "If it is the case that networks have obtained digital right or other media rights for free, in exchange for the promise that the full funds will be available to the teams even if the games aren't played, that means that

View the Original article