NFLPA lockout fund

[BigSarge87]

From the NFL website:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81efe853/article/nflpa-to-pay-players-from-lockout-fund-starting-april-15?module=HP_headlines

The NFLPA has a lockout fund? So...they were planning for a lockout? Isn't that what they sued the NFL for doing?

"Hello Kettle, my name is Pot, your black!"

Enlighten me as to why it's okay for the players to do this and not the owners.

[UnderArmour]

Real quick. Reason why the NFL's was unethical is that they had a revenue sharing program in place with the players. The players income through the collective bargaining agreement is directly tied to the total revenue of the NFL so any side income of the NFLPA is not part of that collective bargaining. What the NFL did was take less money in TV contracts to ensure that they would be paid in the event of a lockout. However, according to Judge Doty, this was done in bad faith due to the nature of the collective bargaining agreement and as such is a violation of antitrust laws(?).

Point is owners are supposed to share the money the NFL receives as a whole. Players are under no such obligation. There is no hypocrisy here. The members of the union simply set aside a pool of rainy day money from -THEIR OWN- incomes.

(From the article you linked)

The fund was created via player dues and right's fees during 2009 and 2010. If a player was on a 53-man roster for all 34 weeks of the regular season during those two years, then he would be eligible for that maximum, $60,000 payment, which would be distributed in six projected increments beginning April 15.
This entirely different from negotiating a contract where the revenue is by nature shared to only fund one side.

Consider yourself enlightened.

[rcsodak]

I would like to be on a practice squad for my 2yrs. >$5k/wk.

/hijack
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[BigSarge87]

Real quick. Reason why the NFL's was unethical is that they had a revenue sharing program in place with the players. The players income through the collective bargaining agreement is directly tied to the total revenue of the NFL so any side income of the NFLPA is not part of that collective bargaining. What the NFL did was take less money in TV contracts to ensure that they would be paid in the event of a lockout. However, according to Judge Doty, this was done in bad faith due to the nature of the collective bargaining agreement and as such is a violation of antitrust laws(?).

Point is owners are supposed to share the money the NFL receives as a whole. Players are under no such obligation. There is no hypocrisy here. The members of the union simply set aside a pool of rainy day money from -THEIR OWN- incomes.

(From the article you linked)

This entirely different from negotiating a contract where the revenue is by nature shared to only fund one side.

Consider yourself enlightened.

Makes sense, thanks for clearing that up.

So the players claimed that the NFL practically 'stole' from them to set up their rainy day fund by taking less money from the networks and the judge bought it.

So if the NFL would have taken MORE from the networks and set up their own lockout fund from their share of the revenue it would have been fine, right?

I don't even know why I care. But for some reason I still do.

/un-hijack! (JK, I couldn't care less. Should have posted the question in another existing thread)

[TXBRONC]

Makes sense, thanks for clearing that up.

So the players claimed that the NFL practically 'stole' from them to set up their rainy day fund by taking less money from the networks and the judge bought it.

So if the NFL would have taken MORE from the networks and set up their own lockout fund from their share of the revenue it would have been fine, right?

I don't even know why I care. But for some reason I still do.

/un-hijack! (JK, I couldn't care less. Should have posted the question in another existing thread)

Yes the difference is that the owners when they negotiated that contract with the networks they were also acting on behalf to the players because they get a percentage of t.v. revenues. By setting up a side deal that only benefited them it's an act of bad faith.