Negotiations Between National Football League and NFL Players Association

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Negotiations Between National Football League and NFL Players Association

Introduction

The National Football League (NFL) and NFL Players Association (NFLPA) agreed to sign a new NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) deal for 2020 to 2030. The NFL players approved the NFL CBA deal by a slight vote margin. There were significant issues that would affect the players careers until 2030 addressed in the agreement. However, the negotiation of the deal had a few errors that required some adjustments.

Summary

Issues

On February 20, 2020, NFL owners cast their votes to approve the 2020-2030 CBA. The Proposed CBA was sent for a full membership vote by the NFLPA Board of Representatives on February 26, 2020, and was finally agreed to on March 15, 2020, by the NFLPA. The 2020 agreement contained significant deals that would impact the players contracts until 2030. The contract stated that a 17^th game would be added in the 2021 season and playoffs.

The owners bargained in support of this addition, while some players opposed it despite the favors that came with it. Additionally, the owners voted to expand teams to 14 players during the 2021 NFL season (Graziano, 2020). Moreover, the Wild Card playoff games increased from four to six, while the number of teams receiving the first-round playoff byes reduced from four to two (Graziano, 2020). The previous four games of the preseasons will be shortened to three with 17 regular-season games.

Previously, few player spots were available on the regular season active roster. After the agreement, a maximum of two spots was added for practice squad players only for the regular-season game (Graziano, 2020). After the game, these players are obliged to revert to the practice squad. However, two more players were added to the previous 46 players in the game-day roster limit (Graziano, 2020). The offensive linemen will consist of a minimum of eight active players, and if they are less than eight, then the game-day roster limit reduces to 47 (Graziano, 2020). The practice squad player limit will be increased to 14 in 2022 (Graziano, 2020).

In the 2020 to 2030 league years, the eligibility for players in the practice squad was increased to four players per team. Additionally, the marijuana suspension policy was revoked and replaced by focusing the drug program on clinical care. Graziano (2020) mentioned that in the 2021 season, the players would be allowed to receive a 48% NFL revenue and at least 48.8% of the revenues in any 17-game NFL season.

The parties agreed on the new CBA to make changes in the franchise and transition tags in the same offseason. The new CBA allowed the teams to only use one tag compared to the previous one that allowed two (Graziano, 2020). Additionally, the owners offered the players an increase in salary due to the addition of the 17^th regular season and pensions after three accrued seasons, which reduced from the previous four accrues seasons.

The deal proposed that a neutral arbitration would replace the NFL Commissioner from judging discipline cases. The CBA proposed that the players salary increase will depend on their merit in the first seasons they play compared to the previous one, where it rose due to being drafted. The NFL promised to enhance the training facilities of the teams and institute health facilities in their home cities and provide free healthcare to all the players.

Players and Audiences

The negotiating parties shared their thoughts on the approved CBA. The NFLPA was unhappy with the approval, but they supported continuing working together to continue with their union duties (Young, 2020). Some players opposed the deal, but their disapproval faced minor problems while they were on their way to player approval. Additionally, Bobby Wagner opposed the deal stating that it does not provide additional safety issues (Young, 2020). He stated that the 16 games were intense on their bodies, and adding more games will result in unfavorable conditions to their quality of life, healthcare, and safety. Other players, such as Eric Reid, Carolina Panthers safety, raised the same issue and pursued legal action against the deal (Young, 2020). Russell Okung, the Los Angeles Chargers offensive lineman, filed a complaint against DeMaurice Smith, the unions executive director (Young, 2020). He claimed that he negotiated the terms without getting authority from union members.

BATNAs and Targets

NFLPA raised concerns about the effect of additional games on the health and living status of the players. The addition of four games faced a backlash as players demanded a 50-50 split of the revenue for them to vote a yes for the new CBA proposal (Young, 2020). The target of the owners was the 17^th playoff game, while that of the players was probably the gains that they will enjoy or the revoking of cannabis intoxication suspension. Additionally, the increased gains in the work rules concerning the players health and safety could have the defining headline of the deal.

Critique of the Negotiation Process and Analysis of the Outcome

The new approved CBA deal is inconvenient for the players even though the country is in the middle of the Covid 19 pandemic. The slight vote margin is a significant indicator that some players were unhappy with it and that the lobbying to pass it could have been reason enough to critique the agreement (Brandt, 2020). The increased pays might look like a great deal, but it is insufficient compared to the players efforts in giving up on the 17^th game concession. The non-negotiable terms of the 17^th game for the players and owners raised concerns about the deals nature (Brandt, 2020). Additionally, in the previous years, the addition of the regular seasons was a non-starter for players.

The change that was seen when the owners offered incremental gains and an increase in Players revenue is difficult to understand. Moreover, the backlash that the addition of the 17^th game faced was contrary to the union leaders statement that the players were well informed about the deal.

The deal has a few sections on revenue split, gambling revenues, and commissioner discipline that might be inadequately advertised. The deal gave players the option of receiving a 48% of revenues in 2021 and the following years. This percentage will only rise to 48.5% only if the owners negotiate a 60% raise in the deal with the media (Brandt, 2020). Additionally, players will only receive a 100% share of all gambling revenues during in-season, and in the offseason, it will drop to 50% or below (Brandt, 2020). Moreover, the neutral arbitration will only be for the initial discipline, and the commissioner will retain his appeal power.

Suggestion

The NFL 2020 CBA negotiations might have been improved by the owners understanding the NFLPAs best alternative to a negotiated agreement. This would have allowed the NFLPA to make early creative solutions to prevent a stalemate between the parties and arrive at a mutual understanding. The owners should have understood the NFPLA interests and motivations to ensure most players accept the CBA deal. Additionally, the deal should have been clearly stated and explained to the NFL players to avoid many players who failed to cast their votes. This shows a significant division among the players and distrust of the NFLPA in ensuring their players interests are sufficiently represented in every negotiation and policies impacting their lives.

The deal would have been improved if NFLPA ensured that every NFL player understood the contents of the agreement and have a discussion among themselves to reach a mutual consensus. Some players reported not having seen the main document and realized it did not cover their main concerns and could not cope with the risks involved in adding the 17^th game. The owners, NFLPA, and NFL players would have discussed to ensure every player is aware of the deal to avoid the confusion that arose when they first heard the news.

Additionally, the financial structure of the 17^th game deal was quite unconvincing to the players. The CBA stated that there would be an increase in pay for the extra contest for each player. The parties should have clearly stated the terms of the increase in the players maximum salary. This would have allowed them to reach a reservation point that would be beneficial for all the parties.

Conclusion

Approving the proposed 2020 NFL CBA faced a significant amount of backlash from the players due to some of the issues that were not addressed in the agreement. However, the NFL owners and the players reached an agreement and passed the deal with a slight vote margin. Other players did not participate in the voting process because they felt the proposed deal was not in their favor. The negotiating parties should have ensured they laid the proper foundation for each player to understand the deal to were united in achieving the same goal. They should have ensured all their issues are properly addressed in the contract without them feeling as if they are being drugged into a deal that is not in their careers interest.

References

Brandt, A. (2020). The NFL CBA aftermath. Sports Illustrated. Web.

Graziano, D. (2020). NFL CBA approved: What players get in new deal, how expanded playoffs and schedule will work. ESPN. Web.

Young, J. (2020). NFL players union approves new agreement that includes pay increases and extra regular-season game. CNBC. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!