In 2011, a momentous event took place: the NFL’s lockout era ended, and, in the aftermath, the players’ association secured approximately an even split of all generated revenue. This was seen as somewhat controversial, with critics finding it easy to belittle the players’ share. However, their criticisms often overlooked a critical factor: it was the owners who were prepared to forego a complete season, not the players.
There is another dimension to applauding the 2011 accord— the endless potential it represented for the players. As part of the agreement, the players would share each dollar made by the sport equally. This deal provided them with a limitless potential for growth, a growth that continues to this day.
Just to highlight the growth, in the span of 14 years, we’ve seen the cap more than double. This has shot up from $120.375 million to an astronomical $279.2 million per team. Just last week, concerns were raised that perhaps the players’ share was becoming too large.
There were two main elements of focus. The first was the cap system itself— preserving the integrity of the system, examining its performance, and identifying areas that need adjustment within the framework of collective bargaining. The other key area concerned rising costs, including those of stadiums, operations, and investment, and the significant impact they are having on owners’ perspectives.
Both these issues will dictate our priorities when we head into any future negotiations. From the viewpoint of the league, it’s only logical to question whether the players would be open to an arrangement other than an even split.
Could they consider a fixed cap for a certain number of forthcoming years, unconnected to the sport’s monetary generating power? Would they entertain the notion of not sharing all revenues equally when owners are not obliged to do so? Additionally, should the owners shoulder the entirety of all additional expenditures from their share of the revenue?
These thoughts about potential reductions of the players’ share demonstrate a power differential between managers and workers. The existing agreement stands firm for at least five more years. The salary cap will continue its upward trajectory.
Given this reality, it’s likely that the owners are entertaining thoughts of instigating changes sooner than later. Achieving this will not be a simple task. However, if it were to potentially result in an offseason lockout or even the threat of a season without football, it is not an impossibility.
In the meantime, it might be beneficial to keep an ear open to what the owners are saying. Stay vigilant for news from sports-business outlets about the league appointing a lockout expert.
This potential eventuality should be recognized by the players, and they should commence planning. Time is, indeed, on their side. Provisions can be made, such as setting up alternative financial arrangements that would ensure utility bills and other expenses can be paid, even in the absence of their regular paychecks.
Of course, the wrinkle here is that many of the players who might have to forfeit game checks are still in high school. The fact remains that the ever-expanding revenue ‘pie’ is causing owners to reconsider the wisdom of affording players’ half.
The thought that players may accept a smaller share rather than no share at all may give the owners the confidence to negotiate for more. The times ahead are uncertain, but the fact remains that in the ever-evolving world of sport, new challenges arise just as swiftly as old ones are resolved.