The NFLPA ratified the collective bargaining agreement with the team owners.

Now that the NFL has resolved its spat with the players with a long term deal, its time for the National Basketball Association (NBA) to take center stage on the sports/labor dispute front. The NBA presses two claims against the Players' Association (NBPA). The first is an unfair labor practice charge claiming the NBPA is refusing to bargain in good faith by threatening a sham decertification. The second is a federal court suit to declare the NBA does not violate the anti-trust laws if it voids all existing player contracts if the decertification is held lawful. I understand the former, and its a text book move given the judicial treatment of the issues in the NFL/NFLPA dispute. But the latter seems a public relations mistake, and probably preempted.

The NFL's team owners have unanimously agreed to a proposed 10 year contract with the recertified NFLPA which should result in an end to the lockout and teams practicing by the week-end. New Orleans player representative Heath Evans cautions, the players' agreement is not certain. While it appears the economic issues are settled - the owners will not take a slice off the top anymore - Evans claims there are things included in the owners approved deal that the players have never discussed. Also yesterday the August 7 Hall of Fame game was cancelled.

There is a terrific post on the oral argument in the Brady case at Prawfsblawg, including a link to an audio of the argument. I'm not sure that it matters whether the union is decertified or not for purposes of the Norris-LaGuardia Act coverage of a labor dispute. A labor dispute can exist without a union. The players should have an unfettered right to disavow their union. Even if it is a tactic used to gain advantage,the National Labor Relations Act affords employees the right to decertify, and the union thereafter has no legal status as employee representative. Once done, the basis for the anti-trust exemption in labor relations no longer exists. I am surely an outsider to the dispute, but lots does not make sense to me. It seems like the owners are incurring huge potential risk with a lockout. All the bad possibilities of a strike, lost season, economic devastation, etc., but the real risk of blame for the outcome being placed on the shoulders of the owners, not players. Add to that anti-trust exposure, well, YIKES!

First the NFL, and now maybe the NBA? Professional basketball has only just recovered from the last labor dispute (1998-1999) and is being rewarded with full houses and on court excitement. But the collective bargaining agreement expires in 2011, and that could mean an aggressive play by the billionaire owners against the millionaire players - a lockout.

The Eighth Circuit has handed the owners an encouraging win by granting a stay of the injunction of the owner's lockout. In so doing the court does a pretty good job of explaining how the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits injunctions of labor disputes. A labor dispute can occur even in the absence of a certified union, thus the player's decertification, in the court's view, did not make the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions on injunctions inapplicable.

In a somewhat unusual move, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has issued a temporary administrative stay of Judge Nelson's order enjoining the NFL owner's lockout. The stay is a procedural device to allow the court enough time to do a preliminary review a matter. Normally it is used for emergency situations like death row appeals. Many commentators expect a ruling next week.

Judge Nelson rejected the NFL's request for a stay of her order ending the owner's lockout. The NFL now will try to expedite an appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit.

As we expected Federal Judge Susan Nelson has enjoined the owners lockout, citing irreparable harm not only to the players careers, but to non-parties like concessionaires and fans. WOW! And if the owners are waiting for the NLRB to declare the decertification of the union an illegal tactic, then they live in a fantasy world far less real than fantasy football. Moreover, Judge Nelson pretty well rejected the argument, which was a stretch from the beginning. Saints have posted the NFL's statement on the ruling here.

March 4, June 30, and December 11 2011 are fateful dates for labor according to this AP feed.  Those are the dates the NFL, NBA and MLB labor agreements expire. (The NFL agreement expires September 15, 2012). Lockouts loom likely in both the NFL and NBA, although it seems more likely MLB will reach a deal. Perhaps that is because baseball suffered twelve years of reduced attendance after the 1994-95 strike. These labor negotiations are a potential game changer for labor which has seen its public image take a huge hit in the last few years. Prior posts here. The players are the presumptive beneficiaries of public opinion, but the anti-labor noise machine has not engaged yet. This will be an epic public relations struggle, and one with high stakes for organized labor, not to mention the fans and the host cities. Who will take the fall for the disruption? That is the underlying struggle worth watching.

Roger Goodell says its possible. Players association representative says "no comment." You can take the other side of this bet and give the points, plenty of points.

What would an NFL lockout cost each city with a team? A lot, says a new study discussed here.

The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has taken another step in preparation for a 2011 lock out. It has announced full affiliation with the AFL-CIO state labor organizations in states where teams are located.

Mike Triplett has a great piece in the Times Picayune about the Saint's players comments on  the breakdown in negotiations for the new CBA. Saint's quarterback Drew Brees is quoted as are many others. The PR war has already started, but these Saints provide an articulate defense to the players position. A word of caution to the fan following this issue. Network reports on the lockout have every reason to be biased in favor of the owners. Not only do they owe the owners $4 billion if the games are not played, they have to negotiate television rights with those same owners. Expect the owners to get better than even treatment and coverage.

Surprised? I am. Expired collective bargaining agreement, decertification and probable lockout. No disrespect to the tragedy in Japan, but this is a metaphorical tsunami that can well damage all concerned. I think going forward it will be very difficult for the owners in both a court of law and the court of public opinion. The NFL/NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement expired because the players would not agree to extend it unless the owners provided the financial information the players had requested. The big sticking point in the negotiations is the owners insistence their costs have risen necessitating taking a second billion off the top of the revenue pie. (The owners want to take $2 billion of the roughly $9 billion in annual revenue generated by the league, before splitting the rest under a formula that provides roughly 60% to player compensation.) Yet the owners are only offering to provide limited access to financial information. This sounds like the typical discovery dispute - one side provides documents requested by the other side and after the production, the requesting party says it needs more. The real issue is hard to assess. Irrespective of the merits of what was produced and whether it was sufficient, I think owners will have a difficult time convincing anyone they provided all the financials the union needed.

The clock is ticking on the expiration of the extended collective bargaining agreement between the National Football League (NFL) and the National Football League Players Association(NFLPA). Current deadline is tonight at 11:59 p.m. USA Today has an interesting, if bare bones assessment of what could happen. My bet is on another extension. The players have signaled their willingness to talk - there has been no talk of a strike. The owners have rattled the lockout saber thereby assuming the roll of the party willing to walk, but really? This labor/management dispute plays to labor's strengths. Highly skilled athletes bargaining for more. Billionaire owners wanting to increase their guaranteed slice of the estimated 9 billion dollar golden goose that is the NFL. It does not hurt the players position that the owners want a $100% increase in their guaranteed slice off the top. This dispute plays out against the backdrop of the fans. Who will they blame if Sundays from August to February (and a few Mondays, Saturdays and Thursdays too) are devoid of action, or if the only action is by replacement players? I think thats an easy call if the owners lockout the players. Nevertheless a lockout has the same potential economic consequences for the players as a strike, and they are all adverse. No pay, no benefits, and potentially a lost season for players who have precious few years to play anyway. The owners should be gleeful the players threaten to decertify the union (actually a disclaimer of interest that would lead to decertification). It allows the owners to back off the lockout position and continue negotiations, at least at this point. Decertification likely will likely place all of this in a courtroom, a consequence which should be feared more by the defendant, because the teams, as defendants in an antitrust action have a potential dreadful downside. I think the owners should be very concerned about American Needle v. NFL, which rejected the owners argument that the league by necessity had to act jointly in marketing decisions. Yeah, that may be a simplistic analysis, but the case firmly rejected the NFL's broad interpretation of the anti-trust exemption.

Seems a strike and subsequent lockout at the University of Alabama is attributable to the awakening that occurred when the two schools met in the Rose Bowl. Thats where First Transit's Alabama drivers became aware that First Transit's Texas drivers made a lot more green.

Here is a recent post about the influence Patriot's owner Robert Kraft has in league matters in general, and in decision making about labor policy and the looming potential lockout. No one has more stature and clout.

Looks like the NFL/NFLPA mediation is getting serious. Here is the statement from the mediator. Also now he says we ain't commenting anymore. Sounds like progress otherwise everybody would be posturing talking.