A Response to Roger Goodell's E-mail to NFL Fans

NFL Commissioner Roger "Kaiser" Goodell sent out an e-mail to NFL fans last week after the players decided they weren't interested in what the owners had to offer, preferring to take their chances in court.  If you haven't read it, here's a link for it.

Now, I'm obviously not a fan of Goodell, since I just called him "Kaiser Goodell," so I wanted to include a link to the e-mail to avoid any accusations that I'm taking things out of context.  Though, really, I'd love to see something in the Comments section to prove that people are reading this blog.

Overall, the letter is a swift kick in the junk to all NFL fans, which I'm pretty sure is the opposite of its intent.  Here are my favorite bits:

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

That's actually a good start.  The big problem with that statement is this: They worked tirelessly for the last three weeks.  I admire the effort that both sides put in over the last month or so, but everyone keeps ignoring the fact that the owners opted out of the CBA in 2008.  They had a long time to work this out and both sides -- mainly the owners -- did nothing to resolve the issue until the 11th hour had passed and it was too late to come to an agreement.

The NFL is a deadline-driven business and they've signed most of their agreements right up against the deadlines that were set, but they had a deadline of sorts prior to the 2010 offseason when the salary cap was going to go away.  Both sides did nothing, since they thought they had more to gain by waiting things out.

One other elephant in the room is that the owners, for the most part, were noticeably absent in these negotiations.  When a group of them did show up two days before the original deadline, they said they needed to take a break and meet up later, then got on private jets and left the scene.  The players stayed involved and continued to be represented at all negotiations, both by star players and role players.  I understand that the owners are important people and they're busy guys, but they all found time to hammer out a deal before the last CBA was ratified, so I'm going to go ahead and say that they didn't work tirelessly to get something in place this time around.  This is not necessarily a knock on Goodell, but he certainly could have put more effort forth in terms of getting the owners in Washington, DC and keeping them there in order for both parties to work something out with the help of federal negotiator George Cohen.

It seemed to me that the owners had made their decision and that Goodell should call them if there wasn't a lockout.

In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

OK.  That's the set-up.  Are you ready for this next paragraph?  I can wait.  I think you're ready.


The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

Wow.  That is one craftily worded paragraph.  I would liked to have seen what that paragraph looked like before the legal team had the chance to massage it for a couple of hours.


Before I start breaking this down, I do need to mention that there are reports that the players didn't even look at the offer.  I've heard that they declined it without reviewing it and went right ahead with the decertification.  Also, there's some good, transparent stuff in there.  I like the rookie allocation pool, the health and safety rules, and of course the fund for retired players, who have gotten pretty thoroughly shafted over the years.

What exactly does "narrow the compensation gap by splitting the difference" mean?  My guess is that means the owners were willing to meet the players in the middle as far as revenue sharing is concerned.  That's a fine gesture, but the revenue gap was $750 million at the beginning of the day.  They were offering the players a $375 million compromise, but they were also taking away $375 million that the players thought they deserved.

Then there's this: If the owners were so anxious to give all that money away, why didn't they offer it earlier?  Why not throw that on the table two weeks before that?  Or two months?  Or even two years?  Two months ago -- and certainly two years ago -- there was less animosity between the two parties and that might have been enough to get the new CBA in place.

Why is "no reduction in compensation for veterans" underlined?  If they were throwing another $375 million in the pot and putting a cap on first round salaries, how could the veteran players make less?  That it's in there at all, nonetheless underlined, really confuses me.  Maybe it's because there were so many statements out there about protecting and rewarding veteran players and not showering rookies with money?  I really don't know.  I think the lawyers should have removed that.

Then there's the thing about the 16-4 schedule.  The league offered to keep the 16-4 system for two years with any changes to that format to be discussed with and cleared by the players.  Isn't that what they should have done in the first place, rather than trying to ram the 18-2 schedule down the players' throats?

To be clear, I'm not saying that the players should be canonized for their patience in dealing with the tyrannous owners and their evil overlord.  There's really no "good guy" in this scenario.  Both sides are being greedy jerks.  Both sides are trying to make the other side look like the bad guy.  I'm just saying that it's not like the owners came to the table with an unbelievable deal and the players just took a dump on it.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately.

But... it's too late.  The union already decertified.  At that point, it's too late to call the union to action.  They already acted.  Throwing that in there is petty and childish.  It's like a ten year-old saying that he's going to hold his breath until his kid brother stops throwing a tantrum.


NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement.

The fans certainly do, but if the players and clubs really wanted an agreement, they would have reached one by now.

The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table. 

Well, of course.  But, again, the bargaining table has been sitting there, waiting patiently for three years.  Ultimately, the owners and players can blame each other all they like, but they have no one to blame but themselves.

Then comes the kick to the junk.

First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone. 

The NFL is driven by the passion of their fans as much as a stripper is driven by the enthusiasm of her clients.  You can cheer all you want, but she won't come over unless you're waiving a dollar.

If it were able the fans and their passion for NFL football, then the owners and players would've come to an agreement in order to continue fuel that passion by putting a quality product on the field and by not completely wrecking the offseason in a time when the offseason has become nearly as important as the regular season.

I fully realize that it's all about the money.  This is a business.  The owners are business people.  The players are professionals.  The final sentence of this letter still upset me because it insulted my intelligence.

If both sides would just come out and say that it's all about the money and that they're just looking to get paid, I could respect that.  For either side to say that they're the good guys and the other party are the bad guys and that they're really the ones that are looking out for the fans is misleading at best and a lie at worst.

Right now, I'm starting to drift away from being upset and insulted and I'm starting to move towards the very feeling neither side wants: Apathetic.  I know I've been writing about the lockout a lot and I've expressed a number of opinions on the subject, so I definitely claim that I don't care and I never have.

I am too passionate about the NFL to swear off of it forever.  I'm not going to abandon it just because of one, douchey e-mail.  When the lockout ends, I will be back and I will be passionate.  I will spend money.

But, I'm reaching the point where they can just call me when there's not a lockout.