Joe Banner: NFL players might regret it if they reject CBA offer...

Joe Banner: NFL players might regret it if they reject CBA offer

[touchdownwire.usatoday.com]

Joe Banner

[Editor’s note: Joe Banner, former president of the Philadelphia Eagles and CEO of the Cleveland Browns, will write a series of guest columns for Touchdown Wire revealing myriad details about how the NFL really works. In his debut column, Joe makes his case for the new collective bargaining agreement proposal as a fair enough deal for both owners and players.]

I was lucky enough to spend 20 great years working in the NFL. I spent almost all that time with the Philadelphia Eagles. I have always believed that the ability to negotiate is a valuable skill in life. It was my time at the Eagles that really affirmed that opinion. Whether it was getting a new stadium, negotiating player contracts or being invited by the NFL owners to be part of the team that negotiated the 2010 collective bargaining agreement.

Is there a simple way for a fan or a player to look at the current CBA proposal? I think there is, because truthfully, there are not that many moving parts. The players made some concessions; the owners did the same, and as is always the case, both parties agreed to continue with a number of items as is.

Let’s recap what happened. If we stay focused on the issues that each side decided mattered to them, we can do that pretty easily. The owners went into the negotiation with a clear priority, which was expanding the regular season to 17 games and adding an extra playoff game in each conference. The players went with a very long list of items seeking incremental progress across the board. I have had the benefit of seeing the initial request. It is important to note that the divergence of one side pursuing a top priority and the other seeking a wide range of things informed everything which happened after that.

The union leadership with support from a large number of players engaged in a negotiation to see if they could impact enough areas to a satisfactory degree to do a deal in return for the one issue upon which ownership was focused. This is why it is easy to pick a category and feel like the players should’ve gotten more. But context in negotiating matters. The retired players got a 50% increase in their annual payout, and now the program covers players with three accrued seasons, when the CBA used to require four. That’s a bunch of former players, and in context, it is a significant win.

Joe Banner Browns
Browns CEO Joe Banner appears at a news conference in Berea, Ohio, on Jan. 11, 2013. (David Richard – USA TODAY Sports)
Minimum salary players get a 20% increase immediately and then continued increases to push them up close to the union’s goal over time. There is also an increase in performance-based pay, almost all will of which will go to this same group of players.

Veterans got a formula of sharing that is likely to create an increase the cap from its current $200 million level to approximately $300M million in five years and more than $400M over 10 years. That’s an average of 50% increase of current player salaries at all levels of pay and performance within five years. Therefore, in five years a top quarterback will have contracts over $50 million annually, a top safety at $23 million, and even a solid veteran starting linebacker will earn between $15 million and $20 million. This growth also impacts everyone from a punter to a second-year reserve player to a guy who only plays special teams. The 1.5% increase from 47% to 48.5% will be worth almost $300 million per year and $3 billion (yes, billion) over the course of the deal. This reflects the incremental increase from this deal versus the last deal, just in this one area. This in context is in addition to all the other gains reflected here.

All players benefit from changes in player discipline, drug testing, reduced work schedule and contact during those practices. They all also get an increase in days off and recovery time especially impacting the lighter training camp. Additionally, they get improvements in pension, health and other post-career categories to the best benefit package you could imagine. Current and former players also get extended post-career medical benefits, a top player priority. There is more, but I think you get the point.

Patrick Mahomes Chiefs
Top quarterbacks such as Super Bowl MVP Patrick Mahomes could earn salaries of more than $50 million within five years if players approve the current collective bargaining agreement offer. (Robert Deutsch – USA TODAY Sports)
Did the players get enough in return for the major concession the owners sought? My answer is a clear yes.

Is it a great deal for the players? No.

Is it a solid deal that impacts a wide range of important issues that cover a large number of players? Yes.

Most importantly, if you have a vote or an opinion, is the risk of saying no and possibly ending up with a worse deal worth giving up the gains you have made?

This is the easiest answer. Absolutely not.

A key element of negotiating is to know your opponent. Many of us who have been in the league and negotiated contracts knew, for example, that Ezekiel Elliott would get a new deal from Dallas if he stuck to his guns. We also knew that Melvin Gordon was going to take the Chargers’ last offer or get nothing better.

Apply that to the CBA. The owners believe they negotiated a good faith deal for 10 months and gave up things they cared about and got things they wanted in return. The union leadership thinks the same. You can take the Gordon approach and risk a good deal to try to hit a home run or know your opponent and realize, as Gordon eventually did, that the deal only gets worse from here. If this version of the CBA didn’t at least reach good status, and there weren’t major potential costs for a delay, I’d be the first in line to tell the players to prove that they are just as tough as the owners and fight on. The fact is that this is no better than good for both sides, and if you can get there without having to declare war or risk the unknown, it’s better for everyone.

Right now, it’s perceived that being against the deal is a pro-player position. If the players vote no, everyone will know as this plays out that the pro-player position is to vote yes. It seems that people telling the players to vote no are perceived to be fighting for or standing up for players. Whereas people like myself who suggest a yes vote are perceived to be giving into the owners. If the deal offered in a year is worse than the one offered now, people will realize the pro-player position now was to vote yes when the deal was at its best.

Joe Banner served as president of the Philadelphia Eagles from 1995 through 2012. He also served as CEO of the Cleveland Browns in 2012 and 2013 and worked as a front office consultant for the Atlanta Falcons in 2014 and 2015. In 2001, Banner received a “PARTNERS Leadership Award” from the University of Pennsylvania for extensive community service, including reading to students in Boston public schools and spending time with severely ill youths at Boston Children’s Hospital. He also has been heavily involved, in Boston and Philadelphia, with City Year, a program based on volunteers who commit to a year of full-time work.