NFL players vote in favor of new collective bargaining agreement

The vote was close, but the players union ultimatley approved the owners CBA proposal. 

From the NFLPA:

That's a close vote and would indicate a pretty divided union. But the league now has labor peace for over a decade locked in and can now turn its attention to selling 17 games and expanded playoffs to its media partners. 

Some of the features:

  • Expanded playoffs (in 2020)
  • 17-game regular season (2021 at the earliest)
  • Minimum salaries up rougjly $100,000 
  • No suspensions for marijuana
  • 48-48.5% revenue for players

Which is to say, this is a significant win for the owners. 

Dan Graziano has a great overview of the new CBA here.

0 points

Comments (42)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Big_Mel_75's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:07 am

Very disappointing. A watered down playoff system will likely include an 8-8 team every year. More games in London which I dislike crazy start times. Pretty sad the Union gave into this very heavily favored owners CBA.

+ REPLY
-2 points
4
6
PackerAaron's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:21 am

Can't be an 8-8 team when there are 17 games ;)

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
flackcatcher's picture

March 15, 2020 at 07:01 pm

8-8-1 (tie) Bet you were getting punched a lot over that on Twitter. (were journalism goes to die..... :-)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Savage57's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:57 am

I was hoping for a no vote, but not for the same reasons as you.

Bargain to impasse, lock out the players, decertify the union, cancel the season, replace all the players at a fraction of their current pay, tap the brakes on the ever increasing transfer of wealth to athletes and do an economic reality-check on the cost to the fans of pro football who fund the whole circus.

Imagine being able to take your family to experience a game for $200 instead of $1,000?

I know it would bring hardship to the players, but I believe someone like an Aaron Rodgers would find a way to scrape by only making $6M per year for his part time job, instead of $30M.

+ REPLY
-1 points
2
3
Tarynfor12's picture

March 15, 2020 at 11:06 am

The sheep cannot help but flock to the shearers.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Flow49's picture

March 15, 2020 at 12:29 pm

I would rather the cost of TV viewing go down than the in stadium experience. Also a better choice of viewing options for those of us not in the market for our favorite teams. Sunday NFL ticket is more product than most need or want and is too expensive. I’m willing to pay a premium once a year to see the Packers play in person but TV is getting to be an outrageous expense.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Tarynfor12's picture

March 15, 2020 at 12:43 pm

Hook your landline computer up to the TV and use the Internet. I haven't had any cable TV for 12 years now and never miss any game, any sport, any TV show, any movie and watch them over any time I wish all for $45 a month. The cost of my Internet with incredible savings adding up yearly.

The down side is you can't flip channels with the TV remote, you have to use a mouse. But in the age of lazy, having to do such may be a bit too hard to justify the $avings.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 05:32 pm

Try going to a Packers bar to watch. Its a great experience in the right bar w/ a ton of Packer fans around. And then you control the spending, since your ordering food and drinks. We have a great Packer bar here in Chandler AZ, that has a very interactive crowd and basically every seat is a Packers Fan. I happily spend $40 per week even if they are on TV. Its that much fun. If you don't order food or drink much your cost is minimal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 15, 2020 at 05:53 pm

Is it better than the joint in Scottsdale?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 12:57 pm

Bargain to an impasse, so basically not bargain in good faith?! That is in essence what your saying. Why do you want more money going into the owners pockets? You wanna decrease everything so you can afford a game but that's not going to stop the cash machine that is the NFL! Money keeps pooring in because more and more people watch attend and buy merchandise. Gotta think thing thru a little!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 12:57 pm

Bargain to an impasse, so basically not bargain in good faith?! That is in essence what your saying. Why do you want more money going into the owners pockets? You wanna decrease everything so you can afford a game but that's not going to stop the cash machine that is the NFL! Money keeps pooring in because more and more people watch attend and buy merchandise. Gotta think thing thru a little!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:18 am

The owners do what typical owners do, sweeten the pot for the majority (young players) who don't make the big money. Plus the young guys get an extra check with 17 games. You'll see veterans pulling up lame late in the season and sitting out a game or two.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 11:38 am

The union has to do what is in the best interest of the majority of players. So in that respect the union got what it wanted too. Yeah the owners got a good deal, but again the union got significantly more money to the majority of players (the ones who probably don't get a 2nd or 3rd contracts) of the players making the Top salaries/contracts. When they were putting the groundwork for this they both seemed to want to get more to the majority of players.

If vets want to cost their teams wins and possibly playoff spots (by pulling up lame). I don't see how that'll go over very well in the lockerroom tho!

+ REPLY
0 points
2
2
Bear's picture

March 15, 2020 at 12:28 pm

They took away 12 padded practices so those poor old guys don’t have to participate in about 600 plays. Instead with the extra game they have to play the 17th game of 60 to 70 plays.

Remember when they use to play 12 games a year and would never be able to play more then that in a season.

NFLPA Claims an average NFL players career is only 3.5 years. That means they will have to play 3 extra games in their career.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 15, 2020 at 12:33 pm

The younger guys get a 100K boost but are probably in the league on average 2-3 years and replaced by the next draft class. Owners still win out on the payrolll and keep their Star Players compensated. The extension of the playoffs is the
pathway of the participation medal for Pro Sports, as in the NBA and NHL. Keeps the couch potatoes satiated with some sort of Game to view. Maybe they consider it some sort of revenue crawl back to the Public for subsidizing their teams stadium construction cost and infrastructure??

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Fan's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:18 am

Not sure if I agree with Big_Mel_75. All of the sports bargaining is heavily favored for the best players. Packers are no different. This agreement will still keep those great players well paid. But the bulk of the players who only play a few years and don't get paid a lot compared to the best players, this agreement will help. And I think those players pushed the acceptance over the top. The 17 game schedule and more playoff teams, there will be more injuries. Thus the larger squads. So I am OK. Let's move on to free agency.

+ REPLY
5 points
6
1
BELIEVER's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:19 am

The NFL is swirling the drain.

+ REPLY
-6 points
3
9
dobber's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:55 am

Been saying that about the NBA since the 90s...but these leagues have more lives than Doctor Who.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 01:08 pm

Yet you keep watching and spending money on it. Hard to see how its swirtling the drain when money keeps pouring in at ever increasing amounts! SMH...

+ REPLY
-2 points
0
2
mnbadger's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:28 am

I'm happy for the young guys,but the Packers (specifically aging starters like ar, bulaga, m lewis, bahktiari, etc.) Would have played 2 more games under this scenario this year. Would their bodies hold up? Super bowl may become a war of attrition. Healthiest, not best team standing wins.

+ REPLY
-2 points
0
2
4zone's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:38 am

The NFL should 'voluntarily' add a second bye week when the season expands. Not likely, but it would expand the season footprint as well as help to protect their most valuable commodity, their players health. But hey, they're rich, not smart.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
Bear's picture

March 15, 2020 at 12:30 pm

They said the same thing when they increased the number of games from 12 a year.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
stockholder's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:33 am

Yabba Dabba Doo.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Qoojo's picture

March 15, 2020 at 11:01 am

They need to convert stats to per-game, because some of those all-time leaders played 12 game seasons.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 11:20 am

I'm not really suprised by the CBA getting passed. They tailored it for the guys who make up the majority of the leagues players. The guys that are in the NFL for shorter careers on rookie contracts and then don't see a 2nd contract. So those guys get significantly more money than they had been. I do think they could/should have held out for a better deal, but this CBA fits the majority of the players, if not the players who get 2nd or 3rd contracts and make the most money.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
albert999's picture

March 15, 2020 at 02:21 pm

Extra game nd possibly playoff game takes toll on all players and could be injured

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 05:27 pm

Same was said when the NFL went from 12 to 14 game season, then from 14 to 16 games. If the players were opposed to it that vehemently they should have made sure 17 games was a non-starter in negotiations. They allowed it, so at this point that's the players problem. In 10 years, with the next CBA you can bet 18 games will be the owners big push.

The large majority of players got significant raises (just not the very top teir) so they are happy to be getting paid alot more and were willing to play 17 games. Plus more players on the rosters and PS will be getting paid too.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
Lare's picture

March 15, 2020 at 12:14 pm

All-in-all, regardless if this is better for the owners than the players, it's good for the game of professional football.

+ REPLY
6 points
6
0
Mojo's picture

March 15, 2020 at 01:17 pm

Expect a lot more of chilly "Ice Bowl" type games now that the regular season and playoffs are being pushed out further into January. And what if they add another bye?

Some fans love it - but I wonder if the novelty of the thrill of freezing your ass off will cool down after the first go round.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 01:33 pm

They could start the season a week earlier if they want. The only games being played extra in the possible frigid cold are the last month or so of the regular season and playoffs. Is one game at the end of the season really going to step fans if their teams are pushing for a playoff spot? They didn't add an extra week to the playoffs, just made more games on wild card week. As of right now not much really changes. They won't add another buy week in this CBA, but when they go to 18 game season w/ the next CBA they probably would.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 15, 2020 at 02:25 pm

They will be starting earlier and competing with the College Football opening weekend.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 04:32 pm

Not really competing since College will be on Sat and the NFL on Sunday. Maybe in the sense of $ being spent by fans, but that's the case every other weekend too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jannes bjornson's picture

March 15, 2020 at 10:59 pm

Advertising dollars

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

March 15, 2020 at 04:57 pm

I would hope that rosters are expanded for more depth.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
13TimeChamps's picture

March 15, 2020 at 05:09 pm

Totally off topic, but....
Ryan Tannehill just signed a contract that will pay him an annual average of 29.5 mil over the next 4 years.
49-49 record as a starter.
89.5 career QB rating.
Averages 21 TDs/12 INTs per season.
Is this a great country, or what!!??

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 05:20 pm

He got paid based on what he did last year after taking over in Tenn, not for his previously meager stats in Miami. He was a godsend for Tenn the last 3/4 of last year. Almost 30M seems kinda high, but he got Tenn to the AFCCG. That was his big bargaining chip. Probably smart to bring him back, and the cap is gonna rise quickly w/ the new CBA and TV deals in place soon.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
13TimeChamps's picture

March 15, 2020 at 05:52 pm

Hey, good for him.
But history shows that overpaying for a small sample size usually comes back to bite teams in the ass.
Odds are, over the next four years, he will revert to his previous 6 years more than likely than his past 12 games.
We'll see. But that's Tennessee's problem.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MikeS's picture

March 15, 2020 at 05:31 pm

17th game doesn't start til 2021

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

March 15, 2020 at 05:40 pm

At the earliest. It could be later and from what I've read isn't likely until the '22 season.

The 17th game, the owners want to have every team play one out of country game every year to grow the game globally, but they need to get more stadiums up to NFL standards for that too happen. That is alot of infrastructure the NFL will be paying for. Right now really only 2 stadiums in England are up to NFL standards, but they'll want games all over Europe, in Mexico and possibly in Canada.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

March 15, 2020 at 07:18 pm

As pointed out, the new agreement does not kick in until 2021. With the media landscape undergoing wholesale changes, this is a deal that the owners needed badly. I am interested in seeing how the coming year, plays out for the owners in the negotiations with the various networks. The NFL (both players and owners) may be entering some rough waters ahead...

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
albert999's picture

March 15, 2020 at 11:24 pm

The players voted wrong

+ REPLY
-1 points
1
2
Cheesey51's picture

March 16, 2020 at 06:08 am

The CBA ups the number of practice squad layers and game day players but not the cap money.
With a 17 game season which includes an off site game, no,team gives up a home game, no one thought tore move the back to back Sunday to Thursday game,literally a mind and body brain fart. Stupid to give up by the players. No mention of safety for the players in the form of guaranteed health insurance. No guaranteed money .
Very disappointed

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.