The League

NFL News Feed

Union files collusion case against NFL teams

By Mark Maske

UPDATED (10:01 p.m.)...

The NFL Players Association has filed a collusion case against teams, accusing the sport's franchise owners of improperly conspiring to restrict players' salaries last offseason, sources familiar with the case said Monday.

It is not clear how many teams are named in the union's case, how many affected players are cited or the extent of the financial damages being sought.

The collective bargaining agreement between the league and the union prohibits a team from entering "into any agreement, express or implied" with the NFL or another team "to restrict or limit" contract negotiations with players or players' salaries.

The league had no comment and the union didn't respond to requests for comment. But multiple people familiar with case, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on it publicly, confirmed its filing last week.

Sources familiar with the case previously said it would cite the lack of activity on the restricted free agent market last offseason, among other things.

The case is to be decided by Stephen B. Burbank, the University of Pennsylvania law professor who serves as the NFL's special master, putting him in charge of resolving disputes between the league and union arising from their collective bargaining agreement. Any decision by Burbank could be appealed to Minneapolis-based U.S. District Judge David S. Doty, who oversees the sport's labor deal.

The filing by the union was first reported by the Web site profootballtalk.

Under the terms of the existing labor deal, the union would have to prove that the owners improperly conspired to restrict players' salaries--rather than merely demonstrating that players were paid less money--to prevail in a collusion case.

For a collusion claim to be successful, the union would have to demonstrate "by a clear preponderance of the evidence" that teams conspired improperly in violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a player or players suffered economic harm as a result, the labor deal says.

The union appeared poised to file the case in early December to meet a deadline under the collective bargaining agreement. But the filing was delayed at that point under an agreement between the league and the union.

The two sides issued a joint written statement Dec. 7 that said: "The NFL and NFLPA have agreed to extend the deadline for the players to file a collusion claim. This agreement does not prevent the NFLPA from filing a collusion claim at a future date. We are continuing to work toward a new CBA that will be good for players, owners and fans."

The labor deal includes provisions to set the amount of the damages if a successful collusion claim is made by the union.

The case is being filed as the players and union attempt to negotiate an extension of their labor deal, which expires in March. Players and union officials have said they expect the players to be locked out by the owners after the labor contract expires. Owners and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell have said they would rather negotiate a new deal with the players that addresses what they call the sport's economic problems.

This season was played without a salary cap. The salary cap expired following the 2009 season.

The owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday in Atlanta.

By Mark Maske  |  January 17, 2011; 9:06 PM ET  | Category:  League , Union Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Union says it wants a deal, not a lockout | Next: League, owners dismissive of collusion claim


Please email us to report offensive comments.

The rules governing NFL contracts can be so complex sometimes. In the NFL a guaranteed 3 year contract is guaranteed except when it's not (See Nnamdi Asamghou). A contract advertised as $78 million total with $40 million dollars guaranteed is actually 1 year contract with $3 million guaranteed...ala Donovan McNabb. So with that in mind I'm not even going to pretend I understand the collusion case. I don't have all the facts and even if I did I would probably have a hard time deciphering them to determine if collusion was actually done.

Posted by: 6thsense79 | January 18, 2011 4:35 PM

"...the union would have to prove that the owners improperly conspired to restrict players' salaries--rather than merely demonstrating that players were paid less money--to prevail in a collusion case."

Seems to me such a waste of time and energy because that ain't happening. Sounds more like a ploy by the players to get rid of the "restricted" market all together.

- Ray

Posted by: rmcazz | January 18, 2011 12:51 PM

Let's kill the goose that laid the golden egg!

Posted by: KDSmallJr | January 18, 2011 12:09 PM

The case, as I understand it has to do with the 200 or so restricted Free-Agents that would have been unrestricted free-agents were it not for the special uncapped year rules put in place. Quality players were offered low tenders and teams did not sign restricted free-agents from other teams. The Union is going to argue that there was a wink and nod agreement amongst teams to restrict the movement of these players which artificially kept their salaries low as a function of not allowing them to be free-agents. Going to be hard to prove, but it is much more complex than not getting guaranteed contracts ala MLB. In fact, the impending labor trouble is about the Owners wanting more, not the players. The owners are the ones initiating this potential labor strife and a lockout is as much about the owners disputing among themselves about revenue sharing as it is about trying to pay the players less of a total percentage of the revenue.

If the owners are going to argue that they are losing money, they are most certainly going to have to open the books and prove it.

Posted by: keino83 | January 18, 2011 10:46 AM

So Let me get this right, The owners took this year to clean up there books and get from under these crazy contracts. Who there a Idea. So I guess they players will complain if the owners max out there cap space and then can't sign any other players. and they they will complain out that too

Posted by: mreric03 | January 18, 2011 10:43 AM

What's the evidence? Seems to me all the teams this year have been anxious to get the best players and win. Just because players have not gotten five year guaranteed $110 million contracts without a cap like perhaps they had hoped a la MLB, is no reason to file such a case.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | January 18, 2011 9:54 AM

Post a Comment

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company