NFLPA Doesn't Think Much of Murphy's 17-Game Plan

This was totally and completely predictable. After Green Bay Packers president Mark Murphy suggested the NFL could go to a 17-game regular season (and lose one preseason game), giving each team one international game, the NFLPA quickly came out against the idea.

Or at least executive director of external affairs George Atallah did.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ????? https://t.co/cbkZYQOeyR

— George Atallah (@GeorgeAtallah) June 29, 2016

Woooo. I needed a good laugh.

— George Atallah (@GeorgeAtallah) June 29, 2016

Nothing says "committed to player health and safety" like wanting to add more contact to the offseason and a 17th regular season game abroad

— George Atallah (@GeorgeAtallah) June 30, 2016

First of all, let’s just get this out of the way. This is nothing but posturing, plain and simple.

The current collective bargaining agreement runs through the 2020 season. For this 17-game plan to go into effect, it would need to be agreed upon by both the NFL and the NFLPA. The NFLPA has zero incentive to agree with any plan the NFL puts forth. It decreases their leverage.

Now they can say they’re against this 17-game plan and then only agree to it if the league agrees to some other concession, like a higher salary cap.

On the surface, Atallah’s statements are stupid.

No one is talking about adding another game. Removing a preseason game makes the number of games and thus, the weeks of practice a net zero. No change.

Teams and players will adjust.

Changing one game from preseason to regular season does do something else. It increases revenue. Regular season tickets are more pricy than preseason tickets. The international games also expand the NFL’s market, which results in more merch sales, TV deals and so forth.

That doesn’t just benefit the owners. It benefits the players, who will make a case they should be paid more. And we’re sure they will get paid more.

So the NFLPA will talk big about player safety, but in the end it’s probably just as much in their interest to agree to a plan like this as it is in the owners’ interests.

Tags:

Joseph Bonham

Joseph is a fiction writer when he isn't doing this. In his spare time he likes to do manly things like drink beer and procreate.

Datone Jones Loves Playing Outside Backer And He Better

Packers Fan, Not A Hillary Clinton Fan

8 Comments

PF4L June 30, 2016

First off, Murphy should do what he does best. Buying up property and not holding any responsibility for the Green Bay Packers, and their executives. He’s just the President, it’s not like his job is overseeing the personnel under him.

Secondly, why is Murphy speaking on this? It’s not his job. Apparently he want’s to do Goodell’s job for him. I believe that Murphy’s interest isn’t leading the Packers, but rather leading the NFL. Since his inception of being named the President of the Packers, Murphy has worked his way into the NFL headquarters under various guises. I think Murphy is biding his time until Goodell retires. Stay tuned.

The 2010 CBA was a trainwreck for the NFLPA. I doubt in 2019 when they start negotiating a new deal, they will allow the NFL to rape them like they did in 2010. It’s no secret the NFl wants a longer season. It means more revenue. the NFLPA obviously knows this. Nothing makes the NFL more week in the knee’s than the prospect of more revenue. In Union agreements, deals usually get done by….you give me this, and i’ll give you that.

Although Joe had it mostly right in this article. The prospect of a longer season, is the NFLPA’s biggest bargaining chip in the next CBA. But that’s where Joe goes off the path. It’s not more revenue that the union will be looking for in the new CBA. It’s not a higher salary cap, don’t kid yourself. It’s more power, and less power for the NFL and the Commissioner. THAT’S what interest the NFLPA. Does the NFLPA want higher salary caps and more revenue? Absolutely, but the emergence of a longer season provides that anyway automatically. Make no mistake, the NFLPA will use the longer season as “leverage”, not for more money, but for power. Or put another way, less power for the Commissioner.
1. Harry Hood June 30, 2016
  
  Has anyone ever agreed with your opinion…
  1. PF4L July 1, 2016
    
    I guess so.
    
    Listen Harry…sometimes having an opinion is more important than whether others agree with it or not. It usually means that a person has the capacity of forming one’s own thoughts and analysis to form and communicate said opinion.
    
    Now Harry, if they day ever comes, when your mind has cultivated and formed an opinion, you be sure to let us know.
    
    Thank you for understanding.
2. Tucson Packer July 1, 2016
  
  Well, unlike Mr. Harry, I do agree with what you are saying, PF4L. I have never liked how Roger can be judge, jury, executioner and head of all appeals. Something seems wrong with that, and I think that’s pretty obvious to everyone including the arm-chair QB’s. Besides that, his delegation of punishment (ex beating women v football PSI) leaves much to be desired.
NachoDan June 30, 2016

If you want to play in less games go to Detroit.
Who cares June 30, 2016

^ Haha^
Draymond Green July 1, 2016

HAHA WHO THE FUCK CARES?
1. Tucson Packer July 1, 2016
  
  Well, you seem to “care” since you bothered to leave yet another stellar comment, and in CAPS none the less! Intimidating as always, Lil’ Draymond.