CBA Talks: What it means for Owners, Players & Fans

In 2011, the NFL had locked out its players for over four months. Fear had taken over the league that the 2011 NFL season would not be played. Nevertheless, the players and owners were able to come to a deal and the season went off like usual. The deal, expected to last 10 years, is coming to a close and new players have new aspirations to what the new CBA should look like.

As the combine is set to begin this weekend and the franchise/transition tags coming to a start, the CBA is halfway there to being signed. The owners have signed their approval on the new deal. As reported above, the Board of Representatives for the NFLPA has decided to move forward with the proposal by a majority vote (17-14). So what does this mean? Will there be another lockout? And why should you, the average fan, care about what a bunch of millionaires fight over? All of that is below.

The Proposal

When looking at the CBA proposal, you first have to understand what exactly a collective bargaining agreement is. To start, both the NFLPA and the NFL Owners have to agree on financial and structural terms on how teams deal with the players on their own teams. The key points to this year's proposal have been laid out by several reporters.

There's a lot to gloss over. Yet the basic principles to the new CBA are simple:

Increase in Revenue sharing to the players moves to 48.5%17 Game season proposalAdding a 7th seed to both AFC and NFC playoffsShorter practicesNew drug policy that no longer sees marijuana as an illegal substanceNew policy on suspensions and appeals (Roger Goodell is no longer judge-jury-executioner)

Continued on the page below.

AP Photo/Michael Perez

What does it mean for the players?

Like in any league, players want to get the most possible revenue possible. In their opinion, they deserve to have the bulk of the revenue sharing because they are the ones creating the product of the business. Many prominent superstars have spoken out on their disdain:

The first argument for the players in any league will be for an increase in what the revenue share actually is. Many NFL athletes, like Russell Wilson, point to the ludicrous deals of the NFL and NBA as reasons for their own salaries to be increased. There is a major misconception here with that, however. The regular-season roster for an NBA team is roughly 15 players. MLB- roughly 25. The NFL has 53 players to fulfill their roster. This means that not only does the team have to pay the Russell Wilson's and Aaron Rodgers' of the team but also the backups as well as the "barely-made-the-roster" guys. The salary of, say, Lebron James and Mike Trout are unfair to judge based on the contracts of even QB's in this league. As Adam Schefter also reported earlier, the revenue increase to 48.5% will actually be the most any PA makes in the main sports in America.

Are the players selfish to want more? Absolutely not. They have every right to want more of their worth. However, if they are making a combined more than the actual other leagues that pay their star players more- then it is difficult to garner public opinion for them.

In the end, players want their money. Guys like Aaron Rodgers may want a change to the overall practice and off-season schedule but the central problem facing the players is the cash that is given to them.

But if the players want their money, it comes down to what the owners are willing to get back.

What about the Owners?

It is really easy for players and fans to look at this proposal and say the owners are being greedy and how the injustices of the world are showing again. In any collective bargaining agreement though, the unions have to give up something to gain something. In 2011 the NFLPA gained the ability to have all retired players receive healthcare for five years after retirement. With that, they also had to give up their ability to have private arbitrators who decided on not only suspensions but appeals as well. This turned out to be a massive loss as players like Josh Gordon, Vontaze Burfict and even Tom Brady felt the wrath of Roger Goodell. So what did the owners give up to gain?

Ultimately it comes down to the first thing that was reported when CBA talks started.

The owners want to expand their revenue if they are giving more to the players. In order to do this, they need to expand the NFL season. The owners and competition committee went even further with a proposal to add two more playoff teams to the field. Adding another playoff game and regular season week means more money for the owners and more money for the players themselves. A shrewd business idea to give fans more of what they want.

In order for the owners to gain a 17 game season, they had to give something up. Not only do you have to increase the revenue stream, but also make the incentive to accept the deal better for the players. Hence the drug policy, roster increase, and personal conduct policies. Allowing a change to take marijuana off the banned substance abuse policies will entice many players. A roster increase will also add to the incentive as more players will get a bite of the apple.

In 2011, the Owners basically put a stranglehold on the players. By locking them out from the beginning with very few incentives, the NFLPA could not gain any money on tv contracts and revenue from the NFL. Therefore, over half of the league's players had to cave on a deal because they ran out of money.

The owners have all the tools to drag out a potential lockout. Is it good for the league? No. Is it good for the players? Absolutely not. The owners moving quickly to get a deal done means that they feel they have given the players enough incentives to come to an agreement. The NFLPA Executive Board passing the CBA by a majority means that many players agree.

What should you care?

Ok, let's stop here. Why should you, the average fan, care about this? It's a ton of lawyer talk that probably means absolutely nothing once kickoff starts.

Here is why you need to care:

It's unfair to just completely blame the owners and commissioner if a deal isn't reached. The players have their reason to push for a deal as well as a reason to push against the current deal. They want their worth. It's also ignorant to completely blame the players for not agreeing to the first offer on the table. In the end, there isn't really anyone to blame here. If a lockout actually happens this doesn't mean that owners are being greedy or that the NFLPA is thinking way over their heads.

With the Combine starting, it's easy to be distracted with football. That doesn't mean that this isn't important. No CBA deal means no football. No football means everyone is sad come September. While the entire league waits for the full NFLPA to come to a decision on the CBA, a simple majority is needed to open the new league year.

Let the corporate games begin.

AP Photo/Michael Perez