The NFL’s current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the team owners and the NFL Player’s Association (NFL-PA) will expire after the 2020 season. With this deadline right around the corner, both parties are at the bargaining table right now trying to reach an agreement on a new CBA.
The biggest changes in the potential new CBA would make changes to the structure of the regular season and playoffs, as well as changing the revenue split between owners and players. As for proposed scheduling changes, the new CBA would reduce the number of preseason games from four to three, and increase the amount of regular season games from 16 to 17.
Additionally, the number of teams that would make the playoffs would go from six to seven, and only the number one seed in each conference would get a first-round bye. Another component of the new CBA would increase the players’ share of the revenue from 47% to 48.5% if the newly proposed 17- game regular season schedule is approved.
Personally, I think the proposed schedule changes are not only unnecessary, but they also present greater dangers for players. Increasing the amount of regular season games will only put more stress on the players’ bodies, and increase the chances that they could possibly get hurt, especially because there has been no mention of adding another bye week for each team.
This additional game also presents contract issues, because all players are under contracts that have provisions for a 16-game season. The new CBA could cap wages at $250,000 for all players who were already under a contract before this new CBA would go into effect. For the league’s highest paid players, this rule wouldn’t be fair and there would have to be extensive contract negotiations and restructurings for each team.
Furthermore, the new proposed playoff format doesn’t seem necessary, mainly because fans don’t seem to have a problem with the current system that is in place. The way the current bracket works is a good system and rewards the top two teams in each division for being the best.
Of course, I’m sure that fans of teams that just barely miss the playoffs are all for this change, but again, more games for the sake of more games isn’t good for the players in the long run. I also think that potentially allowing .500 or worse teams into the playoffs simply because there needs to be a team for everyone to play ruins the exclusivity of the playoffs where every game is win or go home.
The only two aspects of the new CBA that I think are good changes are: the elimination of one preseason game and the increase in the revenue split for the players.
Preseason games don’t mean anything, and most starters sit them out, making them virtually useless.
Also, giving the players more of the revenue generated from games only seems fair. The players are the ones who sacrifice so much and risk injury week in and week out for our entertainment, so it’s only fair that they get an increased share of the revenue.
Overall, I think the proposed CBA has more negatives than positives, and it doesn’t fully take the players’ health into consideration. However, NFL owners have already approved the new CBA by an almost unanimous vote last Thursday. Now, it is up to the NFLPA to vote on whether or not they want to see the new CBA go into effect. With the vote scheduled to take place sometime this week, it will be interesting to see what effects the acceptance or rejection of the new CBA will have on the league.
