ShareThis Page
Labor issue is back in hands of NFL owners |

Labor issue is back in hands of NFL owners

The Associated Press
| Tuesday, March 7, 2006 12:00 a.m

NEW YORK — Shaun Alexander is back with Seattle, LaVar Arrington is on the market and Kerry Collins is in limbo.

So are many other players who must await the outcome of today’s owners meetings in Dallas before they know where they will be when free agency finally starts.

There was no deal following the latest round of “it’s done, it’s not done” reports Sunday. On Monday, it was clear the decision would come down to whether the owners would accept a revised revenue sharing, an issue for which they’ve been squabbling among themselves for more than two years.

The NFL will submit the union’s latest request for about 60 percent of total revenues to the 32 owners and let them decide whether they will accept it, extending the agreement which runs out after the 2007 season.

If there is no agreement, the future is unclear. What is clear is that the 2007 season would go on without a salary cap, with wild spending by some teams and little spending by others.

Gene Upshaw, the president of the NFL Players Association, has contended all along that the revenue-sharing dispute among the owners must be solved first. And Buffalo defensive back Troy Vincent, the NFLPA’s president, said: “I don’t know how we can get an agreement unless we deal with the entire picture.”

But revised revenue sharing hasn’t been discussed in these negotiations until now, although it has long been a major point of contention among the owners.

Low-revenue teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say high-revenue teams — Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance — should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in nonfootball income such as advertising and local radio rights. Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

If the long-term debate continues, there is unlikely to be a contract extension.

If there is no agreement, the salary cap for 2006 will be $94.5 million. If there is a deal, it could be as much as $10 million higher.

That disparity is why so many players are on the bubble right now.

On Sunday night, when it looked as if talks had broken down and the lower figure would be in effect, the Raiders released Collins to save $9.2 million in cap money. When commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who had already extended the free agent deadline once, extended it again from yesterday to Thursday, Oakland pulled back its quarterback, saying, in effect: “No, Kerry is still a Raider.”

Seattle, meanwhile, did the expected and re-signed Alexander, the NFL’s MVP last season, for $62 million over eight years, with $15. 1 million guaranteed.

“Fair is fair,” the running back said. “I know what fair is. Other teams don’t decide what fair is. I think the Seahawks definitely know.”

The Redskins, more than $20 million over the $94.5 million, got rid of $9 million by allowing three-time Pro Bowl linebacker LaVar Arrington to buy out is contract. That is a very unusual move in the NFL, indicating his agents, Carl and Kevin Poston, think he can get a big contract elsewhere. But that, of course, will depend on the final salary cap figure.

If the owners can reach agreement in Dallas — both with the union and among themselves — Arrington can get a lot of money. If not, he and many players may be working for a lot less than they think they are worth.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.