The NFL released a statement Thursday announcing owners have accepted terms for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
The statement reads as follows:
Following more than ten months of intensive and thorough negotiations, the NFL Players and clubs have jointly developed a comprehensive set of new and revised terms that will transform the future of the game, provide for players – past, present, and future – both on and off the field, and ensure that the NFL's second century is even better and more exciting for the fans.
The membership voted today to accept the negotiated terms on the principal elements of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Players Association would also need to vote to approve the same terms for there to be a new agreement.
Since the clubs and players need to have a system in place and know the rules that they will operate under by next week, the membership also approved moving forward under the final year of the 2011 CBA if the players decide not to approve the negotiated terms. Out of respect for the process and our partners at the NFLPA, we will have no further comment at this time.
As the last paragraph states, players must discuss whether to accept these terms. The NFL Players Association will discuss Friday whether the union will approve these terms, which have been negotiated over the past 10 months.
Spoiler alert: They will not accept.
The NFLPA released a CBA Fact Sheet, which laid out key details in the proposed CBA. The first item listed states a 47 percent share of annual revenue, with an additional $100 million in new player costs above the current CBA. In 2021, that split would increase to 48 percent share of revenue with the ability to increase to 48.5 percent through a media kicker which applies in any season the league plays 17 games.
Many players took issue with this figure on social media (which you can see below), saying they want an even 50-50 split.
Another major issue among players is the contract attached to the proposed 17-game schedule. Here's the direct sentence from the Fact Sheet: "Bonus payment of 1/17 of his paragraph 5 salary up to $250K to any player whose contract runs through a season when 17 games is played."
That's a fancy way of saying a player can only make up to $250,000 in the 17th game. So if a player typically makes more than that in a game check, he will end up being capped on his salary, meaning he will make significantly less despite performing the same activity.
There are also several other points in the CBA with which players likely will take issue, but the two mentioned above seem to be the ones that have caused the most uproar on social media. Below are some of the thoughts from current players on the proposed deal.
UPDATE: On Feb. 26, the NFLPA released a statement saying "The NFLPA Board of Player Representatives voted to send the propsed [CBA] to the full player membership for a vote." According to ESPN, "A simple majority of some 2,000 players must accept the agreement for it to go into effect this year."
A few players made comments in the hours after the vote telling their fellow teammates to vote no.
Maurkice Pouncey is strongly against the CBA. He posted this (NSFW) a couple hours ago:— Brooke Pryor (@bepryor) February 26, 2020
“I vote no. Our NFLPA, the dudes at the top, the leaders, that’s f’ing bs. F that. They’re not looking out for the best of the players. If y’all want my vote, the Pouncey twins vote no.” pic.twitter.com/hp4AqlG7Qu
I don’t believe this statement is accurate Adam. NBA and NHL get 50% and MLB gets 48%-52% on player-owner revenue split! https://t.co/vqj1o9jWW5— Terron Armstead (@T_Armstead72) February 26, 2020
Vote for your future!! We will all be retired players for waaaay longer than we were active.— TJ Lang (@TJLang70) February 26, 2020
Hard no on that proposed CBA.— JJ Watt (@JJWatt) February 21, 2020
Leadership! I am with you! Please communicate with your team rep. https://t.co/JucZbwqoa2— Richard Sherman (@RSherman_25) February 21, 2020
Look like y’all better start getting y’all XFL tv packages together!!— Jarvis Juice Landry (@God_Son80) February 21, 2020
I disagree with the 17 games— 7⃣ Leonard Fournette (@_fournette) February 20, 2020
Honestly it would be nice as a running back before they agree to 17 games if they asked us what we thought. Just saying ♂️— ⚡️Primetime!!!⚡️ (@Joe_MainMixon) February 21, 2020
48-48.5% split (roughly) between 1,700 players. 52-51.5% split among 31 owners?!...Yet this equation is supposed to make sense. ♂️ Not to mention the .5% only happens if we agree to an extra game a season. #KnowYourWorth https://t.co/v1jNZG7ml9— David Bakhtiari (@DavidBakhtiari) February 20, 2020
Any deal that’s short of a 50/50 split and lifetime health insurance for players is a win for the owners. Especially when they asking for 17 games.— George Iloka (@George_iloka) February 21, 2020
NFL promotes 'player safety' ...but players should risk brain & body for a max of $250K for a 17th game?— Rich Ohrnberger (@ohrnberger) February 21, 2020
Ok... sure... owners should only make $250K as well, the rest of the profits should go toward lifetime health care for the players and the of funding post career benefits.
Say it again for the people in the back!!! https://t.co/e7cCTtU5wC— Demario Davis #56 (@demario__davis) February 21, 2020
Former NFL Players
Football is a physically and mentally demanding game. NFL proposing to increase season games does nothing but enhance the health risk of players longterm.— Vontae Davis (@vontaedavis) February 21, 2020
Gtfoh. If that flys with guys and the NFLPA then mannn you can convince them anything lol https://t.co/pogR91Ft0t— Ryan Grant (@RyanGrant25) February 21, 2020
17 game = 50/50 split. Nothing less. Amongst other changes. https://t.co/3xiIWLIUlE— Eric Weddle (@weddlesbeard) February 21, 2020
If the NFL gets 2 extra playoff teams and 17 games, the players better get some freaking money/better benefits. Like 50/50. We accept all the risk and all of these additions benefit the owners pockets mightily.— Geoff Schwartz (@geoffschwartz) February 19, 2020
Seems like the owners are really trying to push this CBA through....which raises antennas as a former player— Damien Woody (@damienwoody) February 20, 2020