What do nfl lockout mean

The owners aren't sure what their legal obligations are, but if they don't let players practice or workout, that could be seen as flouting Judge Nelson's ruling, which would leave them in even more trouble.

It could be weeks or months before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling or a stay of the injunction. Negotiations aren't scheduled to resume until May. The Brady v. NFL anti-trust case could theoretically drag on for years. The bottom line is that all of this is a good sign for those hoping to see football in the fall. Breaking the lockout was a key step in the players' strategy and would mean that the league cannot legally stop them from working when the time comes.

But that also means we're about to experience that oddest, most confusing offseason in history. Even if there is an opening day, many of these issues may not be settled before then.

Meanwhile, beat writers all over the league are spending Tuesday, camped out at team facilities waiting to see what happens. Everyone else can't wait to find out too That means she won't rule for at least another day perhaps longer which means the NFL appeal won't reach the 8th Circuit until at least Thursday, which means nothing is getting solved before Thursday's draft.

As for the players today: NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith told ESPN Radio that some players have reported being denied access to team facilities, others have been allowed in, but not given access to workout rooms or some medical facilities. Some of the lower 17 earning teams keep revenues down intentionally to ensure they'll receive money from the top teams under the current system. The money they receive from revenue sharing makes them more profitable than some of the top 15 teams.

Team owners in the top 15 want the new CBA to account for the high-risk investments, such as forking over hundreds of millions of dollars for new stadiums and other cap expenditures. In simpler terms, team owners that spend the money on new stadiums or improve existing facilities want some of it back. It's been publicly stated that the cut would be around 18 percent overall. This increase is because the franchise owners claim that it compensates them in a more realistic economic era we are in.

They claim stadiums were partly or wholly subsidized by taxpayers years ago, which was considered normal at the time. As a result, they are accruing huge mortgage payments, on top of higher operational costs associated with new stadium operations. The owners who have improved or built new facilities stand fast behind their decisions to build, citing an increase in the fan base by creating a better fan experience, which in turn creates league growth.

The owners' standpoint is this they believe the players should account for this risk because it will increase future revenue, thus paying them more money in the future. The players are not a partnership with the franchise or the owner and will not receive any stake in the franchise for the cuts.

Furthermore, the players know the value of the owners and the franchises have increased considerably in the past decade. So they are basically stating that the value of your franchise went up, which creates equity and money. The equity and money does reduce the owners' overall financial risk. They simply want the same amount of money for the same amount of games played.

They are asking the NFL and the franchise owners to substantiate their claims and prove that profits have gone down. The NFLPA has requested the owners to open the books to prove their claims of financial distress or uncertainty, but the owners have adamantly refused to do that.

They are asking for a dramatic increase in credits right off the top, with categories in the new proposal such as "practice facility cost," "travel" and "professional fees. The deadline is March 3, when the league year ends, at which time the owners can start the lockout process. On the other side, the players could respond by de-certifying as a union and file an anti-trust lawsuit followed by a strike. Communication has and will continue to be a problem on both sides.

It has been reported there is improved communication between the players union and the NFL's managing council, which is important to help speed along any kind of resolution. As for now though, there has been no sizable movement toward the resolve of a new CBA. It's no surprise both sides are playing hard ball. The NFL players union has discussed a boycott of NFL draft activities, including the scouting combine later this month with player agents.

Now that the Super Bowl is over and the Green Bay Packers have been crowned NFL champions, it is time for the owners and players to meet and rehash the collective bargaining agreement in hopes of avoiding a lockout next season.

The average football fan could never even begin to fathom the amount of painstaking discussion and calculation done to produce a multi-billion dollar agreement to keep together the most profitable sports league in the world. This would effectively cut the players' share of the revenue by 18 percent, and thus is causing extreme discontent among the players. However, many players understand how the increased funding of the owners would lead to an increased annual revenue thanks to new and improved stadiums.

Over the last few years the values of most franchises have increased exponentially, so it appears as though the owners are making good use of this money. A second topic of major concern has been the split of the overall revenue. The players have been fighting for a split with the owners, who have steadfastly refused this offer. The offer currently on the table is a split for the owners, which has been refused by the NFL Player's Association.