‘Wish we could have been in this situation’: NFLPA tells ESPN reporter they don’t have to agree to anything
Sports Illustrated has published an op-ed titled “Wish We Could Have Been in this Situation.”
The Sports Illustrated op-age for today is 11:59am ET, and as of right now, it’s not listed on the website for sports sites like ESPN.
It doesn’t appear on the ESPN Sports section of the site.
The piece, written by Michael Rosenberg, the sports editor at ESPN, and David Kaplan, a senior vice president at the NFLPA, does not specifically address whether the NFL should agree to a collective bargaining agreement with the union.
“The players have always said we can’t have an agreement without a bargaining agent, and that the players should get a guarantee,” Rosenberg wrote.
“Players have always made it clear that they want a guaranteed amount of money for their players,” Rosenberg said. “
“We’ve never been able to get anything like that from the union.” “
Players have always made it clear that they want a guaranteed amount of money for their players,” Rosenberg said.
“We’ve never been able to get anything like that from the union.”
Rosenberg’s piece includes some of the more colorful and contentious arguments the players have made against the current CBA.
The most notable one is the idea that a player would be better off if he got $200 million guaranteed over the next three years instead of $250 million.
The players have argued that the $200-million figure is too low, because it would force players to make significant salary cuts.
The argument has been used to argue for the creation of an “independent arbitrator” in the union to arbitrate contracts between the players’ union and the league.
In the article, Rosenberg quotes one of the NFL’s most vocal and prominent players, Reggie Wayne, as saying that players shouldn’t be getting $200m guaranteed over three years because that would force them to cut.
“You could see Reggie Wayne getting up in the morning and go, ‘I can’t wait to cut my hair and play football and go to sleep,’ ” Rosenberg said in the piece.
“He’s not saying it’s right.
He’s saying, ‘We don’t want to live in that world.'”
The writers argued that if the NFL did agree to an agreement, it would create “the equivalent of the first draft of the New York Yankees in 1875.”
They also argued that any player who signed a four-year deal before the 2017 season would be protected in case the CBA were to be struck down.
The union has not yet made any official comment on the op-ad, but Rosenberg and Kaplan have previously made similar arguments.
“Players have said we want the guarantees, we want to get a guaranteed salary,” Rosenberg told The Verge in an interview.
“So if that’s the only thing we want from the league, they would be doing the players a disservice if they didn’t agree to it.
We have never been in a position to agree on a guarantee.
We just don’t agree with the guarantees.”
In the piece, Rosenberg said the NFL “has never been willing to compromise on our demands.”
The NFL is in negotiations with the owners of the two teams in the NFL Network, Fox and CBS.
The NFL has already signed a new collective bargaining deal with the league owners, which will expire in 2020, and Rosenberg said he was optimistic the league would agree to the proposed CBA by then.
“I’m optimistic that we’ll get to that point in time where we’re comfortable with the C.B.A.,” Rosenberg said of the talks.
The league has not responded to a request for comment on Rosenberg’s op-ads.