Brandt: The Inequities of the Proposed CBA

In the opinion of former Green Bay Packers executive Andrew Brandt, the players aren't getting enough for a 17th game.

About the author: A former NFL agent, Andrew Brandt was vice president of the Green Bay Packers from 1999 through 2008. There, he negotiated all player contracts and managed the salary cap. Now, among other endeavors, he is a regular columnist for Sports Illustrated. Here is a portion of his latest on the NFL's proposed collective bargaining agreement.

I have read the deal points and I have attended a meeting of NFL certified agents (I am one) where NFLPA leadership explained the terms. And I continue to believe that the Players are not getting enough for relenting on giving Owners the extra inventory of a 17th game. The Owners and their broadcast partners would be getting what they want while the product, the Players, would be sacrificing their physical capital for, in my opinion, hardly enough in return.

Ever since the idea of a 17- or 18-game schedule was first broached, there have been no mixed messages from them. Their reaction was (1) they would never agree to play more than 16 regular season games, and (2) it was disingenuous and hypocritical for Owners to suggest it while espousing the priority of player health and safety. Yet … here we are.

Video: A 17-game regular season would mean a three-game preseason. Here's GM Brian Gutekunst on the potential impact.

Listen, I get it. I have repeatedly stated that no CBA would happen without additional games, as that was the only bargaining chip that the Players have with true value to Owners. However, the Players needed to use that valuable chip for optimal gain. In my opinion, they have not.

Player leadership has said the Owners, in negotiating this deal, made 17 games “non-negotiable.” Of course they did. They want to grow their business, and adding inventory is an easy and efficient way to grow. But if the Owners chose make 17 games non-negotiable, why wouldn’t the Players then pick their issue to make “non-negotiable?”

For example, what if the Players said they were making one of these two issues “non-negotiable”: (1) a 50/50 revenue split to make the Players equal partners, or (2) an opt-out after four years to renegotiate a better deal.

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF BRANDT'S PIECE AT SI.COM.