By Wednesday, barring something unexpected, the NFL Players Association will have a new executive director. And there’s a good chance the NFL will mobilize before the dust settles on the installation of the new union leader.
Whoever it is — the widespread favorite is J.C. Tretter — will be hearing from the league. Because the clock is ticking on the possibility of expanding the regular season from 17 to 18 games by 2027. (As PFT has reported, no specific date has been picked for Super Bowl LXII in February 2028 because of the chance that the 2027 season will include an extra game.)
The NFLPA has ping-ponged its position on expansion to 18 games. Former executive director Lloyd Howell once said of an 18-game season, “Who doesn’t want more football?” The union has since tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but it’s clear that (as interim executive director David White said last month) “it’s a point of negotiation.”
To get a new CBA done quickly, the league will need to have a simple proposal. And the league will need to present it with a loud, clear message: This is the best offer you’re ever going to get.
The last time around, former NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith knew what would happen. The league would eventually lock the players out until they agree to 17 games, so why not do the best possible deal before an offseason during which the league is shut down? The 2011 lockout led to too many players borrowing too much money at rates that were too damn high. In the end, the players took a deal that wasn’t much different (some would say it was even worse) than the one that was on the table in March 2011.
To get a quick deal this time, the league needs to be blunt. The deal will get worse if you make us wait. And we will get 18 games (and 16 annual international games).
The key will be persuading the new executive director of the wisdom of moving quickly, and of the league’s resolve to systematically reduce the offer as the calendar slides toward the expiration of the current CBA after the 2030 season. Although the vote in 2020 was closer than it should have been, the union will be inclined in 2026 to support its new executive director. The executive committee and the board of player representatives won’t want to discredit him on the way through the door by pushing back against his advice, especially if the new executive director is Tretter.
And there’s an easy way to get through to any players who simply don’t want to play 18 games — and who won’t vote to accept another game until they experience the reality of a lockout and the imminent threat of losing game checks. Beyond the likelihood of two byes (which the league seems to be generally willing to consider if not accept), there’s an idea rattling around of limiting player participation to 17 games per year.
Would that open a new can of worms? Yes. Would certain positions (kicker, punter, snapper, holder, starting quarterback) need to be exempt? Absolutely. Given that plenty of players already miss one or more games due to injury, limiting all of them to 17 becomes easier than making all starters a healthy scratch once during each season.
There would need to be a clean and transparent procedure for giving each player a planned game off. Everyone (including gamblers and the fantasy-football crowd) would need to know that a key player would be missing the next game.
But if it’s the best (and perhaps only) way to get the rank and file to vote for 18 games, the league would tolerate the challenges it would spawn. Especially since it would create another tributary of NFL news regarding if/when a given player will or won’t be getting his annual one game off.
However it all plays out, it will be playing out not long after the NFLPA trots out its new executive director.
Read the full article here
