NFL to Judge: Don't Unseal TV Contract Case Info

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The NFL asked a federal judge Wednesday to deny the players' union bid to release details in a $4 billion TV revenue dispute, saying information should be kept confidential because it is commercially sensitive.

Two weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge David Doty ruled - rejecting a special master's previous decision - that the NFL illegally secured the money from TV contracts for 2011, money the players contend was arranged to fund a lockout.

A week ago, the union requested that all exhibits, testimony and transcripts be unsealed.

The league filed its response and included redacted versions of exhibits cited in Doty's decision totaling more than 800 pages. Much of the information was blacked out to protect information the NFL considers sensitive, harmful to future negotiations if revealed and damaging to business relations.

Read more: http://sports.excite.com/news/03172011/v3679.html

---

FULL story at link.

[hobbit709]

1. What are they trying to hide is my first thought.

[sofa king]

21. The owners started from a fallacious bargaining position.

They first told the press and the public that they give 60% of all revenues to the players.

Then, when pressed on that, http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17525555">they, ahem, clarified that the owners take the first billion dollars, then offer the players 59.5% of the rest. Because eight billion minus one billion times 0.595 equals 60% of eight billion, you see. In NFL accounting-land.

But in reality, it does equal just around 52% of the total--assuming they're not lying about the eight billion total, which is a huge assumption. So when the players proposed a 50-50 split of the total revenue--handing back about $160 million to the owners--the owners naturally rejected it.

About that time, the players decided they needed to see the books, because the owners are totally bullshitting the players and honestly expect them to swallow it. But one thing you can pretty much guarantee about the courts these days is that they almost always fall on the side of the money and special interests.

So it's going to court, where the players can expect to get screwed again.

[naaman fletcher]

22. thanks for the concise and clear summary. much appreciated. nt

[LaurenG]

2. "commercially sensitive?" What does that even mean?

I'm very out of the loop to start with but is that lawyer speak for we're stealing from someone and don't want them to know or is it salaries among players?

[SkyDaddy7]

3. I could be wrong but this is what I think...

I honestly think the NFL wanted to lock the players out so that they could hurt the Union & get a better deal for themselves...So, they made this deal so they would have money through a lock out while the players got very desperate & would give them what they wanted! It has to be what they are doing!

The bottom line is "I think" the owners simply want more share of the revenue so they claim they need it for the up keep of stadiums, build new ones, etc., but the players have so OK but we want you to open your books & prove it...The owners do not want to do that. OF COURSE!

Please I know there are others out there I have spoken with that might know more detail but I think what I said is close.

[LaurenG]

4. Interesting theory which I think may be correct

the funny thing about it is that most of the time the tax-payers end up covering at least part of new stadiums.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. Exactly! If the owners were not trying to be sneaky...

then they could be more transparent & that is all the players are asking. The players had already said they would be willing to give the owners more money of the top if they would show why they need it & that the money was being spent for what they said it would be spent for going forward. But the owners don't want to do that!

Plus, this TV deal they made smells fishy & sure seems like they were planning on making the players sweat while they loose nothing.

[glinda]

13. I smell a Fox.

[sofa king]

23. Washington fans, note the circumstances.

As we all secretly know but many wish to deny, Washington is historically one of the shittiest teams in football, ever, a legacy now permanently immortalized by Dan Snyder. It will take decades for another team to equal Washington's slump from 1946-1970, or its current disastrous state which dates back nineteen years.

Except in strike years. When the players go on strike, Washington has its only chance to win a Super Bowl. There was one exception, in 1991, when Washington had the good fortune to go up against a team just as cursed as they.

[dotymed]

5. Maybe, LawyerSpeak for

The corporate owned MSM has paid us to bust the players union. As I understand it, the NFL was guaranteed this money by the MSM, whether the teams played or not.
In other words, "they" have said the players Union (and the players for that matter) are not important. You team owners (wealthy/elitists) will earn you big bucks no matter what.
Therefore, there is absolutely 0 incentive for the owners to negotiate with the players.
Personally, I think the owners and the players are way overpaid. However, I do understand their limited career span (players).
What about Teachers who do have high "burn-out" rates.
I also believe that Every person should have the opportunity (in work) to collectively bargain for their services without becoming inconsequential due to the Union busters. That is blatantly unfair.
If the players had someone ("corporate person")that guaranteed their salaries whether they played or not, then this MSM "deal" would be fair.
Capitalism is not fair......Duh

[rurallib]

7. think you hit it on the head

My best analogy would be owners = Wisc Repubs. TV money = Koch Bros.

Wish there was someway the players could start their own league.

[Thor_MN]

9. There are tons of college stadiums that could host a player owned league

Money to needy colleges, entertainment to the masses, shaft to greedy elitist assholes... Win, win, win.

[glinda]

14. I think that is the answer,

[melm00se]

17. "commercially sensitive"

is a term usually used to protect information that, if disclosed, could/would cause damage to the business.

Among examples would be trade secrets/proprietary information (ie what makes up the 'special sauce').

If that was entered into evidence it would become public information and thus damaging to the business who relies on the "special sauce" as their product differentiation.

This is not always (in fact rarely is) criminal activities.

the fact that it is a known $$ amount may be ruled sufficient information. Does it matter how that $$ is split up amongst the owners? or what the payout schedule is?

[Grins]

19. I agree.

What the hell does that term mean when you are talking about an organization that is exempt from anti-trust laws, gets significant taxpayer cash and tax breaks, and has no competition?

The mind. It boggles!

[No Elephants]

8. Strong social values argue for disclosure.

[old mark]

10. K&R-

[denverbill]

11. Yes, because some other NFL might benefit from seeing that info. Or some other broadcasting cartel.

[Missy Vixen]

12. The owners continue to overplay their hand

There is no other reason to keep the TV revenues deal a secret than the owners are violating the CBA in some fashion, and don't want the players' union and their counsel to discover this.

Whomever said NFL players = Wisconsin, and owners = Koch brothers is right.

[glinda]

15. Absolutely right. But Fox has been getting all sorts of special deals with sports. Everything smells

[Missy Vixen]

16. The smartest thing the owners could have done

was to extend the 2006 deal. Instead, they believe they can wring even more profit out of this, despite the concussion research findings coming out last year, the NFL making more money than ever in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930's, etcetera.

They're fighting a losing battle. It's not just the money. It's the PR. After Jerry Jones' Super Bowl debacle, he needs to sit down and shut up.

If the judge and players' counsel discover there were shenanigans re: TV contract negotiations, Goodell will be forced to resign at the least, and there may be criminal charges, IMHO.

[glinda]

20. Try a sophisticated form of money laundering for one.

[bemildred]

18. Time for a strategic anonymous leak, I would say. nt