Sept. 24, 2007

by Matt DaSilva, Lacrosse Magazine Online Staff

The National Lacrosse League (NLL) has imposed an Oct. 15 deadline on the Professional Lacrosse Players Association (PLPA) to reach a new collective bargaining agreement, or it will pull the plug on the 2008 season, according to league officials and union representatives.

With a new franchise bringing the league back to Boston, continued efforts to develop an outdoor league by fall 2008 and team training camps opening the last week of October, "this league needs labor unrest like a hole in the head," NLL deputy commissioner George Daniel said. "We're hoping for some real, serious, good dialogue in the next [21] days."

The three-year CBA reached in October 2004 expired in July, and the players' association has refused to bargain until now because of a disagreement on financial information disclosed by the league. The NLL had submitted three different proposals to the PLPA since December 2006, Daniel said, without a response.

"I feel like the Maytag repairman," Daniel said in an interview Sept. 14. "I'm sitting waiting for the phone to ring and it never does."

PLPA president Peter Schmitz said Thursday that the players' association planned to submit a counterproposal Friday. Daniel could not be reached for comment Monday.

The two sides were supposed to meet in August, but the players' association balked when financial information about the parent companies - including, in some cases, NHL organizations - was withheld. Both parties filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Daniel said.

Schmitz, who helped found the players' association in 1991 and was at the forefront of the 2003-04 CBA negotiations that included a 12-day work stoppage, said the union hired an independent forensic economist to audit the league's 13 teams from 2007 and suspended negotiations to analyze the data.

"It turned up there were quite a few unreported revenue streams that left us uncomfortable with the way it's being handled," Schmitz said. "As result of that, we changed course a little bit in terms of what our proposal would be. It has taken quite a bit of time to get the analysis completed because of all the missing information. If they want to hold by their deadline, they better respond quickly."

Though he would not discuss specific terms of the counterproposal, Schmitz said it includes a clause for future negotiations requiring full disclosure of lacrosse-related income generated by ownership groups.

Daniel defended the league's initial stance, saying it disclosed more financial information than was legally required. "We tried to verify concession money and what we thought was relevant, but we weren't going to let them rummage through the books," he said. "The Colorado Avalanche and Buffalo Sabres aren't going to open their books to you."

The NLL has proposed a six-year deal and a 3-percent increase in average player salary from 2008-2013.

"I just read an e-mail that that translates to $19 a game," said Philadelphia Wings defenseman Kyle Sweeney, a PLPA player representative.

Said Schmitz: "A 3-percent increase is not going to fly with the players."

Other points of negotiation include: the terms of restricted and unrestricted free agency, rookie compensation, player per diems (including home games and missed work), and an adjusted pay scale based on player classification (i.e., "veteran" and "franchise" players).

Neither Sweeney nor Schmitz would rule out the possibility of another player strike.

"It seems as though we always get to this point where there's just not a lot of trust between the two groups," Schmitz said.

A Decade of Unrest

The relationship between the NLL and PLPA has not always been so contentious.

When Jim Jennings became the NLL's third commissioner in 2000, he brought with him a legitimate background in sports management and ambitious plans for expansion, individual team ownership and league-wide TV coverage.

In apparent good faith, the PLPA that year agreed to a three-year CBA that kept player salaries somewhat stagnant provided the league invested its profits into expansion and improvements. Unrestricted free agency was also introduced.

Things turned sour, however, when the CBA expired July 31, 2003. According to the PLPA, over 25 percent of players, many of them of the now-defunct New York Saints and Columbus Landsharks, were owed payments from the 2003 season. The union refused to negotiate until all outstanding payments were satisfied.

The two sides negotiated through the beginning of training camp, hitting a snag on the point of the NLL's non-dress pay provision, which the PLPA wanted eliminated.

On Dec. 6, 2003, the PLPA declared a strike.

Twelve days later on Dec. 18, the NLL agreed to drop non-dress pay and the PLPA consented to a "temporary" deal that would allow the 2004 season to transpire under the previous contract.

The following year's negotiations were no less litigious.

In September 2004, the circumstances were similar to what they are now - the NLL sent three proposals without a PLPA counter and imposed a do-or-die deadline. The two sides negotiated under the shadow of an NHL lockout, which wound up lasting 310 days and saw the cancellation of the entire 2004-05 professional hockey season.

The NLL and PLPA were on their way to a deal when the NHL lockout became official. The PLPA saw it as a bargaining chip - professional lacrosse players were needed now more than ever, in the union's opinion. A late change of face almost crippled negotiations.

Comments by Jennings and Schmitz in the Toronto Sun printed the day of the NLL-imposed deadline reflected the rhetoric of the time.

"I'm not optimistic at all," Jennings said. "I don't think we are going to have a season."

"Am I concerned?" Schmitz said. "The same way one might be if a terrorist put a gun to your head."

They negotiated into late hours Oct. 2, 2004, however, and eventually agreed to a three-year CBA that would be considered a victory for the PLPA, with revenue sharing and increased player benefits in areas of worker's compensation and per diems.

Player salaries from 2004-2007 increased 4.3 percent under the old CBA, but were still closely monitored by the league. During that term, the average salary was $14,000, not including incentives and bonus money for personal responsibilities, such as appearances. Maximum salary, reserved for "veterans" of two or more years of service, was $23,000. A "franchise player" (two per team) could earn 25 percent more than the league maximum, or $28,750.

Rookies were limited to a maximum salary of $7,500, although the league continues to pay its players on a per-game basis.

Countdown: 21 Days

Three years later, the NLL and PLPA are spinning wheels again.

"We meant it then and we mean it now," Daniel said of the Oct. 15 deadline.

The NLL wants a long-term solution, but the PLPA won't agree to one unless there is a built-in formula for player compensation if the league "hits it big," as Daniel said, or "takes off," as Schmitz said. And though the deadline is 21 days away, the same panicky rhetoric has crept into public discourse.

"If we get to Oct. 16, we're going to be in a situation where our owners will pull the plug on the season. There'll be some cutbacks at the league office. I'll probably be the first to go," Daniel said with a laugh. "Half my guys are NHL owners. They lost a whole NHL season. They won't think twice about losing an NLL season.

"Doing this every few years just doesn't help the league grow. This is time consuming. We have to get it done, absolutely. It's going to be a big problem. I can tell you already it's affecting our television plans for this year. We're not going to be in a position to make huge commitments for television production, airtime, things like that, until this is resolved.

"They're closing on us now. There are options we have and those options get limited with each passing day."

Said Schmitz: "We haven't talked about a strike. All we've heard is a deadline, or they'll shut a season down. We don't disagree that labor unrest is not a good thing, but what other options do players have? If that's only option they give us, naturally, that's the direction we'd have to take."

Sweeney offered perhaps the most realistic prognosis.

"I think we'll reach an agreement," he said. "We're not going to get what we want. They're not going to get what they want. Ultimately, that's just the way it goes."