The short answer is sometime on or just before July 15. By that point, the league may be reopen for business on a permanent basis, meaning free agents could get signed and draft picks could start to meet with coaches for the first time in hopes of catching up as much as possible by the start of training camp.

“That kind of timeline is altogether possible,” a source on the owners’ side said Tuesday after the owners spent a little less than six hours hearing from Commissioner Roger Goodell about the state of the collective bargaining agreement talks with the players. Just as important, the owners were given a chance to object to the basic concepts put before them. The league went so far as to give the owners an extra day to discuss the negotiations.

In the end, the meeting became a day trip

While Goodell cautioned reporters not to read too much into that, it was taken as a good sign by most. Furthermore, the wide grin on New York Giants owner John Mara’s face was a pretty good tell about the state of the talks. In recent months, Mara’s face has been etched with a dour look, such as in March when talks between the owners and the players broke down, and the CBA expired.

Mara repeatedly refused to comment on the mediations and the meeting of the owners, saying that he and the rest of the owners were under court order not to say anything. Goodell was nearly as hard to pin down, but part of that was based on the fact that the players have to go through the same process. If the owners start to present too strong a front, it could be taken as presumptuous by players. At this point, any sense of overconfidence could throw the process in reverse.

“We have a very strong view of the priorities … ownership is unified,” Goodell said.

Overall, the two sides have a preliminary agreement that all money will be split by a simple division, the players getting 48 percent and the owners getting 52 percent. While the players have technically taken a cut in their overall share of the revenue, the owners have agreed to guarantees that will essentially assure that teams will spend a higher minimum amount of money (90 percent of the salary cap) each year.

Additionally, retired NFL player Carl Eller met with four owners Tuesday morning to get assurances that the group of retirees he represents will get better health and disability benefits. Although Eller’s suit was grouped with the Brady et al v. NFL case, Eller’s group still has a say over the settlement and, ultimately, the eventual new collective bargaining agreement.

“The purpose of the meeting on Tuesday was to make clear that the bicycle has to turn into a tricycle,” said attorney Michael Hausfeld, who is representing Eller in his case. “The retirees are going to have a say in the process once this is over.”

While that could throw a wrench in the process, the source on the owners’ side and two others indicated that getting past the owners on Tuesday was the major obstacle. On Wednesday, the players will hold their own meeting in Boston and then are expected to meet with owners later in the day and again Thursday to continue hammering out the deal.

“At this point, you could probably have the terms drawn up by Friday if you wanted to really hurry the process, but two weeks is probably more realistic,” said the source on the owners’ side. “Two weeks for the paperwork is pretty reasonable.”

There are other steps along the way. For instance, all of the parties involved will have to meet with Minnesota District Judge Susan Richard Nelson to seek preliminary settlement of the class-action lawsuits brought by current players such as Tom Brady(notes), Drew Brees(notes) and Peyton Manning(notes) and former players such as Eller. After that, the league will have the NFL Players Association recertify as a union and the owners will have to reconvene to give the agreement final approval. Given all those steps, the July 15 date starts to look more and more realistic.

“You’d like it to be as early as possible,” one team executive said. “Like I said before, I’d like to get started this week, but we know that’s not happening. The way everybody seems to be talking, mid-July is what we’re all hoping for.”

New York Jets owner Woody Johnson (left) with New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft on Tuesday.
(Getty Images)

What that means is free agency figures to be fast and furious. The basic rules of free agency aren’t expected to change, meaning that players with at least four years of experience who are not currently under contract will become unrestricted free agents.

That means players such as Nnamdi Asomugha(notes), Antonio Cromartie(notes), Santonio Holmes(notes) and DeAngelo Williams(notes) will head one of the deepest classes of free agents in NFL history. The depth of free agency is primarily because so many players from 2010 weren’t allowed to hit the market when the rules changed, requiring players to have at least six years of service before becoming unrestricted free agents.

While the depth of this free-agent class is subject to debate, the important part is that free agency may soon start, replacing the boring details of a labor dispute.

And with that voice, Tyree managed to put his foot in his mouth in the minds of many people, saying that two people of the same gender could not make a commitment to each other that involved the raising of children.

Asked in a recent interview with an anti-gay group called the National Organization for Marriage about a same-sex marriage bill that recently passed the New York state assembly and awaits approval from state senators, Tyree said that "this will be the beginning of our country's sliding towards, you know, it's a strong word, but 'anarchy.' The moment we have it, if you trace back even to other cultures, other countries, that will be the moment where our society and itself, loses its grip with what's right. Marriage is one of those things that is the backbone of society.

"How can marriage be marriage for thousands of years and now all the sudden because a minority, an influential minority, has a push or agenda ... and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country," Tyree continued. "You can't teach something that you don't have, so two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."

Defensive end Michael Strahan, who made Super Bowl XLII his last game after 15 seasons in what should be a Hall of Fame career, has taken his post-football life to several different media outlets and advocacy campaigns, including a recent one in support of same-sex marriage. Strahan recently shot a video for the New Yorkers for Marriage Equality campaign with his fiancée, Nicole Murphy.

"I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't judge them. I want them to have all the same rights I have, and all the opportunities I have to be in a relationship, a great relationship, with the person that they're in love with."

Some former players may have a natural gap of understanding when it comes to things outside of the traditional "macho" viewpoint, but Strahan has learned a few things in his time as a football expert with FOX Sports.

"Heck, I work for FOX, man," Strahan told the Times. "They've got 'Glee' on TV."

Anschutz Entertainment Group President and CEO Tim Leiweke has spoken with representatives from the Minnesota Vikings, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams and Jacksonville Jaguars, company spokesman Michael Roth told The Associated Press.

Leiweke said all those teams are “in the mix,” but conceded, “We’re not packing any (moving) vans right now,” according to the Orange County Register, which was first to report on the talks.

The most recent discussion took place a week ago, said Leiweke, who didn’t specify which team was involved.

Leiweke also told the Register that AEG owner Philip Anschutz was prepared to acquire a majority stake in an NFL team that would play at the proposed venue and that the company was willing to pay for a team to get out of its current lease.

AEG’s $1 billion plan for a 72,000-seat stadium on part of the city’s convention center campus is one of two competing proposals that aim to bring pro football back to Los Angeles 15 years after the Rams and Raiders left the nation’s second-largest market within months of one another.

Warehouse magnate Ed Roski has permits in place to build a separate 75,000-seat stadium about 15 miles east of Los Angeles, in the city of Industry, but has also not secured a team.

Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani told the AP that the team is in frequent contact with Leiweke concerning unrelated business, but that a move to Los Angeles has not been discussed.

He stressed that Chargers owner Alex Spanos and his family were not interested in relinquishing a majority stake of the team.

The family recently terminated an agreement with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to shop around a stake in the team they considered selling to reduce the 87-year-old Spanos’ estate tax liability upon his death, Fabiani said.

“So if AEG is seeking a majority stake in a team, it would probably be best for AEG to cross the Chargers off its wish list,” he said.

Raiders CEO Amy Trask said in a statement through spokesman John Herrera that the franchise would remain with the family of owner Al Davis.

“The team is not for sale,” Trask said.

Herrera had no comment on whether a move would be contemplated if Davis retained ownership.

Vikings spokesman Lester Bagley acknowledged that the franchise had been approached by AEG and Roski’s group about the possibility of becoming a Southern California team, but said the franchise had no immediate interest in a move.

He said the Vikings hoped state legislators would approve funding to subsidize a new stadium in the Twin Cities when they convene a special session to hash out a budget resolution.

“We believe we’re in a position to resolve our stadium issue in Minnesota this year,” he said.

Messages left with the Rams and Jaguars were not returned.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy declined to comment on whether the league was aware of team discussions with AEG.

“Teams are permitted to talk to third parties,” McCarthy said in a statement.

Information from: The Orange County Register, http://www.ocregister.com

The former New York Giants wide receiver told The Wall Street Journal in a story posted Friday that spending nearly two years in prison on a gun charge took “an emotional toll.”

Burress was released Monday from Oneida Correctional Facility in New York.

In his first extensive interview, Burress told the newspaper “there’s nothing pleasant about prison,” from the food to the meager weight room to the wasted time.

Burress said he wants a clean slate now and plans to “get right back into it” with workouts beginning next week.

His agent, Drew Rosenhaus, has said he expects several NFL teams to have interest in Burress once the lockout ends and teams resume doing business with players.

By Doug Farrar

It's not an absolute lead-pipe lock that we'll have a full NFL season, and as such, the owners and commissioner have been planning for alternate shortened seasons, the likes of which we haven't had since 1987, which was the last time there was a work stoppage. And when all is said and done, the 15-game season then — with replacement player games interspersed — may seem like a gift if the plans the league are discussing become a reality. In 1982, only nine regular-season games were played because of what was then the longest work stoppage in NFL history.

According to Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal, the league is now planning for how pro football would be played with an eight-game season that could start in late November, based on a possible settlement in October that would allow for a free-agency period and training camp.

The 16-game schedule for 2011 was released on April 19, and there's been some thought that the schedule could still be played in full even if it started in Week 4. In that case, all byes and the week between the conference championships and Super Bowl would be eliminated, the Super Bowl would be pushed back a week, and the early scheduled games could be played at the end of the regular season.

It's not known how an eight-game season would work out — interdivision matchups would take six games from each team, and the other two in-season games could be set up in several different ways.

Of course, the hope is that there's an uninterrupted season, but contingency plans are necessities at this point; after months of court cases and negotiations, the two sides are still far enough apart to make a truncated season an unfortunate reality that everyone must prepare for.

Follow Yahoo! Sports on Facebook and be the first to know about the most interesting stories of the day.

The latest nudge in that direction came on Monday from U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who scheduled a hearing on the owners’ motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit from a group of players for Sept. 12.

Coincidentally or not, Sept. 12 is four days after the regular season is set to open in Green Bay, and one day after the first Sunday of games for the 2011 season.

Shortly after the owners filed their motion to dismiss on Monday, Nelson announced when she would hear arguments on the motion.

The timing is significant, given that the Packers are scheduled to host the New Orleans Saints on Sept. 8, and the NFL has big plans for the first Sunday of action to commemorate the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Both sides hope that hearing never has to happen. The NFL and its players held settlement discussions in Chicago last week, but there is no sign a new collective bargaining agreement is imminent.

A group of players including superstar quarterbacks Tom Brady(notes), Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes) filed the antitrust lawsuit against the owners, alleging their lockout of the players is illegal.

Nelson initially ruled in favor of the players in April, requiring the league to lift the lockout and let the players get back to work. That ruling has been appealed to the 8th Circuit in St. Louis, where a three-judge panel heard arguments on Friday and is considering the matter.

The 8th Circuit put Nelson’s ruling on hold while it considers the appeal, though it is unclear when they will issue a ruling. In the meantime, the judges urged both sides to get back to the bargaining table and hammer out a deal.

Judge Kermit Bye told attorneys on Friday that if no deal is done before the panel comes to a conclusion, they will likely offer up a decision that will be “probably something both sides aren’t going to like.”

The owners argue, among other things, that Nelson did not have the jurisdiction to lift the lockout while the National Labor Relations Board is considering an unfair labor charge brought by the league against the players.

The NLRB’s regional office in New York forwarded a preliminary report to the national board in Washington, but a spokeswoman said Monday it “doesn’t mean a decision is around the corner.”

The two sides are engaged in a sometimes bitter dispute over how to divide $9 billion in revenue, a fight that has already caused some minicamps and offseason programs to be lost, free agency and trades to be delayed and resulted in hundreds of employees for teams across the league having their paychecks cut.

The start of training camp is less than two months away, and teams are already making contingency plans if the lockout drags on. The Minnesota Vikings plan to have a date set this week that, if the lockout continued to that point, would force them to cancel training camp in Mankato.

The owners are required to file a full brief supporting their motion by Aug. 1.

As he left Oneida Correctional Facility in central New York Monday morning, he hugged agent Drew Rosenhaus and shook hands. He was wearing a black sweatshirt, shorts, sneakers and a Philadelphia Phillies hat.

“I just want to thank God for bringing me through one of the most trying times in my life,” he said to reporters outside the prison. “It’s a beautiful day. It’s a beautiful day to be reunited with my family. I want to go home and spend some quality time with them.”

“I’d like to thank everybody for their prayers and words of encouragement,” he said. “I’d like to thank all my fans all around the world for the thousands of letters, for their unwavering support. As far as football is concerned, if and when everything gets settled, when they get back on the field, I’ll be ready.”

He got into a black Range Rover and headed for the Rome, N.Y., airport where he was expected to fly home immediately.

His release came nearly two years after he arrived at the medium-security prison. Burress, who turns 34 in August, planned to travel to his Florida home to spend time with his wife, son and a daughter born while he was in jail. He’ll continue working out while awaiting a resolution of the NFL labor dispute, said his attorney, Peter M. Frankel.

Burress pleaded guilty in August 2009 to attempted criminal possession of a weapon and was sentenced to two years in prison. He was released about three months early for good behavior.

The lanky 6-foot-5 receiver had the world at his feet after catching a 13-yard pass from Eli Manning(notes) with 35 seconds to play to give the Giants a stunning 17-14 win over the undefeated New England Patriots in the 2008 Super Bowl.

His world fell apart nine months later when he walked into a Manhattan nightclub with a handgun tucked in the waistband of his pants. The weapon slipped down and discharged as Burress tried to grab it, injuring him in the thigh.

The wound was not serious. The backlash was.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for Burress to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and was irate that officials at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center treated Burress and failed to report the shooting, as required by law. A doctor who treated Burress was later suspended.

The gun was not licensed in New York or in New Jersey, where Burress lived. His license to carry a concealed weapon in Florida had expired in May 2008.

Rosenhaus said he has spoken to several teams about the wide receiver and expects him to play in the NFL again. He said Burress matured in prison and there are things he would do differently.

“He’s learned an awful lot,” Rosenhaus said. “He knows that he obviously made a mistake. To miss two NFL seasons in the prime of your career. To not be with your family, most importantly. To lose out on millions and millions of dollars. These are things that have forced him to certainly evaluate his life.”

He said the teams he’s talked to have not expressed any concerns about Burress. He did not say which teams or how many he spoke to.

“He’s going to be a top free-agent,” Rosenhaus said. “There are going to be multiple teams interested in signing him. I expect him to get a good contract. I expect him to absolutely be playing.”

Whatever your views on whether this money grab is justified, a product of greed or somewhere in between, its existence is unassailable. The owners unanimously opted out of the collective bargaining agreement in 2008, began preparing for a lockout this spring and, when the NFL Players Association balked at a late offer that would have significantly reduced their share of total revenues and decertified, followed through on the threat. Their lawyers will now try to convince the appellate court to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Court judge Susan Nelson ending the lockout.

As Bill Belichick would say, It is what it is.

Yet even those of you who sympathize with the owners in this dispute should be repulsed by a far more gratuitous money grab that’s taking place in conjunction with the lockout – the pay reductions of coaches and other team employees introduced by various franchises throughout the league.

Three adjectives come to mind to describe this practice: Senseless, shameless and gutless.

It would be one thing if this was September or October and games were actually being missed. Once significant revenues are lost, the owners will have a legitimate case for cutting costs – even at the expense of employees caught in the crossfire. Doing it over the offseason, when they’re arguably making money on the lockout – at least in the short term – is preposterous.

The first and most obvious point is that there’s no evidence such a move is necessary. Earlier this week, Sports Business Journal reported that, against all odds, NFL teams are ahead of last year’s pace for season-ticket sales. While the article noted that teams might be suffering in other areas – including sponsorships, merchandising and licensing – there’s no evidence that this has happened either.

Meanwhile, it seems reasonable to surmise that, given the absence of offseason activities for players – not to mention the indefinitely delayed start of the league year, which instigates free agency and triggers lucrative roster bonuses for numerous players – owners are benefiting from some sizable cost-cutting.

“The owners’ overhead is reduced significantly with the lockout,” said Steve Caric, a Las Vegas-based player agent. “Expenses such as player salaries, 401(k) contributions, insurance and operations costs are gone. Yet a number of teams are cutting the jobs and/or pay of their staffs and coaches prior to any games being missed. I don’t see how they can justify punishing hard-working people for a situation which they created.”

Further damning is the fact that, with the disappearance of the salary cap in the final year of the recently expired CBA, owners had every opportunity to plan for this eventuality. Some teams blatantly seemed to do just that – the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Kansas City Chiefs and Jacksonville Jaguars reportedly spent less than $90 million in player compensation last season, for an estimated savings of more than $30 million apiece (relative to what would have been the spending minimum in a capped year). Yet Chiefs owner Clark Hunt is among those who instituted staffwide pay reductions once the lockout began in March – a move that, in his case, is particularly unconscionable.

Other owners who’ve reportedly reduced salaries and/or mandated unpaid furloughs include the Arizona Cardinals’ Bill Bidwill, the Atlanta Falcons’ Arthur Blank, the Buffalo Bills’ Ralph Wilson, the Detroit Lions’ William Clay Ford, the Miami Dolphins’ Stephen Ross and the New York Jets’ Woody Johnson.

Conversely, the group of owners who’ve done right by their employees includes the Cleveland Browns’ Randy Lerner, the Dallas Cowboys’ Jerry Jones and the Oakland Raiders’ Al Davis (who has also mandated that staffers sell season-ticket plans to avoid a pay cut). Several teams (the Indianapolis Colts, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks) have promised not to cut coaching staff pay, even if the lockout extends into the season, and the Carolina Panthers’ Jerry Richardson has commendably told employees they won’t suffer any negative financial ramifications – regardless of whether it lasts several months past September.

Last week, Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, who’d previously cut employee pay by 25 percent during the lockout, changed his mind and refunded the money.

Unless and until those other owners get religion the way Bisciotti did, I’m going to regard them as sinners, at least in the “Thou shalt not steal” sense.

You might regard that rhetoric as over the top, but unlike the fight over cash playing out between the players and owners, I truly see this as a matter of right and wrong. Some of the pay cuts may be relatively painless, but I know of several NFL coaches who are getting dinged severely. None will discuss it publicly, for obvious reasons – casting the boss in a negative light isn’t a very smart career move. But several agents who represent coaches have confirmed that precipitous pay cuts have been in play.

“Most coaches are affected one way or the other, and a few are affected quite substantially,” said Octagon president Phil de Picciotto, whose client list includes three current NFL head coaches. “Most are seeing reductions in the 25-to-50 percent range, with some outliers on each end. In some cases, the money is recoupable if no games are missed, and in some cases the givebacks are voluntary. There are many complexities involved – including the timing of when the contract was signed – and every situation is different.”

As de Picciotto notes, most head coaches feel privileged to have one of the 32 NFL jobs and understand that this is a uniquely trying situation. As leaders and well-compensated, loyal employees, some feel a sense of obligation to make financial sacrifices – at least within reason. However, it’s not like coaches are having their workloads significantly reduced during the lockout, as a settlement or court order could hasten a sudden start to a league year for which they must be prepared.

They may be easy marks, but the fact remains that their bosses are preying upon their coaches’ vulnerabilities and using their standoff with the players as an excuse.

“The owners are doing to coaches what they would do to the players if they could,” one prominent agent said. “But these employees have no one to stick up for their collective interests, so they have no choice but to let it happen.”

What the coaches have is a faux union representing their interests, the NFL Coaches Association. Last week, the NFLCA filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of the players’ attempt to end the lockout, arguing that the lack of preparation time caused by the work stoppage was putting some coaches’ jobs in jeopardy. It did not make a stink about the lost wages the lockout has triggered thus far.

Shortly thereafter, the Washington Redskins issued a statement signed by all 17 of the team’s assistant coaches which stated: “We stand united with ownership and the brief does not reflect our thoughts on the matter.”

Jags head coach Jack Del Rio said he and his assistant coaches were unaware of the NFLCA filing.
(US Presswire)

Since that time, nine other teams have issued statements claiming their coaches were unaware of the brief before it was filed.

While gauging the sincerity of such proclamations is difficult – a cynic would view those statements as the equivalent of those made by a hostage hailing the righteousness of his captors – it’s clear that the NFLCA lacks the clout to speak for its alleged membership.

The truth is probably somewhere in between the NFLCA’s version of events and that of teams like the Redskins – and the fact remains that coaches are caught in the middle of this mess. They don’t merely want the lockout to end for financial reasons; they’re also looking to begin the offseason programs they view as crucial to team-bonding and eventual success. Yet they also fear the rebuke of their bosses, who reportedly threatened to fire coaches for cause if they make any unauthorized contact with players during the lockout.

That seemed like a heavy-handed way to approach a situation not of the coaches’ making, and those heavy hands are now busy trying to snatch cash from the bank accounts of employees caught in the middle of this labor war.

I can hear Belichick sizing it up as I type: It is what it is.

Yes – and what it is, is wrong.

Is this legal wrangle a good or bad thing for the NFL?

The obvious answer from most corners of the league – be it New York Jets linebacker Bart Scott(notes), New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft or anyone in between those polar opposites – is that the lockout is bad. In recent weeks, former players such as Terry Bradshaw and Cris Collinsworth have weighed in with opinions echoing league officials, essentially saying the matter should be negotiated, not litigated.

In the backdrop, the decertified NFL Players Association has been talking tougher in recent days, with executive director DeMaurice Smith saying the trade association might not assemble as a union again. Similarly, players such as Drew Brees(notes), London Fletcher(notes) and Chester Pitts(notes) have backed up Smith by saying they are prepared for a long fight that could curtail or completely wipe out the 2011 season.

On Wednesday, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash said he considered Smith’s statements a thinly veiled attempt to back up the players’ court case.

“I assume it’s principally meant by DeMaurice to bolster their media position and their legal claim that this was not simply a tactical move for negotiating position,” Pash said. “I think that DeMaurice would admit that other than to support their legal position, it doesn’t help generate a fair deal that both sides will benefit from. It doesn’t help the current players, and it doesn’t help the retired players.”

While Pash’s explanation makes sense because a formal collective bargaining agreement helps protect the many mechanisms that maintain the NFL’s competitive balance such as the NFL draft and the assorted restrictions on free agency, there is a flipside to being in court:

It helps keep the peace, which ultimately has been part of the NFL’s huge growth.

The longest run of labor peace in modern NFL history has been over the past 23 years. That coincides with when the NFLPA, then under the leadership of the late Gene Upshaw, decided to stop negotiating with the owners. Instead, the NFLPA and Upshaw went to court in 1990 and filed the antitrust lawsuit that became the Reggie White case and resulted in the 1993 CBA that expired in March.

Prior to that, the NFL and the NFLPA were regularly at odds. There were strikes in 1982 and 1987, both of which caused games to be cancelled. Previously, the relatively powerless NFLPA, which was officially recognized by the owners in 1968 when the two sides struck a CBA, voted three times to go on strike. However, none of the instances (1968, 1970 and 1974) resulted in missed regular-season games.

Ultimately, that means that over a 19-year span, the players either voted to go on strike or went on strike five times. As a result, union leadership changed drastically, with the 1982 strike resulting in the departure of former union chief Ed Garvey.

So while the current labor dispute may not be ideal for owners, players or outsiders, there is a positive side.

“I’m not going to say we were powerless, but there’s no question there was a limit to what we could do,” said Jeff Van Note, who spent his entire 18-year career with Atlanta Falcons from 1969-86 and was the team’s union representative in the 1980s. “The strikes just weren’t effective. The players couldn’t outwait the owners no matter what … the strategy [Upshaw] came up with [following the ’87 strike] was really smart. It was the only way the players were ever going to get any real leverage.”

Since the now-expired CBA began in ’93, the resulting labor peace has contributed to unparalleled economic growth. Now, however, players fear that the gains made over the past 20 years could be jeopardized if they are no longer under the umbrella of the court, where threats of antitrust lawsuits have largely kept the owners at bay.

When the NFLPA first decertified in the late 1980s, it took away the antitrust protections the owners had because the owners were dealing with individuals rather than a unionized workforce that was negotiating as one group. When the CBA was worked out in ’93, the owners required the players to recertify as a union as part of the settlement because the owners wanted protection from lawsuits, like in 2003 when Maurice Clarett challenged the NFL’s draft rule on underclassmen.

Now, the players have returned to court for basically the same reason they did in the late 1980s. As Van Note indicated, the owners consistently have leverage over the players because of the nature of the game. More so than in baseball and basketball players, football players have relatively short careers. The risk of losing a year of pay in a sport where your ability to play is regularly in jeopardy because of injury is extremely difficult to accept.

Without the ability to take the owners to court, the players have consistently lost because the labor process is so long.

Pash eloquently disagreed with the notion that court supervision helped create labor peace.

Jeff Pash
(AP Photo)

“I don’t believe that the court supervision has contributed in any way to the labor peace that we’ve had from 1993 through 2010,” Pash said. “What contributed to it was recognition by both sides that negotiations and collective bargaining, which is what went on for all that time, was in their interests and that they were able to build something great together. They were able to work through their issues in an honest and candid way that involved compromise.

“The owners certainly didn’t get everything they wanted through that time and the players didn’t get everything they wanted through that time. But together they recognized that what unified them was much stronger than what divided them. And that had nothing to do with the court. That had to do with recognition of where people’s mutual interests lay, that they had a shared responsibility to 100 million Americans who follow the National Football League and care about it passionately. That’s what gets agreements done, not complaints and lawsuits. Agreements get done when people have shared interests.”

Perhaps, but didn’t those “mutual interests” exist in the 1980s, when there were two work stoppages?

“You are sort of asking me to go back to a time when I wasn’t nearly as involved, but I think it did exist,” Pash said. “But it’s like any relationship: Sometimes it has its rocky points and so you had a strike in 1982 and then a strike in 1987, but both times the parties resolved those disputes and got the game back on the field and that can happen again. No court intervened in 1982 to get the game back on the field. No court intervened in 1987 to get the game back on the field. The players and the clubs got the game back on the field.”

Maybe, but even after 1987, the players walked away from the process dissatisfied with what they received, leading to the move to the courtroom.

More than two decades later, the players still hold a strong distrust of the owners. Whether they will be able to protect themselves in court remains to be seen.

“He was one of the greatest players in franchise history, and one of the finest, most dignified gentlemen you could ever meet,” Giants President John Mara said. “Andy was a man’s man in every respect.”

It wasn’t immediately clear where and when Robustelli died. His death was first reported by The Advocate of Stamford.

The 6-foot-1, 230-pound defensive end played for the Rams from 1951-55 and the Giants from 1956-64, but his arrival in New York ushered in one of the greatest eras in Giants’ football.

New York won the 1956 NFL championship in Robustelli’s first season. They won five more conference championships during his tenure, in 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962 and 1963. Robustelli played on a winning team in 13 of his 14 pro seasons and played in eight NFL championship games.

“Andy was a great leader. When he came to us from the Rams, it turned everything around defensively,” fellow Hall of Famer Frank Gifford said. “He fit perfectly into Tom Landry’s defense. Tom Landry was such a leader in putting defense into pro football and Andy was one of the key components of that.”

Robustelli was selected to seven Pro Bowls and was named first team All-NFL seven times, two with the Rams and five with the Giants. He was also a three-time second-team All-Pro choice. In 1962, the Maxwell Club selected Robustelli as the NFL’s top player, an honor then usually given to an offensive player.

“He was far and away above the other defensive ends of his era,” Gifford said. “Andy was not all that big, but he was very quick. With Andy and Tom Landry, it was almost scary the anticipation that they had of what was going to be run. He and Tom were very, very close. Whereas Tom was the overall defensive coach, Andy basically ran the defensive line along with the linebackers. He was the leader. Everyone knew that. He was the leader in the clubhouse. He was quiet. But when Andy talked, everyone listened.”

Robustelli played in 175 regular-season games in his 14-year career, missing only one because of injury. In his last three years with the Giants, he was a player-coach.

Robustelli was the Giants’ Director of Operations—what is now called general manager—from 1974-78, prior to George Young’s arrival. During his tenure, the Giants drafted Hall of Famer Harry Carson, as well as such standout players as George Martin, Gary Jeter and Gordon King.

“Andy is someone I looked up to fiercely,” said Martin, who played for the Giants from 1975-88 and is now the executive director and president of the NFL Alumni Association. “I think he was legendary among all ballplayers, but especially within the illustrious Giants’ history.”

Martin said Robustelli never stopped coaching, even when he was working in the front office.

“Andy was always giving you tips about the game—here’s your general manager coming out to give you some words of advice,” Martin said. “For a young man, particularly a rookie, those were like words from heaven. Although our styles were different and the eras in which we played in were completely different, one of the things I know I tried hard to copy was the tenacity that Andy had, because it’s transferable no matter what era you played in.”

After leaving the Giants, Robustelli was a successful businessman in his native Connecticut.

Born in Stamford, he played football and baseball at Stamford High before enlisting in the U.S. Navy at age 18. During World War II, Robustelli served on the USS William C. Cole in the Pacific Theater. When he returned from war, Robustelli attended Arnold College in nearby Bridgeport. He made his family home in Stamford, where he ran a successful travel agency.

Robustelli’s wife, Jeanne, died in April. She was 84. The couple had nine children, 29 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

Funeral arrangements are incomplete.

The 35-year-old Leaf had been experiencing headaches, dizziness and blurred vision before seeing a doctor May 18, his publicist, Margo Myers, told The Associated Press. He had surgery a week later at Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and was released Saturday.

“I am looking forward to resting a bit and being with my family,” Leaf said in the statement. “This was just another bridge for me to cross, and I will continue to live each day to the fullest and give back where I can!”

Leaf, a Great Falls, Mont., native, starred at Washington State, and the San Diego Chargers made him the second pick of the 1998 NFL draft. He played for the Chargers from 1998-2000 and for the Cowboys in 2001.

He threw for 3,666 yards and 14 touchdowns in his career, but is considered one of the league’s biggest busts.

In April 2010, Leaf pleaded guilty to eight felony drug charges in Texas and received 10 years of probation. He was at West Texas A&M coaching quarterbacks at the time.

Leaf just recently finished writing a draft of his first of three books he’s penning for Crimson Oak Publishing, a Pullman, Wash.-based publisher—about his life, football career and addiction to painkillers. He also writes a column for his alma mater’s website and sells resort packages in British Columbia.

Leaf also spends time talking to groups about his addiction.

By Doug Farrar

NFC East rival quarterbacks Tony Romo(notes) of the Dallas Cowboys and Eli Manning(notes) of the New York Giants now have something else in common — they've used the same wedding planner to help them tie the knot. Todd Fiscus, the man with the plan, set up what he called "man food" at Dallas' Arlington Hall on Saturday, when Romo married former Miss Missouri Candace Crawford. "I have a lot of football players to feed," said Fiscus, who had pizza and short ribs on the menu.

However, Romo apparently put all the tunes together. "Tony picked out every song, and when it plays, and what the keynote things are," Fiscus said.

Sounds like a very orderly occasion, but there was one wild card — whether Cowboys owner Jerry Jones would be able to attend. With the continued lockout, owners and players are not supposed to have any contact away from the negotiating table. But Jones received special dispensation from the NFL to attend, just as the Green Bay Packers recently were informed that they will, in fact, receive their Super Bowl rings in a June 16 ceremony no matter what the labor situation is at that time. Jones was there along with virtually all of Romo's teammates.

It is unknown whether Jones and Romo actually discussed any labor issues at the wedding — we're guessing this was more of a "friendly", though Jones is one of the most powerful owners on the NFL's side of things and Romo's marquee value gives him a lot of play on the other side.

"I've gotten special permission," Jones recently told ESPN's Ed Werder. "But more than anything, (I got the) right ticket from him and his fianceé — Romo's wife-to-be. (It's) one of prettiest invitations I've ever seen.

"So, yes, I will be there and (I'm) proud for him. He's got the best end of this deal."

Romo, who had been linked romantically before with Jessica Simpson and Carrie Underwood, proposed to Crawford last December. Crawford's brother Chace is known for his role on the TV show "Gossip Girl' and has also been linked romantically with Underwood.

According to the new Mrs. Romo, the lockout may play a part in the couple's plans for a honeymoon; usually around this time of year, her husband would be participating in minicamps and other off-season workouts.

"This lockout has been quite a dent in the honeymoon idea," she told WFAA-TV. "We'll see. We haven't really gotten there yet. We're taking a day at a time with the lockout. We (are not) even sure if we're gonna get to go (on) one."

Vick pleaded guilty to federal felony charges and served 18 months in prison for running Bad Newz Kennels from the property, which led him to financial ruin. He eventually sold the Surry County property to a developer who had difficulty unloading it following Vick’s conviction.

Dogs Deserve Better of Tipton, Pa., bought the five bedroom home for about $600,000.

“I think by us overtaking this property we are winning for the dogs. We are, in essence, giving this property back to the dogs that were abused there by using it to help other dogs just like them,” said Tamira Thayne, the group’s founder.

The organization paid for the house with a 30 percent down payment secured through donations and a loan. An anonymous donor has agreed to make payments for the next ten years, but Thayne said fundraising will continue.

Ultimately, the group wants to raise $3 million to fully pay for the site, install fencing and build a facility for the dogs. The house will serve as the group’s new headquarters and Thayne said she or another staff member will live there to monitor the dogs.

The home has four and a half bathrooms, two fireplaces, cathedral ceilings, walk-in closets and an attached, two-car garage.

Thayne said she has not had any contact with Vick but has been told a filmmaker wants to take Vick back to the property where the dogfighting has occurred.

Thayne said she isn’t sure what she would say to him if he visited.

“I would like to see that he’s really remorseful and I personally don’t feel that I’ve seen that because actions speak louder than words,” she said. “I haven’t seen him really put effort into making amends.”

The former Atlanta Falcons quarterback signed with the Philadelphia Eagles in August 2009, less than a month after his release, prompting an outcry from animal rights groups and animal-loving football fans.

Vick has since started working with the Humane Society of the United States to stop organized animal fighting and had a Pro Bowl season for the Eagles after taking over as the starting quarterback last fall.

“I’ve come to learn the hard way that dogfighting is a dead-end street,” Vick said in April in a statement posted on the Humane Society’s website following the release of an application for Android phones that featured dogfighting.

“Now, I am on the right side of this issue, and I think it’s important to send the smart message to kids, and not glorify this form of animal cruelty, even in an Android app.”

Eagles media representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Vick on the house sale.

Brock Vergakis can be reached at https://twitter.com/(hash)!/BrockVergakis

Online:

Dogs Deserve Better: http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org/

The Humane Society of the U.S. and Michael Vick: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/dogfighting/qa/vick— faq.html

The NFLPA’s rhetoric in the months leading up to this spring’s work stoppage never matched the issues. Nothing was serious enough to warrant a shutdown. Nobody will ache for the rookies who won’t get $40 million guaranteed in whatever new deal emerges, while the splitting of $1 billion in a league that has made so many rich is hardly a horrible problem to have. And yet the leaders of the players union were dying to decertify as far back as 2008, apparently screening executive director candidates on their willingness to push the nuclear option.

So now we are mired in the doldrums as each side waits to go through the motions with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, a body that has already signaled its intent to uphold the lockout. All of this is less a legal wrangle – if it ever was one – than a bout between egos tussling to see who can claim momentum and thus a victory before sitting down to the negotiations which could have been done in March.

At stake is only the football season.

The blame for this lockout should be shared equally. Fingers have rightly been pointing at the NFL’s owners for starting this mess. They are easy to hate right now, complaining of weak annual returns while sitting on civic assets worth north of $1 billion in some cases. In many instances, they extorted their communities for gleaming stadiums which only helped to fatten their wallets. They cut a labor deal they never wanted in 2006 to protect Paul Tagliabue’s legacy, then blew it up two years later, attempting to illegally squirrel away television money as a lockout fund.

Still, to scream at the owners while ignoring the NFLPA leaders’ behavior in the sandbox is misguided, for the NFLPA pushed this drive to the cliff in the final days of civility. Back when Judge David Doty ruled the NFL couldn’t collect its lockout stash from the television networks, the players were gaining momentum. They got the owners to bend. The owners even agreed to show parts of their books. It wasn’t everything, but it was something more than they offered before – a real sign of progress – only to have the players reject the attempt.

One source with knowledge of the negotiations said the message delivered by the players’ leadership was that the show of demanding the owners’ books had become too valuable a PR move to give up. Then, after threatening to blow up the talks with decertification and lawsuits, they did just that – leaving many to wonder if this is what they wanted to do all along.

But why? Decertifying and getting the courts to rule the lockout illegal was always a long shot. The Eighth Circuit loomed with a history of favoring business in labor matters. Yes, the union won free agency in a similar fashion in the early 1990s. It became a big part of the narrative of the NFLPA’s previous leader, Gene Upshaw, who often spoke fondly of those days. And it became a great selling point to the players, who have never had the stomach for a true labor dispute the way their colleagues in other sports have. What wasn’t peddled nearly as well was a very real risk that the court option would slam into a wall, cornering the players and leaving them with nowhere else to turn.

“Look at it this way: If the union loses a decertification lawsuit, then it has gone and shot everything it has,” said Michael Cramer, director of the University of Texas Sports and Media program, who went through labor disputes in baseball and hockey. “You drew a 13 at the blackjack table and now you’ve got to go back to the negotiating table with nothing. Who would have bet they’d win a decertification lawsuit? You just don’t do it.”

Cramer, who was part of a group that looked seriously at buying at least two NFL teams in recent years, is amazed the labor situation has gone this far – shaking his head at the actions of both players and owners who are fronted by leaders so desperate to establish their dominance.

“This is so unbelievably easy to solve – that would be if there was leadership on either side,” Cramer said. “This is a contract that should be agreed to tomorrow. That these two goofballs [Smith and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell] are waiting around for the courts to tell them what to do to get this solved is crazy.”

Then again, the NFLPA – which has spent heavily on outside legal fees in recent years – loves litigation. It always seemed the preferred weapon of Upshaw, who was criticized later in life for ignoring important issues such as disability and retirement benefits in favor of quick and easy revenue increases which keep current players happy. Smith was supposed to represent a change from those days.

Instead, we get bizarre moments such as his recent address to graduates at the University of Maryland, in which he ended an otherwise inspiring speech by pleading with the students to scream “You suck!” in an imitation of the drunken louts at Terrapin and Washington Redskins games.

“And for anybody who would ever think that it is the wrong thing to do to care so much that you’re willing to risk everything because it is right, reserve those two words for them,” he said to the crowd as graduates and parents stared dumbfounded.

Let’s hope the owners and players are secretly negotiating even as the court date looms, because it’s hard to believe the players are going to want to “risk everything” on oversized blather and a Hail Mary they had little chance to complete.

It’s just not the type of legislation in which Pittsburgh Steelers co-owner Dan Rooney would want to be associated.

The NFL took a significant step toward corralling vicious hits penalties by announcing during its spring meeting here that it will create a fine system for teams that are docked multiple times for devastating blows. NFL senior vice president for Law and Labor Policy Adolpho Birch said Tuesday that he wouldn’t rule out commissioner Roger Goodell applying further sanctions such as stripping clubs of NFL draft choices.

Still, expect the Steelers and their hard-hitting defense, led by finetastic linebacker James Harrison(notes), to get docked some serious coin if things don’t change this year. Clearly, Pittsburgh is the team the NFL is trying to deter most at the moment. The Steelers became the collective poster child for brutal hits during the 2010 season as Harrison was fined a total of four times for a combined $100,000.

“The Steelers change? …” an AFC head coach asked rhetorically, laughing after getting word of the new system. “It’s a nice try, but Mr. Rooney might as well just write out the check right now. Whatever they charge, the Steelers are going to pay.”

You can also be sure Pittsburgh coach Mike Tomlin will use the new rules as fodder for his players, feeding their perception that the NFL is after them and the only way to prove their greatness is to hammer everyone in their path.

In other words, the NFL just fired up the league’s defending runners-up. Everyone enjoy.

Birch declined to name any teams that would have been fined last year under the system the league is implementing. However, he said “three or four teams” would have qualified for such fines, which focus on hits to the head and neck area. Steelers co-owner Art Rooney said, “yes, we would’ve qualified.”

At the root of what the NFL did Tuesday was to make the game safer. From that perspective, the move was a positive and was met with approval from team owners and executives.

“With the greater emphasis on concussions and the damage that comes with the big hits, the league is trying to do everything it can to get these hits out of the game,” Green Bay Packers president and former NFL safety Mark Murphy said. “There’s just a greater recognition of what’s going on and that’s important.”

Birch said the exact system for fines had yet to be worked out, but would be adopted for this season.

Of course, whether there will be football played in which to fine teams or players is another question, but that will be decided later. For now, the league took an impressive step toward trying to control illegal hits by making it more expensive for teams with repeat behavior and not just hitting players in the pocketbook.

“I think it’s a positive step, something that all teams will pay attention to,” Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said. “If you’re taking money out of the team’s pocket, that will make everybody think.”

But it may not be enough to make teams and players change their approach.

In the 1980s, when former coach Joe Gibbs(notes) was leading the Washington Redskins and doing questionable things like “stashing” players on injured reserve that were fined by the league, owner Jack Kent Cooke asked Gibbs how much the fine would cost. When Gibbs answered and Cooke found the number acceptably low, he simply told Gibbs to keep doing whatever he was doing, fines be damned.

Steelers fans began to raise funds in Harrison’s behalf last season.
(Getty Images)

The reaction by teams such as the Steelers will likely be the same. Do whatever it takes to win and deal with the consequences later. While Steelers fans felt their team was persecuted last season by the league – from the Harrison fines to the suspension of quarterback Ben Roethlisberger(notes) – the fact is that the Steelers still made the Super Bowl for the third time in the past decade.

“The Steelers play a certain type of football and they’ve done it for a long time. They’re not going to change,” the opposing AFC coach said. “I don’t think it’s dirty. Yeah, they get penalized, but it’s about playing hard, not about taking out somebody’s knees.”

Maybe, but this is further emphasis on the fines the league imposed last season to deal with vicious, illegal hits. After a trio of hits featuring Harrison, Brandon Meriweather(notes) of the New England Patriots and Atlanta Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson(notes) in Week 6 games last season, Goodell fined all three and issued a strong warning to all players to play under more control.

In addition to the plan laid out by Birch, the league upgraded the rule on hits on defenseless players, making it so that receivers would have a chance to gather themselves and make a move before the defender could hit them, Atlanta president and NFL Competition Committee Chairman Rich McKay explained.

Finally, the league refined its rule on hits to the helmet of a quarterback, adding that such hits had to include “force” in order to receive a 15-yard penalty. McKay said refining the rule would eliminate roughly seven or eight questionable calls.

In arguments filed in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, just minutes before Friday’s midnight deadline, attorneys for the players reiterated their argument that the NFL has violated antitrust laws. They also argued the lockout has imposed immediate, career-ending threatening harm on players and may deprive the public of the 2011 professional football season.

“The players face immediate, continuing, severe irreparable injury from unlawful conduct orchestrated to force them to re-unionize against their will and make immense financial concessions,” the players’ attorneys wrote. “The NFL, by contrast, claims only a temporary loss of leverage by members of a cartel that is no longer entitled to any exemption from the antitrust laws.”

The longer the fight over how to divvy up $9 billion in annual revenue drags on, the closer the league and players get to missing games. The first preseason game is Aug. 7, with the regular season opener between the Saints and Packers set for Sept. 8 in Green Bay, Wis.

In Friday’s filing, the players reiterated that the decision to dissolve their union was their lawful right, and the absence of a collective bargaining agreement shouldn’t stop the NFL’s ability to “conduct professional football.” And, they argued, the harm they would suffer isn’t comparable to the league’s argument that it would suffer an “intangible blow to their ‘negotiating position’ and ‘leverage.”’

“The overwhelming inequity in that imbalance is patently obvious,” the players’ attorneys wrote.

The players have argued all along that their careers are being harmed by the work stoppage—they can’t work out, or sign contracts with any of the 32 clubs while the lockout persists. A federal judge in Minnesota agreed and lifted the lockout April 25, but the league appealed.

The appeals court reversed U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson’s decision just four days later. And on Monday, the appellate court ruled the lockout can stay in place until a full appeal is heard on whether it is legal. That hearing is set for June 3.

The players got some support Friday from other pro players and fans. The unions for hockey, baseball and basketball players filed a legal brief saying the lockout should be lifted because professional athletes’ careers are short, and the loss of even part of a season causes personal and professional injuries for which they can’t be compensated.

In their filing, the unions for the MLB, NBA and NHL wrote, “there is no off-season in professional sports—only the portion of the work year during which no games are played.” The unions said that part of the year brings opportunities—such as the option to change cities, teams or the trajectory of one’s career.

Also Friday, a nonprofit group that has been fighting sport work stoppages said the lockout should be lifted. The Sports Fans Coalition, which says it gives fans a voice on public policy issues and fights for fan access to games, said in a legal brief that the lockout is not in the best interest of fans, who pay billions of dollars to see their teams perform.

The players’ attorneys argued: “The NFL does not suffer irreparable harm from operating the game of football—especially at a profit.”

“Here, there is no question that the interest of the public—the fans, stadium workers, parking lot attendants, sports bars and restaurants, and local governments—favors an injunction to allow football to proceed on whatever lawful terms the NFL Defendants collectively impose,” the players’ attorneys wrote.

The group of players suing the league, including star quarterbacks Tom Brady(notes), Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes), have said the lockout is inflicting irreparable harm on their brief playing careers by preventing them from working out at team headquarters, holding full practices with teammates and coaches and jeopardizing games.

Their attorneys wrote that suggesting monetary damages, even triple damages, would fully redress the harm to players “ignores the reality of the game.”

The NFL has argued in its appeal that lifting the labor lockout without a new contract in place would allow better-off teams to sign the best players, tipping the NFL’s competitive balance and damaging the league.

The league also said that lifting the lockout with no labor deal in place would cause chaos, with teams trying to make decisions on signing free agents and making trades under a set of rules that could change drastically under a new agreement.

The league says the union’s move to decertify after the initial bargaining talks broke down is a sham; that Nelson does not have the jurisdiction to lift the lockout; and, that she should have waited for a decision from the National Labor Relations Board before issuing that ruling.

The players disagree with all those points.

They argued that by decertifying, every player gave up many rights, including having union representation at grievances, and the right to collectively bargain and strike. Now, players seek the protections of federal antitrust laws that limit monopolies.

The players also have a federal antitrust lawsuit against the league pending before Nelson. And attorneys for the players filed documents in U.S. District Court on Friday, opposing a league request for more time to respond to the claim. The league has argued it shouldn’t have to respond to the lawsuit until the appeal over the lockout is resolved.

But the players say the lawsuit will go forward whether or not the lockout is lifted and that the NFL’s request for an extension is “yet another deliberate step in their campaign to crush the players by extending the lockout for as long as they can.”

Officials and attorneys for both sides said they will return for more closed-door talks with U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan on June 7, four days after a key appeals court hearing in St. Louis on the legality of the lockout.

NFL lead negotiator Jeff Pash and Hall of Famer Carl Eller both said the talks went well, but there was no indication of any significant progress toward a new collective bargaining agreement. Pash said he thought Boylan had done a good job of “pushing the parties,” but he said he doesn’t believe the dispute over the future of the $9 billion business will be settled in court.

“The only way we’re going to solve this is by sitting down together,” Pash said, echoing the NFL’s preference for traditional negotiations in a collective bargaining setting and adding: “We owe it to our game. We owe it to our fans. We owe it to each other, to the players and to the clubs, to sit down and negotiate.”

Said Pash: “I think we got some work done today, and we’re going to keep at it.”

They’ve been at it for a long time.

The two sides met for 16 days before talks fell apart March 11 and the lockout began. Boylan, who presided over four days of mediation last month and two more days this week, also had lunch with DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Pash was coy when asked about the significance of that separate meeting.

“We weren’t invited. Us staff guys, you know, we didn’t rate for the big power lunch, so we’re eager to hear about it ourselves,” Pash said.

The two sides are not scheduled to meet again until June, just a month before training camps typically begin and just eight weeks before the first preseason game on Aug. 8.

“I feel we really got some movement between last night and today,” Eller said, declining like the rest of the participants to discuss details.

Linebacker Mike Vrabel(notes), one of the plaintiffs on the antitrust lawsuit against the league, questioned the NFL’s commitment to striking a deal outside the courthouse after mediation concluded.

“I don’t know if there’s any sense of urgency on their part,” Vrabel said. “I certainly understand that the closer you get to training camp, and the dates as players we’re used to reporting for training camp and playing preseason games and playing regular-season games, this thing becomes a lot more real for everybody involved. The players aren’t out there doing the work they’d normally be doing. They’re doing it on their own and they’re taking a lot of risk. I think that people appreciate the fact that guys are still preparing for a season.”

Vrabel added: “I think the most important thing is that we continue to meet.”

Owners have a regularly scheduled meeting next week, but Pash said they won’t be putting together a “plan of attack.”

“We’re not at war with anybody. These players are an integral part of our business, and we want to work with them,” he said.

There are some huge court matters looming, including the June 3 hearing before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the legality of the lockout, with a ruling likely a few weeks after. The same three-judge panel handling the hearing has already ruled twice in favor of the league, keeping the lockout in place.

U.S. District Judge David Doty is also deciding whether to award players more than $707 million in damages and to bar the NFL from using $4 billion in broadcast revenue. Doty has already said the league failed to secure the most income for the players when it re-negotiated those broadcast contracts.

Also, the federal antitrust lawsuit filed against the NFL by the players is still pending.

Robert Boland, a professor of sports management at New York University who is following the case, said the timing doesn’t help the players.

“The players have had great solidarity to this point, but that will get tighter as players go longer and longer without their workout and signing bonuses and get closer to the season,” Boland said. “The longer we go without any kind of sense of when they will get paid again, the more their internal resolve is tested and the harder it becomes to hold them together.”

He added: “Essentially, the NFL does want and need to play, but there’s really no incentive from a financial and technical perspective to rush that. They can allow the players to come back to them.”

Separately, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business lobbying group filed a brief Tuesday supporting the league.

The chamber, like the NFL, noted that the dispute is currently before the National Labor Relations Board in the form of an unfair labor negotiations charge against the players. Until then, the chamber said, the court fight should be on hold and the NFL should be able to lock out its players if needed.

“For the collective bargaining process to work as Congress intended, the parties to the dispute must largely be left by the courts to their own devices,” the chamber said. “The prospect of self-help forces the parties to make difficult choices” with the option of judges coming to their aid.”

The NHL, which could face its own labor problem next year, earlier filed a similar brief supporting the NFL.

AP Pro Football Writer Barry Wilner in New York and Associated Press Writer Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

Former Cowboys teammate Everson Walls, who donated a kidney to Springs for a transplant, says the Springs family informed him that his friend died about 4:30 p.m. Thursday at Medical City Dallas hospital.

The hospital is where Springs first slipped into the coma in 2007 after undergoing surgery to remove a cyst from his forearm about seven months after receiving the kidney.

In 2008, Springs’ wife, Adriane, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors she says caused brain damage to her husband during the cyst surgery.

Despite the lengthy coma, the death came as a surprise, Walls said.

“We are people of faith, and we never gave up home that he would regain consciousness,” he said. “He seemed to be holding his own. They say he just took a breath and he flat-lined.”

“He was such a worldly person who touched so many lives in every area code,” he said.

In a statement issued Thursday night, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said, “Ron’s life will always be remembered by the joy and laughter that he brought to others and the courage and toughness he displayed until the end. Regardless of the circumstances, he always had a smile for everyone. The Dallas Cowboys have lost a wonderful member of our family, and we share our thoughts and prayers with his family.”

Springs had suffered from diabetes for 20 years, a disease that not only caused his kidney failure but also led to the amputation of his right foot and the big and middle toes on his left foot and caused his hands to curl into knots.

He also was forced into a wheelchair and needed dialysis three times a week before receiving the transplant.

Springs was drafted by the Dallas Cowboys out of Ohio State in 1979 and became a starter alongside Tony Dorsett in ’81, the year Walls arrived as an undrafted rookie from Grambling. Springs left in 1985, finishing his career with two seasons in Tampa Bay.

He ran for 2,519 yards, had 2,259 yards receiving and scored 10 touchdowns in his NFL career.

In the four seasons Springs and Walls played together in Dallas, the two forged a strong friendship. Springs is the godfather of Walls’ oldest daughter, and Walls received the same honor for Springs’ youngest child.

Springs’ son, Shawn, also played for Ohio State and in the NFL.

Walls and Springs formed the Gift for Life Foundation, which aims to educate people about ways to prevent chronic kidney disease and dispel myths about the living donor process.

Funeral arrangements are pending and will be disclosed on the foundation website, Walls said.

AP Sports Writers Jaime Aron and Paul J. Weber contributed to this report.

The backlash to Rashard Mendenhall's Osama bin Laden tweets has gotten a little more real.

Mendenhall, Pittsburgh Steelers running back and guy who probably doesn't like Twitter anymore, has been let go as a spokesman for Champion. Here's the statement released by the company, via USA Today:

Champion is a strong supporter of the government's efforts to fight terrorism and is very appreciative of the dedication and commitment of the U.S. Armed Forces. Earlier this week, Rashard Mendenhall(notes), who endorses Champion products, expressed personal comments and opinions regarding Osama bin Laden and the September 11 terrorist attacks that were inconsistent with the values of the Champion brand and with which we strongly disagreed. In light of these comments, Champion was obliged to conduct a business assessment to determine whether Mr. Mendenhall could continue to effectively communicate on behalf of and represent Champion with consumers. While we respect Mr. Mendenhall's right to express sincere thoughts regarding potentially controversial topics, we no longer believe that Mr. Mendenhall can appropriately represent Champion and we have notified Mr. Mendenhall that we are ending our business relationship. Champion has appreciated its association with Mr. Mendenhall during his early professional football career and found him to be a dedicated and conscientious young athlete. We sincerely wish him all the best.

Mr. or Mrs. Champion, or whoever is in charge of the company, has a right to employ whoever they want as a celebrity endorser, and since Mendenhall's words run pretty contrary to public opinion, it's probably best for their bottom line to cut and run. I don't blame them.

They get some headlines out of the deal, too (like this one, for example), and they also get to release a tidy little statement in which they mention their company's name seven times in six sentences.

I'm pretty sure this won't be the case, but I hope this is where the punishment ends for Mendenhall.

At the end of the day, this is just a guy who tweeted something unpopular. He did not punch anyone in the face. He did not get picked up for driving drunk. He was not arrested for domestic abuse. He did not have a gun in a night club, father 47 children by 39 women, obstruct justice, fight dogs, commit sexual assault or send anyone unwanted pictures of his genitals.

No, what he did was question the celebration of death and wonder if maybe the government wasn't telling the people the truth (others have also done this recently). Is that so bad?

I'm not defending what Mendenhall said. You don't have to like it. I personally don't happen to agree with him, but that doesn't mean I'm going to permanently label him as an evil dipstick, either. It's OK with me that not everyone is going to be John Cena about this.

Even if Mendenhall is wrong -- really, really wrong -- it doesn't make him a bad guy. In fact, at the core of what he said, there's a seed of love and compassion. He spoke against hate and judgment.

He believes some unpopular things. That's it. I know that I cheer everyday for athletes with whom I would not agree on political or ethical issues, and you probably do the same. In fact, if you're a sports fan at all, it's overwhelmingly likely that you have cheered for guys who have broken actual laws and hurt actual people.

Mendenhall lost an endorsement, and he probably should have expected that. If he loses any more than that, though -- for example, the good will of the fans for the rest of his career -- it would be a shame. This is not a bad person.

In a tweet posted around 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, he linked to an in-depth blog post. In that entry, he wrote that he does not support bin Laden, and that he aimed clear things up, for not only himself, but also the Steelers.

On Monday, Pittsburgh’s leading rusher caused enough of a stir with his tweets, that the Steelers felt compelled to release a statement.

Among Mendenhall’s posts, the day after the bin Laden news broke, was: “What kind of person celebrates death? It’s amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We’ve only heard one side…” He also tweeted on the Sept. 11 attacks: “We’ll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style.”

[Related: Mendenhall’s original tweets on bin Laden]

Wednesday’s offering, though, was a different story.

“I appreciate those of you who have decided to read this letter and attain a greater understanding of my recent Twitter posts. I see how they have gotten misconstrued, and wanted to use this outlet as a way to clear up all things that do not truthfully represent myself, what I stand for personally, and any organization that I am a part of.

“First, I want people to understand that I am not in support of Bin Laden, or against the USA. I understand how devastating 9/11 was to this country and to the people whose families were affected. Not just in the U.S., but families all over the world who had relatives in the World Trade Centers. My heart goes out to the troops who fight for our freedoms everyday, not being certain if they will have the opportunity to return home, and the families who watch their loved ones bravely go off to war. Last year, I was grateful enough to have the opportunity to travel overseas and participate in a football camp put on for the children of U.S. troops stationed in Germany. It was a special experience. These events have had a significant impact in my life.”

Mendenhall also specifically pointed out the “celebrates death” tweet.

“This controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw in the event of a murder. I don’t believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics.”

[Related:The best athlete tweets on Osama bin Laden ]

He also tried to bring closure to the situation.

“Nothing I said was meant to stir up controversy. It was my way to generate conversation. In looking at my timeline in its entirety, everything that I’ve said is with the intent of expressing a wide array of ideas and generating open and honest discussions, something I believe we as American citizens should be able to do. Most opinions will not be fully agreed upon and are not meant to be. However, I believe every opinion should be respected or at least given some thought. I apologize for the timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm. I apologize to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name.”

On Tuesday, as Mendenhall’s offerings became a national story, team president Art Rooney II made sure the Steelers were heard from.

“I have not spoken with Rashard, so it is hard to explain or even comprehend what he meant with his recent Twitter comments,” he wrote in a statement. “The entire Steelers organization is very proud of the job our military personnel have done and we can only hope this leads to our troops coming home soon.”

[Related: Bin Laden death spurs star’s 9/11 memories]

Mendenhall, who profiles himself as a “conversationalist and professional athlete” on his Twitter page, turned some heads in March, as well, when he supported a comment by Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson comparing the NFL to “modern-day slavery.”

“Anyone with knowledge of the slave trade and the NFL could say that these two parallel eachother,” Mendenhall posted at the time.

Mendenhall is coming off a tremendous season, as he led the AFC champions in carries (324), rushing yards (1,273) and rushing touchdowns (13). He has 2,439 yards in three seasons since being drafted in the 2008 first round out of Illinois.

In the 2010 postseason, Mendenhall ran for 230 yards on 61 carries in three games with four touchdowns, as Pittsburgh defeated the Baltimore Ravens (31-24) and New York Jets (24-19), before falling to the Green Bay Packers 31-25 in the Super Bowl.

As a result of the controversy, Mendenhall saw a spike in his followers on Twitter. On Tuesday afternoon, he had 13,631. On Wednesday afternoon, he had 36,914.

He personally follows 67 on Twitter. Included in the group he’s following is the Dalai Lama, comedian Sarah Silverman and the Park Community Church in Chicago.

Whether that includes rules for free agency, the NFL draft that begins Thursday night or simply whether players can talk with their coaches was anyone’s guess.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson late Wednesday rejected the NFL’s request to put her order lifting the lockout on hold pending further appeals. She dismissed the NFL’s argument that she didn’t have jurisdiction and that it’s facing irreparable harm because of her decision to end the 45-day lockout at the request of the players.

“The world of ‘chaos’ the NFL claims it has been thrust into—essentially the ‘free-market’ system this nation otherwise willfully operates under—is not compelled by this court’s order,” Nelson wrote.

And yet chaos there may be, perhaps as early as Thursday, the first day of the NFL draft.

James Quinn, a lawyer for the players, said free agency—the biggest immediate question for owners and players alike—should start immediately. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league is “evaluating the district court’s decision” and would advise teams Thursday morning on how to proceed.

The NFL Players Association, now a trade group and not a union, accused the league of stalling.

“On the eve of one of the greatest fan events in sports, the players moved another step closer to bringing the fans football,” spokesman George Atallah said in an email to The Associated Press. “Owners seem determined to prevent that from happening. The NFL owners are not litigating to protect the game. They’re litigating to protect a lockout.”

Nelson’s ruling was not a surprise, given her questioning of NFL attorney David Boies during an April 6 hearing and her 89-page order lifting the lockout. She wrote another 20 pages in her denial, declaring the public’s interest in the resumption of league operations.

The judge acknowledged her decision will be appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, and Aiello said that step was being taken immediately. The appellate court is viewed as a more friendly venue to businesses like the league than the federal courts in Minnesota.

“We believe there are strong legal and practical reasons that support a stay and that the Court of Appeals should have an opportunity to address the important legal issues that will be presented,” Aiello said.

League rules have effectively been shelved since the collective bargaining agreement ended on March 11 and the NFL’s first work stoppage since 1987 began.

Nelson said that needn’t be the case.

She suggested that the NFL “make a decision about how to proceed and accept the consequences” of that choice. In saying the NFL could go about its business, Nelson noted that the league had already gone forward with the draft and announced the 2011 schedule.

Nelson also pointed to the contract tenders teams issued to restricted free agents in March before the lockout, “treating them as if the league intended to operate with the 2010 rules in place.”

What the NFL will do Thursday was anyone’s guess, though Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy suggested earlier the 2010 rules might be used.

“What we would probably do if Judge Nelson and the 8th Circuit deny our request for a stay would be play under the same rules that we had last year,” Murphy said Tuesday. “It’s 2010 rules, those were agreed to by the players in the collective bargaining agreement, I think that’s probably the rules that make the most sense.”

Bears safety Chris Harris(notes) put it this way on his Twitter feed: “Owners have to open doors. Its impossible to start the NEW LEAGUE YR without Free Agency.”

And agent Drew Rosenhaus tweeted: “Time to get busy! Let’s work!”

The NFL had argued that Nelson had no jurisdiction and that she shouldn’t make a decision while a complaint of bad-faith negotiation against the players was still pending with the National Labor Relations Board. The league also said it shouldn’t be subject to some of the antitrust claims leveled by the players with the collective bargaining deal barely expired.

The judge shot all of those down and said the antitrust arguments in a still-pending lawsuit led by Tom Brady(notes), Drew Brees(notes) and others have not been aired and are therefore not up for discussion yet.

“There is no injunction in place preventing the NFL from exercising, under its hoped-for protection of the labor laws, any of its rights to negotiate terms and conditions of employment, such as free agency,” she wrote. “The Eighth Circuit will not even be addressing, much less ruling on, player restraints, free agency, etc., for the simple reason that this court did not rule on those issues.”

The league’s plea to Nelson for the stay also was based on a purported fear that an immediate lifting of the lockout would result in a free agency free-for-all that could create a mess that would be difficult to undo should a new collective bargaining agreement lead to different rules.

Nelson called that an “incorrect premise.” She insisted that her order was simply an end to the lockout.

The two sides had 16 days of talks with a mediator earlier this year, and four more with a federal magistrate that were ordered up by Nelson. Little progress has been seen, and the two sides are scheduled to meet again May 16.

AP Football Writers Howard Fendrich and Barry Wilner contributed to this report.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered an immediate end to the lockout Monday, siding with the players in their fight with the owners over how to divide the $9 billion business.

The NFL immediately said it would ask Nelson to put her order on hold so the league can pursue an expedited appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

Nelson granted a request for a preliminary injunction to lift the lockout, saying she was swayed by the players’ argument that the NFL’s first work stoppage since 1987 is hurting their careers.

The plaintiffs “have made a strong showing that allowing the League to continue their ‘lockout’ is presently inflicting, and will continue to inflict, irreparable harm upon them, particularly when weighed against the lack of any real injury that would be imposed on the NFL by issuing the preliminary injunction,” Nelson wrote.

If the injunction is upheld, the NFL must resume business, although under what guidelines is uncertain.

It could invoke the 2010 rules for free agency, meaning players would need six seasons of service before becoming unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire; previously, it was four years. The requirement for unrestricted free agents would be four years rather than the three years before 2010. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much— or as little—as they wanted.

Also, the NFL would need to determine what or if offseason workouts can be held while the appeal is being heard.

Clearly, it’s complicated.

Jim Quinn, an attorney for the players said time is of the essence.

“They better act quickly, because as of right now there’s no stay and, presumably, players could sign with teams,” he said. “There are no guidelines as of right now, so they have to put something in place quickly.”

Owners imposed the lockout after talks broke down March 11 and the players disbanded their union. A group of players filed the injunction request along with a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the league.

Nelson’s ruling simply lifts the lockout and does not address any of the antitrust issues. That will come another day.

“We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes,” the league said. “We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”

The NFL is going forward with the draft, which begins Thursday night.

Dolphins alternate player representative John Denney(notes) said he didn’t think the ruling was the end of the dispute.

“Right now we got what we wanted, but it may be temporary,” he said. “We’ll have to let the judicial process play out.”

At the hearing before Nelson on April 6, the crux of the argument from NFL lawyer David Boies was that the court shouldn’t have control of a conflict that grew out of a labor dispute. Boies even tried to lighten the mood by telling her, “No lawyer ever wants to stand in front of a judge and say, ‘You don’t have jurisdiction.”’

The owners, in support of their argument, pointed to their pending unfair labor charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board that the players didn’t negotiate in good faith.

Nelson disagreed—and threw cold water on that hope, too.

“Although the NFL has filed a charge here, the NLRB has yet to issue any complaint and, in this court’s considered judgment, it is likely that the Board will dismiss the charge,” she wrote in her ruling.

Nelson rejected the league’s prediction that the NLRB would see the union’s breakup as temporary, thus supporting the assertion that the dissolution was purely a tactical move.

“There is no legal support for any requirement that a disclaimer be permanent,” Nelson wrote. “Employees have the right not only to organize as a union but also to refrain from such representation and, as relevant here, to ‘de-unionize.”’

Nelson also stated that the so-called decertification was legitimate because of “serious consequences” for the players.

Nelson heard arguments on the injunction at a hearing on April 6 and ordered the two sides to resume mediation while she was considering her decision. The owners and players, who failed to reach consensus after 16 days of mediated talks earlier this year, met over four days with a federal magistrate but did not announce any progress on solving the impasse.

They are not scheduled to meet again until May 16, four days after another judge holds a hearing on whether players should get damages in their related fight with owners over some $4 billion in broadcast revenue.

And now comes Nelson’s decision to lift the injunction.

“(T)he public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales,” she wrote. “And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football—who have a strong investment in the 2011 season—is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation.”

With appeals expected, the fight seems likely to drag on through the spring and, possibly, into the summer. The closer it gets to August, when training camps and the preseason get into full swing, the more likely it becomes that regular season games will be lost.

Osi Umenyiora(notes), the New York Giants defensive end and one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “win for the players and for the fans” in a statement.

“The lockout is bad for everyone, and players will continue to fight it,” Umenyiora said. “We hope that this will bring us one step closer to playing the game we love.”

AP Sports Writers Barry Wilner and Steven Wine contributed to this report.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Thursday the league notified the firm of the denial. The firm later was identified as Barnes & Thornburg of Indianapolis.

Aiello said it would be inappropriate to allow the firm to work with players in a claim against the NFL while one of its partners represents the league in music licensing for shows on NFL Network and NFL Films.

“While we do not know the specifics of the claims that would be asserted or the players who would be involved, we cannot consent to the firm’s request to grant a waiver,” Aiello said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Cafferty Faucher attorney Bryan Clobes has said his firm had “discussions about representing some additional players who want to have a voice” in the court fight. But Clobes said Thursday that the firm the NFL is referring to is not Cafferty Faucher, and stated that his firm has not represented the NFL in any matters.

The Sports Business Journal reported that the group seeking a voice in labor negotiations includes about 70 players upset that collective bargaining talks broke off last month. Clobes told The AP the number is “nowhere near 70” and the discussions did not indicate dissatisfaction with the representation for the 10 players listed as plaintiffs on the lawsuit filed March 11.

That was when the CBA expired and the union dissolved to pursue the antitrust suit. The league responded by ordering the lockout.

The players asked U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson to immediately halt the lockout at a hearing April 6. Her ruling is expected soon.

The NFL also argued Thursday in a court filing that players don’t deserve millions of dollars in damages after a different federal judge ruled against the league in a wrangling over $4 billion in broadcast rights revenue.

U.S. District Judge David Doty ruled March 1 the NFL failed to maximize revenue for both sides to share when it negotiated the last round of TV contract extensions with the networks.

The players requested revenue “left on the table” in 2009 and 2010, but lawyers for the league wrote Thursday there’s no evidence networks would’ve paid more in those years to remove work-stoppage provisions that would bring the NFL money even if no games are played in 2011.

The league argued that because a special master for Doty previously awarded $6.9 million in damages to the players, there’s no legal basis for their request. The NFL wrote that lawyers for the players “never once claimed, argued for or briefed the issue of punitive damages” until now and accused them of trying to “second guess” special master Stephen Burbank with that strategy.

The players requested the $4 billion “war chest” be kept away from the owners so they couldn’t use it to “continue to fund” the lockout against them. They also asked for at least three times the total amount of compensation awarded by the court.

Doty will preside over a hearing May 12 to consider the damages request.

The players used a written claim by finance expert David Schulte in their last filing March 31 to argue for the damages, but the NFL countered Thursday that Schulte’s prior testimony in front of the special master contradicted the latest request.

According to the court document, Schulte told Burbank he had no “clue” how to accurately assess an appropriate amount of monetary damages.

The two sides left the federal courthouse in Minneapolis after about four hours of talks, following nine hours of meetings on Thursday. They will meet again Tuesday.

Hall of Famer Carl Eller, who is representing retired players in the antitrust lawsuit against the league, said he thinks the two sides are “moving forward” but the process “slowed a little bit” Friday.

“There is progress, but it wasn’t like we’re right around the corner,” Eller said. “We could resolve it if we had met on the weekend, but maybe not.”

U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who is overseeing the sessions, assigned some weekend homework, according to Michael Hausfeld, an attorney for the players.

“The judge has asked us to provide answers to over a half-dozen questions that he’s asked,” Hausfeld said, declining to provide details. “There’s a lot of work.”

With the 2011 season in jeopardy, Boylan is overseeing this round of talks after 16 days of mediated sessions in Washington failed to secure a new labor pact.

“We need to have some productivity,” Eller said. “We need to come out of here with something, and I think that there is a sense of realism on the judge’s part. It’s not just talk. Just getting together to talk is not productive.”

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who ordered the mediation, is still considering a request from the players to lift the lockout imposed by the owners. After an April 6 hearing, she said she planned to rule on the injunction request in a couple of weeks—which would mean next week.

Players including MVP quarterbacks Tom Brady(notes) and Peyton Manning(notes) filed the request along with a class-action antitrust suit against the league. The lawsuit has been combined with two other similar claims from retirees, former players and rookies-to-be, with Eller the lead plaintiff in that group.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, four team owners and several league executives and lawyers left the building without speaking to reporters. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, via e-mail, declined to comment.

DeMaurice Smith, the NFL Players Association executive director, also refused to talk. He left the courthouse with lawyers and linebackers Ben Leber(notes) and Mike Vrabel(notes), two other plaintiffs in the antitrust suit filed March 11 when the last collective bargaining agreement expired, the union dissolved and the lockout began.

At least the mood appeared light.

Reporters staking out the closed-door session were greeted with smiles and goodbyes from negotiators and attorneys as they departed. In a packed elevator on the way down to the lobby, Smith needled Vrabel by deadpanning to media members inside, “All right, in all seriousness, Mike is going to have a statement. You ready?”

Silence.

Then laughter.

The NFL’s first work stoppage since the 1987 strike, of course, is no joke for either side—especially for the fans who pay to sit in the seats at sparkling new stadiums, buy replica jerseys to show their support and watch out-of-market games on satellite television.

“I’m a fan, too,” Eller said earlier this week. “We would like to ease their minds. We can’t tell them the outcome, but we are very interested in having a football season.”

That’s one shared goal between the two sides. With the dispute now in court, public relations is a major part of the effort for each side—through press releases, links and comments on Twitter, and communicating directly to the public in the push to get the message out.

“We’re going to make sure we have football, and more of it,” Goodell said this week in a conference call with Cleveland Browns season-ticket holders.

Said Smith after the April 6 hearing in Nelson’s court: “Keep rooting for the players, and keep rooting for football.”

Spin and rhetoric has been intense at times from both corners, but Aiello said the league doesn’t view this as a public relations battle with the players.

“Our job always is to keep fans informed,” Aiello said. “That is what we’re doing in this situation.”

NFLPA spokesman George Atallah didn’t return messages this week.

The players have a website, nfllockout.com, that highlights community outreach and charitable efforts by the players and includes talking points for their side.

The NFL website, nfllabor.com, is a similar version for the league. Lead negotiator Jeff Pash recently wrote an op-ed column in the Chicago Tribune, stressing concessions the NFL has made with a list of highlights of its latest offer before talks broke down.

Eller sounded optimistic, not only about the progress but the opportunity to represent his fellow retired players, who have pushed for better benefits and care from the league for years.

“We don’t drive this. We need them both,” said Eller, referring to the current players and the league owners. “Our needs hinge on both of them. It’s not an either-or situation for us. …

“What I want the retirees to understand is that we are carving a unique situation. … We’re at the table, and I think this is something that they ought to be able to rejoice at an early stage, because where we go from here, it’s going to be a major move.”

Even that may not be enough to get these two sides back together in what has turned into a bitter dispute.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson told both sides Wednesday that it could take “a couple of weeks” for her to rule on the players’ request to lift the lockout imposed by owners and let them get back to the job.

In the meantime, she urged both sides to get back to the bargaining table and hammer out a deal before she makes the first of what could be many legal decisions.

“It seems to me both sides are at risk, and now is a good time to come back to the table,” Nelson said.

James Quinn, an attorney for the players, said they’d “listen carefully” to Nelson’s recommendation. But David Boies, a lawyer for the league, hedged when asked about Nelson’s offer to supervise talks.

“We don’t need a settlement of this lawsuit,” Boies said. “What we need is a collective bargaining agreement so that players can go on playing and the league can put on games. Until we have that, we’re not going to make any progress.”

Boies said in court that “there are numerous factual disagreements between the parties.”

The first issue is whether Nelson should issue a preliminary injunction that would lift the lockout. The players argue their careers are being “irreparably harmed” by the work stoppage.

The owners argue that the court doesn’t have the jurisdiction to impose the injunction while the National Labor Relations Board is considering an unfair labor charge filed by the league that players didn’t negotiate in good faith.

The three highest-profile plaintiffs in the players’ antitrust lawsuit against the league—Tom Brady(notes), Drew Brees(notes) and Peyton Manning(notes)—were not in attendance. Plaintiffs Ben Leber(notes), Mike Vrabel(notes), Vincent Jackson(notes), Brian Robison(notes) and Von Miller were in court, accompanied by veterans Charlie Batch(notes) and Tony Richardson(notes).

Hall of Famer Carl Eller, the lead plaintiff in a separate, similar case filed by retirees, former players and rookies, was also present. Nelson approved a motion to consolidate those cases, and attorney Michael Hausfeld—on behalf of the Eller group—took turns with Quinn arguing against and rebutting Boies.

“All of these players are being affected every day by being locked out,” Quinn said.

Boies said the union’s decertification was “a sham,” and likened it to flipping a light switch to turn the negotiations over the $9 billion business in their favor.

But Nelson pressed Boies over and over again on the players’ right to decertify, saying she was having a hard time seeing how antitrust exemptions protect a lockout after a union has disbanded.

“It’s a big risk on their part,” Nelson said of the players’ decision, “and they lose a lot by doing it.”

Boies claimed players are still acting like a union, that the NFL Players’ Association is funding the litigation and has set up other services for the players as if it were a fully formed labor entity. DeMaurice Smith, the head of the NFLPA, attended the hearing, and the players, lawyers and union officials arrived and departed together in a bus.

“They’re financing this lawsuit,” Boies said. “They’re saying, ‘We’re no longer a collective bargaining agent, but we’re going to continue to do all these things.”’

Quinn dismissed the accusation, pointing to unanimous participation in a player vote to approve the move.

“It’s not some kind of tactic. It’s the law,” Quinn said. “It’s what we’re allowed to do.”

When she reveals her decision, the winner would have leverage whenever talks resume on a new CBA. However, that ruling will likely be appealed. She could also defer a decision until after the NLRB rules, which could take months, or declare the need to schedule another hearing to consider the evidence in the case before she rules.

That would be a loss for the players as well.

“We’re just trying to get the game of football back,” Robison said. “That’s why we’re here today. That’s why hopefully the judge will grant us this injunction so we can start going back to work.”

When the five-hour hearing concluded, Nelson offered to help facilitate a return to the mediation table in hopes of bringing this matter, and the subsequent antitrust lawsuit filed by the players, to a close.

“This is really a matter that should be resolved because a lot of people are impacted by this dispute,” she said. “I hope both sides take advantage of (mediation).”

AP Sports Writer Dave Campbell contributed to this report.

After Nelson hears arguments from both sides regarding the lockout during Brady v. NFL on April 6, here is a devilishly wonderful scenario she could come up with to hammer both sides and really force them to settle their differences. This idea comes courtesy of a clever lawyer who has read the legal briefs from both the players and the owners so far.

Nelson could declare that the lockout by owners is illegal, that the NFL Players Association is not a union and then hold her decision in abeyance for 90 days. What that means is that the league wouldn’t have very strong grounds to fight her decision in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. It would also mean that the players wouldn’t have the ability to get new contracts signed until July, hurting their chances to get rich deals in free agency.

In other words, both sides would have plenty of incentive to work out a new collective bargaining agreement.

Right now, that’s what the owners and players need – a legal kick in the rear. While both sides would like to talk and have said as much publicly, they can’t get it done for legal reasons. The owners want to talk in mediation, which puts the players in a bind. The players want to talk in court over a settlement, which puts the owners in a bind.

“We want to [get a deal] as fast as possible, but we also recognize that we had to be prepared for other alternatives,” said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell during Tuesday’s league meetings, reciting the kind of double talk that fans have become infuriated by over the past few weeks and months when it comes to the labor negotiations.

Truth is, both sides deserve to get slapped and Nelson is the only one who can do it in a forceful way right now. Currently, this circus is being run by lawyers, guys who are experts in turning nuance into billion-dollar judgments.

Jones with Dolphins owner Stephen Ross on Tuesday.
(Gerald Herbert/AP Photo)

What needs to happen is for owners such as Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Art Rooney II and John Mara to get in a room with Peyton Manning(notes), Drew Brees(notes), Tom Brady(notes), Vincent Jackson(notes) and Mike Vrabel(notes) and discuss their differences. The owners need to hear that the players feel disrespected. The players need to hear that the owners have serious financial concerns. The players need to tell the owners that they can’t take a system that changes the way the players get paid from a percentage of the gross to a fixed cost.

Do that, and many of the other issues in this problem could fade away.

Instead, both sides are waiting for April 6, hoping their side will prevail.

“Nothing is going to happen for either side until [Nelson] decides the injunction issue,” one NFL lawyer said.

True, but even if the players win an injunction, the league is set to go the distance in the legal battle. On Monday, the league put outside attorneys Gregg Levy, Bob Batterman, David Boies and Paul Clement on display to explain their arguments to the media. While much of the legalese went over the head of the many reporters involved in this situation, there was an obvious bottom line: The NFL hired the four lawyers with the sole intent of fighting the union for as long as necessary. For instance, Batterman talked about going through months of work with the National Labor Relations Board over whether the NFLPA can really decertify.

If that battle goes on for months, players will watch as their careers die on the vine. The short-term need to get signed to a new contract and get working with a team will disappear like so many legal briefs into filing cabinets throughout the courthouses of this nation.

The owners will gain short-term leverage over the players by the day. In turn, the long-term fight will get uglier for the owners if the players are able to gain victories in the court.

In the meantime, there is one woman who can solve the whole thing with a swing of her hammer and a judicious opinion. Nelson could send both sides reeling, forcing the two into talks. That’s what should be happening because, if nothing else, the owners are right about one thing.

This deal is not going to be settled without discussion between both sides. It is not really going to get settled in the courts, at least not quickly.

But a settlement can be pushed by Judge Nelson.

Here’s hoping she can get it done.

The owners’ labor dispute with the now decertified NFL Players Association – I’ll resist calling this a battle or a war since the players are bunkering up at a Gulf-side beach resort here at the southwest tip of Florida and the owners are meeting at a high-end hotel in New Orleans next week – is becoming one of the most irritating showdowns in the history of sports labor.

Both sides are wrapped up in trying to win a PR battle that really is like the old nuclear buildup strategy between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. The only end game is mutually assured destruction.

Right now, the league and the trade association are in a full arms, er, rhetoric race. Before Banner’s remark, the two sides traded barbs around the negotiations, including trade association president Kevin Mawae(notes) accusing the league of lying. Since Banner’s remark, DeMaurice Smith, former executive director of the NFLPA, referred to the league’s offer as the “worst deal in the history of sports.” That was followed by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sending a letter to all players attempting to explain the league’s offer and asking players to urge the trade association to return to the table. Guard Chester Pitts(notes), the Seattle Seahawks’ player representative, reacted to Goodell’s letter by saying: “I told my guys to set the letter on fire. We’re not that stupid.”

Ugly banter aside, Banner’s inane comment from an interview on Profootballtalk.com on Wednesday is a prime example of how distorted the whole thing has gotten.

“If you looked going forward over the next four years, this would produce somewhere between $19-20 billion in cash and benefits to the players. If you look back at the last four years, that number was a little bit over $17 billion,” Banner said. The quote was then used for a blog item that was titled, “Players offered $2 billion over next four years.”

Here’s the problem with what Banner is saying: The $19 or $20 billion figure he’s throwing out is not a nearly $2 billion pay raise, it’s a nearly $2 billion pay cut.

In 2010, the NFL grossed $9.3 billion between all of its TV contracts, ticket sales and other revenue streams. During negotiations before the start of the lockout, the NFL told the union that it expects those revenues to grow, conservatively, by 4 percent in 2011, 4 percent in 2012, 2.5 percent in 2013 and 2.5 in 2014. However, those numbers could drastically change when the league negotiates new TV contracts in 2013 and 2014.

So if you start at $9.3 billion and use the aforementioned percentage increases that the league laid out, according to Smith, the total gross revenue for the NFL over the next four years combined will come out to approximately $40.6 billion. Then, if you apply the old revenue-sharing formula from the previous collective bargaining agreement (the owners get the first $1 billion each year for expenses and the rest is split with the players getting 60 percent), the players stood to earn $21.96 billion over the next four years.

Regardless how Banner spins it, $21.96 billion is a long way from $20 billion.

Of course, the anger of the general public with this situation is understandable. Most fans can’t comprehend the millions of dollars that players make or the billions of dollars that get spent on the game. In short, how can two sides with so much going for them somehow screw this up?

But before you let emotion and hyperbole get the best of you, just stop and think about what it would be like to take a significant pay cut. Say you make $66,000 a year in a business that’s making a good profit. Do you think it would be OK if your boss asked you to take a $6,000 pay cut?

That’s basically what the NFL is asking the players to do. And they’re asking the players to do it without seeing the financial statements. In fact, trade association executive committee member Sean Morey(notes) said Thursday that the conversation turned almost demeaning when the players asked for the books.

Morey (left) and Smith prior to one of last week’s mediations.
(Alex Brandon/AP Photo)

“They said if they provided that information [we] wouldn’t be able to understand it,” said Morey, who went to Brown University. “You know what, we’re players, we’re coachable, help us understand it.”

While that’s part of the nastiness that goes with high-powered negotiations, the fact is that the trade association needs to justify any such decision to take less and it’s not getting justification.

“The numbers that they’re willing to provide don’t give us any sort of definitive ability to analyze that data and reach any definitive conclusion as to what we can negotiate and what is a fair deal,” Morey said.

At the same time, the owners are not wrong for asking for a change in how the money is distributed if they indeed see a need and can justify it. There are reasonable investments that the owners have to make that will ultimately benefit the players. For instance, there is a drastic need for new stadiums in cities like Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco and perhaps Los Angeles, if a team moves there. However, taking a nearly $2 billion cut without justification (the owners still won’t open the books to the extent the players want) is bad business if you’re the players.

For weeks, the trade association had talked about giving the owners a benefit on the backside of the deal, a concept that is known as a “true up,” as in the true upward value of a business. If, for instance, the NFL grew by more than the conservative estimates, the owners would get the initial payoff on that growth. In each year, the owners would get the potential to take the next 1.5 percent in growth above the conservative estimate.

For example, if the NFL grew by 5.5 percent rather than the estimated 4 percent in 2011, the owners wouldn’t split the entire growth. They would split the first 4 percent, then keep the entire next 1.5 percent. Based on the $9.3 billion the league made in 2010, the next 1.5 percent of growth is worth almost $140 million. Without having to split that money with the players, that’s approximately $84 million extra in just one year for the owners based on the old 60-40 split.

Overall, for the first four years of the deal, the players were giving the owners a chance to make another $350 million through this means alone. Again, considering that the growth rates listed by the NFL were conservative and that new TV deals are coming, it was a pretty safe bet for the owners to make that money.

The problem is that the owners’ last proposal put no limit on the increase. Instead of getting the next 1.5 percent before splitting the money again, the owners wanted it all. Thus, if the league grew by 7 percent instead of 4 percent, the owners would have had a windfall and the players would have been holding the bag.

“The players recognize it’s in our best interests to give the owners an incentive to make money because we benefit from the doing that,” a trade association source said. “But they could have made a killing on us if we let them keep it all.”

While one NFL source called the concept of there being a lot of value in the “true up” side of the deal “speculative,” that misses the point. The point is that there is potential value and the players deserve their share of it if the potential is realized.

It’s sort of like this: If you invent some great iPhone application and sell it to Apple, don’t you think you’d want a percentage of the sales?

On the flip side, the players need to realize that there is a point at which fighting the NFL is counterproductive. Smith has often talked about challenging the league’s antitrust exemption. While that might be scary to the owners and their ability to work out the best deals with the TV networks, it ultimately might lessen the value of the overall deals and decrease the amount the players get.

Same goes for opening the books of all the teams. While it’s a good negotiating ploy for the players, the fact is that having the owners open the books might create more public resentment of the NFL. More public resentment equals less chance to get public assistance for stadiums and other high-end expenses that ultimately create profits for the players to share.

In other words, it’s time for both sides to realize they need each other much more than they need a long, protracted fight. It’s time for them to be more upfront and, most important, completely honest.

The outcome of the league’s first work stoppage since 1987 could be decided in court; the first hearing on the players’ request for an injunction to block the owners’ lockout was scheduled for April 6. In the meantime, there probably will be more of the same as Monday, when Kevin Mawae(notes)—president of the NFL Players Association, the now-dissolved union—accused the league of spreading “complete falsehoods and complete lies.”

New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees(notes), on the same conference call as Mawae, said the owners’ final offer Friday “was all a front.”

“I think it was all a show, with no real intent to get a deal done, other than just to say they made a proposal—that was no different than anything else that they proposed over the last couple years, couple months, couple weeks,” said Brees, a named plaintiff in the players’ antitrust lawsuit against the league.

Brees and Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday(notes), also a member of the players’ executive committee, complained that the players were not given enough time to assess and ask questions about the proposal owners made Friday morning.

“It just seems odd you would wait until Friday to put out a 20-point proposal, when each point has a number of different details in it,” Saturday said.

The NFL’s lead labor negotiator, Jeff Pash, said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that Friday’s proposal contained various new provisions. He said owners offered a 10-year deal.

“I was frankly surprised that the (owners’ labor) committee supported an offer as forthcoming as that was,” Pash said.

He also said the league would have been willing to agree to a third extension to the collective bargaining agreement, which originally was due to expire at the end of March 3, before two delays. But another extension, he said, “wasn’t really discussed in a serious way, because it was perfectly obvious they weren’t interested.”

By the end of Friday, talks broke off, the union announced it no longer would represent players, Brees and others filed suit, and the owners imposed a lockout at midnight.

“If they were saying they were not going to negotiate, under any circumstance, after 4 p.m. on Friday, don’t you think you have to ask yourself: Who was it who was in Washington putting on a show?” Pash said.

“We answered all the questions they had at the time, and we never put a deadline on it. We’re not the ones who were filing a lawsuit at 5 o’clock,” Pash said.

For all the things the owners and players disagree on, the two main sticking points are clear: how much money owners would get up front before dividing the rest of $9 billion in annual revenues with players, and the union’s demand for full financial disclosure.

“If we’re going to talk about ‘trust,’ maybe you should ask the owners if they trust each other to see each others’ books,” Mawae said. “I think that’s a greater issue than the players trusting the owners.”

Under the old CBA, owners received more than $1 billion to cover certain operating expenses, before other money was split with players. When negotiations began on a new deal, the owners sought an additional $1 billion off the top. Both sides acknowledge there was movement in that area.

But as the NFLPA’s lead spokesman, George Atallah, put it Monday: “The perception is that we were really, really close. The reality is we really, really weren’t.”

Because the NFLPA says it no longer is a union, but rather a trade association—a distinction the NFL calls a “sham”—Atallah said any decision to return to negotiations would be up to the lawyers representing the players, rather than NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. Asked whether there would be talks before the April 6 hearing, Atallah replied: “As of now, no.”

The league, meanwhile, would prefer to return to the negotiating table. Starting Feb. 18, the sides met 16 times at federal mediator’s office.

“We would get back together with them tomorrow if they wanted to. We’re not the ones who walked out. We’re not the ones who renounced our status. We’re not the ones who filed litigation,” Pash said. “So we would get back together with them tomorrow. And if they have questions about our proposal, we’d answer them. If they have alternatives they want us to consider, we’d consider them.”

Mawae said that if the NFL contends the union walked away from mediation, “that’s a fabrication and a lie. We sat in that room … Tuesday and Wednesday of last week for 16 hours. … We met face-to-face a total of 30 minutes.”

The negotiations between the NFL and the NFL Players Association took a decidedly nasty turn by Thursday night with league attorney Jeff Pash taking a thinly veiled shot at the union’s negotiating tactics and union head DeMaurice Smith ripping right back.

In fact, the NFLPA’s executive director was so riled by Pash’s remarks that he stopped his commute home, went back to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, stood in the rain and unleashed his reaction

Pash started the war of words by saying: “It’s a process, it’s not an event and things can come together quickly, things can fall apart quickly. All I can say is we’re committed to the process. It’s not glamorous, it’s not easy, but we really do believe in the value of collective bargaining. We really do believe in our relationship with the players’ association and, I’ve said it many times: If both sides have an equal commitment to getting this deal done, it will get done. I don’t know if both sides have an equal commitment. You’ve heard plenty of what I’ve heard as well.”

Asked to clarify that, Pash went on to say: “Obviously, we have the commitment; … I’m not suggesting anything about the other side.”

That’s not how Smith took it.

“Obviously, we saw Jeff Pash’s comments, a few moments ago, and instead of driving home, we made a short detour to come back, because I think it’s important that everyone and all of our fans understand and know the commitment of our players to this process,” Smith said as he was pelted by rain. “[Thursday] we got here at 9 [a.m.]. We had a meeting with non-owners of the National Football League. Our players stood around and waited until 6 [p.m.]. The owners left, and we were told to come back at 10 [a.m. on Friday].

“We’re committed to this process. We have been committed to this process. But for anyone to stand and turn to the American people and say that they question that. … Look. I understand that there’s probably some things that Jeff Pash has to say. But this is the truth: We know that as early as March of 2009, from the discovery in the television case, that the National Football League engaged in a strategy to get $4 billion of television money – to lock out our fans, lock out our players – even if the games weren’t played. “

The obvious implication of that statement is that the NFL worked hard to be ready to lock out the players, an indication that they were prepared to not negotiate.

“When I get ready to leave, I will leave each and every one of you in the media with what we call the decision tree, because this is exactly a document from the National Football League, that talks about how they were going to go about securing television money, and I quote, ‘for cash during a lockout.’ So, with all due respect, when someone wants to stand up and say that he questions or doubts one party’s commitment to the negotiation process, all I would ask is for all of you … stick to the facts.”

From there, a Twitter war of insults ensued, featuring NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, players, agents and fans.

Atallah got things started by tweeting: “I would like to request an expense credit from the owners on the last 3 hours of my life.”

Later, Aiello responded with: “While George at it, ask when union going to respond to 150 pgs draft CBA provisions.”

All of this should make for some really interesting morning greetings Friday when the sides are scheduled to resume talks with the deadline for the expiration of the CBA looming at 11:59 p.m. ET. Well before that, the union will have to file paperwork decertifying the union, a move that will likely lead to a long, drawn out court battle.

Pash fields questions from the media Thursday.
(Rob Carr/Getty Images)

Of course, this is all part of the problem the two sides have had since they made the mistake of extending the deadline for seven days. During that time, leaks of information from both sides have led to escalating tension.

But Thursday’s inactivity may have sent the NFLPA over the edge. Throughout the day, the union (and the players there, in particular) were expecting to have face-to-face interaction with the many owners who showed up from the league’s executive committee. Among the owners present were the Dallas Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, John Mara of the New York Giants, the Kansas City Chiefs’ Clark Hunt, Pat Bowlen of the Denver Broncos, the Pittsburgh Steelers’ Art Rooney II, Jerry Richardson of the Carolina Panthers and the Cincinnati Bengals’ Mike Brown(notes).

Until now, only Mara, Hunt and Rooney had shown their faces at the most recent sessions with the mediator. That fact increasingly drew the ire of the union, which has felt increasingly disrespected by the failure of the owners to show their faces.

“We’re not talking to guys who make decisions,” one member of the union’s negotiating team said. “The owners have no problem talking to us about our contracts or talking to us after games, but now they won’t show their faces, even when they’re in the next room. It’s [expletive].”

In fact, I’m channeling my inner-Bart Scott(notes) in anticipation of it.

As a reporter, I’m thinking about the possibility of the discovery process in a class-action lawsuit the players would file against the owners after the likely NFL Players Association decertification. It would give a great, in-depth look at the finances of each team, including how much each franchise pays to different employees and what each club counts as expenses.

“Can’t Wait!”

I’m thinking about the chance for Yahoo! Sports (and just about every other media outlet in the world) to run all that information online, featuring charts and comparisons from team to team.

“Can’t Wait!”

I’m thinking about the chance for Peyton Manning(notes), Drew Brees(notes) and Tom Brady(notes) to take the stand as named plaintiffs in such a class-action suit and then testify against the league and its labor practice.

“Can’t Wait!”

I’m thinking about how the NFL will defend the rule it has on “franchise players,” which basically allows the league’s teams the chance to keep any player from year to year without the open threat of another team negotiating for that player’s services. Nowhere else in this country is there a business that openly restrains the personal freedom of someone to work where they want, when they want and for whom they want (which also puts the NFL draft in serious question).

“Can’t Wait!”

If you’re not getting the message here, this kind of stuff is a reporter’s dream. It’s our version of what the AFC championship game was for Scott. Heck, this might be Super Bowl stuff. Conversely, this is a nightmare scenario for the NFL, a chance for the public to get a good look at where the money comes from and, most importantly, where it goes.

Or worse, a chance for each of the other owners to see how their brethren spends their money. Zygi Wilf will get a full look at Jerry Jones’ book. Bob Kraft will get a line-by-line view at Mike Brown. As one member of the union said recently, “The thing the NFL really doesn’t want is for all the owners to see each other’s books.”

That’s why the current fight over whether the NFLPA gets to see the NFL’s books is so interesting. This is a great negotiating stare down, a real test of the NFL’s mettle because there is almost zero chance that the league will give the union what it really wants. Yet the NFL will have to weigh the risk of this information coming out in a lawsuit versus the cost of giving in further on what it has asked for in these negotiations.

On Wednesday, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said the league is down to asking for $800 million a year in additional cost credits. That’s down from the $1 billion the league was requesting until recently. Still, over the course of a seven-year deal (the premise the sides have been working with for now), the players would be giving the owners approaching $6 billion off the top.

Smith arrives at Wednesday’s negotiations with former player Sean Morey(notes).
(Alex Brandon/AP Photo)

And that’s in a business that is still growing.

“Earlier [Wednesday] there was a report about information that was offered,” Smith said as he exited the bargaining session. “Just to be absolutely clear, the information that was offered wasn’t what we asked for. And according to our investment bankers and advisors, that information would be utterly meaningless in making a determination about whether to write an $800 million check to the National Football League.

“We have consistently requested access to fully audited financial statements since May 2009, well before even our first collective bargaining meeting. We believe that is the appropriate information to analyze the league’s request for a multibillion check written by the players back to the owners.

“The first question we posed to ourselves was, ‘How much financial information would you want if you’re going to be asked to write a $5 billion check.’ That’s a sufficient amount of financial information that so far we haven’t seen.”

In return, NFL vice president and staff attorney Jeff Pash said the union has already received more information than it ever has in a CBA negotiation. While that may be true, the players have also never been asked to take a pay cut.

A huge pay cut, at that.

In other words, this fight is a long way from being resolved. Before it’s over, however, the owners have to do a very serious cost-benefit analysis. Is it really worth asking for this money back when there are so many media people who are salivating at taking a look at the books?

“Can’t Wait!”

Simply put, to avoid pro football’s version of Armageddon – union decertification, the NFLPA’s filing of an antitrust lawsuit and an attempted lockout by owners, all of which would be subject to judicial intervention – the owners need to move beyond “Trust Us” as a negotiating strategy.

It’s time for the owners to open their books, or to acknowledge that doing so is not an option and lower their financial demands accordingly.

For all the apparent progress made in advance of last week’s expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, which led to a pair of short-term extensions in the hope of reaching a deal, the two sides went into this week’s sessions with a $750 million annual gap that needed to be bridged, according to several sources familiar with the negotiations.

The discrepancy concerns the amount the owners want credited off the top of the league’s total gross revenues before that money is divided with the players: It’s roughly $1 billion in the current CBA, and owners have advocated for raising that number to $2 billion because of investment expenses such as new stadium construction.

The players, who since May 2009 have formally insisted that the owners provide them with financial information justifying such a shift, have made concessions thus far that helped narrow that annual divide by approximately 25 percent. But on Tuesday, Y! Sports has learned, the situation reached a stalemate that threatens to derail the push for a new deal.

Last week, according to a well-placed source, the NFLPA’s executive committee informed the owners’ negotiating committee that it would not consider less than a 50-50 split of revenues (including those taken off the top under the current formula) unless the owners agreed to provide them with the full audited financial statements of all 32 clubs for the past decade. (The NFLPA received slightly more than the 50 percent figure during the final year of the expiring CBA and made the “50-50” offer last month.)

On Tuesday, the source said, the owners’ committee said it would provide only aggregate profit figures for the 32 teams collectively spanning the 2005-09 seasons – one number per year. No individual-club profits would be revealed, even if the name of the club in question was withheld. The league also said it would provide the union with the total number of teams that experienced a decline in profit from the previous year.

The union consulted a professional auditor and the investment-banking firm it has retained for the potential review of the owners’ statements and was told the information being offered by the NFL wasn’t nearly enough to justify the significant financial concessions sought by the league. Among the information to which the union wouldn’t have access was each team’s list of non-player costs; how much each particular franchise’s profits might have declined; whether overall-profit decreases on the league level were the result of one or multiple teams; and documentation of each team’s cash flow, balance sheets and expenses.

The union’s executive committee then voted to reject the offer by the owners’ committee and renewed its request for 10 years of complete audited statements.

The NFLPA, of course, has no divine right to the financial information it seeks. Nothing can force the owners to stop stonewalling the union on this issue – but there are strategic reasons why continuing to do so may not be such a great idea.

For one thing, if the union decertifies – as it was within minutes of doing last Thursday, according to a report by SI.com’s Jim Trotter – an antitrust lawsuit will follow. If so, the owners will almost certainly be forced to open their books during discovery proceedings.

Secondly, the union can make a reasonable case, both in the bargaining room and in the court of public opinion, for the importance of receiving such information. In the wake of last Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge David Doty that the owners had failed to represent the players’ interest when negotiating lockout friendly TV extensions, the NFLPA has reason to be dubious of the league’s claims that the business is struggling and thus more money off the top is necessary for the NFL’s financial health.

“It’s really the same argument we’ve been making for the better part of two years,” one player active in union affairs told Y! Sports. “We’ve conceded a lot already, and we can’t go any further just because they’re asking us to ‘trust’ them. We saw how trustworthy they are with the TV case.”

To be fair, there may be some very logical reasons why the owners are resisting this revelation. The financial statements could contain embarrassing information that could be used against them if made public, or even shady dealings that might attract outside attention from authorities. In addition, owners may not want their specific financial information revealed to their peers given the obvious competition between franchises for on-the-field success.

Giants owner John Mara arrives for Tuesday’s negotiations.
(Alex Brandon/AP Photo)

However, the league could mitigate these concerns by negotiating with the union for a conditional release of information. For example, team names and/or other sensitive details could be redacted, and NFLPA officials could sign confidentiality agreements which would subject them to steep penalties if they leaked the information to media outlets.

There is, of course, an even simpler solution: The owners could put a price on the secrecy of their financial statements and proceed accordingly. The smart move might well be to tell the union, “We refuse to open our books” while dropping their demands significantly – say, $250,000 million off the top, annually, for starters.

I realize that’s a lot of money, but the owners could look at it as though they’re paying a tax for keeping their books closed. Many of them may ultimately conclude that it’s a compromise worth making.

And if the owners cling to their current strategy of concealing their financial statements while refusing to back off on their demands? If that happens all the way to Friday, I fear that the end of the week will usher in a new, uncertain era in which each side is taking a major financial risk, and both may end up losing in the end.

It’s possible that the owners could hold firm and get their way, but I wouldn’t count on it. To this point, the players and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith haven’t been the pushovers some of the owners expected them to be – and many union sources to whom I’ve spoken in recent days say they’re steeling themselves for a showdown.

“They continue to back us into a corner, and it’s just making our guys stronger,” the aforementioned player said. “The players are tired of the [expletive] and are unwilling to [concede so much].” The owners don’t want to share information with each other, so they’re hell-bent on making us pay for it. But the reality is that they’re going to screw this whole thing up.”

In other words, if the books stay closed, let’s hope the owners are open to sweetening their offer.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the Chargers hadn’t announced the deal.

The team posted a story on its Web site saying it had signed the oft-injured Sanders. But spokesman Bill Johnston said that was premature and no announcement was planned Thursday night.

The person with knowledge of the deal said it wasn’t clear when the 30-year-old Sanders can actually sign a contract, due to the status of labor talks. The NFL and its players’ union decided Thursday to keep the current collective bargaining agreement in place for an additional 24 hours so that negotiations can continue.

Once he does sign, the Chargers hope to get the hard-hitting Sanders, not the one who has missed 64 games—the equivalent of four full seasons—due to injuries in his seven-year career. He has played in only 48 regular-season games.

Sanders tore his right biceps on the first defensive series in the 2010 season opener and did not play again.

After winning the 2007 NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award in 2007, Sanders signed a five-year, $37.5 million contract but played in only nine regular-season games during the next three seasons.

It wasn’t necessarily that they were spraying shots all over the place. It was that his old teammate always had something on his mind, particularly his children.

“Dave was just so proud of you guys,” Wilson said during his eulogy Saturday, looking right at Duerson’s three sons and daughter.

That’s how Wilson chose to remember Duerson on Saturday—not as the hard-hitting safety who terrorized receivers, not as the guy who helped that legendary 1985 Chicago Bears shuffle to the championship, and certainly not as the man who took his own life last week.

To the friends and family who jammed a Southside Chicago church for his memorial, he was simply a kind and generous man whose caring nature belied his reputation as a ferocious hitter.

A four-time Pro Bowl pick who played on Super Bowl winners with the Bears and New York Giants, Duerson committed suicide at his home in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla. He was 50.

Duerson’s death rocked former teammates and coaches, who recently said he had seemed to be in good spirits after going through financial problems and a divorce the past few years. At a reunion of the 1985 Bears championship team a few months ago, he told them he was planning to get married again in April and seemed optimistic about his future.

His youngest son, Brock, gave one of several eulogies on Saturday, along with Wilson and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

“My dad, Dave Duerson, was a kind and generous man who believed in helping others,” Brock said. “Who would ever think that a small-town boy from Muncie, Indiana, would become such a success in sports, academics and business? I’m extremely proud to be a Duerson.”

Wilson remembered Duerson as a guy who would “give the shirt off his back.”

“He’s always thinking, always working,” Wilson said. “That’s the thing. That’s why we can’t play because we ain’t thinking about golf. That’s just the type of person he was.”

And Jackson, a friend, said, “At the end of the day, you’re measured by the box score. … When you look at the box, Dave was a winner.”

Right to the end, his friends and relatives said. The way they see it, the fact that he made sure his brain would be donated for research shows who he really was.

It will be tested by the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy at Boston University School of Medicine with the focus on chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative disease tied to depression, dementia and suicide. The condition has been found in numerous athletes.

“It’s a wakeup call for a lot of people, when you think of concussions,” said Emery Moorehead, a tight end on the ’85 Bears team. “Dave played a long time—played in college, played in high school—and this could happen at any point in time. NFL safety, they really need to address this as well as in hockey and probably boxing, which has no regulations on these types of things. CTE is very different, and we’re not aware of it.”

Brock Duerson said the family will start a charity—the Dave Duerson Foundation—to help athletes deal with mental illness. He said the family won’t get the results of the brain tests for three to six months.

Duerson starred at Notre Dame before getting drafted by the Bears in the third round in 1983. Two years later, with Todd Bell sitting out the season in a contract dispute, he became a starter on one of the greatest defenses ever assembled.

With Hall of Famers Mike Singletary, Dan Hampton and Richard Dent, the Bears left a trail of battered opponents on the way to the championship. Duerson did his part in the backfield with five interceptions and made the first of four straight Pro Bowls.

A year later, he picked off a career-high six passes while setting what was an NFL record for sacks by a defensive back with seven. That mark stood until 2005.

Duerson would go on to win another Super Bowl with the 1990 Giants after being released by the Bears, and spent three years with Arizona before retiring after 11 seasons.

He remained active in the union and served as a trustee on the NFL Players Association’s retirement board. He clashed with Ditka over the way former players’ claims were distributed, but the coach has said they eventually made up.

Duerson was also involved in several businesses after his career.

He owned a few McDonald’s franchises and later helped to grow a company that supplied fast-food restaurants. He left to start his own company in 2002, and graduated from Harvard Business School’s Owner/President/Management Program in 2001.

But his life had taken some hard turns the past few years.

His food-supply company was forced into receivership in 2006, and Duerson filed for divorce from his wife Alicia a year later. He lost his Chicago-area home to foreclosure and his position as Notre Dame trustee after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor domestic battery charge.

His brother Mike Duerson, 52, said after the memorial that he’s donating his brain to the same Boston clinic. He said he’s had health problems since playing college basketball his freshman year at IUPUI. He said he got a concussion after taking a charge and was paralyzed on his left side for six months.

“I’ve been diagnosed with just about everything—they call it alphabet soup, as far as psychological problems,” Mike Duerson said.

He said he hopes something positive comes out of his brother’s death.

“I don’t know if it’s a wake-up call for the NFL,” he said, “but it may be for colleges.”

Matson died Saturday of respiratory failure surrounded by family at his home in Los Angeles, his nephew Art Thompson III told The Associated Press.

Thompson said Matson had been mostly bedridden for several years due to a form of dementia. He said Matson hadn’t spoken in four years.

As a senior at the University of San Francisco, Matson led the nation in rushing yardage and touchdowns while leading the Dons to an undefeated season. He was the No. 1 pick of the Chicago Cardinals and third overall in the 1952 NFL draft, and went on to share rookie of the year honors with Hugh McElhenny of the 49ers.

Matson played with the Cardinals from 1952-58 before being traded to the Los Angeles Rams for nine players. He made the cover of Sports Illustrated in 1957.

He spent 1959-62 with the Rams, then played a single season for the Detroit Lions before finishing his career with Philadelphia from 1964-66.

Matson was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1972, and into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1976. He was a six-time Pro Bowl selection, winning MVP of the 1956 game. He also made the All-Pro team seven times.

Matson earned a silver medal in the 1,600-meter relay and a bronze in the 400 meters at the 1952 Helsinki Olympics.

Born May 1, 1930, in Trinity, Texas, Ollie Genoa Matson II moved to San Francisco when he was in high school. After graduation from George Washington High, where he developed into one of the city’s greatest prep athletes, he enrolled at City College of San Francisco. He spent one year there before transferring to USF.

Thompson said before his uncle’s health declined in the past week, he could walk with assistance and his children often took him on outings.

“For those in his family, he was `The Man,”’ said Thompson, a former sports writer for The Orange County Register. “Whether it was barbecuing, listening to his collection of Dinah Washington and Sam Cooke albums, winning games of skill, giving sage advice to the younger generation or just maintaining a calm steady hand … we all felt his positive influence.”

Matson is survived by his children Lisa, Ollie III, Bruce and Barbara; his twin sister Ocie Thompson; eight grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren. His wife, Mary, whom he married in 1954, is deceased.

AP Writer Christopher Weber contributed to this report.

The 49ers have their highly sought-after new man and pulled out all the stops to greet him. His introductory news conference began with a music video featuring team highlights.

After a whirlwind few days of talks with the Niners, former employer Stanford and also the Miami Dolphins, Harbaugh finally made up his mind: he’s going to coach in the NFL.

With his “unshakable confidence” to boot.

What a week for football’s hottest commodity considering it began with the Cardinal’s 40-12 Orange Bowl rout of Virginia Tech on Monday night in Miami.

Even with that win—which gave Stanford a 12-1 record—and Orange Bowl MVP quarterback Andrew Luck’s choice to stay in school, Harbaugh had a good feeling about making the jump to the NFL and joining the 49ers. This is the same path his mentor and late Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh did more than 30 years ago.

Declaring it a “perfect competitive opportunity,” Harbaugh accepted a five-year deal Friday to coach the 49ers and said his goal is to win a Lombardi Trophy for “one of the legendary franchises in all of football.”

The successful Stanford coach gets to remain right at home in the Bay Area, making the leap to the pro game after four years with the Cardinal. A longtime NFL quarterback, he replaces fired coach Mike Singletary. ESPN reported Harbaugh’s deal is for $25 million.

Harbaugh decided to leave Stanford even though San Francisco has missed the playoffs for eight straight seasons and Luck announced Thursday he would remain in school and play one more season.

“I can feel the enthusiasm coursing through my veins right now,” said Harbaugh, who was going to team headquarters Friday night to get to work. “I accept this competitive challenge willingly.”

Harbaugh has long admired Walsh and how he made the successful leap from Stanford to the 49ers. Harbaugh knew the man nicknamed “The Genius” for 18 years and once received footwork tips from the coach while playing for the Bears. “Everything that came out of his mind, his heart, his mouth, I hung on every single word.”

Walsh thought up the original schemes that became known as the West Coast offense, which Harbaugh plans to run with the 49ers. Harbaugh has a picture of Walsh he looks at each day taped to his computer screen, but says it will be a while before any comparisons can be made of the two.

While Harbaugh said he had all but made up his mind to accept the 49ers’ offer following a meeting of more than six hours that went into Wednesday evening, he took a couple of days to hear out his other suitors and do his “homework”—and “do some soul searching” as new 49ers general manager Trent Baalke put it.

“I knew in my heart and my gut the right decision was with the San Francisco 49ers,” he said.

After quite a run at Stanford, Harbaugh will head some 10 miles down the 101 freeway from Stanford to turn around a once-proud franchise that is desperate to become a contender again right away. The 49ers were expected to win the NFC West this season, then began 0-5 for their worst start since losing seven straight to begin a 2-14 season in 1979, Walsh’s first year as coach.

The 49ers finished 6-10 this year—in the chase for a playoff berth in the NFL’s worst division until the second-to-last week—and haven’t had a winning season since their last trip to the playoffs in 2002.

“I met this man six or seven years ago at a college All-Star game and I fell in love with his energy,” Baalke said. “This is the start of a new generation. … What we have to do is bring back the culture of winning. He’s a guy who can lead the 49ers franchise back to where it rightfully belongs.”

Harbaugh likely will be grooming a new quarterback in the coming months. Alex Smith, the 2005 No. 1 overall draft pick out of Utah, becomes a free agent. So, finding a QB is high on the team’s to-do list heading into what should be a busy offseason.

Once the season begins, Harbaugh will face a familiar foe—big brother John Harbaugh, coach of the Baltimore Ravens. Jim Harbaugh won’t be attending his brother’s playoff game in Kansas City this weekend after all.

“Let me tell you guys out in San Francisco, you got a great one,” John Harbaugh said. “I’m very happy he’s not in the AFC. We’ll see him once every four years and Super Bowls—hopefully we could get a couple of those. … I got a feeling you’ll see two pretty similarly built football teams.”

Niners team president and CEO Jed York said when Singletary was fired that money would be no object in finding the team’s next coach. He promoted vice president of player personnel Baalke to GM earlier this week, then they worked together to make their push for Harbaugh, who also was in talks with the Miami Dolphins and Stanford.

The 49ers didn’t put him on a deadline, telling Harbaugh, “There can’t be any doubt in your mind,” York said. Harbaugh asked for Thursday night to “sleep on it,” then signed his deal Friday. He also informed Luck and his players at Stanford.

Harbaugh insists this move wasn’t all about money. He reportedly had an offer for more from Miami.

“It wasn’t the factor. I like a buck just like the next guy, but I love coaching and I love winning and I love football,” he said. “The factor that dictated my being here was that Trent and Jed and the 49er organization wanted me to be here and I wanted to be here as much or more than they wanted me. Here I am.”

The 47-year-old Harbaugh went 58-27 overall as a college coach and 29-21 in four seasons at Stanford. He took over a 1-11 team when he was hired in December 2006 and quickly turned the program back into a winner and bowl contender.

The Cardinal went 4-8 in his first season, 5-7 the next, then improved to 8-5 and earned a Sun Bowl berth in 2009—the school’s first bowl appearance since 2001.

His next challenge will be getting San Francisco back to the playoffs.

“It’s the process of building a team, being part of a team and leading a team, and working at it,” Harbaugh said. “It’s committing a lot of energy to it. There are definitely similarities.”

Harbaugh was the Oakland Raiders’ quarterbacks coach from 2002-03 before spending three seasons as head coach at the University of San Diego. He said he recently spoke to Raiders owner Al Davis, but not specifically about the now-vacant Oakland coaching job.

Harbaugh, a college star at Michigan where there also is a coaching vacancy after the firing of Rich Rodriguez, played 15 seasons in the NFL for the Bears, Colts, Ravens, Chargers and Panthers. A first-round draft pick taken 26th overall by Chicago in 1987, Harbaugh completed 2,305 of 3,918 passes for 26,288 career yards and 129 touchdowns in the NFL. He also ran for 18 TDs.

For York and the front office, landing Harbaugh was the first goal.

“This is a very happy day but our work didn’t end today,” York said. “It just begins today.”

“Losing is not an option,” Harbaugh said.