Just like any other union, the NFLPA doesn’t necessarily represent the individual, unique, personal interests of every single player, but rather attempts to look to the needs of the collective. Yet when it comes to the NFLPA’s looming proposal to reshape the offseason, there isn’t a ton of support.
Indeed, some players are questioning who even wants the changes the NFLPA is discussing. “I’m so confused how they are trying to twist this into saying players want to start camp the end of June”, Cleveland Browns DT Shelby Harris said. “Nobody wants anything to do with this change”.
As we talked about recently, the NFLPA is looking into radically overhauling the shape of the offseason calendar. While nothing is imminent, and may not see movement until the next CBA negotiations, some believe in a condensed schedule.
Basically, rather than an extended break after minicamp, push OTAs to just ahead of training camp. The NFL and NFLPA did something similar in 2020 as part of COVID-19 considerations. Perhaps where the idea originated, as some found plusses to that condensed schedule.
Pittsburgh Steelers players have been more diplomatic on record about the proposal, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Tim Benz. NT Breiden Fehoko did say that he doesn’t like it, even if he can “see both sides”. Dean Lowry also said he believes the current schedule is better for young players, but as a veteran would prefer the more condensed schedule.
Benz notes that the NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero reported that NFLPA sought feedback from players, with “the majority supporting the changes”. But this sounds similar to other NFL and NFLPA voting processes in which more players seem to wonder who is voting than not. One wonders how many Steelers players actually gave feedback to the union about this.
Quite frankly, however, nobody has complained about the proposal more than members of the media. The argument is that the break before training camp coincides with many people’s life schedules. A big selling point is that most children are off of school by then, during which time families take vacations. The NFLPA doesn’t seem to think that is a very persuasive argument, however.
My guess is the NFL’s biggest objection to the proposal is that it reduces their annual imprint. Having nothing going on between the draft and a delayed OTAs leaves the widest gap in the NFL calendar. They want to stay relevant as many days of the year as possible as a 365-day industry.
The NFLPA, on the other hand, wants to maximize the accessible calendar for players by expanding the available space. And besides, many children finish the school year around this time anyway. But a business can’t entirely cater its affairs around family interests.
Is the NFLPA’s proposal safer for players, though? Does this “ramp-up period” help reduce injuries? It’s not like we have much of a data sample upon which to judge the merits of the idea. Chances are the NFL simply uses this as a bargaining chip to get the 18th game during the next negotiations. But one wonders, how many players would consider it a win?
