IF MONEY IS THERE, NFL PLAYERS TO SEEK FAIR SHARE UPSHAW: CAP SHOULD INCLUDE REVENUE NOT SHARED BY TEAMS.

Byline: Billy Witz Staff Writer

The NHL sits idle these days, a lockout sending the sport into what looks like a long, cold winter. As the NBA season tipped off this week, there were rumblings that it too could be headed for a work stoppage next year.

So when Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players' Association, told a group of owners at last week's fall meeting near Detroit that the players want a bigger piece of the NFL's financial pie in their next labor deal, he had a rapt audience.

``I'm sure there are going to be some very sharp differences about the underlying economics,'' commissioner Paul Tagliabue said of the upcoming negotiations. ``Our economic model is going to be different than theirs.''

The NFL has had a better relationship with its players than any other professional sport in recent years. While baseball and basketball went through the type of season-crippling strikes in the '90s that the NHL looks headed toward today, the NFL and its players' union have shared in the league's booming popularity.

At the core of this symbiotic relationship is the salary cap and free-agent system that was negotiated 10 years ago.

It has allowed the NFL to keep a lid on salaries and promoted competitive balance, which has fueled popularity and the richest TV contracts in team sports.

It has also enabled the players to reap, in salaries and benefits, nearly two-thirds of the teams' shared gross revenue - a figure that's gone from $1.7 billion in 1994 to $6 billion this year, according to Upshaw.

The collective bargaining agreement has been renewed three times with little fanfare. What could make this different this time around is Upshaw's contention that the financial model has changed dramatically in 10 years.

There has been a boom in locally-earned revenue, such as stadium naming rights, sponsorship deals and radio contracts. Since that money isn't shared among the 32 teams, it is not part of the pot of revenue used to calculate the salary cap.

Upshaw, who says unshared revenue has grown from 30 to 37 percent of total revenue since 1994, insists some of that money should be.

``We had a good deal, but the model has to change,'' Upshaw said. ``We want more money. They understand that. We want the fairness that was in the '94 deal to be there. We're not here to destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs. We just want it to be fair.''

The players have some unlikely sympathizers on this issue - some owners of low-revenue clubs, generally those who play in older stadiums.

According to a recent study by Forbes magazine, there is a disparity of $101 million between the top revenue-producing team (Washington) and the bottom (Arizona). This has created a situation of the ``haves and have-nots,'' Upshaw said.

Houston owner Bob McNair, whose team is third in revenue with $193 million, says most of the high-revenue clubs need the money to pay off high debt service on their new stadiums. Of the top eight revenue teams, only Dallas is playing in a stadium that was built before 1998.

``(Upshaw) has a different constituency,'' McNair said after he and 12 other owners listened to Upshaw's 2-hour presentation. ``His players read numbers on franchises in Forbes and see those big numbers, and that tends to influence them.

``What they don't realize is that all the high-revenue clubs have invested in new stadiums, and a big part of that goes to get the bank debt down. They're not seeing the whole picture.''

Tagliabue said teams also are investing in practice facilities that benefit players and the game but cost money. He also used as an example a Packers team store that might ring up a $200 sale but has $125 in associated costs for apparel, the real estate and employees.

``So it's not $200 worth of revenue, it's $75 worth of revenue,'' Tagliabue said.

Jeffrey Kessler, a labor attorney who is advising the NFLPA, says all that money comes back to the owners in franchise value appreciation. The average NFL franchise appreciated 19 percent last season, according to Forbes.

``They only let us audit revenues, not profits,'' Kessler said. ``If they think the numbers are wrong and they won't show us theirs, what does that tell you?''

When Upshaw heads back to the bargaining table, he'll carry something with him besides spreadsheets - a hammer: the ability to eliminate the salary cap if an agreement is reached by March 2007.

In the original agreement, the NFL agreed to an uncapped final year of the contract while the players agreed to raise the requirement for unrestricted free agency from four years of service to six.

Tagliabue described it as a poison pill, that if there's ``no cap and no bidding, there's no problem.''

It seems more lethal to the NFL. Free-spending owners, even if there are few free agents (thanks to the other provision), would be able to buy or trade for talent without complying with salary-cap restrictions.

In the absence of a new agreement, the owners and players would be required to work under pre-existing conditions.

Imagine Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder turned loose without financial constraints, and you have a system that looks like baseball - the Yankees, Red Sox and everybody else.

There's a reason NBA commissioner David Stern rejected a similar proposal by its players' union, said Los Angeles-based agent Jerome Stanley, who represents players in the NFL and NBA.

``From the players' view, the crowning achievement of the NFL labor deal is the uncapped year,'' Stanley said. ``It's the ultimate stick.''

Kessler, who helped craft the agreement, said the union took advantage of a favorable legal climate. The NFL recently had lost an antitrust lawsuit over Plan B free agency and was faced with a class-action, antitrust suit by then-Eagles star Reggie White.

``We had some legal weapons that they didn't,'' Kessler said.

The settlement of White's suit resulted in the current system, with free agency for the players and a salary cap for the owners.

It's a system, as Tagliabue noted, that allows teams such as Minnesota and Indianapolis - with older stadiums that generate much less unshared revenue - to land and keep stars like quarterbacks Daunte Culpepper and Peyton Manning.

How much this system will be changed is something that is being debated not just between the owners and the union, but among the owners.

``Some owners feel that (Upshaw) has our commissioner wrapped up pretty good,'' Patriots owner Robert Kraft said.

Harold Henderson, the NFL executive vice president for labor relations and management's lead negotiator, began talks with Upshaw in February. He would like to reach an agreement that will be ready to be voted upon at the next owners' meeting, in March. (It must be ratified by three-quarters of the membership.)

Yet Kraft, a member of the 10-owner Management Council headed by Henderson, doesn't think a labor deal can be done until a television contract is in place. Negotiations on a new deal - the current one expires after next season - aren't expected to wrap until next spring.

``The interdependence is there,'' Kraft said. ``That's the major source of our revenue.''

There are other issues to be discussed, such as the players wanting increased health benefits after their careers are complete, but this boils down to one issue: money.

``The message I gave today is we're running out of time,'' Upshaw said. ``We'd like an agreement to continue through 2011, but it's got to change.''

Billy Witz, [phone]

billy.witz(at)dailynews.com

CAPTION(S):

2 photos

Photo:

(1 -- color) no caption (Paul Tagliabue)

(2) NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and the owners may find a tough negotiation waiting for them when the next collective-bargaining agreement comes up.

Paul Sancya/Associated Press