Erndog said:
Just to play devils advocate here, but I was listening to some lawyer on the radio this morning discussing the CBA and he said that short-term CBA's aren't favourable for anybody. He said that in order to secure long-term TV deals and procure advertising dollars it's in the best interest of both parties to have a long-term CBA. He pointed to how the NFL is essentially iron clad and has a 10 year deal with no ability to opt out. He gave an example how the Green Bay Packers really need a long-term CBA in order to be stable (I can't remember exactly what he said about this).
Anyways, his point was that these short-term CBAs won't fly and aren't in the best interest of either party. Just thought I'd share with our resident legal expert
I think the primary difference between what I'm saying and the example he's using is the part where I mention the necessity of the good relationship between the PA and the league. In football, which genuinely doesn't have that, I'd agree you'd want something longer term to allay any fears that a five year deal you sign with a sponsor may have only be good for four years due to a lockout or strike, not to mention the resulting fallout or decline in popularity.
But in Baseball, where the last few CBAs have been signed without any real threat of a work stoppage, they have a relatively short term CBA
and they have teams like the Rangers, Padres and Dodgers signing 10 or 20 year TV deals worth billions of dollars.
