The Washington Redskins had the first part of this salary cap fight nailed.
They sat in the room, heard the rules of collusion every team was supposed to follow and saw a chance to get out from under the salary cap hit of the Albert Haynesworth contract — the gift that keeps on giving. The Redskins decided they weren’t going to play by those rules.
After all, the rules the owners devised for the 2010 uncapped year were questionable. If the Redskins and Cowboys decided to be the mavericks and not take part in what was clearly collusion, they probably figured, “What is the league going to do to us? How can they defend collusion? If the players union finds out about it, it will go ballistic.”
The Redskins didn’t count on the players union being forced to go along with it, although the union now appears to have had second thoughts and has filed a collusion lawsuit against the league. No one expects that to go far because the union agreed in its labor deal with the league not to sue for collusion.
The Redskins and Cowboys were penalized a combined $46 million against the salary cap over two years on the eve of free agency. Both teams tried to get the penalty overturned through arbitration, but arbitrator Stephen Burbank dismissed their grievance against the league Tuesday.
“Everyone was upset when they found out what they did,” an NFL source told The Washington Examiner after the cap violations were revealed March 12. “This is something Al Davis would have done.”
Actually, Davis would have filed a lawsuit immediately after the arbitrator’s decision. So far, neither the Redskins or the Cowboys have such plans in the works. They issued a joint statement: “We pursued our salary cap claim pursuant to the CBA and we respect and will abide by the arbitrator’s decision to dismiss,” the statement said. “We will continue to focus on our football teams and the 2012 season.”
Speculation is still making the rounds that someone — either the Redskins, Cowboys or both — is not ready to give up the fight.
We shall see. A lawsuit by an NFL owner against fellow owners would risk revealing how business is conducted behind closed doors among the teams, the league and the union.
In addition, any such lawsuit could put the NFL’s antitrust protections on trial, and no owner wants that, either.
The most powerful deterrent, though, to Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder filing a lawsuit against the NFL may be this — the Super Bowl.
Despite the debacle of the 2011 Super Bowl, Jones has publicly remained convinced that Dallas will host another Super Bowl. In fact, he plans to bid on the 2016 game. And speculation has been that the Redskins have interest in hosting a Super Bowl as well — either at FedEx Field or sometime down the road in a new stadium, especially considering the Giants will be the hosts at their open-air stadium in 2014.
If either owner sues the NFL, he won’t even be hosting a punt, pass and kick contest.
Examiner columnist Thom Loverro is the co-host of “The Sports Fix” from noon to 2 p.m. Monday through Friday on ESPN980 and espn980.com. Contact him at [email protected].
