Friday’s vote could decide CFLPA leadership, prove crucial in CBA talks

For one of the first times since the Las Vegas Posse folded in 1994, something that happens in Vegas could have a critical impact on the CFL. The CFL Players' Association is conducting its annual meetings in Vegas this week, and those meetings are likely to determine how the CFLPA proceeds in this latest round of contentious collective bargaining negotiations with the CFL. As Drew Edwards of The Hamilton Spectatorwrites, those meetings could even see a change in CFLPA leadership:

It's difficult to tell how Flory's approach would differ from Morreale's, as their platforms aren't public. However, regardless of who wins, the vote on executive positions is likely going to determine how the CFLPA approaches negotiations going forward. The candidates will offer their plans, and whichever one is endorsed by the majority of player reps will then have a mandate to carry out negotiations in that fashion. If Morreale keeps his position, that might suggest players are happy with the stance the CFLPA's taken thus far, insisting on getting a percentage of league revenues rather than a flat salary cap and breaking off negotiations when that wasn't offered. If Flory takes over, though, that could signal a shift either towards a more conciliatory approach (getting back to the table and agreeing on a flat cap, just debating what it should be set at) or a more hard-line one (upping the players' demands and perhaps even threatening a strike).

While it's the CFLPA that's creating drama at the top, it's the CFL that's talking about the negotiations publicly, though, and the comments commissioner Mark Cohon made in Winnipeg (during the announcement that the 2015 Grey Cup would be held there) this week may actually boost the players' cause. Yes, Cohon made the fair point that all the increased league revenues (from the new TV deal and other sources) aren't sheer profit; there are plenty of stadium costs to consider, especially in cities like Winnipeg. However, that would appear to actually favour tying player salaries to league revenues, the key part of the players' position thus far. With a flat cap, the league's paying out the same amount regardless of how much it makes; with a percentage of revenue, what it actually makes is what matters. If the philosophical idea of salaries as a percentage was agreed upon, there would be plenty of room to negotiate how the accounting should be done and how stadium costs should be regarded, and it would seem possible to give players a fair percentage of what the league is actually hauling in.

What's curious that this fight isn't even strictly about money so far; instead, it's about systems for dividing that money. Sooner or later, either the CFL or the CFLPA is going to have to be willing to bridge that philosophical divide, or these talks aren't going to get anywhere. A smart way to do so might be giving the choice of the two systems, but making the less-desirable one unfavourable; for example, the CFLPA could offer "We'll take a flat cap of $6 million per team, or a 50-50 split of revenues," or the league could offer "We'll give you a 30 per cent share of revenue, or a flat cap of $4 million." Those offers would at least get this back to dollars and cents rather than arguments over what system to use. Nothing will be decided until this leadership vote's resolved, though, so for one of the first times since 1994, the eyes of the CFL world will be on Las Vegas.