Share This Page

AFL, union still haven't signed CBA

| Friday, July 20, 2012, 9:20 p.m.
Tribune-Review
Wide receiver Mike Washington of the Pittsburgh Power plows past the Jacksonville Sharks to make a touchdown at the Console Energy Center on Friday, July 20, 2012.

More than a month after the Arena Football League and its union said they had agreed to terms of a new collective bargaining agreement, the deal has not been signed.

“Deal imploding,” AFL Players Union executive director Ivan Soto tweeted Friday night.

AFL commissioner Jerry Kurz, who attended the Power's nationally televised game against the Jacksonville Sharks at Consol Energy Center, declined to comment.

Both sides said June 17 that they had agreed to a five-year CBA that would increase players' salaries 131 percent.

Soto said major elements of the deal, including salary and medical issues, have been settled, but there are disagreements regarding workers' compensation and players' rights if the league reduces its number of franchises or games.

“It's not something that should be holding up the deal in the ninth inning,” Soto said.

The Power's game was played as scheduled, and the union is not threatening to strike when the playoffs begin next week.

— Jerry DiPaolo

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.