NFL wants an 18-game regular season. Here's what players should ask for in return.

Since the dawn of the Roger Goodell era in 2006, expanding the NFL regular season to 18 games has been the white whale for the league’s ownership and commissioner. The matter has come up for debate every so often in the years since, but it’s when labor contracts are set to expire that the matter gets serious consideration.

In fact, the 2006 collective bargaining agreement had a provision allowing ownership to expand the regular season to 18 games so long as owners provided 90 days' notice and negotiated a deal with the union regarding additional compensation. It was in 2010, with another CBA negotiation impending, that players were presented with the first detailed proposal for an 18-game season. Union opposition to the idea was strong.

The current CBA is set to expire after the 2020 NFL season. Neither side wants to go into that season with an agreement in jeopardy, so next off-season is when dealing begins in earnest. However, the seeds of that showdown are already being sown, and sure enough, the specter of an 18-game season is being raised again. Last week, The Washington Post reported that some owners are interested in either expanding the regular season to 18 games, or adding an extra playoff team to each conference, thereby creating two additional postseason games. In the proposed playoff expansion, only one team in each conference would get a bye. Wild-Card weekend would consist of 12 teams and six games.

Around the same time, the NFLPA circulated a letter to agents advising them to instruct their players to save 50 percent of their earnings in advance of a potential lockout in 2021. If this sounds redolent of the last NFL lockout, that’s in part because each side must appeal to its constituency and prepare for the worst, but also because the league realizes dangling the prospect of 18 games is a useful bargaining chip, whether the realization of it would be good for the sport or not.

More likely than not, and one insider seems to agree, this is preliminary saber-rattling for the larger CBA negotiation to be had. At this point, the owners have such an advantageous position over the players, there’s not that much for them to reach for, and 18 games is the handiest suggestion, whether it’s realistic or even practical. Just by making a demand, they can use the concession of it as a way to pry a demand away from the players union.

After all, expanding the regular season, while surely an opportunity for additional revenue, would potentially serve to exacerbate already existing problems for the league. There’s the risk of further oversaturating and diluting the product, both from an on-field perspective and how much significance any given NFL regular-season game holds. It would also easily lend itself to negative PR, as many would find a push for more games flies in the face for any concern for safety.

But, as any long-time observer of the NFL must know, just because an idea is impractical or unpopular doesn’t mean the league won’t still pursue it. So it behooves anyone involved in the process to treat the matter as a potential reality, just in case.

So if the league is still insistent on adding games to the season, what should the players ask for in return? Here are a few suggestions:

Expanded rosters: It stands to reason that more games equals more injuries. The only way to offset what would surely be blowback for safety concerns is to expand the default NFL 53-man roster. The benefit for the union is obvious: more jobs for players. The concern for both sides, however, is what it means to the on-field product. There’s a decent likelihood that additional games would feature players who only have jobs because of expanded rosters. That most likely means slightly less talented players would be on the field, solely because owners perceive more demand for the NFL brand. Given that concerns already emerge about game quality with a 16-game season, this must be weighed carefully.

End marijuana testing: This is something that should be on the players radar regardless of any 18-game plans. Surging popular support for the recreational legalization of marijuana means this is ultimately a losing issue for the league. And it makes sense for the NFL in a number of ways to end marijuana testing: It sidelines exciting players for a violation the public doesn’t consider serious, and it makes the league look even more inconsiderate when it comes to players trying to cope with pain.

Diminished commissioner power: This being the first CBA since the Ray Rice and Deflategate debacles, one would assume Goodell’s authority would be an easy target for the union. Such is the Teflon commissioner that there doesn’t seem to be that much early momentum for it. Either way, it makes sense to curb Goodell. He would likely even agree to it if it meant securing the 18-game season he has long coveted.

Eliminating the franchise tag: What has played out in recent years with Le’Veon Bell and Kirk Cousins has highlighted for many fans what a manner of control the franchise tag can be. That said, however unpopular, owners likely won’t part with it easily.

Revenue sharing on in-stadium gambling: As with marijuana testing, this is something the players union must be proactive about. Gambling will become more a part of the NFL game-day experience in the years to come -- it has been hailed as a massive resource of potential revenue for the league. The union must be ready to establish how the players will be compensated for creating this additional value to the league.