Steel City
Footballguy
Let's assume that no deal is agreed on.
Who do we blame?
Based on the info we have of course.
Who do we blame?
Based on the info we have of course.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If no deal is made (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steel City
- Start date
nerangers
Footballguy
I read an interesting article about Bob Kraft and his views about revenue sharing. When he bought the team, they were last in revenue sharing, and he turned it around. I think some of the owners want to see other teams try harder.Chance to be a giant among owners
The article talks about doing what is right for the owners vs doing what is right for football. It talked about how Mara had this same kind of decision with the Giants, and he helped football move on over his own revenues. I don't think there is a man like that now though.
Tough to blame people for trying to do what is right in their business.
Challenge Everything
Footballguy
Hate to beat a dead horse but I will blame the players. They are the one asking for a bigger piece of the pie when that piece is already big enough. They want more money for players yet the salary cap is raised every year and higher and higher rookie contracts are being signed. If the players are looking out for themselves and their interests they will be looking to cut back on the rookie salaries and signing bonuses. If the players want more money cut the pay from the people that have never played the game at the NFL level.
Simple solution to a simple problem. Want more money, cut the fat from the equation.
Simple solution to a simple problem. Want more money, cut the fat from the equation.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
Apparently, Jerry Jones is the ring leader of the haves and invited select owners to his mansion last night for dinner to make sure they have enough votes to overturn the CBA agreement.
This is on the owners at this point.
This is on the owners at this point.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
I read it last night somewhere...I'll see if I can dig it up.Last post in this thread. I realize it's rumor but if it's true, it doesn't look promising.
More from Jones...
"I'm not happy with the proposal. I didn't think that we would be entertaining the kinds of propositions that we got from the players. I'm not happy with it at all," he said. "As you well know, I don't think anyone particularly cares how happy I am."
Last edited by a moderator:
SoloMatisse
Footballguy
To keep this complicated matter as simple as possible, a deal is on the table, and its on the owners now to vote and pass it. At this point, if it isnt passed it will fall squarely on the shoulders of the big market clubs voting it down...no other way of looking at it.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
I blame both sides but right now more should go to the owners. There is plenty of cash to be made -- come up with compromise with revenue sharing and move on.
The Juggernaut
The Man. The Myth
The refs.
Oh wait, that was a few weeks ago......
Oh wait, that was a few weeks ago......
Mungo Burrows
Footballguy
I'm pretty sure the percentage of total revenue that goes to the players has gone down consistently since the start of the salary cap and that even if the new deal goes in, it will be a smaller percentage of total revenue than they got with the first salary cap. (However, I agree with you that they should get pay for 1st round rookies back in line as well.)There is a reason every time they think they have a deal it is Tags going back to the owners to try to get it ratified (like he's doing today). That's becauase he really doesn't know what they will agree to since there is so much infighting amongst them. He tries to broker a deal he thinks is fair, then has to cross his fingers and hope he can convince 24 of them to vote for it.
Both sides are greedy. I don't think you can't say one side is at fault because it's being greedy; there's nothing wrong with greed in this context. It's expected. In some sense, this has followed a fairly normal course of deadline driven negotiations resulting in last minute movement to compromise positons. The problem is with the owners because they can't agree at all on what they want so their negotiating team is at best working in the dark and at worst working in an impossible situation where there is no deal possible that would be accepted by enough owners to be ratified.
Native
Footballguy
The owners are GUILTY:
1) NFL players make on average less than $1 million per year. That is LOWER than salaries from the other three major sports in the US. This despite that the fact that the NFL is the richest and most popular US Sport - well over $5 billion in revenues in 2005.
2) NFL owners take home more profit than any other League (~16%). To compare, the NBA owners take in ~7%. So its not like these guys are losing money. Theyre making a killing but dont want to share the spoils.
3) NFL Player contracts are the only Pro Sports contracts that are NOT guaranteed (even though they face the greatest risk of getting injured)
But again, this is NOT a "player vs owner" debate. Its a "big owner" vs "small owner" debate. The Rich owners dont mind sharing ALL revenues with the Players (including stadium-naming rights, skyboxes, etc), but they DO mind sharing it with the "small owners" that arent brining in their peice of the pie. The disagreements among Owners is the reason the CBA keeps on getting rejected.
1) NFL players make on average less than $1 million per year. That is LOWER than salaries from the other three major sports in the US. This despite that the fact that the NFL is the richest and most popular US Sport - well over $5 billion in revenues in 2005.
2) NFL owners take home more profit than any other League (~16%). To compare, the NBA owners take in ~7%. So its not like these guys are losing money. Theyre making a killing but dont want to share the spoils.
3) NFL Player contracts are the only Pro Sports contracts that are NOT guaranteed (even though they face the greatest risk of getting injured)
But again, this is NOT a "player vs owner" debate. Its a "big owner" vs "small owner" debate. The Rich owners dont mind sharing ALL revenues with the Players (including stadium-naming rights, skyboxes, etc), but they DO mind sharing it with the "small owners" that arent brining in their peice of the pie. The disagreements among Owners is the reason the CBA keeps on getting rejected.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok so your saying that you would not want a raise if your company is having record earnings? I find that hard to believe.This is the same thing. Since the last CBA the owners have more revenue coming in so why should the players not get more of the pie? I know that I would want more of the pie.
But at this time if the Commish has signed off on the deal, and if the owner's do not approve it then it is on the owners.
3nOut
Footballguy
Just becasue it up to the owners to vote and pass it doesn't mean that the blame should be put on them. If its not a fair deal they shold indeed vote it down. Lets go to an extreme and say that the players wanted 99% of the revenue and the owners voted it down. Is it still their fault?I blame te players. Challenge eveything is right. The players want a bigger piece of the pie. Why should they? They are employees not business owners. The owners take all the risks and spend their money. Why should the players want more of the revenue for nothing. What are they contributing extra to qualify for a bigger piece ofthe pie? I still can't see why the players just don't say, let's extend the agrrement for 5 extra years and keep everything the way it is. Is what they have now not enough for them? Even if the percentage remains where it is now, if revenues increase so will the amount they make.
BigRed
Footballguy
Gene Upshaw isn't a player or owner, so it's neither.
PS the "wouldn't you want a raise if your company was doing well" was a weak comparison. Very few companies give you a raise based on how well they company is doing.....yet they'll lay you off in a heartbeat if things *aren't* going so well.
Too bad we can't get people to stop going to games and buying the merchandise in droves; you'd see this problem go away in a heartbeat.
PS the "wouldn't you want a raise if your company was doing well" was a weak comparison. Very few companies give you a raise based on how well they company is doing.....yet they'll lay you off in a heartbeat if things *aren't* going so well.
Too bad we can't get people to stop going to games and buying the merchandise in droves; you'd see this problem go away in a heartbeat.
Steel City
Footballguy
I totally agree with this part of your post. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever been on the players side (baseball, hockey, BB), but if this thing doesn't get done, the blame goes the owners. I'm sick of hearing "golden goose", but there's no better way to describe it. From the few players I've heard who have spoken about the CBA in public, every single one claims all they want is to see the CBA get done. They know how good they have it.
I don't know which owners are to blame, but it's up to them to get this done.
Last edited by a moderator:
brettdj
Footballguy
1. Football teams have the largest rosters, number of players.3. If the player wants the contract guaranteed, get it in writing. MLB and NBA do not have this as part of the CBA. But it has become standard in their individual contract. The Nationals offered Sosa a non-guaranteed contract this year.
BOTH are at fault.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
1) Again, there are more than twice as many NFL players on each team than MLB players on each team. And there are almost 5 times as many NFL players on each team as there are on each NBA team. So comparing salaries by dollar amount is unfair. The real comparison is percentage of revenue that the players as a whole make. For MLB it's about 60%. For the NBA, the new CBA fixes the percentage at 57%. (Link) The NFL is now negotiating on that and if an agreement is made the numbers should be between 58 and 60%.2) I'd be interested to know where you came up with those figures. Even if they are correct, it doesn't change the percentage of revenue that the players take home.
3) You keep using this injury argument and you have yet to substantiate it. What percentage of players are forced out of the NFL due to injury compared to those forced out due to lack of ability? And what compensation are those that are injured receiving as part of the NFL rules on injury settlements? And again, the counter-argument is that by paying a guy to not play, you are just going to take money away from guys that are playing.
ETA: At this point I think the owners are in the wrong. I think that 60% of total revenues is pretty fair. I don't think that Upshaw had any right to hinge the CBA on an agreement between the owners on their own revenue sharing, but that also should have been taken care of a long time ago. There is no excuse for that to not be already taken care of. If the owners won't sign a new CBA because of their own internal issues, they should be taken out behind the barn and beaten with a switch.
Last edited by a moderator:
NFL average player salaries topped $1,000,000 around 1991. The average salary right now is about $1,250,000 per player.But there are additional factors. While the NBA has the highest average salary, they also have the lowest roster limits at 15 maximum players per team, have a minimum salary of about $400,000, a vet minimum of about $640,000, and play an 82 game schedule where the average attendance is just over 17,000 per game. The players' share of revenue is 57% and the average payroll is $59,000,000. Average payroll is $59 million.MLB has an average salary of $2,476,000 and a minimum salary of $327,000. The roster limit is 25 players and they play 162 games. Average attendance is 30,000 per game. Players' share of revenue is 63%. Average payroll is $68.1 million.The NHL has an average salary of $1,460,000 and a minimum salary of $450,000, with roster limits of 23 players. The average attendnace is 16,500 for an 82 game schedule. The players' share of league revenue is 75%. Average payroll is $41.6 million.The NFL in the meantime has 16 regular season games from which to generate the their ticket & concession revenue and carry maximum rosters of 53 players. Yet the average salary is $1,250,000, the league minimum is $230,000 and the vet minimum is $650,000. Average attendance in that 16 game schedule is almost 67,000 and the players' share of revenue is projected to be between 56% and 59%. Average payroll is $71.8 million - easily the highest of the 4 majors.So if you want to make valid comparisons, you'd better make sure you include all the factors - number of games, roster limits, league minimums, everything. The NFL has much less opportunity to generate income, since during the regular season an average team has 550,000 fans in attendance while the NBA has an average regular season attendance of 700,000, the NHL has 680,000, and MLB has 2,430,000.The huge difference is that the NFL has made itself incredibly marketable to TV, which none of the other sports can compare to. It is the owners that made the league so marketable in conjunction with the players' union, while the other leagues are a joke to compare to the NFL's watchability.
The last time I saw the economic fundamentals of this country, our system was based upon capitalism. That means that the owners of companies take the largest risks, and therefore ought to be entitled to the largest share of the profits if the companies are successful. You're going to knock the owners for taking 16% when they have created an incredibly successful marketable product? My friend, that's their right as owners. Do you prefer socialism?
That's part of what makes pro football so successful. Players have to earn their keep. They're being paid a commesurate amount given the risk they take - and they have insurance policies that they can partake in, as well as pensions and other health benefits. But each player knows that if their performance goes in the tank they can be cut - so they have to keep earning their spot with their play. That's more than can be said of players in other sports who get their guaranteed contracts, have their performance go in the tank, and still cost the team a fortune for years. And NFL players do have partially guaranteed salaries - they're called signing bonuses.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheFanatic
Footballguy
I voted both. I see two problems here. The big market owners are trying to screw the small market owners. I don't really blame them for hating the Bill Bidwell's who do nothing and reap the rewards of the outside the norm marketing campaigns the better franchises do to earn money, but if we get rid of the salary cap (and the salary minimum which is even more important), then the Bidwell's of the world are going to pay an entire team about $40 million while the Snyders' and the Jones' are going to spend like crazy.
And I blame the players. They think that having no cap will be a good thing. And it will be for a very small minority of players that can last 6 years in the league in order to become a FA. Remember the average career in the NFL is less than 3 years. Sure the signing bonuses are going to be monsters (if you sign with a team with an owner with deep pockets) but much fewer players will become FA's before their careers are over. I don't think eliminating the cap will help the players union as a whole, just a small percantage of them. The union is supposed to help all the players not just a select few.....
Also the Gene Upshaw is very shortsighted when it comes to asking for 60% of the pie. See, the league is worth more now and is earning more than it ever has. 56% of the pie is more money than they have ever gotten in the past despite the percentage being lower. The number 60 makes sense out of context, but when you look at the whole value and earning potential of the league the number 60 is asking way too much.
And I blame the players. They think that having no cap will be a good thing. And it will be for a very small minority of players that can last 6 years in the league in order to become a FA. Remember the average career in the NFL is less than 3 years. Sure the signing bonuses are going to be monsters (if you sign with a team with an owner with deep pockets) but much fewer players will become FA's before their careers are over. I don't think eliminating the cap will help the players union as a whole, just a small percantage of them. The union is supposed to help all the players not just a select few.....
Also the Gene Upshaw is very shortsighted when it comes to asking for 60% of the pie. See, the league is worth more now and is earning more than it ever has. 56% of the pie is more money than they have ever gotten in the past despite the percentage being lower. The number 60 makes sense out of context, but when you look at the whole value and earning potential of the league the number 60 is asking way too much.
SoloMatisse
Footballguy
Red McCombs just sold his club last year and made a $300 million profit. $300 million!!.....thats for the friggin' VIKINGS!! Do you really think the guys with the salary restrictions that we all love to watch play are to blame????? Cmon....
The overall worth of the most valuable franchise in the NFL - the Redskins - doesn't come close to matching the revenues from last year of any of the top 1,000 companies in the US.The NFL is big business, and it has been built into a very profitable state, no doubt. But let's keep things in perspective, shall we? Owners have a right to make profit, and that profit relatively speaking isn't exactly gigantic when compared to other business ventures in this country.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I think people are not fully aware that the issue is the owners fighting amoungst themselves. The % that the players want is not really the main issue at this point.
The current bottom line is that the rich teams don't want to have to support the poor teams, plain and simple. Whether the players get X% or Y% is not what is causing the impasse.
The current bottom line is that the rich teams don't want to have to support the poor teams, plain and simple. Whether the players get X% or Y% is not what is causing the impasse.
I'd blame part of the owners, the slack low spending no revenue generating ownser that want the Pats, Skins, Boys and other select high revenue teams carry their sorry butts so they don't have to get off thier tail sto be competitive in this league. I do not blame the high revenue owners for working hard to buil dthe value of their teams and not wanting to give that money to the low rev owners
brettdj
Footballguy
The players want 60% of the new pie(all revenue)The owners want 56% of the old pie(certain revenue)
Poor Teams would like (all revenue shared)
Rich Teams don't want to share "personal team" revenue
The internal fight would not happen if the players were not greedy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Family Matters
Footballguy
I'm not picking sides because the issues are very complicated and I won't pretend to know what these owners and players should do. I do want to make a point about the owners I think gets overlooked and the Vikings comment made me think of it.Sure the value of these franchises is huge. The Vikings owner made 300 mil over what he bought it for many years ago. But what's not said is how much cash these are on the line for every day. Owners take the risk and put their wealth on the line as owners. If the whole thing came tumbling down today they would lose millions and in some cases perhaps, I'm not sure but maybe a billion dollars of value. Folks, how many of you have the nuts or where withall to put up that level of risk?
So please keep in this mind before you bash them for making sure they don't over-commit to the players when they agree to give away millions of dollars before they even begin to pay their other bills. It's a huge obligation folks. They are the reason these players can make what they do. The players would be well served to keep that in mind when they ask for more money.
OTOH-the players need more of a guarentee then they have. For example, if you look at A. Green and J. Walker, they are great examples of how they lost value because of injuries. And what do they have to show for it? I feel there should be a better system in place to protect these guys in that situation. The players union has left them out to dry in this situation IMO.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
From what I've seen, you could allocate whatever percentage of revenue you want for the players (using either system of all revenue or certain revenue) and we would be in the same exact spot we are in now. The "have" teams are at odds with the "have not" teams, and the bickering over the percentages has veiled the fact that there is a contingent of owners that has had it with their fellow owners. IMO, this has ZERO to do with the players. I suspect that there will not be 24 owners that will agree to the new proposal and the players will suffer because the owners can't get along.
mozzy84
Footballguy
either way we are the ones that are going to be paying more in the future, no matter what they come up with in the end. I like all the commnets about the poor owners and rich owners funny stuff.It would be nice if they put a cap on the beer and hot dog prices while they're at it....
I'd agree with most of what you've stated if 1% of total revenues weren't such a huge number.I am very concerned that some owners have no intention of learning from the vast mistake of MLB without revenue sharing and trying to keep an economically competitive league. MLB is right now a much poorer product than what it was before free agency - without salary caps & significant revenue sharing the game is a complete travesty. There are always 20 teams each year that begin the season (and the fans of all teams know it) as nothing more than fodder to fatten the richer teams' records. It's a primary reason why they can't get a good national TV contract - the overall product is garbage and the league is overall very non-competitive.If this is the way the NFL wants to go - fine. I can watch a lot of college football and ignore the pro game - just like I do with basketball, hockey, and baseball. It just changes my boys' day out for football, beer, wings, & cigars from Sunday to Saturday. If the owners & the NGLPA screw up & trash the salary cap for next year, the owners had better be resigned to knowing they'll never get a cap back into contract language with the union, and the union had better be ready for player paycuts, because the product being put out on the field will be a lot less competitive and TV revenues will drop dramatically due to a lessened demand - which means their cut consequently will drop a bunch also.
Last edited by a moderator:
Franknbeans
Footballguy
Good article here
An excerpt...
Recently, Steelers owner Dan Rooney, long considered the conscience of the league and a bridge between the old ways and the new thinking of the Gang of Nine, admitted he felt there was now a greater division between different groups of owners than there was between all owners combined and the NFLPA, a suggestion McNair rejected in a way that only served to emphasize the widening problem.
“I wouldn’t agree with that,” McNair said. “I think that the big problem is between the Players Association and the owners. We have a very healthy league, and we want it to remain healthy. There’s been a big difference between what the Players Association wants and what the owners can do. In reference to differences between the owners, I’m confident we’ll resolve those differences when we’re ready to do it.”
In other words, it’s none of the union’s business when or how the issue of sharing local revenue is settled, because when it comes to the real money issues, the players are not their “partners” at all. They’re the employees. They’re renters, not owners.
An excerpt...
Recently, Steelers owner Dan Rooney, long considered the conscience of the league and a bridge between the old ways and the new thinking of the Gang of Nine, admitted he felt there was now a greater division between different groups of owners than there was between all owners combined and the NFLPA, a suggestion McNair rejected in a way that only served to emphasize the widening problem.
“I wouldn’t agree with that,” McNair said. “I think that the big problem is between the Players Association and the owners. We have a very healthy league, and we want it to remain healthy. There’s been a big difference between what the Players Association wants and what the owners can do. In reference to differences between the owners, I’m confident we’ll resolve those differences when we’re ready to do it.”
In other words, it’s none of the union’s business when or how the issue of sharing local revenue is settled, because when it comes to the real money issues, the players are not their “partners” at all. They’re the employees. They’re renters, not owners.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spike
Footballguy
Amongst the owners, the numbers I'd like to see are the profit they make (per team) after taking into account debt service.
I think some of the crying over revenue sharing (between the teams, not the slice for the players) would be more easily explained if we could see the black-and-white numbers.
I think some of the crying over revenue sharing (between the teams, not the slice for the players) would be more easily explained if we could see the black-and-white numbers.
Napoleon Dynamite
Footballguy
Ok so the players want about 60% of the revenues...
are there other businesses that give of a percentage to only their key employees?
Do actors make 60% of revenues from their movies???
are there other businesses that give of a percentage to only their key employees?
Do actors make 60% of revenues from their movies???
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Good point too. I don't necessarily begrudge anyone just because they have money, but even the "poorest" individuals in these negotiations are pulling in more than 6 times the average U.S. salary (assuming about a $37,000.00 average salary). The average football player takes in as much in one year as it would take the average U.S. working stiff 33 years to take in. So yeah, the average NFL career might only be 2.6 years. But that means even the lowest paid guy could sit at home for the next almost 16 years without working before the average working stiff catches up to him. And that's assuming that he hasn't invested that money anywhere.either way we are the ones that are going to be paying more in the future, no matter what they come up with in the end. I like all the commnets about the poor owners and rich owners funny stuff.It would be nice if they put a cap on the beer and hot dog prices while they're at it....
I don't have much sympathy for anyone. I don't really care how they get it done as long as the salary cap and salary floor stay in place. I'm sure that there's a point where the "small" owners can't afford the minimum and there's a point where the players are just getting taken advantage of. The bottom line is that it is the job of Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw to find the spot between those two areas.
I honestly don't know exactly what that point is so it's hard to place blame specifically. But the bottom line is that all I care about is a deal getting done.
I was thinking the other day (shocking as that is), what if recently-retired players pooled their money and bought a franchise like the Saints? It'd sure be interesting to see how their tune might change related to the labor agreement, and it would be an EXCELLENT chance to see if they would put their money where their mouth is.
People will ALWAYS be jealous and unhappy with "Tha Man"....as it's not the money that at the root of the problem, I think, it's the POWER. If the owners give 60%, the players will grumble in 3-4 years that they deserve 65. If the owners give them 65, they'll grumble about wanting 70. It's the same reason that mechanics at NWA were grumbling about having to "suffer" pulling down only $60K/year.
I say give the players a serious share of the pie....but ALSO shift to lower base salaries and more performance clauses....with performance based on both individual and team results. Then double-triple the fines that teams or the league can impose for things like failed drug tests or run-ins with the law. Earn your money....but also have your money taken away and/or kick you out of the club if you give your team or the league a black eye with your on/off-field conduct. They're all millionaires, but take their keys to the Champagne Room away if they are bringing the league's image (and future earnings) down.
People will ALWAYS be jealous and unhappy with "Tha Man"....as it's not the money that at the root of the problem, I think, it's the POWER. If the owners give 60%, the players will grumble in 3-4 years that they deserve 65. If the owners give them 65, they'll grumble about wanting 70. It's the same reason that mechanics at NWA were grumbling about having to "suffer" pulling down only $60K/year.
I say give the players a serious share of the pie....but ALSO shift to lower base salaries and more performance clauses....with performance based on both individual and team results. Then double-triple the fines that teams or the league can impose for things like failed drug tests or run-ins with the law. Earn your money....but also have your money taken away and/or kick you out of the club if you give your team or the league a black eye with your on/off-field conduct. They're all millionaires, but take their keys to the Champagne Room away if they are bringing the league's image (and future earnings) down.
msommer
Footballguy
From cursory reading of the positions this i swhat I understand:
1) the big market owners want the shared NFL revenue pie to be as small as possible
2) the small market owners want the shared NFL revenue pie to be as large as possible
3) both the small and large market owners want the labor costs to be the smallest share of the smallest pie possible.
4) the small market owners want to restrict the big market owners ability to scoop the market with lots of cash.
5) the players want the labor costs to be the largest share of the largest pie possible - ie they are asking to expand the revenue base for calculations and increase their share of it at the same time.
It seems to me that in 1,2,3 and 5 it should be possible to find a compromise that makes the base revenue larger but not all inclusive, but the salary costs share smaller, but larger in relative terms than it is today - meeting some of all demands.
4 on the other hand is an internal owner squabble that impacts the players indrectly because of the effect it will have on signing bonuses.
1) the big market owners want the shared NFL revenue pie to be as small as possible
2) the small market owners want the shared NFL revenue pie to be as large as possible
3) both the small and large market owners want the labor costs to be the smallest share of the smallest pie possible.
4) the small market owners want to restrict the big market owners ability to scoop the market with lots of cash.
5) the players want the labor costs to be the largest share of the largest pie possible - ie they are asking to expand the revenue base for calculations and increase their share of it at the same time.
It seems to me that in 1,2,3 and 5 it should be possible to find a compromise that makes the base revenue larger but not all inclusive, but the salary costs share smaller, but larger in relative terms than it is today - meeting some of all demands.
4 on the other hand is an internal owner squabble that impacts the players indrectly because of the effect it will have on signing bonuses.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Yes and no. I think that most people aren't aware that giving players a chunk of TOTAL revenue without having total revenue sharing, means that the poorer teams are subsidizing the big market teams.Let's say the players get 60%. The exact number doesn't matter, just using it to illustrate how it plays out. There is no total revenue sharing in this example.
The Texans sell their naming rights for $11m, but no other team does. The players get a $6.6m chunk of that, in the form of about $200k more on every team's cap.
The Texans don't have to share the revenue and so pocket $11m - $200k = $10.8m. Every other team has to pay $200k. The other teams in the league would have to shell out $6.4 of the $6.6m, but didn't get a cent out of the original $11m.
Now the big market owners argue that some teams (Packers, Browns) aren't selling their naming rights, so aren't doing their most to raise revenue. Which is indeed a valid complaint. But even if every team did their utmost, the discrepancy in the markets of each team don't change the problem I just illustrated.
Real figures, the Texans got $10m for naming rights, and the Colts got $1m. Let's say every NFL team does their utmost and sells their naming rights, and leaguewide the average gained is $5m.
That's another $3m per team increased on the salary cap. Now if the Colts did their utmost, only got $1m, and don't have shared revenue, they have to pay $3m more in cap room while they only earned an extra $1m. So they would lose $2m.
We shouldn't solely blame the owners for not being able to agree to total revenue sharing, when they are forced into it by the player's demand it be total revenue. There are a lot of painful issues to get past to come to a total revenue sharing plan. I've illustrated the small market owners plight because I think it isn't widely understood the bind they are in when a Jerry Jones doesn't want to share revenue at all, but the players get a piece of it all. The big owners have an equal argument though that some teams need to do more, plus the amount they invested to raise that revenue should be recouped somehow.
Sorting out the details of all that wouldn't be easy even if everyone agreed total revenue sharing was a positive.
GregR_2
Footballguy
Well, he has a long way to go to equal Mara, but Bob McNair of the Texans is one of the top revenue franchises, and he chairs the owner's committee that has pushed for more revenue sharing.Of course, I'm being a bit of a Homer by pointing that out, but it makes me think a lot higher of McNair than of say, Jerry Jones. [/jab at anything Cowboys]
Peep It Yo!
Footballguy
I think they are both to blame. If they can't look at history and see what labor arguments did to the other sports, they have no one to blame but themselves. The NFL is the one league that appears to be moving along very well and is as popular as ever. Why both sides can't give a little is beyond me. They need to do it for the good of their sport. They are going to lose some fans if they don't come to some agreement.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Another way that I have seen things described is the actual percentage of a team's revenue picture.For example, I have seen as an example that the $95 million projected cap number might equate to only 40% of the Patriots' revenue stream but it could be 75% of the Cardinals' revenue stream. If teams are that far apart on their local income, the owners have a long way to go to stay happy. Owners are not thrilled that they only make 3 cents on the dollar (1/32nd).
CalBear
Footballguy
The power of an employee is most directly related to replacement cost. An employee who is unique has the most power to negotiate terms and conditions; Schwarzenegger, for example, gets huge contracts for his movies, because the only way to make a Schwarzenegger movie (with the revenue guarantees that implies) is to hire Schwarzenegger. (Side note: Schwarzenegger is continually frustrated that he doesn't have power as a politician the way he does as an actor. Pretty soon he won't be a politician any more.)
So, the actors who are guaranteed box-office draws command huge contracts, while the vast majority of actors work as waiters. That's not because Nicole Kidman, for example, is a better actress than any of the hundreds of waitresses out there (she's not, she's awful), but because her face and name recognition can't be easily replaced.
Pro athletes in major revenue sports tend to be pretty powerful in negotiations, because with few exceptions, they are the elite of the elite and can't be easily replaced. Most people viewed the contract that Mark Brunell got with the Redskins as significantly over-priced, but realistically, how many people in the world can play NFL QB at his level? Probably less than 20, certainly less than 30, and most of them are already under contract elsewhere. So if an owner wants to play hardball, and say "we're not going to pay you, you're not worth that much", he'll wind up hiring Kordell Stewart on the open market instead, with all that entails.
The NFLPA has not had the success of some other major-sports unions in leveraging the power of the players; that's probably related to the lesser longevity of the player base. Strikes and lock-outs are tough on the NFL players, because if you're a 26 year old running back, losing a year of your career is a huge problem; even if you get a better deal, you'll only be able to enjoy the benefits for three or four years. Whereas if you're a power forward or an outfielder, you can easily get 10 years of benefit from your one year of dispute.
Native
Footballguy
I keep on missing your responses to my posts. Guess were on different schedules.
1) I agree with you. Its not completely fair to compare salaries between athletes of different leagues given roster size inequalities. So I heed your point. Having said that, if you took the standard deviation of the revenues in each league and divided it by the number of players in each league, you would STILL find Football Players are paid less than Baseball Players. Actually, Im quite certain I saw the math on another board, and NFL players are still not getting paid their worth.2) Again, the info was floated on another board. I'll try and find the source, but the poster was reputable so I tend to take his word at face value. I understand if you do not.
3) Here I completely disagree with you. I dont need to quantify the number and severity of injuries to understand that Football players are effected more by their sports-related impairments than Baseball or Basketball players. Regardles of skill-set, a very good NFL Running Back will typically break down after 5-6 years. Who can say that about most baseball players? Yes, insurance and pension plans cover career-threatening injuries, but what about standard wear-and-tear that cuts careers short? Football is a violent sport and its clear as day that those players suffer more risks than athletes in other professions. And Im not even talking about the creepy, post-career ailments that many players suffer, which seem to plague NFL linemen at a terrifying rate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Franknbeans
Footballguy
from Don Banks...
If a labor deal is to get done, either somebody within the block of high-revenue teams, who are against the notion of sharing too much of their local revenues, or somebody in the block of low-revenue teams, who are just as adamantly in favor of such level-the-playing-field methods, will have to play the role of statesman, putting the good of the league above their own interests.
Who will it be? In talking to club officials, the two most likely candidates seem to be Patriots owner Bob Kraft or Houston's Bob McNair, who have been staunch members of the high-revenue camp.
"Kraft and McNair are the voice of reason,'' one league insider said. "If anyone is going to lead that compromise, it'll be one of them.''
from Peter King...
By Wednesday evening, NFL owners probably will have made a call, up or down, on the players' latest proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. My guess is there's not going to be a deal and that free agency will start Thursday morning with a $94.5 million cap that will cause a few teams to cut some pretty good players.
My feeling is based on the fact that this set of owners just can't agree on anything. I mean, it just pains some of them to see the cash that small-marketers like Mike Brown are making in places like Cincinnati and to think they have to share more of their money. Dallas owner Jerry Jones said it best in a press conference on Monday. He's talked to several of his peers and they don't like the deal Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw fine-tuned to give to the owners Tuesday afternoon.
Curtains. The death knell.
Anything can happen with this group of owners, of course. But I don't see a deal.
If a labor deal is to get done, either somebody within the block of high-revenue teams, who are against the notion of sharing too much of their local revenues, or somebody in the block of low-revenue teams, who are just as adamantly in favor of such level-the-playing-field methods, will have to play the role of statesman, putting the good of the league above their own interests.
Who will it be? In talking to club officials, the two most likely candidates seem to be Patriots owner Bob Kraft or Houston's Bob McNair, who have been staunch members of the high-revenue camp.
"Kraft and McNair are the voice of reason,'' one league insider said. "If anyone is going to lead that compromise, it'll be one of them.''
from Peter King...
By Wednesday evening, NFL owners probably will have made a call, up or down, on the players' latest proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. My guess is there's not going to be a deal and that free agency will start Thursday morning with a $94.5 million cap that will cause a few teams to cut some pretty good players.
My feeling is based on the fact that this set of owners just can't agree on anything. I mean, it just pains some of them to see the cash that small-marketers like Mike Brown are making in places like Cincinnati and to think they have to share more of their money. Dallas owner Jerry Jones said it best in a press conference on Monday. He's talked to several of his peers and they don't like the deal Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw fine-tuned to give to the owners Tuesday afternoon.
Curtains. The death knell.
Anything can happen with this group of owners, of course. But I don't see a deal.
Native
Footballguy
Heres a link to a study on the salary differences between the four main leagues. Bear in mind that the study DOESNT include Roster sizes.
http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm
http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm
Actually that comment is way off base. The percentage that you get for your raise is based off the budget that the company has. (yes I understand job performance also plays apart). And if the company is making more money there is a bigger budget. So yes a company will give you a raise based on how they have done on profits.ANd if that was not the case why did raises start to fall after 9-11??? Its due to the companys bottom line was hurting compared to what it was doing.
Plus some company's will give a bonus based on how the company did.wished I worked for one of those company's.
Last edited by a moderator:
