If no deal is made (1 Viewer)

[ravnzfan]

If the players had not asked for 60%, would there be an agreement by now?

I felt early on that the problem was in the players' demand for the larger slice of the pie

obviously, there was deflection of fault on the part of ownership when they "unanimously" voted down the PA offer before postponing the first "deadline"---they tried to paint a "we're all together" picture, which just isn't true

since then, the owners true colors have come out, as the big boys don't want to continue to throw such an expensive line to the bottom feeders...which I understand

what THEY need to understand is that the total pie is reduced if these smaller teams go "bye-bye"...someone asked earlier about "profits"...AZ lost $4.9M in '04, per a Clayton article that I'll try to dig up later

obviously, it would be difficult for AZ to continue at that rate---which is why a move to LA would have make perfect sence to me...you'd have to think "local revenues" could be alittle higher in LA than Phoenix

 

[GregR_2]

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.

I don't think you understand what a standard deviation is.

 

[GregR_2]

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

At work so I don't have time to digest the entire thing, but there were a fewthings I think they did wrong or poorly.For example, to look at salary caps and if they increase competitiveness, it looked at the st. dev of leaguewide season winning records in the NFL and saw there was no change before and after the cap. It looked at how many different teams make the final games and there were clearly more in capped years than in not. Then it looked at the st. dev of each individual team's annual winning percentage and found the st.dev was higher in the cap... and deduced this meant the cap didn't promote competitiveness.

But that isn't the picture these results paint. They paint a picture that the league is not more competitive in a single season in terms of more teams close to a .500 season, but instead that teams are more able to turn their season around from one year to the next. The higher st. dev of individual clubs means they are more likely to experience wilder swings from one year to another, where in the past teams who were bad were more likely to stay bad and those who were good were more likely to stay good.

 

[P Boy]

Actually, Im quite certain I saw the math on another board, and NFL players are still not getting paid their worth.

Worth is a relative term.As I posted earlier, football has much less of an opportunity to generate revenue due to revenues related to games played than other sports - simply because the season is so much smaller in number of games than any other sport. Then that is compounded by the fact that football teams employ over twice as many athletes per team as two other major sports, and almost 4 times as many athletes per team as the NBA teams.This is basic economics. Very limited opportunity for revenues & a much larger player base are going to create a situation where football players simply can not make as much per player as athletes in the other sports.The only saving grace for the NFL players is the television contract - which is gigantic. The only way that the television revenues are going to remain gigantic is if companies are willing to pay huge dollars to advertise during football games, and that willingness to pay is directly related to how many people those advertisers can reach during games. The NFL continues to attract a huge viewer base because of the strength of its product.If the NFL screws this up and makes watching televised games much less appealing to fans, then everyone can kiss a lot of money goodbye, because the television revenues are going to shrink dramatically. Everyone involved is going to lose, and possibly lose a lot, if the owners & the players' union don't get their #### together quickly. If the NFL goes to being uncapped - and once that genie is let out of the bottle it will never be recaptured - and plays out like MLB, we might see a point where the NFL becomes the worst of the 4 majors - because the revenues will drop dramatically because the product declines in quality by so much, then the players' salaries will consequently drop off so dramatically, and the better athletes will play other more lucrative sports.You'll always have your die-hard fans, of course. But the NFL has engaged the average sports fan like no other sport. I for one, if I know that 4/5ths of the league has no opportunity for competing for a championship even before the season starts - like MLB is right now, then I will turn off pro football & devote myself entirely to college football during football season.

 

[GregR_2]

Pony Boy, I wasn't the one who said that.