Letter from Roger Goodell (1 Viewer)

[Invictus~Bronte]

I'm sure many of us got this email last night. Seems he's trying to make fans support the owners but IMO it comes off as patronizing and if this is how he's running things, my support is firmly with the players.

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.

Yours,

Roger Goodell

When I look at this I wonder what fantasy world these players are in. How many of us make millions of dollars playing a game. I say let them go out and find a real job, get a real check to pay the bills, then they will see what the real world is all about. The league did about all they could and they wouldn't budge. Screw those spoiled ###'s, let them make a living washing cars, I can live without football.

I'm with the players on this one. I think most fans are far more concerned about who's on the field for their team rather than who's up in the owners box. How many owners sacrifice their bodies for the game? How many owners can suddenly have one horrible instance during a game when, due to an injury, they are out of the sport from the rest of their lives? The players are the ones making the plays and taking the risks. They should be paid accordingly.

And really guys enough with this argument if you can call it that. They are playing a game which is their job, which they have dreamed of and elected and CHOSEN to do for an agreed upon salary, usually incentive laden. Sacrificing their bodies is the job. The ones that me , you and they have dreamed about and they are fulfilling. If they are unhappy they are more then free to go pursue something else. I will be more then willing to risk a concussion or ACL tear for the jobs and pay they are privy to. As far as the Owners not sacrificing their bodies, they don't have to, they have earned the right and risked plenty to be a select few people in the world who can own an NFL franchise. This is the epitome of the American dream at work, if you have a problem with this you should look to another source of entertainment.

 

[anakin]

My take: http://dynastyblitz.com/2011/03/13/a-football-fanatics-pov-on-the-demise-of-the-cba/

 

[cobalt_27]

I really can't believe how many people side with the owners on this issue.

Believe it.

I for sure do and it's not even close.

Agreed. Lots blame both, but in H2H, more blame on players

No one can escape blame here. But, at the end of the day, the players are the ones who walked away from negotiations, despite getting the owners to move quite a bit in their direction. Even if that wasn't enough, they had enough time and enough to work with to continue negotiating. What they have done threatens the game in a big way.

 

[domvin]

My take: http://dynastyblitz.com/2011/03/13/a-football-fanatics-pov-on-the-demise-of-the-cba/

Nice article Kid...

 

[Ranethe]

I really can't believe how many people side with the owners on this issue.

Believe it. I for sure do and it's not even close.

Agreed. No one can escape blame here. But, at the end of the day, the players are the ones who walked away from negotiations, despite getting the owners to move quite a bit in their direction. Even if that wasn't enough, they had enough time and enough to work with to continue negotiating. What they have done threatens the game in a big way.

What are you going to do, post "agreed" with every single post that supports your position, over and over? We get it already.

 

[anakin]

My take: http://dynastyblitz.com/2011/03/13/a-football-fanatics-pov-on-the-demise-of-the-cba/

Nice article Kid...

Thank you

 

[Ice Cream Man]

#1 I never said they didn't have a valid reason for opting out, they made a bad deal in 2006. however, i'm not going to blame the players at this point in time (not yet).

Well, you expressed exasperation over how one could see it the owners way. That's what I was responding to, specifically.

#2 your analogy of a business owner inheriting a business or millions being the same as someone who makes it to he NFL level as a player both being inherited really is terrible. it's not even close. an NFL player is basically a lottery for a lot of the players (coming from their socio economic status), they are extremely rare and talented. there are not many people in the world who can compete at the level of the NFL, they work for and strive for it. they don't just sit there and get it handed to them. that's really a porous comparison. There are far more people in this country who run million-dollar companies then play in the NFL. so the nfl owners who inherited their wealth and the players are not on the same level.

It's fair to say the lottery in life of "inheriting billions," as you call it, and the lottery of inheriting a million-dollar athletic talent, is about the same, for all intents and purposes. No one did anything to "earn" it. It just happened. Moreover, I highly doubt you'd call training and playing a sport you love "work." Likewise, wealthy people lose money.. and lots of it.. all the time. When you pass money down from generation to generation, you'd be lucky that your kids don't screw it up. To think these owners aren't entrepreneurial, or didn't "work" for anything, is just fantasy.

#3 sure they can try to modify their investment, but at the same time profits in the NFL have doubled in the past 5 years. from around 4.5 billion to 9 billion dollars/yr. (last time i heard the numbers). So they are still making good money.

The profitability of the NFL has gone down, even though revenues have gone up. The figures you cite are revenues, not profit. Big difference. In fact, that is the entire point of the lockout. The owners argue that costs have risen disproportionately to revenues. They are NOT making "good" money when you consider what else they can be doing with all their "billions" of dollars. Gold has produced a 100% return in just 2 years, as just one example.

again as noted by previous posters, the NFL is a Monopoly as well- so you can't really even compare to most business models anyway... the NFL is not a free market system, it's a monopoly. so you can't really compare the two. the NFL lives in it's own little world.

This is a canard. Nowhere have I used arguments that ignore the nature of the industry they are in. The fundamental laws of economics - that people are largely self-serving and want to maximize profit - do not change regardless of whether there is regulation or not, competition or not, or government ownership or not. Profit-seekers voluntarily coordinate their actions through markets. This is precisely why you see black markets in socialized economies. Your comments suggest a fundamental suspicion of this market process.

#4 I am sure some other billionaire would gladly buy up their team, even it's such a money pit for them.

If owners feel they are losing money (relative to what they could make elsewhere), you don't think that would not give pause to a prospective owner? That seems kind of irrational. You make it sound as if billionaires have nothing better to do than sink their money into a sports franchise. In any case, principal owners selling their franchises is most likely a long-run phenomena; something they are trying to avoid (hence these negotiations). In the short-run, it is most likely the minority owners will sell their shares in the company.

#5 I never said anywhere that they were underpaid. my point was their self life is not long, so they have to make as much money as possible in that short time frame (let's be honest, their employer is using up their talent, and then tossing them aside in this scenario).

Almost everyone tries to make as much money as possible, regardless of what time frame they are dealing with. People don't say no to an additional +5K in their jobs for doing the same thing. It doesn't matter if they last 3 years or 30 years in an industry. People don't leave free money on the table. I don't see how any of this affects the legitimacy or desirability of the owners seeking player concessions.

#6 I love how you tell me how I really feel about unions. LMAO. you have no idea of my true feelings on unions. i grew up in an area that was decimated by the steel union, and saw the ramifications of them. so, please don't assume you know anything about me, because you don't. that statement is something LHUCKS would say.

My comment was not that you necessarily favor unions, but that you are either suspicious about owners of resources, or you are not aware of how the market system works. Frankly most people are that way, and it's natural: we relate to workers because we are also workers. I'm not here to start a fight. Just pointing out that you have a strong bias in favor of labor (even if not a labor union); it's self-evident from your comments.

 

[redBourne]

Wow, the wealth envy in this thread is staggering...

Let me ask those who want to trash the players -- do you realize that a decent % of the players make the league minimum, which I believe is under $1 mil/year? For what they put their bodies through annually for our enjoyment, I think they are underpaid. What everyone seems to scream about "Millionaires fighting with billionaires!" is that only the players that are always in front of the cameras are the ones making the millions, and that's not a big % of the players.

If it was wealth envy than I think you would see more people siding with the players since the owners have the most money. Personally right now I'm more pissed off at the players since I think they went into these negotiations with the sole purpose of taking it to court. The owners at least seem willing to negotiate.Also what difference does it make what they put themselves through? I'm pretty sure that all the players in the NFL dreamed about playing Football for a living for their entire lives. Even players who only make the league minimum are fairly compensated IMO.

I would argue against this. While I don't assume that the majority of players are only in it for the money, I would place wagers on how many players actually play because they get paid to do so (if those numbers would ever be possible to acquire). The skills they were given have granted them the opportunity to perform a job that few others can do. It's not that they particularly like playing very much, is that they're good at it. Wasn't it Kwame Harris who said he enjoyed playing piano more than football? Yet he was drafted by the niners in the first round.As for the argument of Employer/Owner or each working for each other. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one market that the NFL equates to. I think in some fashion, the players are workers of a corporation. In another, it can be considered a partnership. It's a unique situation in that any comparison is apples and oranges. Players can't walk away and find a comparable job, and the NFL can't find better talent elsewhere themselves. You can probably make small comparisons on individual topics, but the business as a whole is unique.

I don't blame the owners for opting out of the current CBA, as the players agreed to it originally. Each franchise is a business venture, and if it's not producing the turnaround that you expected, then the owner has the right to entertain options to increase that margin of gain. However, because of the 'uniqueness' of the business, they also shouldn't be confined by the same rules as a regular corporation. I think 5 years of financial data was a strong enough gesture by the owners to provide the NFLPA enough evidence of the current bottom line and the trends it's taking. Either way, just like a spoiled marriage, 99/100 times the blame is never one sided.

If there is one thing that I would LOVE the new CBA to have is the removal of franchise tags. If you cannot generate a contract to entice a player to stay with you, then you should not be granted a business tactic that would retain him. I get it that the NFL wants each team to be able to build a competitive team. But just like I mentioned before, this is a business venture for some or many owners. They're only concerned with winning a championship if the profits would highly exceed the cost (both monetary and effort). Though I won't name specific teams, it seems like some teams (or should I call them companies) venture only to put a product on the field that will still generate bottom line profit. They're only concerned with keeping players that they think will generate them revenue. This isn't fair to the player. There are 31 other companies this player could submit his resumé to, and it should be his option to take it or leave it. If a team can terminate a contract, then a player should, at the very least, be able to play one out and leave at will. The eagles should not be able to retain Vick if they didn't have the business insight to sign him long term. He should have the choice.

Oh, the second thing would be rookie salary caps. God thank you that this is seems to be getting added. You can always say, "the team decides how much to pay the draftee", but this is incorrect. Other teams set a scale that others negotiate from. If team x overpays their rookie, then team y's draft pick will start to ask why he isn't getting compensated the same amount. Snowball effect...

 

[KCC]

I'm sure many of us got this email last night. Seems he's trying to make fans support the owners but IMO it comes off as patronizing and if this is how he's running things, my support is firmly with the players.

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.

Yours,

Roger Goodell

When I look at this I wonder what fantasy world these players are in. How many of us make millions of dollars playing a game. I say let them go out and find a real job, get a real check to pay the bills, then they will see what the real world is all about. The league did about all they could and they wouldn't budge. Screw those spoiled ###'s, let them make a living washing cars, I can live without football.

I'm with the players on this one. I think most fans are far more concerned about who's on the field for their team rather than who's up in the owners box. How many owners sacrifice their bodies for the game? How many owners can suddenly have one horrible instance during a game when, due to an injury, they are out of the sport from the rest of their lives? The players are the ones making the plays and taking the risks. They should be paid accordingly.

And really guys enough with this argument if you can call it that.

Sorry, you can't just say I don't like your argument so you're not allowed to present it anymore. The boards simply don't work that way. And that's a good thing.

They are playing a game which is their job, which they have dreamed of and elected and CHOSEN to do for an agreed upon salary, usually incentive laden. Sacrificing their bodies is the job. The ones that me , you and they have dreamed about and they are fulfilling. If they are unhappy they are more then free to go pursue something else. I will be more then willing to risk a concussion or ACL tear for the jobs and pay they are privy to.

The players are what this game is all about. No one cares about the owners - who are in the fortunate position to profit off of what the players are doing with very little risk to themselves. there's not even a financial risk. Owning a team in today's NFL with the TV contracts, merchandising, salary cap, etc., is about as low-risk investment as there is. Remember, the owners are the ones refusing to open up the books and let the players see what their earnings are. As for your desire to risk concussions for a chance to play in the NFL, I wish the best in your endeavors.

As far as the Owners not sacrificing their bodies, they don't have to, they have earned the right and risked plenty to be a select few people in the world who can own an NFL franchise. This is the epitome of the American dream at work, if you have a problem with this you should look to another source of entertainment.

The owners aren't the entertaining part of the equation and they aren't what people are paying to see. I'm not sure owning an NFL franchise is "the epitome of the American dream", but I do know it's as fail-safe an investment as one can find and for every current NFL owner there are a dozen other such people waiting in line with the hopes of one day owning a team. The only prerequisites are that they have the avaiable funds to buy a team and the support of the other NFL owners.

 

[Sudsy]

I find it interesting that some seem to think that players need to be set for life by their 30's, or earlier.

I find it interesting that some seem to think all long term health issues of former players should be the NFL's responsibility. What about their parents, Pee Wee or Pop warner Leagues, Jr. Highs, High Schools, and Colleges? Wear and tear and accumulatd abuse to player bodies is not just a result of their NFL careers. Why then should the NFL get the tab for it.

Perhaps out of all of this a different model will emerge. Perhaps there will be cental regional stadiums serving several teams instead of every team having to maintain one, quite an expense. Perhaps players could get compensated not just in slary and bonuses, but also in small ownership positions so that as the game grows, so to their security. Who can say what may emerge? My guess is nothing will change because both sides like their obscene moneys, and both like sticking it to the fams they purport to love.

In the end I am reminded of the line from the Movie the Magnificent Seven, and in this case i believe it expresses both the attitudes of the owners, as well as the players, towards the fans. The Line .... "If God had not meant for those people to be sheared, He would not have made them sheep."

 

[Choke]

I find it interesting that some seem to think that players need to be set for life by their 30's, or earlier.

I didnt read that once in here.What I did read was people who were countering the "all players are rich and need to quit being greedy" arguement with the truth of the financial scenario for the majority players.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

I'm sure many of us got this email last night. Seems he's trying to make fans support the owners but IMO it comes off as patronizing and if this is how he's running things, my support is firmly with the players.

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.

Yours,

Roger Goodell

When I look at this I wonder what fantasy world these players are in. How many of us make millions of dollars playing a game. I say let them go out and find a real job, get a real check to pay the bills, then they will see what the real world is all about. The league did about all they could and they wouldn't budge. Screw those spoiled ###'s, let them make a living washing cars, I can live without football.

I'm with the players on this one. I think most fans are far more concerned about who's on the field for their team rather than who's up in the owners box. How many owners sacrifice their bodies for the game? How many owners can suddenly have one horrible instance during a game when, due to an injury, they are out of the sport from the rest of their lives? The players are the ones making the plays and taking the risks. They should be paid accordingly.

And really guys enough with this argument if you can call it that.

Sorry, you can't just say I don't like your argument so you're not allowed to present it anymore. The boards simply don't work that way. And that's a good thing.

They are playing a game which is their job, which they have dreamed of and elected and CHOSEN to do for an agreed upon salary, usually incentive laden. Sacrificing their bodies is the job. The ones that me , you and they have dreamed about and they are fulfilling. If they are unhappy they are more then free to go pursue something else. I will be more then willing to risk a concussion or ACL tear for the jobs and pay they are privy to.

The players are what this game is all about. No one cares about the owners - who are in the fortunate position to profit off of what the players are doing with very little risk to themselves. there's not even a financial risk. Owning a team in today's NFL with the TV contracts, merchandising, salary cap, etc., is about as low-risk investment as there is. Remember, the owners are the ones refusing to open up the books and let the players see what their earnings are. As for your desire to risk concussions for a chance to play in the NFL, I wish the best in your endeavors.

As far as the Owners not sacrificing their bodies, they don't have to, they have earned the right and risked plenty to be a select few people in the world who can own an NFL franchise. This is the epitome of the American dream at work, if you have a problem with this you should look to another source of entertainment.

The owners aren't the entertaining part of the equation and they aren't what people are paying to see. I'm not sure owning an NFL franchise is "the epitome of the American dream", but I do know it's as fail-safe an investment as one can find and for every current NFL owner there are a dozen other such people waiting in line with the hopes of one day owning a team. The only prerequisites are that they have the avaiable funds to buy a team and the support of the other NFL owners.

This is your "argument" ? The players are interchangeable product that come and go constantly. No one has to care about the owners, I'm sure they could give a %hit whether you or I like them. They OWN a product that you do like and is very valuable. And that product isn't about the individual as you seem to be under this assumption. Brady and Manning will come and go just like Montana and Elway. And so will all the 3rd string Special Teamers. But the PRODUCT will continue to be purchased and the owners of said product have every right to price it however they choose. Purchase at your own discretion. You convey the impression the owners somehow were given these franchises from a Genie or Fairy God Mother and should be giving it away to his employees and customers.Just as you say there are a dozen people waiting to but a Franchise, there are thousands who are willing to play for the said owner and for much less then his current employees.I don't kow if you have ever managed a company on the scale of an NFL franchise but its far from fail safe. Again what is the difference of trying to calculate the risk? Bottom line is they own a business and the business is supposed to turn a profit. I'm getting just a screw the Billionaire backlash in this..And if you think all it takes is a fat check to become an owner you should go research the criteria to get one.

 

[Choke]

This is your "argument" ? The players are interchangeable product that come and go constantly. No one has to care about the owners, I'm sure they could give a %hit whether you or I like them. They OWN a product that you do like and is very valuable. And that product isn't about the individual as you seem to be under this assumption. Brady and Manning will come and go just like Montana and Elway. And so will all the 3rd string Special Teamers. But the PRODUCT will continue to be purchased and the owners of said product have every right to price it however they choose. Purchase at your own discretion. You convey the impression the owners somehow were given these franchises from a Genie or Fairy God Mother and should be giving it away to his employees and customers.Just as you say there are a dozen people waiting to but a Franchise, there are thousands who are willing to play for the said owner and for much less then his current employees.I don't kow if you have ever managed a company on the scale of an NFL franchise but its far from fail safe. Again what is the difference of trying to calculate the risk? Bottom line is they own a business and the business is supposed to turn a profit. I'm getting just a screw the Billionaire backlash in this..And if you think all it takes is a fat check to become an owner you should go research the criteria to get one.

That's not exactly all true. Look at the AFL, there is a very strong precedent set by the NFL on the "status" of the players and their value.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

This is one of those conversations where a bunch of know-it-alls argue their side of things while trying to prove that they're right and the other side is wrong - but then the other side gets all worked up and even MORE entrenched in their point of view so they argue back on why they're right and everyone else is wrong... and it just keeps going and going with everyone getting more and more convinced that they're side is right and the other side is wrong and at the end of the day nobody actually learns or hears a darn thing from the other side.

 

[CalBear]

This is one of those conversations where a bunch of know-it-alls argue their side of things while trying to prove that they're right and the other side is wrong - but then the other side gets all worked up and even MORE entrenched in their point of view so they argue back on why they're right and everyone else is wrong... and it just keeps going and going with everyone getting more and more convinced that they're side is right and the other side is wrong and at the end of the day nobody actually learns or hears a darn thing from the other side.

Are you new to the FBG message boards?

 

[Christo]

This is one of those conversations where a bunch of know-it-alls argue their side of things while trying to prove that they're right and the other side is wrong - but then the other side gets all worked up and even MORE entrenched in their point of view so they argue back on why they're right and everyone else is wrong... and it just keeps going and going with everyone getting more and more convinced that they're side is right and the other side is wrong and at the end of the day nobody actually learns or hears a darn thing from the other side.

Are you talking about this thread or the owners and players?

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

Are you talking about this thread or the owners and players?

Talking about the thread, sorry (probably applies to both though).

Are you new to the FBG message boards?

Touché.

 

[JAA]

If the owners reasons for wanting another billion off the top is declining profits, why do they not want to open the books?

I get that they dont have to. However, why arent they? Whats the big deal? What are they afraid of?

 

[golfguy]

#1 I never said they didn't have a valid reason for opting out, they made a bad deal in 2006. however, i'm not going to blame the players at this point in time (not yet).

Well, you expressed exasperation over how one could see it the owners way. That's what I was responding to, specifically.

#2 your analogy of a business owner inheriting a business or millions being the same as someone who makes it to he NFL level as a player both being inherited really is terrible. it's not even close. an NFL player is basically a lottery for a lot of the players (coming from their socio economic status), they are extremely rare and talented. there are not many people in the world who can compete at the level of the NFL, they work for and strive for it. they don't just sit there and get it handed to them. that's really a porous comparison. There are far more people in this country who run million-dollar companies then play in the NFL. so the nfl owners who inherited their wealth and the players are not on the same level.

It's fair to say the lottery in life of "inheriting billions," as you call it, and the lottery of inheriting a million-dollar athletic talent, is about the same, for all intents and purposes. No one did anything to "earn" it. It just happened. Moreover, I highly doubt you'd call training and playing a sport you love "work." Likewise, wealthy people lose money.. and lots of it.. all the time. When you pass money down from generation to generation, you'd be lucky that your kids don't screw it up. To think these owners aren't entrepreneurial, or didn't "work" for anything, is just fantasy.

#3 sure they can try to modify their investment, but at the same time profits in the NFL have doubled in the past 5 years. from around 4.5 billion to 9 billion dollars/yr. (last time i heard the numbers). So they are still making good money.

The profitability of the NFL has gone down, even though revenues have gone up. The figures you cite are revenues, not profit. Big difference. In fact, that is the entire point of the lockout. The owners argue that costs have risen disproportionately to revenues. They are NOT making "good" money when you consider what else they can be doing with all their "billions" of dollars. Gold has produced a 100% return in just 2 years, as just one example.

again as noted by previous posters, the NFL is a Monopoly as well- so you can't really even compare to most business models anyway... the NFL is not a free market system, it's a monopoly. so you can't really compare the two. the NFL lives in it's own little world.

This is a canard. Nowhere have I used arguments that ignore the nature of the industry they are in. The fundamental laws of economics - that people are largely self-serving and want to maximize profit - do not change regardless of whether there is regulation or not, competition or not, or government ownership or not. Profit-seekers voluntarily coordinate their actions through markets. This is precisely why you see black markets in socialized economies. Your comments suggest a fundamental suspicion of this market process.

#4 I am sure some other billionaire would gladly buy up their team, even it's such a money pit for them.

If owners feel they are losing money (relative to what they could make elsewhere), you don't think that would not give pause to a prospective owner? That seems kind of irrational. You make it sound as if billionaires have nothing better to do than sink their money into a sports franchise. In any case, principal owners selling their franchises is most likely a long-run phenomena; something they are trying to avoid (hence these negotiations). In the short-run, it is most likely the minority owners will sell their shares in the company.

#5 I never said anywhere that they were underpaid. my point was their self life is not long, so they have to make as much money as possible in that short time frame (let's be honest, their employer is using up their talent, and then tossing them aside in this scenario).

Almost everyone tries to make as much money as possible, regardless of what time frame they are dealing with. People don't say no to an additional +5K in their jobs for doing the same thing. It doesn't matter if they last 3 years or 30 years in an industry. People don't leave free money on the table. I don't see how any of this affects the legitimacy or desirability of the owners seeking player concessions.

#6 I love how you tell me how I really feel about unions. LMAO. you have no idea of my true feelings on unions. i grew up in an area that was decimated by the steel union, and saw the ramifications of them. so, please don't assume you know anything about me, because you don't. that statement is something LHUCKS would say.

My comment was not that you necessarily favor unions, but that you are either suspicious about owners of resources, or you are not aware of how the market system works. Frankly most people are that way, and it's natural: we relate to workers because we are also workers. I'm not here to start a fight. Just pointing out that you have a strong bias in favor of labor (even if not a labor union); it's self-evident from your comments.

My comment was not that you necessarily favor unions, but that you are either suspicious about owners of resources, or you are not aware of how the market system works. Frankly most people are that way, and it's natural: we relate to workers because we are also workers. I'm not here to start a fight. Just pointing out that you have a strong bias in favor of labor (even if not a labor union); it's self-evident from your comments.

ICM, not really. I am against the ultra rich in this country, CEO pay is exuberantly up compared to what has happened to the common worker in the last 20 years. so in that way, you are correct. I'm not against business owners and making profits. I own a business. but the amount of money that has flowed into some people's pockets in the last 20 years is nothing short of criminal. I look at NFL ownership as being in those some roles. and they keep saying profits are down, but not showing any factual evidence of it. (yet). also the other major reason I side with the players for now, they didn't increase my taxes by building a new stadium. the ownership of the team did.

 

[KCC]

I'm sure many of us got this email last night. Seems he's trying to make fans support the owners but IMO it comes off as patronizing and if this is how he's running things, my support is firmly with the players.

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.

Yours,

Roger Goodell

When I look at this I wonder what fantasy world these players are in. How many of us make millions of dollars playing a game. I say let them go out and find a real job, get a real check to pay the bills, then they will see what the real world is all about. The league did about all they could and they wouldn't budge. Screw those spoiled ###'s, let them make a living washing cars, I can live without football.

I'm with the players on this one. I think most fans are far more concerned about who's on the field for their team rather than who's up in the owners box. How many owners sacrifice their bodies for the game? How many owners can suddenly have one horrible instance during a game when, due to an injury, they are out of the sport from the rest of their lives? The players are the ones making the plays and taking the risks. They should be paid accordingly.

And really guys enough with this argument if you can call it that.

Sorry, you can't just say I don't like your argument so you're not allowed to present it anymore. The boards simply don't work that way. And that's a good thing.

They are playing a game which is their job, which they have dreamed of and elected and CHOSEN to do for an agreed upon salary, usually incentive laden. Sacrificing their bodies is the job. The ones that me , you and they have dreamed about and they are fulfilling. If they are unhappy they are more then free to go pursue something else. I will be more then willing to risk a concussion or ACL tear for the jobs and pay they are privy to.

The players are what this game is all about. No one cares about the owners - who are in the fortunate position to profit off of what the players are doing with very little risk to themselves. there's not even a financial risk. Owning a team in today's NFL with the TV contracts, merchandising, salary cap, etc., is about as low-risk investment as there is. Remember, the owners are the ones refusing to open up the books and let the players see what their earnings are. As for your desire to risk concussions for a chance to play in the NFL, I wish the best in your endeavors.

As far as the Owners not sacrificing their bodies, they don't have to, they have earned the right and risked plenty to be a select few people in the world who can own an NFL franchise. This is the epitome of the American dream at work, if you have a problem with this you should look to another source of entertainment.

The owners aren't the entertaining part of the equation and they aren't what people are paying to see. I'm not sure owning an NFL franchise is "the epitome of the American dream", but I do know it's as fail-safe an investment as one can find and for every current NFL owner there are a dozen other such people waiting in line with the hopes of one day owning a team. The only prerequisites are that they have the avaiable funds to buy a team and the support of the other NFL owners.

This is your "argument" ? The players are interchangeable product that come and go constantly. No one has to care about the owners, I'm sure they could give a %hit whether you or I like them. They OWN a product that you do like and is very valuable. And that product isn't about the individual as you seem to be under this assumption. Brady and Manning will come and go just like Montana and Elway. And so will all the 3rd string Special Teamers. But the PRODUCT will continue to be purchased and the owners of said product have every right to price it however they choose. Purchase at your own discretion. You convey the impression the owners somehow were given these franchises from a Genie or Fairy God Mother and should be giving it away to his employees and customers.Just as you say there are a dozen people waiting to but a Franchise, there are thousands who are willing to play for the said owner and for much less then his current employees.I don't kow if you have ever managed a company on the scale of an NFL franchise but its far from fail safe. Again what is the difference of trying to calculate the risk? Bottom line is they own a business and the business is supposed to turn a profit. I'm getting just a screw the Billionaire backlash in this..And if you think all it takes is a fat check to become an owner you should go research the criteria to get one.

We got it, you're pro-owner and anti-player (not to mention bent out of shape if anyone has a different view.) But let me ask you this, if the owners really are such a crucial part of the game, who owns the superbowl champions?

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

Ultimately the NFL

You know, the Logo that's all over their uniforms, facilities, Stadiums where they play. Who signs the checks. That's who. Yes your POV will be they are publicly owned by the fans, but they are a piece of the NFL owned pie. The share holders can pull out or threaten to move the Packers to..mmm...let me see...I don't know... Nowhere??

The owners who you make out to be useless or in the way are the same Families that created and built what has become the greatest sport and source and entertainment.

You know, families like The Hunts, Rooneys, Maras, and Browns to name a few. But hey WTF do they know about what's good for the long term prosperity of the league? I guess they or their aires haven't done or achieved anything and should just roll over and let the players dictate what should be done while they collect a check for the next 3 years or so.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm bent out of shape, and I enjoy your debate. If my tone comes across as elevated it's just a passion for the subject and nothing personal.

That being said I'm completely right and you're totally out of your mind

 

[Warpig]

I look at it more along the lines of an elite secret club like the Skull and Bones or whatever they're called. Since they both rely on each other to make gobs of money they are fairly equal in their power.

The reason I am siding with the players is because more and more owners are building these ridiculously lavish stadiums (mostly with tax payer dollars and tax breaks) and they are weeding out the working guy like us. They are building more luxury boxes so they can sell them to their rich buddies. The owners could care less about the blue collar guy. "Oh, you can't afford tickets/parking to the game because you don't make 7 digits a year? Too bad. But we hope you go out and buy lots of NFL gear sporting our team".

The working class has been getting pissed on by the owners for years now. Whether it be more luxury suites added or ticket/parking/concession prices going up.

Sure, I think the stars of the sport are overpaid...ESPECIALLY unproven rookies. But the owners just seem like typical dirty, greedy scum that just wants more and more money regardless of who they step on in their efforts. If they were willing to throw the little guy a bone every now and again maybe my perspective would change, but I get tired of hearing them complain about not turning a big enough profit...gimme a break!

Oh! And there needs to be a rookie pay scale.

 

[thayman]

If the owners reasons for wanting another billion off the top is declining profits, why do they not want to open the books?I get that they dont have to. However, why arent they? Whats the big deal? What are they afraid of?

Why should they? There are many reasons to be pissed off at the owners, this is not one of them. Hell they even offered to have a third party auditor to come in look at the books and report the findings to the players. The players said no.

 

[Truman]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

The players wanted to see the owners books because they were pretty sure they'd see stuff like the owners paying themselves $30 mil per year salaries to be the CEO and paying their kids, siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews 6 figure salaries for no show jobs. Or they'd see the owners had set up multiple corporations where the expenses are but on the team while a lot of the revenue goes to the stadium corporation.At the end of the day the owners wanted a calculation that would have set the salary cap to a lower level than it was at 2 years ago. A position change from "we're offering to cut your salaries just 10% instead of 20% for NO REASON" isn't a compromise.

Those of you that support the players need to stop with this opening the books nonsense. No other business opens their books to the union. The owners don't even open their books to each other, and the owners offered to open the books to a third party auditor who would report the findings back to the players union. If that's not reasonable I don't know what is.

Do any other businesses impose a salary cap on their employees?

 

[renesauz]

Do any other businesses impose a salary cap on their employees?

Yes. Most of them do. Management has X dollars to pay employees. GO over that, and the manager loses his job.

 

[redBourne]

Do any other businesses impose a salary cap on their employees?

I didn't know that the players had individual caps. However, my employer has put a cap on my job. I've already been told that the most my current position will ever pay is x amount. My previous employer told me the same thing. Now the basis for the cap is different, and I suspect that my skill level will warrant my employer laying me off to take someone less skilled but with significantly less salary should my salary start to get too high.My company is actually a subset of 3 smaller individual divisions, of which they cannot even share information. Yet the man up top has put a cap on the total number of employee's and the total amount of money we're allowed to spend for the year (salaries, projects, etc). So in essence, there IS a cap on our overall salary, and even the number of "players" we employ.

 

[redBourne]

If the owners reasons for wanting another billion off the top is declining profits, why do they not want to open the books?I get that they dont have to. However, why arent they? Whats the big deal? What are they afraid of?

Why should they? There are many reasons to be pissed off at the owners, this is not one of them. Hell they even offered to have a third party auditor to come in look at the books and report the findings to the players. The players said no.

Agreed. They shouldn't necessary have to open the books to the NFLPA, but a third party should be allowed to view them, in my opinion. This was offered but turned down (based off the number of years presented, 5 instead of 10). Since the NFL is a unique operation, I do think they should operate under a unique set of rules. The books shouldn't be public, and definitely shouldn't be opened to where the other teams can see each others operations. But it does warrant consideration to viewing by a 3rd party when they want to change the CBA in their favor for the sum of 1 billion dollars. I also think that many of the owners aren't putting their heart into the franchise to win a suprebowl, but are actively seeking to make a profit over anything else. You can see the same thing in a lot of businesses. Poof isn't trying to take over Nerf as the best foam football. But they're trying to make a profit but putting out a less competitive product for cheaper. A cost/profit ratio that is successful. The NFL owners doing this would certainly cause an uproar in their fan base, and that could seriously damage their image and income.

 

[CalBear]

Do any other businesses impose a salary cap on their employees?

I didn't know that the players had individual caps. However, my employer has put a cap on my job. I've already been told that the most my current position will ever pay is x amount. My previous employer told me the same thing. Now the basis for the cap is different, and I suspect that my skill level will warrant my employer laying me off to take someone less skilled but with significantly less salary should my salary start to get too high.

And if your employer did lay you off, would you have no option to bring your obviously valuable skills to another employer?

 

[thayman]

Do any other businesses impose a salary cap on their employees?

I didn't know that the players had individual caps. However, my employer has put a cap on my job. I've already been told that the most my current position will ever pay is x amount. My previous employer told me the same thing. Now the basis for the cap is different, and I suspect that my skill level will warrant my employer laying me off to take someone less skilled but with significantly less salary should my salary start to get too high.

And if your employer did lay you off, would you have no option to bring your obviously valuable skills to another employer?

Released or "laid off" NFL players are free to shop their talents to other NFL teams. Unless of course their skill set isn't that valuable in which case they would be out of the industry. Just like you or I.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

not really. I am against the ultra rich in this country, CEO pay is exuberantly up compared to what has happened to the common worker in the last 20 years. so in that way, you are correct. I'm not against business owners and making profits. I own a business. but the amount of money that has flowed into some people's pockets in the last 20 years is nothing short of criminal. I look at NFL ownership as being in those some roles.

and they keep saying profits are down, but not showing any factual evidence of it. (yet). also the other major reason I side with the players for now, they didn't increase my taxes by building a new stadium. the ownership of the team did.

That's a fair comment. I think it's natural to be suspicious of the ultra rich - they use the government to benefit their ends in ways that most people cannot. The ultra-rich don't play a lot in taxes [why do you think most of them are Democrat?]. It's the small business owners, lawyers, doctors, engineers, that get screwed and have to soak up all the bills for this country. At the same time, I don't particularly find CEO's to be overpaid. They are the elite of the entrepreneurs in this country; the visionaries. To think otherwise suggests shareholders are irrational; there are some economic theories that support why such high CEO salaries/buyouts are efficient [i won't go into them unless you really care].And you're right about the books. The owners are arguing that profits have fallen to levels they are not happy with, but this may not be the case. The owners understandably don't want to reveal their books (or at least all the intimate details of their operation) in front of everyone, let alone their competitors. I think it's likely they are losing money (relative to what they could be earning elsewhere). In any case, it doesn't bother me if they are or are not. It seems the owners have the best bargaining position/leverage here, and it's perfectly rational for them to take advantage of it.

 

[CalBear]

To think otherwise suggests shareholders are irrational...

It is empirically demonstrable that shareholders are irrational. But CEO pay being ridiculous doesn't even require irrational investors; it just requires a rigged compensation system, which is also empirically demonstrable.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

To think otherwise suggests shareholders are irrational...

It is empirically demonstrable that shareholders are irrational. But CEO pay being ridiculous doesn't even require irrational investors; it just requires a rigged compensation system, which is also empirically demonstrable.

As an expert in this field, I can say your "empirically demonstrable" claims are just silly. I'd be interested in hearing other dissenting views on the subject of CEO pay, however.

 

[J Andersson]

"Because the NFLPA says it no longer is a union, but rather a trade association - a distinction the NFL calls a "sham" - Atallah said any decision to return to negotiations would be up to the lawyers representing the players, rather than NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. Asked whether there would be talks before the April 6 hearing, Atallah replied: "As of now, no."

The league, meanwhile, would prefer to return to the negotiating table. Starting Feb. 18, the sides met 16 times at federal mediator's office.

"We would get back together with them tomorrow if they wanted to. We're not the ones who walked out. We're not the ones who renounced our status. We're not the ones who filed litigation," Pash said. "So we would get back together with them tomorrow. And if they have questions about our proposal, we'd answer them. If they have alternatives they want us to consider, we'd consider them."

Mawae said that if the NFL contends the union walked away from mediation, "that's a fabrication and a lie. We sat in that room ... Tuesday and Wednesday of last week for 16 hours. ... We met face-to-face a total of 30 minutes."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/14/cba.offer.ap/index.html

This is what i find hilarious. The NFLPA now wants us to believe that they were in fact willing to negotiate. If that's the case shouldn't the lawyers now representing the so called "trade association" in the interest of their clients return to the negotiating table. To me it is more than ever now clear that the players want this to go to court.

While it was a strange move by the owners to hand the players the proposal as late as they did this is often the way one has to handle negotiations if one feels the other party is being unreasonable. You just have to get the offer out in writing so that the public can see what an offer the other side has received. If the NFLPA would have been interested in obtaining an agreement (which I personally view as fair, I respect the fact that others have different takes) they could have asked to extend the deadline further and just asked the question they needed to ask and see if they could gain ground on other of their core issues before breaking off talks. Frankly,the NFLPA's attempt to sound like they were willing to negotiate at this point is getting ridiculous.

Just be men enough to say that you think you can get more by going through the court system. Just don't ever expect med to take you serious as a labor organisation again.

 

[BusMan]

Mawae said that if the NFL contends the union walked away from mediation, "that's a fabrication and a lie. We sat in that room ... Tuesday and Wednesday of last week for 16 hours. ... We met face-to-face a total of 30 minutes."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/14/cba.offer.ap/index.html

I'm having a hard time understanding this.

 

[FUBAR]

To think otherwise suggests shareholders are irrational...

It is empirically demonstrable that shareholders are irrational. But CEO pay being ridiculous doesn't even require irrational investors; it just requires a rigged compensation system, which is also empirically demonstrable.

Please explain how it is rigged, how it's unfair, what system you would use, and whether we should continue to be capitalists. Or maybe Marx was right?

 

[CalBear]

To think otherwise suggests shareholders are irrational...

It is empirically demonstrable that shareholders are irrational. But CEO pay being ridiculous doesn't even require irrational investors; it just requires a rigged compensation system, which is also empirically demonstrable.

Please explain how it is rigged, how it's unfair, what system you would use, and whether we should continue to be capitalists. Or maybe Marx was right?

It's rigged because the major shareholders, the boards of directors, and the CEOs are all the same people. They sit around voting each other pay increases and using the pay increases they voted for yesterday to justify the pay increases they'll vote for tomorrow. Is there any evidence that, for example, the executives of the banks who drove our economy into the ditch had more value to company shareholders than, say, Peyton Manning does to the Colts? The only evidence presented is the pay given similar executives at other companies.

 

[golfguy]

To think otherwise suggests shareholders are irrational...

It is empirically demonstrable that shareholders are irrational. But CEO pay being ridiculous doesn't even require irrational investors; it just requires a rigged compensation system, which is also empirically demonstrable.

Please explain how it is rigged, how it's unfair, what system you would use, and whether we should continue to be capitalists. Or maybe Marx was right?

It's rigged because the major shareholders, the boards of directors, and the CEOs are all the same people. They sit around voting each other pay increases and using the pay increases they voted for yesterday to justify the pay increases they'll vote for tomorrow. Is there any evidence that, for example, the executives of the banks who drove our economy into the ditch had more value to company shareholders than, say, Peyton Manning does to the Colts? The only evidence presented is the pay given similar executives at other companies.

here some more information:

- that the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) bailout cost every person in America enough to take a trip around the world

- that after the bailout, some $1.2 billion in taxpayer money went to pay the bonuses of just 73 AIG execs, while Goldman Sachs got a huge tax break that saw its tax rate drop from 34 percent to 1 percent

- that the average CEO earned about eight times the salary of his average employee a century ago, but earns more than 300 times his average employee's wages now

- that the typical American 401(k) retirement account has lost nearly half its value over the last five years

- that New York cops may earn a maximum pension of about $48,000, while the average retiring CEO reaps benefits of about $83.6 million.

and a nice little video from the end of "the other guys" (which was a pretty darn funny movie").

http://video.aol.com/aolvideo/moviefone/the-other-guys-end-credits/506998250001

the difference in the pay has gotten out of control when comparing the averages. not even elite.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I really don't see how anyone can side with the owners here. I really don't. The Owners are the ones who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement, not the players.

What do you think of players that negotiate for opt-out provisions in their contracts and then use them? If you think an act is immoral or unethical, then don't agree to make it part of the contract. Agreeing to something and then acting indignant when someone acts on it strikes me as disingenuous. Opting out when the contract allows is not violating the contract.Why not lament the fact that there was a termination date for the CBA at all. Why should it ever end? Why not make it perpetual? If the deal was so good for both sides, then why would it ever need to be re-addressed? Because at some point one of the two sides is going to want more money. This time, it just so happened to be the owners. Oh, the horror.

I don't feel bad for some billionaires, a lot of whom inherited their wealth.

I don't feel bad for players who received their talent at birth. Do they work hard to capitalize on that? Sure. But how is that any different than inheriting wealth and then adding your efforts to that wealth to maintain it or grow it? Was I born with a silver spoon in my mouth? No. But nor was I born with the genes to be able to run a 4.5 forty while weighing in at 225 #'s either. Born an athlete or born rich...still luck of the draw either way.I don't see why we think one side somehow is "deserving" of the money they have while this other group isn't.

And let's be honest they are far more players that make the league minimums then 5 million a season.

Did the owners' proposal seek to lower the league minimum? If not, how are the league minimum guys being hosed in this?Reminds me of my days as a grocery bagger. I had to be a part of the employees' union and I paid my dues out of my paycheck. Of course, I was part time. So all my dues ever got me was the union negotiating with management for ever increasing wages and benefits for the full time employees.So we have the league minimum guys going all in on the solidarity front so the league's most talented players can keep the salary cap ceiling on a continual rise. Some animals are more equal than others, I guess.

With the avg career at around 3 years, that's not a ton of money. say 900k before taxes are taken out, so that leaves them around probably 450k. it's a nice amount of money, don't get me wrong, but you are not retiring at 24 yrs old on 450k. not happening. not to mention the long term health effects these people have. I've met some of these guys, people who are in their early 40s and can hardly walk. (and they certainly didn't make even the kind of money I mentioned earlier).

Why is a guy with innate talent somehow vested with the right to retire at age 24? I don't know why that even comes into it. Why are NFL players expected to be able to never work again their whole lives when they retire from the NFL? They get compensated very well for their services. I don't see where this sense of entitlement comes from. Someone can run a 4.5 forty, so he should only have to work for three years of his adult life? Seriously, WTF.As for only netting $450K of your $900K gross earnings, why not target our brilliant progressive tax rate scheme for that sweet stroke. But that would more properly be hashed out in the FFA.Would it suck to not be able to walk without a limp at age 40? Sure it does. I've got a bad knee from HS football. And I didn't have three years of earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in my early twenties to go along with it. Only an idiot could play in the NFL and claim they didn't know the injury risks. But they are already compensated far and above the average Joe for accepting that risk and would remain so even if they accepted the owners' last offer.

 

[JamesTheScot]

To think otherwise suggests shareholders are irrational...

It is empirically demonstrable that shareholders are irrational. But CEO pay being ridiculous doesn't even require irrational investors; it just requires a rigged compensation system, which is also empirically demonstrable.

Please explain how it is rigged, how it's unfair, what system you would use, and whether we should continue to be capitalists. Or maybe Marx was right?

It's rigged because the major shareholders, the boards of directors, and the CEOs are all the same people. They sit around voting each other pay increases and using the pay increases they voted for yesterday to justify the pay increases they'll vote for tomorrow. Is there any evidence that, for example, the executives of the banks who drove our economy into the ditch had more value to company shareholders than, say, Peyton Manning does to the Colts? The only evidence presented is the pay given similar executives at other companies.

Sounds like public service union analysis to me. Union supports a politician responsible for negotiating with union on compensation packages...with our taxes writing the check.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Mawae said that if the NFL contends the union walked away from mediation, "that's a fabrication and a lie. We sat in that room ... Tuesday and Wednesday of last week for 16 hours. ... We met face-to-face a total of 30 minutes."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/14/cba.offer.ap/index.html

I'm having a hard time understanding this.

No kidding. Mr. Mawae, if you walked out on Thursday, it doesn't matter what you did on Tuesday and Wednesday, you still walked out on Thursday.

 

[golfguy]

I really don't see how anyone can side with the owners here. I really don't. The Owners are the ones who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement, not the players.

What do you think of players that negotiate for opt-out provisions in their contracts and then use them? If you think an act is immoral or unethical, then don't agree to make it part of the contract. Agreeing to something and then acting indignant when someone acts on it strikes me as disingenuous. Opting out when the contract allows is not violating the contract.Why not lament the fact that there was a termination date for the CBA at all. Why should it ever end? Why not make it perpetual? If the deal was so good for both sides, then why would it ever need to be re-addressed? Because at some point one of the two sides is going to want more money. This time, it just so happened to be the owners. Oh, the horror.

I don't feel bad for some billionaires, a lot of whom inherited their wealth.

I don't feel bad for players who received their talent at birth. Do they work hard to capitalize on that? Sure. But how is that any different than inheriting wealth and then adding your efforts to that wealth to maintain it or grow it? Was I born with a silver spoon in my mouth? No. But nor was I born with the genes to be able to run a 4.5 forty while weighing in at 225 #'s either. Born an athlete or born rich...still luck of the draw either way.I don't see why we think one side somehow is "deserving" of the money they have while this other group isn't.

And let's be honest they are far more players that make the league minimums then 5 million a season.

Did the owners' proposal seek to lower the league minimum? If not, how are the league minimum guys being hosed in this?Reminds me of my days as a grocery bagger. I had to be a part of the employees' union and I paid my dues out of my paycheck. Of course, I was part time. So all my dues ever got me was the union negotiating with management for ever increasing wages and benefits for the full time employees.So we have the league minimum guys going all in on the solidarity front so the league's most talented players can keep the salary cap ceiling on a continual rise. Some animals are more equal than others, I guess.

With the avg career at around 3 years, that's not a ton of money. say 900k before taxes are taken out, so that leaves them around probably 450k. it's a nice amount of money, don't get me wrong, but you are not retiring at 24 yrs old on 450k. not happening. not to mention the long term health effects these people have. I've met some of these guys, people who are in their early 40s and can hardly walk. (and they certainly didn't make even the kind of money I mentioned earlier).

Why is a guy with innate talent somehow vested with the right to retire at age 24? I don't know why that even comes into it. Why are NFL players expected to be able to never work again their whole lives when they retire from the NFL? They get compensated very well for their services. I don't see where this sense of entitlement comes from. Someone can run a 4.5 forty, so he should only have to work for three years of my adult life? Seriously, WTF.As for only netting $450K of your $900K gross earnings, why not target our brilliant progressive tax rate scheme for that sweet stroke. But that would more properly be hashed out in the FFA.Would it suck to not be able to walk without a limp at age 40? Sure it does. I've got a bad knee from HS football. And I didn't have three years of earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in my early twenties to go along with it. Only an idiot could play in the NFL and claim they didn't know the injury risks. But they are already compensated far and above the average Joe for accepting that risk and would remain so even if they accepted the owners last offer.

james, I answered most of these questions already. ICM and myself had a couple of posts going back and forth. some of the questions you posted have been answered a few times in here. have a good one.

 

[FUBAR]

To think otherwise suggests shareholders are irrational...

It is empirically demonstrable that shareholders are irrational. But CEO pay being ridiculous doesn't even require irrational investors; it just requires a rigged compensation system, which is also empirically demonstrable.

Please explain how it is rigged, how it's unfair, what system you would use, and whether we should continue to be capitalists. Or maybe Marx was right?

It's rigged because the major shareholders, the boards of directors, and the CEOs are all the same people. They sit around voting each other pay increases and using the pay increases they voted for yesterday to justify the pay increases they'll vote for tomorrow. Is there any evidence that, for example, the executives of the banks who drove our economy into the ditch had more value to company shareholders than, say, Peyton Manning does to the Colts? The only evidence presented is the pay given similar executives at other companies.

I see your point of view and agree to disagree. Is there any evidence that Peyton Manning deserves his salary, aside from pay given to his peers?

- that the typical American 401(k) retirement account has lost nearly half its value over the last five years

I'm not going to argue against the rest of your points, but this "fact", if true, simply shows how poorly people manage their own portfolios. The S&P 500 is down 0.28% from 5 years ago.

A better benchmark, the Vanguard Total Stock Index (VTI) is up 3.71%

The only reason a retirement account would have lost nearly half its value over the last five years is if the person pulled his money out after the fall hit its low point.

FWIW, I think both groups are overpaid and need to get over themselves before they turn off their fan base.

 

[FUBAR]

Mawae said that if the NFL contends the union walked away from mediation, "that's a fabrication and a lie. We sat in that room ... Tuesday and Wednesday of last week for 16 hours. ... We met face-to-face a total of 30 minutes."

http://sportsillustr...r.ap/index.html

I'm having a hard time understanding this.

No kidding. Mr. Mawae, if you walked out on Thursday, it doesn't matter what you did on Tuesday and Wednesday, you still walked out on Thursday.

Let's assume for a minute that his statement is accurate. Are you actually going to sit around the 3rd day after basically being ignored the other 2?

 

[JamesTheScot]

Do any other businesses impose a salary cap on their employees?

Yes. Most of them do. Management has X dollars to pay employees. GO over that, and the manager loses his job.

Well, "Do other businesses put a salary cap on each other?" would be the better way for forming the question.But I'd suggest that the individual NFL teams are not in competition with each other in the same way that McDonald's is in competition with Burger King. McDonald's could flourish very well by eliminating Burger King and gobblng up its market share. But the NFL franchises depend on each other in a cooperative manner more than they actually compete. If one team eliminated its competition from the marketplace, there would cease to be a market altogether. It takes two to tango, after all. So traditional anti-trust analysis doesn't work for me. The competition between cooperative franchises IS the end-product in the NFL. So the numerous franchises are what must be maintained to produce what the consumer demands. McDonald's and Burger King sell us burgers, not competition.So you could make the argument that the individual NFL franchises are merely shareholders in a uniform entity that is the NFL rather than being individual competing businesses that are in cahoots to fix prices. In fact, a shareholder situation is pretty similar to how they act. If that's the case, the NFL would be the business and its competition would be other entertainment providers which would at least include other post-collegiate football leagues and could conceivably include other professional sports and perhaps even other television production entities and live entertainment events like Muppets On Ice.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

It's rigged because the major shareholders, the boards of directors, and the CEOs are all the same people. They sit around voting each other pay increases and using the pay increases they voted for yesterday to justify the pay increases they'll vote for tomorrow. Is there any evidence that, for example, the executives of the banks who drove our economy into the ditch had more value to company shareholders than, say, Peyton Manning does to the Colts? The only evidence presented is the pay given similar executives at other companies.

Did the executives drive our economy into the ditch, or was it the consumers who agreed to buy homes they know they couldn't afford? Was it the homebuilders who were building enough homes to satisfy every man, woman, and child in this country? Or better yet, was it the government who created the rules of the game (i.e. the incentives) for all of this to happen in the first place? Or, maybe it was the federal reserve -- after all, they were the ones who made all this nonsense even physically possible to happen?CEO compensation is a complex issue. I don't think judging CEO pay the day after a financial crisis (unintentionally orchestrated by the government, in my analysis) is very credible. For instance, if you looked at the returns on many of these financial companies prior to 2008, you would have come to the complete opposite conclusion.

CEO's are asked to look at the world, understand the market dynamic, make an investment and take risks. They are the elite of entrepreneurs. Sometimes their risky bets pay off, sometimes they do not. One can take a "good" risk, even if it turns up hurting the company (for an analogy, think drafting Priest Holmes the year he goes down). Who is to know for sure what is a "good" or "bad" risk? So.. it doesn't send a good signal to prospective CEO's if the company pays you to take risks but then fires you if they don't pan out -- prospective CEO's will naturally be more conservative, which is not what the company wants. This is why, in part, CEO's often get very high severance packages.

This is not to say that some CEO's are not overpaid. But this is true of any market or industry. But systematically they are not overpaid. If they were, all it would take is one company to pay their CEO half as much, and price their competition completely out of business.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

the executives of the banks who drove our economy into the ditch had more value to company shareholders than, say, Peyton Manning does to the Colts? The only evidence presented is the pay given similar executives at other companies.

Bank executives (or CEOs) and football players serve two totally separate functions:CEOs look to create/produce new products/ideas in an ever-changing, competitive marketplace. They are leaders.

Football players maintain the production of a long-standing product/idea in a oligopolistic environment. They are employees (abeit high paid ones).

CEOs across similar companies are compensated in a similar way (as I've suggested above). The best way to tell if CEO compensation is efficient or not is whether certain companies die out or not. Those that stick around are likely making the right choices.

 

[renesauz]

I really don't see how anyone can side with the owners here. I really don't. The Owners are the ones who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement, not the players.

What do you think of players that negotiate for opt-out provisions in their contracts and then use them? If you think an act is immoral or unethical, then don't agree to make it part of the contract. Agreeing to something and then acting indignant when someone acts on it strikes me as disingenuous. Opting out when the contract allows is not violating the contract.Why not lament the fact that there was a termination date for the CBA at all. Why should it ever end? Why not make it perpetual? If the deal was so good for both sides, then why would it ever need to be re-addressed? Because at some point one of the two sides is going to want more money. This time, it just so happened to be the owners. Oh, the horror.

I don't feel bad for some billionaires, a lot of whom inherited their wealth.

I don't feel bad for players who received their talent at birth. Do they work hard to capitalize on that? Sure. But how is that any different than inheriting wealth and then adding your efforts to that wealth to maintain it or grow it? Was I born with a silver spoon in my mouth? No. But nor was I born with the genes to be able to run a 4.5 forty while weighing in at 225 #'s either. Born an athlete or born rich...still luck of the draw either way.I don't see why we think one side somehow is "deserving" of the money they have while this other group isn't.

And let's be honest they are far more players that make the league minimums then 5 million a season.

Did the owners' proposal seek to lower the league minimum? If not, how are the league minimum guys being hosed in this?Reminds me of my days as a grocery bagger. I had to be a part of the employees' union and I paid my dues out of my paycheck. Of course, I was part time. So all my dues ever got me was the union negotiating with management for ever increasing wages and benefits for the full time employees.So we have the league minimum guys going all in on the solidarity front so the league's most talented players can keep the salary cap ceiling on a continual rise. Some animals are more equal than others, I guess.

With the avg career at around 3 years, that's not a ton of money. say 900k before taxes are taken out, so that leaves them around probably 450k. it's a nice amount of money, don't get me wrong, but you are not retiring at 24 yrs old on 450k. not happening. not to mention the long term health effects these people have. I've met some of these guys, people who are in their early 40s and can hardly walk. (and they certainly didn't make even the kind of money I mentioned earlier).

Why is a guy with innate talent somehow vested with the right to retire at age 24? I don't know why that even comes into it. Why are NFL players expected to be able to never work again their whole lives when they retire from the NFL? They get compensated very well for their services. I don't see where this sense of entitlement comes from. Someone can run a 4.5 forty, so he should only have to work for three years of his adult life? Seriously, WTF.As for only netting $450K of your $900K gross earnings, why not target our brilliant progressive tax rate scheme for that sweet stroke. But that would more properly be hashed out in the FFA.Would it suck to not be able to walk without a limp at age 40? Sure it does. I've got a bad knee from HS football. And I didn't have three years of earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in my early twenties to go along with it. Only an idiot could play in the NFL and claim they didn't know the injury risks. But they are already compensated far and above the average Joe for accepting that risk and would remain so even if they accepted the owners' last offer.

Never understood why people continue to bring up the "average career" card either. Players with careers at or below the "average" also tend to be guys at the lower end of the payscale, in backup positions with less wear and tear on their bodies anyway. Guys who got free rides to college, etc. etc. They generally (there are many exceptions) aren't the one NEEDING long term health benefits. I hardly feel sorry for these guys for not being able to retire at 24-25 with 3 years in.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Mawae said that if the NFL contends the union walked away from mediation, "that's a fabrication and a lie. We sat in that room ... Tuesday and Wednesday of last week for 16 hours. ... We met face-to-face a total of 30 minutes."

http://sportsillustr...r.ap/index.html

I'm having a hard time understanding this.

No kidding. Mr. Mawae, if you walked out on Thursday, it doesn't matter what you did on Tuesday and Wednesday, you still walked out on Thursday.

Let's assume for a minute that his statement is accurate. Are you actually going to sit around the 3rd day after basically being ignored the other 2?

Who says he was being ignored? He may be trying to get you to think that. But that's not what he actually said.I'm not privy to NFL/NFLPA mediation practices. But the mediations I have been involved in had very little in the way of "face time" between the parties. There would be an initial introductory face-to-face session where the parties might state their current positions/wants and their objections to prior proposals, but then the parties would each retire to their respective rooms/suites for the ongoing negotiation. The mediator would work back and forth between the two sides taking proposals and counter-proposals back and forth. So, yes, you might sit there for a while whilst the mediator is over in the other side's room discussing with them your last counter offer you sent with him. And you'll wait some more while they formulate a counter-proposal, which the mediator then brings back for you to consider.

If the NFL's mediation practice is like that sort, Mawae either has a wrongheaded idea of how the process is supposed to work, which means we can ignore him, or he's intentionally trying to mislead us and spin criticism away, which reflects poorly on him. But, again, I've not been a party to an NFL mediation format so take my insight, or lack thereof, with a pound or two of salt.

The mediator in those situations is not a judge, he's a tool for negotiation. He'll carry proposals back and forth and try to explain where the other side is coming from without the emotional charge that would be attached if that party were saying it himself. But he may also try to inject some pragmatism and objectivity (as in "this is how I see it playing out...") into the matter to encourage some movement by a party. He might play devil's advocvate with an idea so that party revises it and puts a solid proposal forward. He's unbiased as to the actual issue, so his assesment, at least in theory, should be neutral and without agenda. He just tries to help the parties find the middle ground, if one is to be found.

Critics of mediation will say that a mediator does have a bias. It's getting a deal done so the mediator can market himself for future mediations. Some would argue that he then puts his own gain above that of brokering an agreement for the maximum benefit of both parties. He instead tries to get the less resolute party to cave so he can pad his resume. And, of coourse, one could argue that no one is capable of being completely neutral on an issue so some subconscious bias may sneak in as well.

 

[CalBear]

Sounds like public service union analysis to me. Union supports a politician responsible for negotiating with union on compensation packages...with our taxes writing the check.

How is that different than a corporation supporting a politician responsible for negotiating with corporations on contracts and regulations?

 

[CalBear]

Bank executives (or CEOs) and football players serve two totally separate functions:CEOs look to create/produce new products/ideas in an ever-changing, competitive marketplace. They are leaders.

Good CEOs are leaders. Most CEOs are seat-warmers. Bad CEOs are destroyers of value.

CEOs across similar companies are compensated in a similar way (as I've suggested above). The best way to tell if CEO compensation is efficient or not is whether certain companies die out or not. Those that stick around are likely making the right choices.

That's not an argument, it's a tautology; some companies who pay CEOs a lot stick around, therefore, companies who pay CEOs a lot are making the right choices. The tautology works the other way, too; some companies who pay CEOs a lot go bankrupt, therefore, companies who pay CEOs a lot are making the wrong choices.The question is, are companies getting good value for what they're paying CEOs? As I said, there's been no evidence provided for that other than the fact that CEOs are paid a lot. If you cut the pay of CEOs by 90%, so that the head of B of A was making $3 million/year instead of $30 million/year, I don't think the success of the company would be substantively affected.