Certainly, but common sense dictates that the revenue % would not then be a constantly rising number. The hard truth is that if other costs rise, the players revenue % HAS to fall in order to maintain profitability. The players refuse to go backwards in % simply because the NFL isn't losing money yet. They are demanding proof when the proof is self-evidant. Other costs related to the economy are blatantly obvious and don't require a line by line expense report, because we can ALL see them.
In other words, to keep the last CBA arrangement, the players pay would continue to rise while the owners PROFITS remain stagnant or continue to fall. Why should the owners % of revenue fall while the players' rises (or remains stagnant)? How is THAT fair? The players deny this fact when it's obvious. The fact that it's obvious makes the demands for a detailed expense report unreasonable, because the players have already shown that they will manipulate those figures in any way possible to support their position, and criticize every decision made publicly.
As overly broad, general statements, you are correct. But it doesn't have much to do with the complex reality of the last CBA and how it operated. First off, if overall league revenue increases at a faster rate than the combined increases in player % of revenue or other costs, then the owners' profits continue to increase. For example --
Year 1: Revenue is $800; Players get $400 (50%); Other costs are $200. Profits are $200 (or 25%).
Year 2: Revenue is $1000; Players get $510 (51%); Other costs are $225. Profits are $265 (or 26.5%).
Players % of revenue is up. Other costs are up. But revenue increased to such an extent that profits increased both in absolute and percentage.
But what most people fail to realize is that the players % wasn't of overall revenue but of a category of revenue that had a collection of other costs removed off the top by the owners. (Confusingly, that category was called "total revenue" even though it was anything but -- a nice public relations maneuver by the owners). As has been shown repeatedly in this thread, while the players % of their category of revenue was increasing, their % of overall revenue was actually going down. That's because those other costs (which were completely in the control of the owners) consisted mostly of stadium improvements, which fell into what was allowed to be taken off the top.
The public view of the old CBA was that the players really made out -- and that's because player salaries had a huge increase in 2006. But their cut of revenues has been decreasing ever since. Only because the NFL is an economic monster have player salaries continued to increase year-over-year. The old CBA was actually a good deal long-term for the owners collectively. The longer it was continued, the better %'s they'd get of overall revenue.
The reason they blew it up was because of internal strife over how to share their money. Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, and their ilk don't want to share any more of the revenue they generated with the owners who don't know how to maximize their own revenue but instead think of the NFL as the ultimate billionaire's toy. It had almost nothing to do with the players sucking up so much money.
Now, we've debated these things before, and it's certainly a debateable position. What's not debateable are these facts:
1. The NFL can not legally operate as it has in the past without a CBA.
2. The players have the POWER to destroy the NFL as we know it.
3. A lockout was not a nuclear option, but decertification is.
I am NOT OK with a union holding its bosses by the nuts, any union, anywhere. That is NOT a free market, despite insistances to the contrary.
The owners are NOT innocent. If they gave up real money in the TV deal to buy lockout insurance, the players should receive treble damages. But "greed" is not solely on the owners side of the table. Too many guys on the players side are too quick to label the owners greedy without looking harder at their precious players.
1. It can. It will just be much more difficult. And what they can and cannot do will ultimately be decided in court. It's much less expensive to agree to a new CBA with the players.2. So do the owners. But it's in neither of their interests, so all of this is nothing more than maneuvering for leverage in negotiations. That's all.
3. Then the owners shouldn't have pissed off the people who had their fingers on the red button.
The one thing I'm most convinced of after all of this, Paul Tagliabue deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He's being kept out because he pushed through the 2006 CBA. Ha! What a joke! By the end of this, the owners are going to realize Tags was vastly superior to Goodell.
on't be ridiculous. A judge's personal beliefs always come into play in interpreting the law. The people who simply say "the law is the law" and the judges are just there to enforce it are clearly oversimplifying. If it were that black and white, a sixth grader could be a judge. The fact of the matter is that the law, all law, is open for interpretation. The judge in this case (and indeed in all cases) have to interpret the law, but always bring their personal beliefs to the table about how the law should be interpreted/who the law is designed to protect. A judge could very easily have stayed within the law and ruled that the players would not be irreparably harmed by a lockout. A judge could have issued a stay by simply stating that even if the players prevailed, there is no damage to the players that could not be compensated for by a financial award. This judge wan't "in the tank" for the players, but her personal beliefs certainly influenced how she ruled on this case (and, in particular, her ruling to not stay the injunction pending appeal). To suggest otherwise is patently foolish and naive. The owners are hoping to get a more favorable ruling on appeal, however, the things that can be reviewed on appeal are far more limited and therefore being overturned is far less likely. If I had to guess, the owners will be hammering the jurisdictional on appeal. They presented a bunch of evidence on that issue at trial and this will be one of the issues reviewable by the Court of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals interprets the law regarding jurisdiction in favor of the owners, then this whole case never happened and we go back in front of the NLRB. A longshot, but the owner's best shot at this point.
Just kidding.Extorting? All they are trying to do is keep the status quo. If anyone is trying to extort something it is the owners trying to take another $1 billion more. These same businessmen who you state have determined that this situation is unhealthy for their business without offering any real proof and negotiated in bad faith a lesser TV deal for no other reason than to extort more money from the players are now to be implicitly trusted?
