NFLPA officially decertifies (2 Viewers)

[fatness]

True, but the primary cost to players in entering the game is a physical cost. Owners have to pay hundreds of millions to buy the team, then help finance billion dollar stadiums in order to make $10-20M a year in profits. Their financial risk and exposure to make their profits is much higher than what the players' is.

I guess you could call "shorter life expectancy" a physical cost but that seems to minimize it a bit. On the other hand you've overstated the downside of making $10-$20 million a year in profits, so maybe that evens it out.

 

[WVU Alum]

I really don't understand why the NFL doesn't re-organize as a single corporation with 32 subsidiaries. That would solve ALL of their problems.

Wait? They could legally do that?

 

[Orange Crush]

I really don't understand why the NFL doesn't re-organize as a single corporation with 32 subsidiaries. That would solve ALL of their problems.

Wait? They could legally do that?<BR>

It would certainly be a very complicated merger, and there may be some tax issues for several of the team owners that would act as a significant obstacle (maybe deal-breaking), but yes, they could. Most recently formed leagues were created as a solitary legal entity precisely to avoid antitrust concerns. I'm thinking specifically of both the mens and womens soccer leagues. ETA: I suppose they'd have to get approval for the merger from the Justice Department, which may be problematic due to the teams' current legal status as 32 separate entities comprising the near-entirety of the market. I'd like to think it would be approved, based on the fact that the market should be more broadly defined as "sports entertainment" or, in the alternative, that sports leagues already act as a de facto single entity / natural monopoly. Perhaps it would be better for the NFL to dissolve and then recreate itself as a single-entity, purchasing the intellectual property of the defunct 32 teams. There might be legal problems with that solution as well.Sorry, just thinking as I'm typing here.

 

[footballfreek]

Very informative Q&A. Really does not look good for us football fans.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110302

 

[CalBear]

Players in the 70's and early 80's clearly needed a union. But unions in general have aquired too much power, and have, in many cases, outlived their usefullness. They've gone from championing basic human rights to holding a hammer over the heads of big business, demanding privelages and compensations well above and beyond the scope of what unions were first designed to obtain. It's this HAMMER that unions hold that I despise. IN many cases (certainly not all) unions have gone from oppressed members to oppressive organizations.

You assert this without evidence. If unions are so powerful, why has worker compensation relative to CEO compensation been cut in half in the past 10 years?

NOBODY is begrudging the players talents, and NOBODY is suggesting that they shouldn't earn millions given the relatively few people who could do what they do and the Billions of raw dollars the NFL rakes in. What I (and others) would argue is that no union should be able to dictate such drastic terms to their employers. People earning 3 million a year shouldn't be allowed to threaten anti-trust suits in order to achieve 3.3 million per year. If our current system of laws (anti-trust and labor) allow this, than we need to take a good hard look at those laws.

I don't see any evidence that the players are dictating terms here. It's a negotiation. The owners hold most of the cards.

 

[Mello]

Very informative Q&A. Really does not look good for us football fans.http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110302

Sounds like better news than the alternative. This will force both sides to negotiate, even if it's in a courtroom. A player or group of them will eventually win an anti-trust suit if it goes that far and an injunction against the lockout may even be granted. Beats the alternative of the union staying in place and the owners sitting back on their multi-billion dollar war chest and waiting for the players to come grovelling back to them.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

NOBODY is begrudging the players talents, and NOBODY is suggesting that they shouldn't earn millions given the relatively few people who could do what they do and the Billions of raw dollars the NFL rakes in. What I (and others) would argue is that no union should be able to dictate such drastic terms to their employers. People earning 3 million a year shouldn't be allowed to threaten anti-trust suits in order to achieve 3.3 million per year. If our current system of laws (anti-trust and labor) allow this, than we need to take a good hard look at those laws.

When a business enforces drastic terms on its employees it's 'free enterprise.' When employees have enough leverage to enforce 'drastic' terms on a business it's A HAMMER. It's all business. It's all a negotiation. The owners agree to the union's terms because it's in their self-interest to do so.

 

[renesauz]

Players in the 70's and early 80's clearly needed a union. But unions in general have aquired too much power, and have, in many cases, outlived their usefullness. They've gone from championing basic human rights to holding a hammer over the heads of big business, demanding privelages and compensations well above and beyond the scope of what unions were first designed to obtain. It's this HAMMER that unions hold that I despise. IN many cases (certainly not all) unions have gone from oppressed members to oppressive organizations.

You assert this without evidence. If unions are so powerful, why has worker compensation relative to CEO compensation been cut in half in the past 10 years?

NOBODY is begrudging the players talents, and NOBODY is suggesting that they shouldn't earn millions given the relatively few people who could do what they do and the Billions of raw dollars the NFL rakes in. What I (and others) would argue is that no union should be able to dictate such drastic terms to their employers. People earning 3 million a year shouldn't be allowed to threaten anti-trust suits in order to achieve 3.3 million per year. If our current system of laws (anti-trust and labor) allow this, than we need to take a good hard look at those laws.

I don't see any evidence that the players are dictating terms here. It's a negotiation. The owners hold most of the cards.

As to the first...correlation does NOT equal causation. Union workers demand, and receive, compensation typically above what a free labor market would require, often WELL above. They get away with it because they position themselves in much the same way a monopoly does. It's frustrating to me that more people don't recognize that labor unions are (or can be, at least) a form of monopoly!The players are dictating terms just as much as the owners are. "You can-not lower our pay" is dictating a term. "We must have free agency." "We will only play 2 more games if you reduce our contact drills off season".BOTH sides dictate terms, but non-unionized workers can't "strike" to get their way...they work or they don't. The market dictates what they can and can't demand. A Union dictates a market...it monopolizes the labor, giving it more power to dictate.That's not entirely a bad thing. At one time, it was a vital necessity. Claiming it's a necessity for millionares playing pro sports is, however, ludicrous. If the owners truly had the power, ALL the power, then players would play for less than half what they do now, for fewer benefits, and the league would operate just fine. Some stars would make more, and payrolls might not be smaller, but most players would make less, because the market would not dictate the median salaries it does now.It's my belief that our laws, and courts, have allowed unions in general to collect too much influence and power. The NFL labor dispute is simply a high profile example of this.

 

[renesauz]

NOBODY is begrudging the players talents, and NOBODY is suggesting that they shouldn't earn millions given the relatively few people who could do what they do and the Billions of raw dollars the NFL rakes in. What I (and others) would argue is that no union should be able to dictate such drastic terms to their employers. People earning 3 million a year shouldn't be allowed to threaten anti-trust suits in order to achieve 3.3 million per year. If our current system of laws (anti-trust and labor) allow this, than we need to take a good hard look at those laws.

When a business enforces drastic terms on its employees it's 'free enterprise.' When employees have enough leverage to enforce 'drastic' terms on a business it's A HAMMER. It's all business. It's all a negotiation. The owners agree to the union's terms because it's in their self-interest to do so.

To be clear....neither side should be able to dictate drastic terms. Unions have their place...to prevent drastic terms. But they shouldn't be powerful enough to demand terms far in excess of free market value.

 

[Mello]

Players in the 70's and early 80's clearly needed a union. But unions in general have aquired too much power, and have, in many cases, outlived their usefullness. They've gone from championing basic human rights to holding a hammer over the heads of big business, demanding privelages and compensations well above and beyond the scope of what unions were first designed to obtain. It's this HAMMER that unions hold that I despise. IN many cases (certainly not all) unions have gone from oppressed members to oppressive organizations.

You assert this without evidence. If unions are so powerful, why has worker compensation relative to CEO compensation been cut in half in the past 10 years?

NOBODY is begrudging the players talents, and NOBODY is suggesting that they shouldn't earn millions given the relatively few people who could do what they do and the Billions of raw dollars the NFL rakes in. What I (and others) would argue is that no union should be able to dictate such drastic terms to their employers. People earning 3 million a year shouldn't be allowed to threaten anti-trust suits in order to achieve 3.3 million per year. If our current system of laws (anti-trust and labor) allow this, than we need to take a good hard look at those laws.

I don't see any evidence that the players are dictating terms here. It's a negotiation. The owners hold most of the cards.

As to the first...correlation does NOT equal causation. Union workers demand, and receive, compensation typically above what a free labor market would require, often WELL above. They get away with it because they position themselves in much the same way a monopoly does. It's frustrating to me that more people don't recognize that labor unions are (or can be, at least) a form of monopoly!The players are dictating terms just as much as the owners are. "You can-not lower our pay" is dictating a term. "We must have free agency." "We will only play 2 more games if you reduce our contact drills off season".BOTH sides dictate terms, but non-unionized workers can't "strike" to get their way...they work or they don't. The market dictates what they can and can't demand. A Union dictates a market...it monopolizes the labor, giving it more power to dictate.That's not entirely a bad thing. At one time, it was a vital necessity. Claiming it's a necessity for millionares playing pro sports is, however, ludicrous. If the owners truly had the power, ALL the power, then players would play for less than half what they do now, for fewer benefits, and the league would operate just fine. Some stars would make more, and payrolls might not be smaller, but most players would make less, because the market would not dictate the median salaries it does now.It's my belief that our laws, and courts, have allowed unions in general to collect too much influence and power. The NFL labor dispute is simply a high profile example of this.

When discussing a normal union vs. a normal companies that's competing with other companies for the services of their employees I agree with you. The NFL acts as their own monopoly though. They had all the power through 1993 when the only tool the players got to fight back was the courtroom where they won. The players could have continued with no union and the situation would be like you describe. The league wouldn't be just fine though. I think a strong argument can be made that both the players and owners working together to retain competitive balance makes all of them more money. The union was reformed for their own self interest as well as the owners. Now the players believe the owners are demanding too much. Their only decent alternative is now to disband their union and threaten the owners with having to abide by the same freer market system most other companies have to deal with. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The owners have the choice here. But if they want to do typically illegal things and game the system to restrict the movement of players and how much they can be paid they are going to have to come up with a system both sides agree with. The tactics they've used to date don't make it seem like they are trying to impose their will on the players rather than work out the best deal for both sides.

 

[CalBear]

To be clear....neither side should be able to dictate drastic terms. Unions have their place...to prevent drastic terms. But they shouldn't be powerful enough to demand terms far in excess of free market value.

The players aren't dictating drastic terms. In fact, they only want to keep playing under the terms they've already negotiated--and the league has clearly gotten a lot more revenue since those terms were negotiated, and the value of the assets owners hold have gone way up in that time. So what's the pressure to reduce their compensation?

 

[JamesTheScot]

Which just plays right into the league's claim that decertification is a sham.

It seems very clear that the existence of a union in the NFL, NBA and NHL clearly benefits the owners more than it does the union members. The players are better off under anti-trust law than they are in collective bargaining. Under anti-trust law there won't be a salary cap, there won't be a draft, there won't be a franchise tag or any other restrictions on players not under contract. How long will/can the courts force the players to remain unionized?

How long will the NFL last if it all opens up to free market forces? Not long...at least in its present form. Eventually, the small market teams will fold because they won't be able to field competitive teams and remain profitable.

So you have fewer jobs available for a workforce that hasn't shrunk. When jobs are in demand, compensation can actually shrink. It's not like most of these players have careers waiting for them that can earn them even 50% of their current incomes. So why wouldn't you sign for 75% of what you used to make if your alternative is to got get a 9to5 job for $40K?

And that's not even taking into account issues like injuries and contract options that would be fully negotiable without any restriction other than state law...different state laws for each team.

The stability of an NFLPA and CB agreement does actually help the players.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Players in the 70's and early 80's clearly needed a union. But unions in general have aquired too much power, and have, in many cases, outlived their usefullness. They've gone from championing basic human rights to holding a hammer over the heads of big business, demanding privelages and compensations well above and beyond the scope of what unions were first designed to obtain. It's this HAMMER that unions hold that I despise. IN many cases (certainly not all) unions have gone from oppressed members to oppressive organizations.

You assert this without evidence. If unions are so powerful, why has worker compensation relative to CEO compensation been cut in half in the past 10 years?

NOBODY is begrudging the players talents, and NOBODY is suggesting that they shouldn't earn millions given the relatively few people who could do what they do and the Billions of raw dollars the NFL rakes in. What I (and others) would argue is that no union should be able to dictate such drastic terms to their employers. People earning 3 million a year shouldn't be allowed to threaten anti-trust suits in order to achieve 3.3 million per year. If our current system of laws (anti-trust and labor) allow this, than we need to take a good hard look at those laws.

I don't see any evidence that the players are dictating terms here. It's a negotiation. The owners hold most of the cards.

As to the first...correlation does NOT equal causation. Union workers demand, and receive, compensation typically above what a free labor market would require, often WELL above. They get away with it because they position themselves in much the same way a monopoly does. It's frustrating to me that more people don't recognize that labor unions are (or can be, at least) a form of monopoly!The players are dictating terms just as much as the owners are. "You can-not lower our pay" is dictating a term. "We must have free agency." "We will only play 2 more games if you reduce our contact drills off season".

BOTH sides dictate terms, but non-unionized workers can't "strike" to get their way...they work or they don't. The market dictates what they can and can't demand. A Union dictates a market...it monopolizes the labor, giving it more power to dictate.

That's not entirely a bad thing. At one time, it was a vital necessity. Claiming it's a necessity for millionares playing pro sports is, however, ludicrous. If the owners truly had the power, ALL the power, then players would play for less than half what they do now, for fewer benefits, and the league would operate just fine. Some stars would make more, and payrolls might not be smaller, but most players would make less, because the market would not dictate the median salaries it does now.

It's my belief that our laws, and courts, have allowed unions in general to collect too much influence and power. The NFL labor dispute is simply a high profile example of this.

When discussing a normal union vs. a normal companies that's competing with other companies for the services of their employees I agree with you. The NFL acts as their own monopoly though. They had all the power through 1993 when the only tool the players got to fight back was the courtroom where they won. The players could have continued with no union and the situation would be like you describe. The league wouldn't be just fine though. I think a strong argument can be made that both the players and owners working together to retain competitive balance makes all of them more money. The union was reformed for their own self interest as well as the owners. Now the players believe the owners are demanding too much. Their only decent alternative is now to disband their union and threaten the owners with having to abide by the same freer market system most other companies have to deal with. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The owners have the choice here. But if they want to do typically illegal things and game the system to restrict the movement of players and how much they can be paid they are going to have to come up with a system both sides agree with. The tactics they've used to date don't make it seem like they are trying to impose their will on the players rather than work out the best deal for both sides.

I think the bolded part is where your position breaks down to some extent. Certain of these very same owners would clearly benefit in that scenario. Rampant free agency doesn't impact each owner/team in an identical manner.In fact, I've wondered if some owners who stand to benefit in an open system could actually be trying to force this current scenario by supporting an ownership hard line in recent negotiations with the NFLPA.

Step 1) Demand concessions and refuse to open the books which you know the NFLPA won't accept,

Step 2) Union decertifies and challanges NFL via anti-trust as a predictable response

Step 3) Profit by building juggernaut (w/ no salary cap) and negotiating your own broadcast and mechandising deals.

Just imagine the players that would be cut if there were no salary cap rules in place. What leverage would an overpaid player have if the team has no salary cap implication for a straight up cut? All restructuring would essentially become the team making a unilateral demand and the player either taking it or walking.

 

[CalBear]

Just imagine the players that would be cut if there were no salary cap rules in place. What leverage would an overpaid player have if the team has no salary cap implication for a straight up cut? All restructuring would essentially become the team making a unilateral demand and the player either taking it or walking.

There were no salary cap rules in place this year, and we didn't see massive carnage among players under contract. If anything, there were fewer high-paid veterans cut this year than usual, unless you count Randy Moss twice.

 

[JamesTheScot]

NOBODY is begrudging the players talents, and NOBODY is suggesting that they shouldn't earn millions given the relatively few people who could do what they do and the Billions of raw dollars the NFL rakes in. What I (and others) would argue is that no union should be able to dictate such drastic terms to their employers. People earning 3 million a year shouldn't be allowed to threaten anti-trust suits in order to achieve 3.3 million per year. If our current system of laws (anti-trust and labor) allow this, than we need to take a good hard look at those laws.

When a business enforces drastic terms on its employees it's 'free enterprise.' When employees have enough leverage to enforce 'drastic' terms on a business it's A HAMMER. It's all business. It's all a negotiation. The owners agree to the union's terms because it's in their self-interest to do so.

When a business negotiates with an employee, it's free enterprise.When a potential employee negotiates with a business, it's free enterprise.

When potential employees voluntarily agree to collectively hold out for certain terms, it's free enterprise.

But that kind of solidarity is hard to come by in the free market.

So when federal law requires that a business negotiate with a union, it stops being free enterprise. Whether we call this force of law a hammer or feather duster is up to you. But it can't be equated with free enterprise, instead it's less-than-free enterprise. When the answer to the question is "because federal law requires us to", it's not an example of how each party can and is acting in their own best interests.

 

[Orange Crush]

I think it's important to remember a few things here in regards to the pro/anti-union arguments.

The NFL wants the players to have a union. They actually want to block the NFLPA from decertifying. Why? Because the owners can do a lot of things through collective bargaining that they would not be allowed to under the law, otherwise. Things like holding a rookie draft, having restricted free agency, franchise tags, revenue sharing, among many others.

Getting rid of all CBAs and Unions in football would be devastating to the league we love. It would quickly become very much like baseball, with big market teams buying up all the best players, and small market teams trying to remain above water by keeping costs down to the bare minimum. Would Chiefs fans still support their team when they had essentially no chance of competing for a title? Or Raiders fans? Bills? Jaguars? Vikings? Falcons?

The ability to compete would be completely linked to the profitability of the stadium. Which, I think, would give owners greater leverage in their dealings with cities over stadium construction. You want the city to have a winner? Then the city needs to pony up the dough. Though how much of that money goes to improving player salaries and how much goes into the owner's back pocket is solely determined by the whim of the owner. After all, Mike Brown got a sweetheart deal from the city of Cincinnati on his new stadium, yet he is still the biggest penny pencher in the league (team operating costs were the lowest in the league in '09, $35M lower than the league average, while their profits were $49.4M, $15M above the league average (per Forbes)).

I know others have said this before -- but this is really a battle between and among the NFL owners. Average club profits in '09 were $33.4M. But that ranged from a $7.7M loss (Dolphins) to a $143.3M gain (Cowboys). With a salary cap, and salary floor, the increasing revenues from some teams are raising the salary floor to a point where small market teams and teams in bad stadiums are having a hard time maintaining their normal levels of profitability (note: the Dolphins had over $20M in profits in '08 -- there's a lot of annual fluctuation in profitability based on player costs and how active the team is in free agency). So instead of increasing revenue sharing between the high revenue teams and low revenue teams (which they did under the last CBA), they want to remove that revenue sharing and instead decrease player costs for everyone.

 

[Orange Crush]

When a business negotiates with an employee, it's free enterprise.When a potential employee negotiates with a business, it's free enterprise.When potential employees voluntarily agree to collectively hold out for certain terms, it's free enterprise. But that kind of solidarity is hard to come by in the free market.So when federal law requires that a business negotiate with a union, it stops being free enterprise. Whether we call this force of law a hammer or feather duster is up to you. But it can't be equated with free enterprise, instead it's less-than-free enterprise. When the answer to the question is "because federal law requires us to", it's not an example of how each party can and is acting in their own best interests.

How about when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor -- what do you call that?

 

[Heatman]

When a business negotiates with an employee, it's free enterprise.When a potential employee negotiates with a business, it's free enterprise.When potential employees voluntarily agree to collectively hold out for certain terms, it's free enterprise. But that kind of solidarity is hard to come by in the free market.So when federal law requires that a business negotiate with a union, it stops being free enterprise. Whether we call this force of law a hammer or feather duster is up to you. But it can't be equated with free enterprise, instead it's less-than-free enterprise. When the answer to the question is "because federal law requires us to", it's not an example of how each party can and is acting in their own best interests.

How about when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor -- what do you call that?

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

 

[CalBear]

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

32 owners. 32 payrolls. Each team negotiates its own employment contracts. There are some rules governing how the teams interact and share revenues, but if the NFL is one business, it's one business that doesn't look like any other business in the world.

 

[Heatman]

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

32 owners. 32 payrolls. Each team negotiates its own employment contracts. There are some rules governing how the teams interact and share revenues, but if the NFL is one business, it's one business that doesn't look like any other business in the world.

I'm not so sure about that. I work in a casino, my casino is owned by a larger corporation which owns approximately 35 casinos and racetracks around the world. Each of these casinos and race tracks negotiate their own employment contracts. All of the casinos share revenue to keep each other afloat during rough times. Our employer can "request" that we move to another property in order to better utilize our talents. We can go or move on to another company. Some of our emloyees are in unions, some are not... sounds fairly similar to me.Only difference is that our casino could and would survive without the others so I guess that would make the NFL different.

 

[Orange Crush]

When a business negotiates with an employee, it's free enterprise.When a potential employee negotiates with a business, it's free enterprise.When potential employees voluntarily agree to collectively hold out for certain terms, it's free enterprise. But that kind of solidarity is hard to come by in the free market.So when federal law requires that a business negotiate with a union, it stops being free enterprise. Whether we call this force of law a hammer or feather duster is up to you. But it can't be equated with free enterprise, instead it's less-than-free enterprise. When the answer to the question is "because federal law requires us to", it's not an example of how each party can and is acting in their own best interests.

How about when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor -- what do you call that?

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

According to long-standing legal precedent, as decided and frequently upheld (including just this past year) by the U.S. Supreme Court, the NFL comprises 32 separate businesses. The "one team cannot stand on its own" has been made repeatedly by the NFL in court, and in spite of my own opinion on the matter, has been rejected every time. Therefore, since neither you nor I can change that reality, what would you (or JamesTheScot) call it when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor?

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

32 owners. 32 payrolls. Each team negotiates its own employment contracts. There are some rules governing how the teams interact and share revenues, but if the NFL is one business, it's one business that doesn't look like any other business in the world.

I'm not so sure about that. I work in a casino, my casino is owned by a larger corporation which owns approximately 35 casinos and racetracks around the world. Each of these casinos and race tracks negotiate their own employment contracts. All of the casinos share revenue to keep each other afloat during rough times. Our employer can "request" that we move to another property in order to better utilize our talents. We can go or move on to another company. Some of our emloyees are in unions, some are not... sounds fairly similar to me.Only difference is that our casino could and would survive without the others so I guess that would make the NFL different.

That is based on the legal and economic structure of that casino group. There is no overarching legal entity that owns the 32 separate NFL clubs. The teams are free-standing and independent entities.

 

[Heatman]

When a business negotiates with an employee, it's free enterprise.When a potential employee negotiates with a business, it's free enterprise.When potential employees voluntarily agree to collectively hold out for certain terms, it's free enterprise. But that kind of solidarity is hard to come by in the free market.So when federal law requires that a business negotiate with a union, it stops being free enterprise. Whether we call this force of law a hammer or feather duster is up to you. But it can't be equated with free enterprise, instead it's less-than-free enterprise. When the answer to the question is "because federal law requires us to", it's not an example of how each party can and is acting in their own best interests.

How about when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor -- what do you call that?

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

According to long-standing legal precedent, as decided and frequently upheld (including just this past year) by the U.S. Supreme Court, the NFL comprises 32 separate businesses. The "one team cannot stand on its own" has been made repeatedly by the NFL in court, and in spite of my own opinion on the matter, has been rejected every time. Therefore, since neither you nor I can change that reality, what would you (or JamesTheScot) call it when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor?

I would call it what CalBear did, a unique business. They may be legally categorized as 32 separate businesses but the fact remains that they all depend on each other and have to abide by the rules of the NFL as a whole, including the CBA as it were or will be. I'm not sure where the conspiracy to limit competition for labor comes in. There is competition out there and if the payers would like to go play for the CFL or the UFL they could easily do so. To say that the NFL is holding them back by conspiring to limit their ability to work is an untrue statement. Now, if the NFL, the UFL and the CFL all got together and decided to limit who could play and for how much I would say you have something.

 

[CalBear]

I would call it what CalBear did, a unique business. They may be legally categorized as 32 separate businesses but the fact remains that they all depend on each other and have to abide by the rules of the NFL as a whole, including the CBA as it were or will be. I'm not sure where the conspiracy to limit competition for labor comes in. There is competition out there and if the payers would like to go play for the CFL or the UFL they could easily do so. To say that the NFL is holding them back by conspiring to limit their ability to work is an untrue statement. Now, if the NFL, the UFL and the CFL all got together and decided to limit who could play and for how much I would say you have something.

To take the casino argument, what if the over-arching management group included all the casinos in Vegas? And what if they got together and decided that their workers were taking too high a percentage of the total revenue, so they were cutting pay by 10% this year? The argument that "well, the workers could go to Reno instead" would not hold water, because working in Vegas isn't equivalent to working in Reno, and working in the NFL isn't close to working in the CFL or UFL.

 

[renesauz]

When a business negotiates with an employee, it's free enterprise.When a potential employee negotiates with a business, it's free enterprise.When potential employees voluntarily agree to collectively hold out for certain terms, it's free enterprise. But that kind of solidarity is hard to come by in the free market.So when federal law requires that a business negotiate with a union, it stops being free enterprise. Whether we call this force of law a hammer or feather duster is up to you. But it can't be equated with free enterprise, instead it's less-than-free enterprise. When the answer to the question is "because federal law requires us to", it's not an example of how each party can and is acting in their own best interests.

How about when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor -- what do you call that?

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that each individual team is it's own business and they are conspiring against the players? If each team is it's own business let me ask you this: How would a team do on it's own without the other 31 teams in the league? The answer you come up with also states the fact that the teams are all a part of one business, the NFL.

According to long-standing legal precedent, as decided and frequently upheld (including just this past year) by the U.S. Supreme Court, the NFL comprises 32 separate businesses. The "one team cannot stand on its own" has been made repeatedly by the NFL in court, and in spite of my own opinion on the matter, has been rejected every time. Therefore, since neither you nor I can change that reality, what would you (or JamesTheScot) call it when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor?

That's all well and good...but it's both unrealistic and problematic. They AREN'T 32 seperate businesses. They are NOT competitors. Laws requiring competition make no sense, and should not be applied.IN the end, pro sports leagues are unique entities and applying trust law to them doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Reports trickling out that the two sides have agreed to extend the deadline for 24 hours. Doesn't necessarily mean we're closer to a solution, but it's hard to see how it could be bad.

 

[Heatman]

I would call it what CalBear did, a unique business. They may be legally categorized as 32 separate businesses but the fact remains that they all depend on each other and have to abide by the rules of the NFL as a whole, including the CBA as it were or will be. I'm not sure where the conspiracy to limit competition for labor comes in. There is competition out there and if the payers would like to go play for the CFL or the UFL they could easily do so. To say that the NFL is holding them back by conspiring to limit their ability to work is an untrue statement. Now, if the NFL, the UFL and the CFL all got together and decided to limit who could play and for how much I would say you have something.

To take the casino argument, what if the over-arching management group included all the casinos in Vegas? And what if they got together and decided that their workers were taking too high a percentage of the total revenue, so they were cutting pay by 10% this year? The argument that "well, the workers could go to Reno instead" would not hold water, because working in Vegas isn't equivalent to working in Reno, and working in the NFL isn't close to working in the CFL or UFL.

First of all casino workers don't get 60% of the casinos revenue off the top, if so Vegas or any other casino in the country would not exist. The same goes for any other industry other than the NFL where players get 60% before the bills are paid other than the 1 billion kept by owners for the stadium fund... which amounts for about 1 stadium, or help funding up to maybe 4. Even in the movie industry that has been mentioned, the actors don't get 60% of movie profits for doing a movie. If they did there would be no movies.Second it doesn't matter that working in Reno is not the same, nor does it matter that the pay is much different. The fact remains that casino workers could still go somewhere and work. Just because Vegas pays more (which is completely wrong btw but your using it as a point to I'm going with your assumption) doesn't mean that casino workers have the right to make that money. Workers have a right to compete for a job if it is available. Just because a player is in the NFL does not give him the right to be a player in the NFL. If his concern is working to "feed his family" he can go play in another league or get what most Americans have... a job.Again I'm not pro owner but facts are facts, the NFL can not exist long under the current agreement. Would you like to buy a business knowing that you are going to probably lose money or break even? Oh you might have a shot at being one of the few who make money but your employees get theirs before you do. If you say yes you have never nor will you ever own a business and I can understand why you are siding with the players so strongly. People don't buy sports teams for nearly a billion dollars for the fun of it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Again I'm not pro owner but facts are facts, the NFL can not exist long under the current agreement. Would you like to buy a business knowing that you are going to probably lose money or break even?

You're very good on on assertions, but I don't see any "facts" here. Let me help you by giving you another chance to support what you're saying.1) Has an NFL owner ever lost money over the course of his/her ownership? Has an NFL franchise ever sold for less than the previous time it changed hands?2) If the NFL has existed under similar versions of this same agreement since 1993, why can't it continue to exist under this agreement?3) Does your answer to #2 above take into account that the game is MORE popular, and making MORE money than it ever has? Does it address the +8-10% TV ratings that will drive the next network contract?TIA for helping me see the light here.

 

[Orange Crush]

According to long-standing legal precedent, as decided and frequently upheld (including just this past year) by the U.S. Supreme Court, the NFL comprises 32 separate businesses. The "one team cannot stand on its own" argument has been made repeatedly by the NFL in court, and in spite of my own opinion on the matter, has been rejected every time. Therefore, since neither you nor I can change that reality, what would you (or JamesTheScot) call it when multiple businesses conspire amongst themselves to limit competition for labor?

I would call it what CalBear did, a unique business. They may be legally categorized as 32 separate businesses but the fact remains that they all depend on each other and have to abide by the rules of the NFL as a whole, including the CBA as it were or will be. I'm not sure where the conspiracy to limit competition for labor comes in. There is competition out there and if the payers would like to go play for the CFL or the UFL they could easily do so. To say that the NFL is holding them back by conspiring to limit their ability to work is an untrue statement. Now, if the NFL, the UFL and the CFL all got together and decided to limit who could play and for how much I would say you have something.

I actually wish the appellate court's decision in American Needle had been upheld. It didn't declare that the NFL was always a single entity, but that it sometimes was depending on the market it was operating in. So clothing merchandise, the NFL operated as a single entity in competition with other clothing brands, but in the market for football players, it operated as 32 separate, competing businesses. That made perfect sense to me. Instead, we get the Supreme Court decision, holding that the NFL is always 32 separate businesses. So you calling it a unique business has no legal persuasiveness. An example of the conspiracy to limit labor competition is the rookie draft. That is only allowed via the CBA, because labor law trumps antitrust law. And to have labor law apply and negotiate a CBA in the first place, you need to have a union.Now, in spite of "the monopoly power of the union", leading to the players receiving 59.6% of the league's "Total Revenue" (defined as all revenue minus about $1 Billion the owners took off the top -- leading to the actual percentage the players received as 50.4%), the owners still managed to average $33M in profits each in 2009. No numbers are yet known for 2010, but its expected to be a bit higher.

 

[BassNBrew]

Just imagine the players that would be cut if there were no salary cap rules in place. What leverage would an overpaid player have if the team has no salary cap implication for a straight up cut? All restructuring would essentially become the team making a unilateral demand and the player either taking it or walking.

There were no salary cap rules in place this year, and we didn't see massive carnage among players under contract. If anything, there were fewer high-paid veterans cut this year than usual, unless you count Randy Moss twice.

Well we sure saw massive carnage in Carolina. The owner of this franchise is a key player in the negotiations and warned the owners to prepare for a lockout. He certainly followed his own advice and the fans here suffered in the short term. Out side of the Green Bay ownership (which is public), I would think that most of the remianing owners are regreting not being more frugal based on the current state of the league.

 

[CalBear]

Second it doesn't matter that working in Reno is not the same, nor does it matter that the pay is much different. The fact remains that casino workers could still go somewhere and work. Just because Vegas pays more (which is completely wrong btw but your using it as a point to I'm going with your assumption) doesn't mean that casino workers have the right to make that money. Workers have a right to compete for a job if it is available. Just because a player is in the NFL does not give him the right to be a player in the NFL. If his concern is working to "feed his family" he can go play in another league or get what most Americans have... a job.

The player has a right to be a player in the NFL because he has the talent to do so. Because he can find a team willing to pay him. The only way the owners can keep him from getting an NFL paycheck is to collude against him. So the players organize, and use anti-trust law to keep the owners from colluding against the players.

Again I'm not pro owner but facts are facts, the NFL can not exist long under the current agreement.

How is that a fact? Even the NFL owners are not asserting that the NFL can't exist under the current agreement. They are just asserting that they want a bigger piece of the pie.

 

[Orange Crush]

Again I'm not pro owner but facts are facts, the NFL can not exist long under the current agreement. Would you like to buy a business knowing that you are going to probably lose money or break even? Oh you might have a shot at being one of the few who make money but your employees get theirs before you do. If you say yes you have never nor will you ever own a business and I can understand why you are siding with the players so strongly. People don't buy sports teams for nearly a billion dollars for the fun of it.

You've got your facts wrong. Or, actually, you've fallen for the owners public relations machine (i.e. spin, i.e. lies).Would you like to run a business where you know every single year that your costs were 100% under your control? Combine that with annual increases in revenue every single year? Sounds pretty sweet to me. The only way an NFL team loses money over a year is by either a) deciding to go on a free agency binge for players to improve the team's talent (which will be evened out over future years due to the salary cap), or b) making really bad business decisions that increase their non-payroll costs. That's it. It's virtually a guaranteed money-maker, even in this recession. Maybe especially in this recession, as (just like during the Great Depression), people will find a way to pay for entertainment to lift their spirits.

 

[Heatman]

Again I'm not pro owner but facts are facts, the NFL can not exist long under the current agreement.

Would you like to buy a business knowing that you are going to probably lose money or break even?

You're very good on on assertions, but I don't see any "facts" here. Let me help you by giving you another chance to support what you're saying.1) Has an NFL owner ever lost money over the course of his/her ownership? Has an NFL franchise ever sold for less than the previous time it changed hands?

2) If the NFL has existed under similar versions of this same agreement since 1993, why can't it continue to exist under this agreement?

3) Does your answer to #2 above take into account that the game is MORE popular, and making MORE money than it ever has? Does it address the +8-10% TV ratings that will drive the next network contract?

TIA for helping me see the light here.

The owners had offered a little more than 56.5% of total football revenues to the players; the players wanted 59.5% and needed the owners to share more of the money they earned locally and had not shared creating a divide of at least $100 million between the top earners and the poorer ones.



Old deal

1)Salary cap of $94.5M in 2006.

2)No salary cap in 2007.

3)Player compensation and benefits drawn from a pool made up of 87% of league revenue known as DGR (designated gross revenues), with players getting 65% of those monies.

4)Team owners share TV, gate receipts, but not locally generated revenue (parking, luxury box rentals).

5)No restriction on how many times a team could use franchise designation on a player.

6)Signing bonus could be prorated over as many as seven years (four in 2006) for salary-cap accounting.

7)NFL draft expires in 2008.

8)Possibility of a strike or lockout in 2008 after agreement terminates.

New deal

1)Salary cap of $102M in 2006.

2)Salary cap of $109M in 2007.

3)Player compensation and benefits drawn from a pool made up of 100% of revenue known as TFR (total football revenue), with players getting 59.5%.

4)Team owners share all revenue, though not equally.

5)Team can franchise a player three times, the last at a rate of pay earned by quarterbacks.

6)Signing bonus can be prorated over five years in 2006, over six years in 2007 and again over five years in 2008.

7)NFL draft continues through end of agreement.

8)Labor peace through 2011.

Compiled by Larry Weisman, USA TODAY : http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-03-08-labor-deal-reaction_x.htm

Above is the differences in the previous CBA and the Current CBA on most of the major points. Notice in the bolded paragraph above as well as point 3 in both CBAs the players got not only a larger share of the pie but a larger pie to share. The owners are simply asking for this to be reduced to be more fair, except the players are the ones screaming not fair. In the bolded paragraph the owners were offering 56.5% of TOTAL revenue (Which is unbelievable in the first place) but the players wanted 59.5% of TOTAL revenue and they got it, why? Because Tagliabue and Upshaw were both retiring and Tagliabue didn't want to end his reign during a strike. So he and Upshaw basically railroaded the extra 3% through. Even at the time owners knew they would opt out and try to renegotiate down to the 56.5% they had offered. I don't see the NFL going forward under the current agreement and the players will eventually agree to the extra 1 Billion off the top ar a reduction down to 56.5%.

You can clearly see the difference the NFL operated under up to 2005 and the MAJOR difference in the amount of money the players got in 2006. The owners were not being greedy, they offered 56.5% but the players were being greedy knowing they had the NFL over a barrel and Tagliabue on their side by wanting to come to an agreement before he stepped down.

Now, having said that and pointed out the differences in the two CBAs I will answer your question the Lions and Dolphins lost money last year and the Jaguars lost 16% of their team value according to Forbes: http://www.sportsuntapped.com/forbes-two-nfl-teams-lost-money-last-year-113166/

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Again I'm not pro owner but facts are facts, the NFL can not exist long under the current agreement.

Would you like to buy a business knowing that you are going to probably lose money or break even?

You're very good on on assertions, but I don't see any "facts" here. Let me help you by giving you another chance to support what you're saying.1) Has an NFL owner ever lost money over the course of his/her ownership? Has an NFL franchise ever sold for less than the previous time it changed hands?

2) If the NFL has existed under similar versions of this same agreement since 1993, why can't it continue to exist under this agreement?

3) Does your answer to #2 above take into account that the game is MORE popular, and making MORE money than it ever has? Does it address the +8-10% TV ratings that will drive the next network contract?

TIA for helping me see the light here.

The owners had offered a little more than 56.5% of total football revenues to the players; the players wanted 59.5% and needed the owners to share more of the money they earned locally and had not shared creating a divide of at least $100 million between the top earners and the poorer ones.



Old deal

1)Salary cap of $94.5M in 2006.

2)No salary cap in 2007.

3)Player compensation and benefits drawn from a pool made up of 87% of league revenue known as DGR (designated gross revenues), with players getting 65% of those monies.

4)Team owners share TV, gate receipts, but not locally generated revenue (parking, luxury box rentals).

5)No restriction on how many times a team could use franchise designation on a player.

6)Signing bonus could be prorated over as many as seven years (four in 2006) for salary-cap accounting.

7)NFL draft expires in 2008.

8)Possibility of a strike or lockout in 2008 after agreement terminates.

New deal

1)Salary cap of $102M in 2006.

2)Salary cap of $109M in 2007.

3)Player compensation and benefits drawn from a pool made up of 100% of revenue known as TFR (total football revenue), with players getting 59.5%.

4)Team owners share all revenue, though not equally.

5)Team can franchise a player three times, the last at a rate of pay earned by quarterbacks.

6)Signing bonus can be prorated over five years in 2006, over six years in 2007 and again over five years in 2008.

7)NFL draft continues through end of agreement.

8)Labor peace through 2011.

Compiled by Larry Weisman, USA TODAY : http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-03-08-labor-deal-reaction_x.htm

Above is the differences in the previous CBA and the Current CBA on most of the major points. Notice in the bolded paragraph above as well as point 3 in both CBAs the players got not only a larger share of the pie but a larger pie to share. The owners are simply asking for this to be reduced to be more fair, except the players are the ones screaming not fair. In the bolded paragraph the owners were offering 56.5% of TOTAL revenue (Which is unbelievable in the first place) but the players wanted 59.5% of TOTAL revenue and they got it, why? Because Tagliabue and Upshaw were both retiring and Tagliabue didn't want to end his reign during a strike. So he and Upshaw basically railroaded the extra 3% through. Even at the time owners knew they would opt out and try to renegotiate down to the 56.5% they had offered. I don't see the NFL going forward under the current agreement and the players will eventually agree to the extra 1 Billion off the top ar a reduction down to 56.5%.

You can clearly see the difference the NFL operated under up to 2005 and the MAJOR difference in the amount of money the players got in 2006. The owners were not being greedy, they offered 56.5% but the players were being greedy knowing they had the NFL over a barrel and Tagliabue on their side by wanting to come to an agreement before he stepped down.

Now, having said that and pointed out the differences in the two CBAs I will answer your question the Lions and Dolphins lost money last year and the Jaguars lost 16% of their team value according to Forbes: http://www.sportsuntapped.com/forbes-two-nfl-teams-lost-money-last-year-113166/

How on earth did the Lions lose money? Stadium costs?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That's pretty helpful.

How much were the owners skimming off pre-2006? I see that the players get about 60% in the new deal, but it's not 100% of anything since the owners take $1b off the top first. Was that the arrangement under the old deal too? I have the impression that it wasn't the same, but I'm not sure about that one.

As for the poor Jaguars. They're worth 16% less than 2009? Only $735m? If my math is right $735m/84% is $875 million. Which means they've taken a $140 million hit! Ouch!

Hey... $140m... that's an interesting number... I think I've seen it before. Wait, wait... don't tell me... Right! Got it. The Jags franchise was purchased in 1993 for, yep, $140m.

So in 18 years, having suffered through a horrific 2010, the Jaguars are worth about $600m more than the owners paid for the team in 1993. That's an annualized return of roughly 9.7% per year. In addition to any operating profits that may or may not be happening.

Just to check our estimates let's do another one... the Cowboys were purchased for $158m in 1989. Worth $1.18b in 2010 (according to Forbes), that's a 10.6% annual increase in value on the team. Again that's above and beyond any operating profit the Cowboys make. And the players don't see a dime of that money.

Which is fine - I'm not arguing for anything different. God Bless America.

But the idea that the owners are hurting because of the greedy players or an unsustainable model seems pretty ridiculous given that, based on 20+ years of actual history, Jerry Jones can expect the value of the Cowboys to rise by roughly $100m next year as long as he fields a team.

 

[Insomniac]

Which just plays right into the league's claim that decertification is a sham.

It seems very clear that the existence of a union in the NFL, NBA and NHL clearly benefits the owners more than it does the union members. The players are better off under anti-trust law than they are in collective bargaining. Under anti-trust law there won't be a salary cap, there won't be a draft, there won't be a franchise tag or any other restrictions on players not under contract. How long will/can the courts force the players to remain unionized?

How long will the NFL last if it all opens up to free market forces? Not long...at least in its present form. Eventually, the small market teams will fold because they won't be able to field competitive teams and remain profitable.

So you have fewer jobs available for a workforce that hasn't shrunk. When jobs are in demand, compensation can actually shrink. It's not like most of these players have careers waiting for them that can earn them even 50% of their current incomes. So why wouldn't you sign for 75% of what you used to make if your alternative is to got get a 9to5 job for $40K?

And that's not even taking into account issues like injuries and contract options that would be fully negotiable without any restriction other than state law...different state laws for each team.

The stability of an NFLPA and CB agreement does actually help the players.

I'd imagine the NFL would survive quite well if there was a "free market" for players. The TV revenues are a large part of the overall revenue and that's shared equally. That's not going change. The revenue from merchandise is also mostly shared equally. According to Forbes all but 3 of the teams had revenue between $210-$270 mil in 2009. There's no reason to think the Lions will fold just because they haven't fielded many good teams for the last 50 years and have the lowest revenue. Take a look outside the US. The big European soccer leagues aren't going out of business despite the fact there's no draft, no cap, no franchise tag and not anywhere near the level of shared broadcast or merchandise revenue.

 

[Orange Crush]

New deal

3)Player compensation and benefits drawn from a pool made up of 100% of revenue known as TFR (total football revenue), with players getting 59.5%.

4)Team owners share all revenue, though not equally.

Compiled by Larry Weisman, USA TODAY : http://www.usatoday....-reaction_x.htm

This is incorrect. Mr. Weisman did some poor reporting here."Total Revenue" is a defined term in the last CBA. Ironically, "Total Revenue" does not equal total revenue. It equals all revenue minus monies used for increased revenue streams such as stadium improvements, minus an additional 3% for operations. So the players got just under 60% of what was left over.

As the owners began using more of their own money for stadiums over the last few years, the amount of money taken off the top and not included in the "Total Revenue" figure kept increasing, to the point where it was approximately $1 Billion in '09. The NFLPA calculated that the money spent on player salaries and benefits in '09 was actually just 50.4% of all league revenue, or the lowest percentage in six years.

And the "team owners share all revenue" is a bit misleading. Any revenue they generate from luxury boxes, club suites, and local advertising and sponsorships stays with the club and is only subject to sharing with the rest of the league if it is repayment for an NFL loan provided for stadium construction, or if the team is among the top 15 in total revenues in which case some money is put into a pool to be distributed among the 17 lowest revenue teams. Looking at the figures, there needs to be more revenue sharing to keep every franchise competitive on the field. Right now there's a very real danger of the league separating into haves and have nots, even with a salary cap and more revenue sharing than any other sports league. The revenue generation disparity is just too great amongst the league members.

Now, having said that and pointed out the differences in the two CBAs I will answer your question the Lions and Dolphins lost money last year and the Jaguars lost 16% of their team value according to Forbes: http://www.sportsunt...st-year-113166/

Yes, and both the Lions and Dolphins were rather profitable the year before. As I said above, there are large fluctuations from year to year in team costs due in large part to how active they are in free agency. It's better to look at trends over several years, and if you take a look at the Forbes figures going back over the span of the last CBA, then you'll see that team profits continue to go up. Average team value did go down for the first time in '09, due mainly to the economy and the difficulty in selling out all games and maintaining stadium naming deals. The Rams were valued in a sale for 20% less than what Forbes had valued them at. There are many factors involved in that, but while it was a reality check, I don't think anyone thinks any owner is going to ever end up selling a franchise for less than its purchase amount. Meaning that not only is an NFL team a profit-generator, but an investment vehicle as well. Even the lowly Jaguars, who as you mentioned lost value down to $725M in '09, has still seen its franchise value increase an average of 11.8% YOY since Wayne Weaver bought the expansion franchise in '95. For a team in a small market who can only (sometimes) get a sell-out by blocking off large portions of their upper deck seating, that's not bad. If I had a billion dollars lying around, I'd love to buy an NFL franchise, especially if I was "stuck with" the old terms of the CBA.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

And the "team owners share all revenue" is a bit misleading. Any revenue they generate from luxury boxes, club suites, and local advertising and sponsorships stays with the club and is only subject to sharing with the rest of the league if it is repayment for an NFL loan provided for stadium construction, or if the team is among the top 15 in total revenues in which case some money is put into a pool to be distributed among the 17 lowest revenue teams.

Doesn't that mean all clubs are involved in sharing? You're either in the top 15 or the bottom 17.

 

[Heatman]

OK let's look at it a different way.

Start by reading this article- http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/packers/2010-07-15-finances_N.htm

It states the Packers made $9.8 million dollars this year. I'm using them because they have to open their books every year. I'm guessing they are about the NFL average with teams such as Dallas making more.

Then look at this graph (make sure you click to view the graph)- http://footballrumblings.com/highest-earning-nfl-players/

It has the highest 27 highest paid players in the league on it, all off whom made over $2 million more then the NFL Champions this year. I didn't look to see how many total players made more money than the Packers this year but I'm sure there are more. Even if you take what the Packers made last year which was $20.1 million 3 players still made more than them. 4 years ago the Packers made $34 million. Why less and less profits every year with such an amazing growth rate as people have been saying? Well because the article states average player costs have increased 11% a year while revenue increased 5.5% each year since the last CBA was signed.

Maybe the Packers are the only team in the NFL with an average revenue increase that is half of their average player costs but I highly doubt it. This is why the league WILL NOT survive under the current agreement.

 

[roarlions]

Why less and less profits every year with such an amazing growth rate as people have been saying? Well because the article states average player costs have increased 11% a year while revenue increased 5.5% each year since the last CBA was signed.

Maybe the Packers are the only team in the NFL with an average revenue increase that is half of their average player costs but I highly doubt it. This is why the league WILL NOT survive under the current agreement.

Seems worth noting that the Packers still accumulated nearly $10 million in operating profit during the 2009/2010 season even though they operate in the league's smallest media market and it was the bottom of the most severe recession the country has suffered in a very long time. Bet lots of other companies in the U.S. would have been satisfied with that profit that year.Now some comments from the Packers about some factors leading to increased player costs.

From an article posted about 3 years ago at:

<http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d808f3eec&template=with-video&confirm=true>

"We had a good year," Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy said. "But not as strong as you might have anticipated."

Packers executives believe the team ranks just outside the league's top 10 most profitable franchises despite playing in its smallest media market. But they're worried about the future after watching the team's player costs skyrocket from $110 million in the 2006-07 fiscal year to $124 million last year.

Murphy said the increase was mainly because of bonus payments due to veteran players, but also was an example of a growing trend around the league. Teams are spending more money to remain competitive without seeing a corresponding increase in revenue.

And from an article posted last summer at:

<http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-1/Finances-Show-Profit-But-Troubling-Trends-Remain/131dac2e-ce57-4798-aade-384c565d01fb>

"This past year’s $22.1 million increase in player costs was substantial, in part due to significant long-term contracts given to veteran players Ryan Pickett, Nick Collins and Chad Clifton. But the Packers’ negotiating position with regard to those contracts was aided somewhat by the new free-agency rules in the final year of the current CBA, which kept players with four and five years of experience as restricted rather than unrestricted free agents."

I'm not at all familiar with the Packers player personnel decisions, but the conclusion I draw from these 2 articles is that much of the increase in player costs the Packers have experienced over the past 3 - 4 years is due to hefty bonuses and long-term contracts given to maybe a handful of veteran players. Maybe that money was well spent given the championship won this year, or maybe those players had little to do with that success and the Packers spent the money carelessly. Either way it doesn't seem like it is the role of the players association to help a team make more money in their pursuit of a championship.

 

[Orange Crush]

OK let's look at it a different way.

Start by reading this article- http://www.usatoday....-finances_N.htm

It states the Packers made $9.8 million dollars this year. I'm using them because they have to open their books every year. I'm guessing they are about the NFL average with teams such as Dallas making more.

Then look at this graph (make sure you click to view the graph)- http://footballrumbl...ng-nfl-players/

It has the highest 27 highest paid players in the league on it, all off whom made over $2 million more then the NFL Champions this year. I didn't look to see how many total players made more money than the Packers this year but I'm sure there are more. Even if you take what the Packers made last year which was $20.1 million 3 players still made more than them. 4 years ago the Packers made $34 million. Why less and less profits every year with such an amazing growth rate as people have been saying? Well because the article states average player costs have increased 11% a year while revenue increased 5.5% each year since the last CBA was signed.

Maybe the Packers are the only team in the NFL with an average revenue increase that is half of their average player costs but I highly doubt it. This is why the league WILL NOT survive under the current agreement.

This argument is completely irrelevant. The entertainment industry (which the NFL is a part of) is talent-driven. Why don't you look at the music industry, with singers and bands making millions while many recording companies struggle to remain profitable? Or look at Hollywood, where movie studios throw huge sums of money at movie stars hoping (not always successfully) to make a movie profitable? Are some players making a ton of money? You betcha. How much should they make? As much as the market will bear. That's the American way. The teams have entered into an agreement with the players to share revenue. Both sides are trying to maximize the money they make. The NFL owners are NOT claiming they are losing money. If they were, then per labor law, they would have to open their books. Instead, they are claiming that they aren't making as much money as they'd like.

The argument that they can't keep working under the current deal without eventually losing money is poppycock. The owners successfully capped the % of their player costs, and actually drove that number down under the old CBA with the agreement to remove certain monies from the calculation (and then proceeded to increase that category of spending). The owners received less revenue than they had anticipated because of a) the recession, and b) some teams making enormous investments in new stadiums, breaking the old business model for NFL teams. They are taking advantage of that situation to try to renegotiate their labor deal to increase their profits. They are entitled to do that. And I'm entitled to be pissed off if their money grab ends up costing the fans games.

 

[Orange Crush]

And the "team owners share all revenue" is a bit misleading. Any revenue they generate from luxury boxes, club suites, and local advertising and sponsorships stays with the club and is only subject to sharing with the rest of the league if it is repayment for an NFL loan provided for stadium construction, or if the team is among the top 15 in total revenues in which case some money is put into a pool to be distributed among the 17 lowest revenue teams.

Doesn't that mean all clubs are involved in sharing? You're either in the top 15 or the bottom 17.

Yes, which is why I said it was misleading instead of wrong. Sharing all revenue makes it sound like every dollar that comes into the NFL is put into one pot and then divvied out among all 32 clubs.

 

[3nOut]

Monday's Negotiation Status...

Trying to work their way to a new labor deal, Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith resumed negotiations for four hours Monday.

Really? Four hours? FOUR HOURS!!??? They can't even put in a single full day's work following a weekend? Everyone on both sides really has no clue what it's like to have to work for a living. During times when many of us regular folk are having trouble making ends meet, these guys (NFL Players) are squabbling about having to 'work' 18 weeks out of the year instead of 16? Too many workouts? Most people have to pay for their healthclub memberships! You get yours for free (actually they are paying YOU to work out) and you complain its too much? Better health benefits after they stop playing? Question for everyone... how many of you expect to get ANY free insurance from your employer after you retire? Anyone? Anyone? Ridiculous.But the crux of the dispute is money. And someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong since I realy don't know who actually gets the money after they divvy up the $9,000,000,000 (yes that's 9 zeros in a billion). Most sources say the players get approximately 60% of $8 Billion (after the owners take $1 Billion off the top for expenses). But do the players get this, or does the union? For sake of this argument, lets say the players get ALL of the 60% of the revenue (this is best case for the players). I've never been great at math, so someone please correct my numbers if they're wrong. This is how I crunched the numbers:

60% of $9 Billion is FOUR BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ($4,800,000,000)

Divide that by 1700 players in the NFL and you get $2,823,529. Thats how much extra the players get on top of the salaries they make (so no, it doesn't seem the minimum player salary is $200,000).

Now the owners want to take $2 Billion off the top. This is how the numbers look if they get what they want:

60% of $8 Billion is $4,200,000,000 for a difference of only (yes only) $600 Million.

That comes out to $2,470,588 per player for a loss of $352,941.

Really? The players are arguing over a measley $350K? If any of us are lucky enouh to earn $100K per year thats only 3 years salary. Sure we can all use an extra $350K, but none of us would expect to be able to retire on it. And thats living within our simple means. $350K for them in their lifestyles is a new car, a month's mortgage, and a few weekend trips to Las Vegas. Again, this is ridiculous.

NFL players most likely have never worked a day in their lives so they are milking the owners out of their money because they want as much as possible now so that they won't ever have to work. Problem is that $350K won't solve their problems.

 

[Choke]

Monday's Negotiation Status...

players get approximately 60% of $8 Billion (after the owners take $1 Billion off the top for expenses).

60% of $9 Billion is FOUR BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ($4,800,000,000)

Divide that by 1700 players in the NFL and you get $2,823,529. Thats how much extra the players get on top of the salaries they make (so no, it doesn't seem the minimum player salary is $200,000).

Wat?

 

[CalBear]

60% of $9 Billion is FOUR BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ($4,800,000,000)Divide that by 1700 players in the NFL and you get $2,823,529. Thats how much extra the players get on top of the salaries they make (so no, it doesn't seem the minimum player salary is $200,000).

Uh, no, that is exactly the amount of salary the players get. It's not "extra." The minimum player salary is $200K, because for every player who earns more than $2.8M/year, another player earns less. For every player who earns $10M/year, five players earn $300K, or thereabouts.

 

[moondog]

Monday's Negotiation Status...

Trying to work their way to a new labor deal, Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith resumed negotiations for four hours Monday.

Really? Four hours? FOUR HOURS!!??? They can't even put in a single full day's work following a weekend? Everyone on both sides really has no clue what it's like to have to work for a living. During times when many of us regular folk are having trouble making ends meet, these guys (NFL Players) are squabbling about having to 'work' 18 weeks out of the year instead of 16? Too many workouts? Most people have to pay for their healthclub memberships! You get yours for free (actually they are paying YOU to work out) and you complain its too much? Better health benefits after they stop playing? Question for everyone... how many of you expect to get ANY free insurance from your employer after you retire? Anyone? Anyone? Ridiculous.But the crux of the dispute is money. And someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong since I realy don't know who actually gets the money after they divvy up the $9,000,000,000 (yes that's 9 zeros in a billion). Most sources say the players get approximately 60% of $8 Billion (after the owners take $1 Billion off the top for expenses). But do the players get this, or does the union? For sake of this argument, lets say the players get ALL of the 60% of the revenue (this is best case for the players). I've never been great at math, so someone please correct my numbers if they're wrong. This is how I crunched the numbers:

60% of $9 Billion is FOUR BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ($4,800,000,000)

Divide that by 1700 players in the NFL and you get $2,823,529. Thats how much extra the players get on top of the salaries they make (so no, it doesn't seem the minimum player salary is $200,000).

Now the owners want to take $2 Billion off the top. This is how the numbers look if they get what they want:

60% of $8 Billion is $4,200,000,000 for a difference of only (yes only) $600 Million.

That comes out to $2,470,588 per player for a loss of $352,941.

Really? The players are arguing over a measley $350K? If any of us are lucky enouh to earn $100K per year thats only 3 years salary. Sure we can all use an extra $350K, but none of us would expect to be able to retire on it. And thats living within our simple means. $350K for them in their lifestyles is a new car, a month's mortgage, and a few weekend trips to Las Vegas. Again, this is ridiculous.

NFL players most likely have never worked a day in their lives so they are milking the owners out of their money because they want as much as possible now so that they won't ever have to work. Problem is that $350K won't solve their problems.

Your understanding of the issues is non-existent.

 

[todisco1]

NFL players most likely have never worked a day in their lives

Could you explain this please? Being a professional athlete is not work? You don't have to put any time into it at all, you just get checks?

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Monday's Negotiation Status...

Trying to work their way to a new labor deal, Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith resumed negotiations for four hours Monday.

Everyone on both sides really has no clue what it's like to have to work for a living. During times when many of us regular folk are having trouble making ends meet, these guys (NFL Players) are squabbling about having to 'work' 18 weeks out of the year instead of 16? Too many workouts? Most people have to pay for their healthclub memberships! You get yours for free (actually they are paying YOU to work out) and you complain its too much? Better health benefits after they stop playing? Question for everyone... how many of you expect to get ANY free insurance from your employer after you retire? Anyone? Anyone? Ridiculous.

Ever see Earl Campbell try to walk? Ever get 10 concussions from your job? If you did, you would likely get a great settlement, that would include health benefits.Your post just makes your seem like an angry confused person.Edit: Unless of course you are fishing- in that case- well played.

 

[Ksquared]

Getting away from all the class warfare, marxist, free market, pro/anti Union/Owner arguments. For those in this thread that have seem to have some knowledge of the legal intricacies, I have a question if the Union does decertify.

Would the owners not be able to institute an 18 game schedule since there is no CBA or entity to negotiate with. This would fall under "running their business" area since if the owners can not collaborate on this without being considered an anti-trust violation, how could they even schedule games/teams in divisions/etc next season?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

seems awfully quiet out there right now. tomorrow we approach another deadline