NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[roarlions]

I tried to do a search and did not come up with anything, but there were bigger issues with certain expenses being left out according to the review as I remember it. This may have come up in one of the earlier labor dispute threads. Like I said, I don't remember the exact details but it was pointed out several areas in that audit were up to serious interpretation. I think the conclusion was the fact that both sides could be "correct" from their view of the economics of the game.

I've thought about that possibility, but without the report being available online there is just no way to check. The only references I can find to it are in articles summarizing the results. Very frustrating.

 

[Insomniac]

I don't have a law degree but I did major in common sense, so this whole "open the books" debate is pretty simple to me. If you tell me you want out of a deal due to losing $$ and won't justify it by showing me, then I will conclude that you are full of #####. If your claims are true then you shouldn't have any issue proving them. I am an auditor and it's very easy to bury costs in numerous places. For example, an audit report will just show "salaries" or "other costs". I need to look at the detail to see that the owner paid himself $10M and had the team purchase a car and jet form him.How is this even debatable considering the circumstances (one group asking for a new deal due to losing $$)? And lastly, considering that the owners just got busted on the TV contract deal, why would anyone take their word on anything related to this labor dispute?

FAILA. They didn't claim they were losing money. They're claiming shrinking profit margins....NOT the same thing.B. Current economic realities don't necesitate full disclosure. If the players CAN'T see these economic realities, the books won't help them.C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.IN the end, I see the players as replaceable (if valuable) employees. They are NOT "partners" in any real sense of the word. If you told your employees "Hey, I know you've been getting 10-15% raises for the last decade, but I'm going to cut those back to something more reasonable for me", would you expect a fight? I would NEVER show an employee my books. IMHO, well compensated employees should not be allowed to "strike" over raises which are likely to exceed inflation. That simply strikes me very, very wrong. The power of unions has grown uncomfortably and illogically large.

EPIC FAIL by you.A. The provide no evidence that their profit margins are shrinking. Considering the history of sports labor negotiations over the last 40 years where the owner cried poverty, and later events showed they were blatantly lying why do you believe them now?B. It's very clear that the owners revenues have grown at a much higher rate than inflation since they lost/settled the McNeil and White anti-trust lawsuits. The player expense only grew at the same rate as the revenue. There's no proof or even evidence that the owners other expenses have grown as fast as their revenue.C. You believe only the owners of a business should ever see any increased income above the rate of inflation no matter how well a business does or how much the employees efforts and talent contributed to the increased revenue and how little the owners contributed. In any business besides pro sports this doesn't matter that much because the individual can always go look for another job at another company in the same field in a free labor market.In the end I see many NFL owners as just spoiled rich kids who inherited their teams from daddy and have never done anything to earn even 1 dollar. Look at the people who currently own the Giants, Steelers, Bears, Bengals, and Cardinals. The guys who own the Giants and Steelers are OK but the rest just suck. In anything other than the NFL cartel they'd either have been forced to sell or gone bankrupt. Instead they're guaranteed profits, appreciation of team values well above the rate of inflation, all while giving just about every family member high paid no show jobs that count as expenses instead of profits.

 

[Ksquared]

Epic fail on your anti-rich spoiled owners slant.

I don't know if it was earlier in this thread or the other really long one from a couple of months ago, and I am not going to waste my time looking but you can. Someone with your slant against the rich (they all inherit it) listed a published article from someone with the same bias. Had something like only 12 of the 32 owners actually "earned" the money they had. The only problem was after about 3 pages of responses by locals that knew the actual history of their local owners, the conclusion was at least 22 of the owners were middle class at best early in their lives and "made" their own money to become multi-millionaires. Several would be classified as poor at one point in their lives. This anti-rich class warfare mindset has become completely wrong in the last 25 years since the economic environment has promoted entrepreneurial growth. The number of first generation multi-millionaires and billionaires dwarfs the those that are second/third generations that inherited their money (something like 85% to 15%). But you can continue to cling the 1960's view of how the rich got their money.

 

[renesauz]

Epic fail on your anti-rich spoiled owners slant. I don't know if it was earlier in this thread or the other really long one from a couple of months ago, and I am not going to waste my time looking but you can. Someone with your slant against the rich (they all inherit it) listed a published article from someone with the same bias. Had something like only 12 of the 32 owners actually "earned" the money they had. The only problem was after about 3 pages of responses by locals that knew the actual history of their local owners, the conclusion was at least 22 of the owners were middle class at best early in their lives and "made" their own money to become multi-millionaires. Several would be classified as poor at one point in their lives. This anti-rich class warfare mindset has become completely wrong in the last 25 years since the economic environment has promoted entrepreneurial growth. The number of first generation multi-millionaires and billionaires dwarfs the those that are second/third generations that inherited their money (something like 85% to 15%). But you can continue to cling the 1960's view of how the rich got their money.

 

[fatness]

A. They didn't claim they were losing money. They're claiming shrinking profit margins....NOT the same thing.

Then the story has changed.

The NFL owners say there are several teams losing money on a yearly basis and the players’ high salaries are to blame

link

 

[cobalt_27]

A. They didn't claim they were losing money. They're claiming shrinking profit margins....NOT the same thing.

Then the story has changed.

The NFL owners say there are several teams losing money on a yearly basis and the players’ high salaries are to blame

link

To clarify for your benefit: the league overall is not losing money. They are not as profitable as a whole, but the pool of 32 teams isn't in the red. Yet. And some teams have lost money. The league can be dropping profits, and teams can be losing money without the league overall losing money.

 

[JFurby]

C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.

IN the end, I see the players as replaceable (if valuable) employees. They are NOT "partners" in any real sense of the word.

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.

This mindset puzzles me. Can you please explain why you feel entitled to see the line-by-line detailed expenses of a non-publicly traded business? You are entitled to an opinion; you are entitled not to buy a ticket to the game if you don't like the price; you are entitled to ignore the NFL all together if you disagree with the ownership. You may have a vested interested as a member of the public but you get to vote with your dollar and ratings viewership, that is it.

Maybe I feel entitled as a taxpayer since my tax dollars subsidize the stadiums that they play in. Is that ok?

I see this as an issue between you and your local representatives or your fellow voters, based on how the public funding was approved. The owners have a history of holding cities hostage with threats to move teams around for stadium money. But in the end, money only goes to the project when local voters and their representatives approved the funding. Unless the stadium funding agreement came with performance requirements, I still don't see your tax dollars as a legitimate reason to see the numbers as a fan.I'd love to see the numbers too out of my own curiosity but I'd rather not see the NFL get torn apart from irresponsible reporting by the media and union publicists cherry picking out items that are grossly immaterial in percentage terms but sound like a great deal of money to the average fan. The casual fan is still an enormously important part of the NFL's success. I don't see how any good could come from the release of these numbers if the only impact is to turn off a revenue generating fan base.

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

 

[roarlions]

The owners assume all most of the monetary risks and liabilities of the business.

Not trying to be obnoxious, but let's not ignore the physical toll the players pay while they are playing and for years (decades) afterwards, in addition to the financial risk they assume with non-guaranteed contracts.

 

[JFurby]

The owners assume all most of the monetary risks and liabilities of the business.

Not trying to be obnoxious, but let's not ignore the physical toll the players pay while they are playing and for years (decades) afterwards, in addition to the financial risk they assume with non-guaranteed contracts.

I won't argue that point; it is a fair edit.

 

[CalBear]

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

In Oakland, taxpayers assume the risks and liabilities of empty stadium seats, despite the fact that we have no control over the crappy product Al's been putting on the field. The same is true in San Diego and other places.

 

[Rockchild]

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

I guess I would disagree to a certain degree. The owners gain some concessions from the players(free agency, salary cap, among others) and government(anti-trust i.e.) so have some responsibility when making claims of needing more from the pot. What that responsibility is is to be negotiated with the players. Do they have to open their books or will opening the books actually help the process is open to debate but for them to ask the players to trust them is disingenuous and for the players to accept the owners numbers at face value would be foolhardy. This is an ongoing negotiation between two strong opponents with both parties trying to gain leverage in any way they can whether it be through the courts, public opinion or intimidation. This leaves us, the fans, frustrated and feeling powerless because all we want is football. Sure we'd like to see both sides sharing the massive amount of wealth fairly between each other for the most part but unfortunately we don't have much of a say in this. My loyalties tend to side with the players but I don't begrudge the owners of trying to get as much as they can. I can't say either side 'deserves' anything other than what they negotiate.

 

[JFurby]

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

In Oakland, taxpayers assume the risks and liabilities of empty stadium seats, despite the fact that we have no control over the crappy product Al's been putting on the field. The same is true in San Diego and other places.

This assumption of risk was freely agreed to by local voters or representatives. If your the stadium funds agreement didn't include protections against empty seats, the blame for your lost tax dollars falls on the electorate, not the owners.

 

[JFurby]

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

I guess I would disagree to a certain degree. The owners gain some concessions from the players(free agency, salary cap, among others) and government(anti-trust i.e.) so have some responsibility when making claims of needing more from the pot. What that responsibility is is to be negotiated with the players. Do they have to open their books or will opening the books actually help the process is open to debate but for them to ask the players to trust them is disingenuous and for the players to accept the owners numbers at face value would be foolhardy. This is an ongoing negotiation between two strong opponents with both parties trying to gain leverage in any way they can whether it be through the courts, public opinion or intimidation. This leaves us, the fans, frustrated and feeling powerless because all we want is football. Sure we'd like to see both sides sharing the massive amount of wealth fairly between each other for the most part but unfortunately we don't have much of a say in this. My loyalties tend to side with the players but I don't begrudge the owners of trying to get as much as they can. I can't say either side 'deserves' anything other than what they negotiate.

While I tend to side with the owners and you openly lean towards the players, I think this is a great post. It is just a big game of chicken where neither side gains from tipping their cards. That's exactly how we got to this stalemate.

 

[CalBear]

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

In Oakland, taxpayers assume the risks and liabilities of empty stadium seats, despite the fact that we have no control over the crappy product Al's been putting on the field. The same is true in San Diego and other places.

This assumption of risk was freely agreed to by local voters or representatives. If your the stadium funds agreement didn't include protections against empty seats, the blame for your lost tax dollars falls on the electorate, not the owners.

I might blame the large power disparity between billionaire owners and city council members, but in any case it's irrelevant; the point I was making is that the owners don't assume all the risks and liabilities of the business, even if you leave aside the physical risk which they don't participate in at all.

 

[cobalt_27]

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

In Oakland, taxpayers assume the risks and liabilities of empty stadium seats, despite the fact that we have no control over the crappy product Al's been putting on the field. The same is true in San Diego and other places.

This assumption of risk was freely agreed to by local voters or representatives. If your the stadium funds agreement didn't include protections against empty seats, the blame for your lost tax dollars falls on the electorate, not the owners.

I might blame the large power disparity between billionaire owners and city council members, but in any case it's irrelevant; the point I was making is that the owners don't assume all the risks and liabilities of the business, even if you leave aside the physical risk which they don't participate in at all.

You're confusing concepts here. There can be an effect on taxpayers due to the performance/behavior of the team and the decisions made by other taxpayers (e.g., not going to see a game). They may be affected in other ways (e.g., financially, emotionally) by the outcome of the business--directly or indirectly, positively or negatively. But, this is not the same thing as taxpayers assuming the risks and liabilities of the business. Not at all.

 

[CalBear]

You're confusing concepts here. There can be an effect on taxpayers due to the performance/behavior of the team and the decisions made by other taxpayers (e.g., not going to see a game). They may be affected in other ways (e.g., financially, emotionally) by the outcome of the business--directly or indirectly, positively or negatively. But, this is not the same thing as taxpayers assuming the risks and liabilities of the business. Not at all.

If Raiders games don't sell out, the city of Oakland pays the Raiders. That is precisely the definition of the city of Oakland assuming the risk and liabilities of the business.

 

[JFurby]

You're confusing concepts here. There can be an effect on taxpayers due to the performance/behavior of the team and the decisions made by other taxpayers (e.g., not going to see a game). They may be affected in other ways (e.g., financially, emotionally) by the outcome of the business--directly or indirectly, positively or negatively. But, this is not the same thing as taxpayers assuming the risks and liabilities of the business. Not at all.

If Raiders games don't sell out, the city of Oakland pays the Raiders. That is precisely the definition of the city of Oakland assuming the risk and liabilities of the business.

I see your point that the owners share some of the financial risk with cities that willingly took on that risk as part of a bad agreement. But this still does not mean the public has any more right to see the numbers unless it was an agreed upon term in the stadium contract.If Al Davis had a gun pointed at the Oakland city council representatives' heads when they signed that agreement, it sounds like you have a great case for getting the agreement thrown out since it was signed under duress. Otherwise, call the wambulance.

 

[kingmalaki]

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

Actually they do (to the players) when their revenue model is based on them agreeing to working conditions that would be deemed illegial in any other business.

 

[renesauz]

My opinion on the topic, and that is all it is-my opinion, is that the owners do not owe this information to anyone. They don't have to have any reason or support for wanting to take back more of the revenue pie. The owners assume all the risks and liabilities of the business. If they are not happy with the amount of returns based on the risk and capital outlay, they have every right as owners to make business decisions to increase the return.

Actually they do (to the players) when their revenue model is based on them agreeing to working conditions that would be deemed illegial in any other business.

Illegal being a draft, and an inability to change employers at will? Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.I mean, let's be honest. The "illegalities" of the situation are based on labor laws never intended to cover pro sports leagues and athletes earning well in excess of 200K minimum, with many over 1 Million/yr.

As I have repeatedly said, the laws being applied are bad ones.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

 

[cobalt_27]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

Wow. Stay focused. Let's deal with those 160 who become gainfully employed, since that's what we're talking about here. You're not really disputing that the employees of the nfl don't make a good income.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

Wow. Stay focused. Let's deal with those 160 who become gainfully employed, since that's what we're talking about here. You're not really disputing that the employees of the nfl don't make a good income.

I was talking about the risk and compensation of trying to be gainfully employed in that field.Im sure you understand that despite the lmao emoticon.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Illegal being a draft, and an inability to change employers at will? Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Did I miss the memo where the guys at Goldman Sachs give up their labor rights because their pay is so high?Renesauz, your arguments all boil down to "I don't like the law." Which is fine I guess. But make no attempt to deal with what actually exists or the reasons why. And with the checkered history of NFL/sports ownership (I'm talking 70 years of history, not two) you really ought to address both points if you're going to keep making the argument.Because if labor laws didn't apply to sports the players would be getting raped today exactly the same way they did for the first 40+ years of NFL history - right up to the point where the courts got involved.

 

[cobalt_27]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

Wow. Stay focused. Let's deal with those 160 who become gainfully employed, since that's what we're talking about here. You're not really disputing that the employees of the nfl don't make a good income.

I was talking about the risk and compensation of trying to be gainfully employed in that field.Im sure you understand that despite the lmao emoticon.

Yeah, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Trying to become gainfully employed in any field has it's risks (e.g., physical, emotional, financial). The NFL has strict hiring practices. Still, they hire over 100+ new employees each year and pay them far more than 99% of all 21-22 year old kids make in their first year out of college. The pay is immense. And, even for the kids who make the minimum and play only 3 years, they have a much better head start than most of us had when we first got out of school.

 

[cobalt_27]

Illegal being a draft, and an inability to change employers at will? Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Did I miss the memo where the guys at Goldman Sachs give up their labor rights because their pay is so high?Renesauz, your arguments all boil down to "I don't like the law." Which is fine I guess. But make no attempt to deal with what actually exists or the reasons why. And with the checkered history of NFL/sports ownership (I'm talking 70 years of history, not two) you really ought to address both points if you're going to keep making the argument.Because if labor laws didn't apply to sports the players would be getting raped today exactly the same way they did for the first 40+ years of NFL history - right up to the point where the courts got involved.

I'm with renesauz, I suppose. I have no legal basis for liking the draft. I just do. Unlike most businesses, the business of sport depends to a certain extent on parity. The draft has been one mechanism in pursuit of that. Salary caps the same. It probably is illegal, but just has never been challenged.I'll miss the draft, if they do away with it. Most of us will. I'd miss a salary cap, too. Most of us will. The thing I fear for the players is that what they are trying to achieve in the short term here is ultimately going to dilute the product, make the rich teams better and the poor teams worse (ultimately a very capitalist, survival of the fittest reality that I support everywhere else, but not entirely in pro sports), and create more disinterest amongst fans. The current players will get a fraction of a % better return today and ultimately diminish what players of tomorrow will get.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think we all agree that keeping the current structure of the NFL (or something very similar) would be a good thing. I hope that's what happens - it's been great for the game for quite a long time now.

I just don't think the players should be required to give up their legal rights to make it happen - especially given the owners' history of exploitation and bad faith (repeated yet again with union-busting TV contract). The only thing that's changed over time is that the players were able to get the law behind them.

 

[cobalt_27]

No doubt the tv contract issue was shady on the owners' part. The players were totally right. they're just empowered enough now--both legally and financially--that I hope they don't let their paranoia interfere with the game. Their hardships as a labor force just don't warrant the marvin miller esque dogma. Not anymore.

 

[renesauz]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

Wow. Stay focused. Let's deal with those 160 who become gainfully employed, since that's what we're talking about here. You're not really disputing that the employees of the nfl don't make a good income.

I was talking about the risk and compensation of trying to be gainfully employed in that field.Im sure you understand that despite the lmao emoticon.

There are tens of thousands of recent college grads who are tens of thousands in debt working at Dominos and Waffle House because they can't find real jobs. SOooooo....what's your point? That we should feel bad for the NCAA football players who don't make the cut, but got their diploma for free?Seriously....whatever point you're trying to make isn't even making sense.

 

[renesauz]

Illegal being a draft, and an inability to change employers at will? Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Did I miss the memo where the guys at Goldman Sachs give up their labor rights because their pay is so high?Renesauz, your arguments all boil down to "I don't like the law." Which is fine I guess. But make no attempt to deal with what actually exists or the reasons why. And with the checkered history of NFL/sports ownership (I'm talking 70 years of history, not two) you really ought to address both points if you're going to keep making the argument.Because if labor laws didn't apply to sports the players would be getting raped today exactly the same way they did for the first 40+ years of NFL history - right up to the point where the courts got involved.

No...my point is that the few spots where the players have to give up "rights" normally afforded under labor law are MORE then compensated for by the salaries. Because of the laws in place, this is only possible via a CBA, which imparts (in this case) an artificial and unreasonable power in the hands of labor (the players). For that reason, the players UNION is too strong. The average NFL salary exceeds 2 MILLION dollars per year, and would continue to do so under any new deal. I find the fact that players are prepared to litigate for more money from their EMPLOYERs riduculous, and insulting. I think everyone should be insulted by this situation, as these laws were never meant to cover millionares working for billionares.I freely admit that I have an anti-Union bias. It's my honest opinion that Unions in general do more harm than good at this point in time, and this Union is no differant.As far as the laws go, I find it ludicrous that Pro Sports leagues would have to work under essentially the same set of Labor and Trust laws that other businesses work under. That simply doesn't make sense.

 

[renesauz]

I think we all agree that keeping the current structure of the NFL (or something very similar) would be a good thing. I hope that's what happens - it's been great for the game for quite a long time now.

I just don't think the players should be required to give up their legal rights to make it happen - especially given the owners' history of exploitation and bad faith (repeated yet again with union-busting TV contract). The only thing that's changed over time is that the players were able to get the law behind them.

(To the bolded)I won't even try to make an argument regarding pre-80's NFL history. There's little doubt that the owners exploited the player, particularly in the first 50 years of the NFL. But I don't think that should mean anything to TODAYs negotiations. These players weren't wronged (other than perhaps a bit in the TV deal...which will be addressed I'm sure), and most of the current owners had nothing to do with those older wrongs.

I'm in no way suggesting that the players don't have or shouldn't have rights, or shouldn't be able to excercise those rights. I'm suggestng that the labor rules grant them more rights and power than they perhaps deserve.

 

[CalBear]

I think everyone should be insulted by this situation, as these laws were never meant to cover millionares working for billionares.

The laws were meant to cover people working for other people. Despite the physical appearance of Al Davis, NFL owners and players all qualify as human beings, and thus they have the same rights as anyone else.

 

[cobalt_27]

I think everyone should be insulted by this situation, as these laws were never meant to cover millionares working for billionares.

The laws were meant to cover people working for other people. Despite the physical appearance of Al Davis, NFL owners and players all qualify as human beings, and thus they have the same rights as anyone else.

I respect the overall premise here. No need to be so dramatic.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

Wow. Stay focused. Let's deal with those 160 who become gainfully employed, since that's what we're talking about here. You're not really disputing that the employees of the nfl don't make a good income.

I was talking about the risk and compensation of trying to be gainfully employed in that field.Im sure you understand that despite the lmao emoticon.

Yeah, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Trying to become gainfully employed in any field has it's risks (e.g., physical, emotional, financial). The NFL has strict hiring practices. Still, they hire over 100+ new employees each year and pay them far more than 99% of all 21-22 year old kids make in their first year out of college. The pay is immense. And, even for the kids who make the minimum and play only 3 years, they have a much better head start than most of us had when we first got out of school.

For everyone they hire, they fire one.Still, I cant imagine many other fields have a 04% hiring rate... and the ones that aren't hired immediately are almost NEVER hired later.

 

[cobalt_27]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

Wow. Stay focused. Let's deal with those 160 who become gainfully employed, since that's what we're talking about here. You're not really disputing that the employees of the nfl don't make a good income.

I was talking about the risk and compensation of trying to be gainfully employed in that field.Im sure you understand that despite the lmao emoticon.

Yeah, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Trying to become gainfully employed in any field has it's risks (e.g., physical, emotional, financial). The NFL has strict hiring practices. Still, they hire over 100+ new employees each year and pay them far more than 99% of all 21-22 year old kids make in their first year out of college. The pay is immense. And, even for the kids who make the minimum and play only 3 years, they have a much better head start than most of us had when we first got out of school.

For everyone they hire, they fire one.Still, I cant imagine many other fields have a 04% hiring rate... and the ones that aren't hired immediately are almost NEVER hired later.

That's not true. Please reconsider some of the possible alternatives here. Can you please expand on this and just say in plain English what your point is in harping on the incoming folks that don't get a job? My initial reaction is to say what I think you already know: tough ####, not everyone gets the job they want, nobody's entitled to a job. But, I must be missing something because I'm sure you know this already, so I'm not getting what you're after here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

Wow. Stay focused. Let's deal with those 160 who become gainfully employed, since that's what we're talking about here. You're not really disputing that the employees of the nfl don't make a good income.

I was talking about the risk and compensation of trying to be gainfully employed in that field.Im sure you understand that despite the lmao emoticon.

Yeah, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Trying to become gainfully employed in any field has it's risks (e.g., physical, emotional, financial). The NFL has strict hiring practices. Still, they hire over 100+ new employees each year and pay them far more than 99% of all 21-22 year old kids make in their first year out of college. The pay is immense. And, even for the kids who make the minimum and play only 3 years, they have a much better head start than most of us had when we first got out of school.

For everyone they hire, they fire one.Still, I cant imagine many other fields have a 04% hiring rate... and the ones that aren't hired immediately are almost NEVER hired later.

That's not true. Please reconsider some of the possible alternatives here. Can you please expand on this and just say in plain English what your point is in harping on the incoming folks that don't get a job? My initial reaction is to say what I think you already know: tough ####, not everyone gets the job they want, nobody's entitled to a job. But, I must be missing something because I'm sure you know this already, so I'm not getting what you're after here.

Risk.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And it is true. They never higher "more" players. They always have the same size roster and practice squad.

So when 160 new bodies come in the door, 160 old bodies are going out (released/unsigned/retired).

 

[cobalt_27]

Not exactly overwhelming stuff there considering the pay.

Considering the pay?Of the 3500 or so Div 1A football players (Sr/Jr) that are eligible to be drafted... about 235 actually get drafted.

Maybe 160 actually get a roster spot and earn a pay check.

Wow. Stay focused. Let's deal with those 160 who become gainfully employed, since that's what we're talking about here. You're not really disputing that the employees of the nfl don't make a good income.

I was talking about the risk and compensation of trying to be gainfully employed in that field.Im sure you understand that despite the lmao emoticon.

Yeah, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Trying to become gainfully employed in any field has it's risks (e.g., physical, emotional, financial). The NFL has strict hiring practices. Still, they hire over 100+ new employees each year and pay them far more than 99% of all 21-22 year old kids make in their first year out of college. The pay is immense. And, even for the kids who make the minimum and play only 3 years, they have a much better head start than most of us had when we first got out of school.

For everyone they hire, they fire one.Still, I cant imagine many other fields have a 04% hiring rate... and the ones that aren't hired immediately are almost NEVER hired later.

That's not true. Please reconsider some of the possible alternatives here. Can you please expand on this and just say in plain English what your point is in harping on the incoming folks that don't get a job? My initial reaction is to say what I think you already know: tough ####, not everyone gets the job they want, nobody's entitled to a job. But, I must be missing something because I'm sure you know this already, so I'm not getting what you're after here.

Risk.

Sigh.

 

[cobalt_27]

And it is true. They never higher "more" players. They always have the same size roster and practice squad. So when 160 new bodies come in the door, 160 old bodies are going out (released/unsigned/retired).

So, they aren't all "fired"?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And it is true. They never higher "more" players. They always have the same size roster and practice squad. So when 160 new bodies come in the door, 160 old bodies are going out (released/unsigned/retired).

So, they aren't all "fired"?

Semantics.There are no additional jobs.

 

[cobalt_27]

And it is true. They never higher "more" players. They always have the same size roster and practice squad. So when 160 new bodies come in the door, 160 old bodies are going out (released/unsigned/retired).

So, they aren't all "fired"?

Semantics.There are no additional jobs.

So, what's your point? Why does this bother you?That you have raised some strange issues in the context of this discussion, I get the sense you want the NFL to operate like any ordinary business in this country (whatever that is; but I get the sense you think there's a typical trajectory for US businesses). So, the NFL should follow the usual hiring/firing practices, try to grow like any typical company would, etc.Given that I have asked you to explain your point now about 3 or 4 times regarding this, let me ask some direct questions and see if this sheds any light on things:1. I assume you want to get rid of the draft in football, is this correct? 2. I also assume you want to get rid of the salary cap in football? If so, on what grounds?3. It seems you are upset by the barriers of entry into the NFL workforce--that they are too restrictive (e.g., you cited your concern about the 4% annual hiring rate). Do you feel roster limits are to blame for this? What other remedies should be considered? Should each of the 32 teams have it's own model and hire however many players it wants? 4. Are you frustrated that the NFL does not operate its business like every other business in the U.S.? If you were a judge overseeing this case and had full authority to map out the blueprint for the league, how would you resolve the most fundamental gripe you have with how the NFL does its business.I'll hang up and listen.

 

[fatness]

Yeah, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Trying to become gainfully employed in any field has it's risks (e.g., physical, emotional, financial). The NFL has strict hiring practices. Still, they hire over 100+ new employees each year and pay them far more than 99% of all 21-22 year old kids make in their first year out of college. The pay is immense. And, even for the kids who make the minimum and play only 3 years, they have a much better head start than most of us had when we first got out of school.

Why does the NFL pay them so much?1. philanthropy?or2. the NFL makes money hand-over-fist off their employment?

 

[cobalt_27]

Yeah, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Trying to become gainfully employed in any field has it's risks (e.g., physical, emotional, financial). The NFL has strict hiring practices. Still, they hire over 100+ new employees each year and pay them far more than 99% of all 21-22 year old kids make in their first year out of college. The pay is immense. And, even for the kids who make the minimum and play only 3 years, they have a much better head start than most of us had when we first got out of school.

Why does the NFL pay them so much?1. philanthropy?or2. the NFL makes money hand-over-fist off their employment?

The answer is 2. Definitely not 1.Does this concern you? That everyone is making a lot of money?

 

[renesauz]

Yeah, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Trying to become gainfully employed in any field has it's risks (e.g., physical, emotional, financial). The NFL has strict hiring practices. Still, they hire over 100+ new employees each year and pay them far more than 99% of all 21-22 year old kids make in their first year out of college. The pay is immense. And, even for the kids who make the minimum and play only 3 years, they have a much better head start than most of us had when we first got out of school.

Why does the NFL pay them so much?1. philanthropy?or2. the NFL makes money hand-over-fist off their employment?

While #1 is obviously not the case, #2 is only a partial answer. How about #3: The players have the owners by the shorties. The owners have no choice but to meet fairly unreasonable salary demands because they MUST have a CBA in order to operate legally. They are willing and able to do this to some extent because the product is highly desireable and they have been able to pass this cost along to the consumer (ridiculous ticket prices, PSLs, $8 beers, etc. etc.), but there is a limit. At some point, the owners have to push back.

 

[roadkill1292]

And it is true. They never higher "more" players. They always have the same size roster and practice squad. So when 160 new bodies come in the door, 160 old bodies are going out (released/unsigned/retired).

So, they aren't all "fired"?

Semantics.There are no additional jobs.

So, what's your point? Why does this bother you?That you have raised some strange issues in the context of this discussion, I get the sense you want the NFL to operate like any ordinary business in this country (whatever that is; but I get the sense you think there's a typical trajectory for US businesses). So, the NFL should follow the usual hiring/firing practices, try to grow like any typical company would, etc.Given that I have asked you to explain your point now about 3 or 4 times regarding this, let me ask some direct questions and see if this sheds any light on things:1. I assume you want to get rid of the draft in football, is this correct? 2. I also assume you want to get rid of the salary cap in football? If so, on what grounds?3. It seems you are upset by the barriers of entry into the NFL workforce--that they are too restrictive (e.g., you cited your concern about the 4% annual hiring rate). Do you feel roster limits are to blame for this? What other remedies should be considered? Should each of the 32 teams have it's own model and hire however many players it wants? 4. Are you frustrated that the NFL does not operate its business like every other business in the U.S.? If you were a judge overseeing this case and had full authority to map out the blueprint for the league, how would you resolve the most fundamental gripe you have with how the NFL does its business.I'll hang up and listen.

It's possible that the players would like to retain the cap because of the salary floor imposed on teams yet wish to eliminate the draft to increase their individual freedom and bargaining power. I don't think that's an inherently contradictory stance.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

How about #3: The players have the owners by the shorties. The owners have no choice but to meet fairly unreasonable salary demands because they MUST have a CBA in order to operate legally. They are willing and able to do this to some extent because the product is highly desireable and they have been able to pass this cost along to the consumer (ridiculous ticket prices, PSLs, $8 beers, etc. etc.), but there is a limit. At some point, the owners have to push back.

You've got the cart before the horse here Renesauz. Players salaries rise AFTER the NFL increases revenue. Not before. And those salaries are a relatively fixed percentage of that revenue that only rises in nominal terms with increased revenue.

 

[cobalt_27]

And it is true. They never higher "more" players. They always have the same size roster and practice squad. So when 160 new bodies come in the door, 160 old bodies are going out (released/unsigned/retired).

So, they aren't all "fired"?

Semantics.There are no additional jobs.

So, what's your point? Why does this bother you?That you have raised some strange issues in the context of this discussion, I get the sense you want the NFL to operate like any ordinary business in this country (whatever that is; but I get the sense you think there's a typical trajectory for US businesses). So, the NFL should follow the usual hiring/firing practices, try to grow like any typical company would, etc.Given that I have asked you to explain your point now about 3 or 4 times regarding this, let me ask some direct questions and see if this sheds any light on things:1. I assume you want to get rid of the draft in football, is this correct? 2. I also assume you want to get rid of the salary cap in football? If so, on what grounds?3. It seems you are upset by the barriers of entry into the NFL workforce--that they are too restrictive (e.g., you cited your concern about the 4% annual hiring rate). Do you feel roster limits are to blame for this? What other remedies should be considered? Should each of the 32 teams have it's own model and hire however many players it wants? 4. Are you frustrated that the NFL does not operate its business like every other business in the U.S.? If you were a judge overseeing this case and had full authority to map out the blueprint for the league, how would you resolve the most fundamental gripe you have with how the NFL does its business.I'll hang up and listen.

It's possible that the players would like to retain the cap because of the salary floor imposed on teams yet wish to eliminate the draft to increase their individual freedom and bargaining power. I don't think that's an inherently contradictory stance.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. I've said before, I'm not sure what legal grounds there are that support a draft, if we apply the usual work/labor laws. I like the draft, I think it is a necessary mechanism that supports parity in professional sports leagues. But, is it technically legal? Most legal experts seem to think--if the normal labor laws are applicable here--it probably isn't.A salary cap/floor presupposes, however, that the league is functioning as one entity--not 32 separate businesses--which is (currently) in part of what the players are challenging in the anti-trust litigation. They (seem) to want a free-for-all, which would prohibit the use of a cap system (and thus restrict free exchange of services for compensation). Ultimately, I think most players would suffer, as the rich players would only get richer, and at a certain price point, the lower end players would be paid much less than what they earn right now.

 

[renesauz]

How about #3: The players have the owners by the shorties. The owners have no choice but to meet fairly unreasonable salary demands because they MUST have a CBA in order to operate legally. They are willing and able to do this to some extent because the product is highly desireable and they have been able to pass this cost along to the consumer (ridiculous ticket prices, PSLs, $8 beers, etc. etc.), but there is a limit. At some point, the owners have to push back.

You've got the cart before the horse here Renesauz. Players salaries rise AFTER the NFL increases revenue. Not before. And those salaries are a relatively fixed percentage of that revenue that only rises in nominal terms with increased revenue.

I understand the mechanics. But not all costs are relative to income. The players used their leverage to obtain 50-some % of gross revenue as salary. Considering all of the other expenses and personel needed to put the product on the field, that's a very VERY high cost. If other costs rise by an amount disproportionate to revenue rises, where do the owners recoup? This is the problem with the CBA as a whole. The owners are locked into a player labor cost by % REGARDLESS of other expenses. While the logic of such a system is not in doubt, it is illogical to assume that such a % should always rise, or even stay the same...as it has in every deal up until now. The players are unwilling to go backwards at all, and while I don't blame them for that desire, I don't think it's entirely reasonable that employees should hold so much power over their employers that employers are no longer able to curb salary growth of their own accord in response to a changing economic climate. In this regard, these labor and trust laws unfairly punish the NFL, because any other business owners would have far more control over these types of costs.

What I'm seeing is that the NFL has determined that revenues are unlikely to see significant growth in the near future, while certain other expenses have not only risen, but are likely to continue to rise. Thus, profits will shrink, and some owners are already (alledgedly to be fair) seeing uncomfortably thin profit margins. The owners wish to curb the future growth of salaries (a reasonable goal for ANY BUSINESS) so as to allow any real increase in revenue to actually grow their profit margins (another reasonable goal for ANY business). Their projections right now indicate that the expired model grows salaries at a rate which outpaces profitable income...IE: Real profits will SHRINK if current projections for revenue growth and costs are accurate. This is why the owners opted out of the last CBA.

This illustrates why I think Unions now accomplish more harm than good. IN most CBA's, in any business, Unions typically hold out for MORE pay or benefits than they got in the previous agreement. They cite owner profits and accuse big business of corporate greed. They count on the common man relating to them since they ARE the common man. The problem is, the common man is every bit as greedy as the corporations. IN many cases, Unions are bankrupting their employers with their greed. American Auto manufacturers have operated on the verge of financial collapse for years because of labor costs. I find it insulting and ridiculous that UNions have generally get more out of every deal then the deal before, and that this is NORMAL.

What's going on in the NFL is going on all over the country as big businesses and even some local or state governments have had to push back, have had to take back some of those benfits or salaries in order to remain solvent. Some Unions work with their employers, others don't.

The NFLPA is a Union which says it will work with it's employer, but clearly (at least to me) is every bit as guilty of greed as it accuses the company (NFL) it works for of being. Some of the rising costs the NFL claims are obvious, and the Union doesn't care. The only way the recently expired CBA works is if revenue continues to rise at a fantastic rate, yet any knucklehead can see that in this economy those kinds of rises are unlikely.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1. I assume you want to get rid of the draft in football, is this correct? 2. I also assume you want to get rid of the salary cap in football? If so, on what grounds?3. It seems you are upset by the barriers of entry into the NFL workforce--that they are too restrictive (e.g., you cited your concern about the 4% annual hiring rate). Do you feel roster limits are to blame for this? What other remedies should be considered? Should each of the 32 teams have it's own model and hire however many players it wants? 4. Are you frustrated that the NFL does not operate its business like every other business in the U.S.? If you were a judge overseeing this case and had full authority to map out the blueprint for the league, how would you resolve the most fundamental gripe you have with how the NFL does its business.

1. No.2. No.3. Not upset one iota.4. No. Not upset with how it operates.These are all contingent on paying their partners large amounts of the revenue as they have been. That keeps everything listed above (and more) on an even keel.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Football is entertainment. Don't compare it to auto-making; compare it to movie-making. Top acting talent will always command huge earnings, while the shareholders of 20th Century Fox and Universal Studios should expect to make relatively ordinary returns on their investments. That's because money is fungible while talent isn't.

The NFL owners should expect to make ordinary returns on their investments — say, about the same as they'd expect to make by selling their teams and investing the proceeds in an index fund. If they can negotiate a better deal than that, good for them; but I don't think it's inherently unfair if they can't.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

compare it to movie-making.

Perfect comparison.