Numbers Show NFL’s ‘Economic Realities’ for Lockout Unwarranted (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Garda]

So as we close the season, one burning question for every football fan is: will there be a lockout?

It looks that way, even if every one of us can't imagine WHY you kill the golden goose.

One ( of many) sticking points between NFL & NFLPA is the desire of players to essentially take a pay cut, both by increasing actual games played and a reduction in profit sharing.

The NFLPA wants to see numbers since the owners are crying poor. The NFL will not release them.

Forbes seems to have got ahold of some though and the results are interesting.

Check it out here for yourself.

Who do you side with? Players? Owners? Do the fans ultimately end up the losers?

And if you're a finances dude - what do you think of what Forbes has to say?

Discuss....

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

The numbers really paint the picture for the owners.

Based on the $ alone, they stand to get about $4B this year even if there are no games at all. They also save more $ by not paying benefits to the players (about $325M).

Just using the 2009 numbers, the "ALL Revenue" is over $9B.

Owners rake the top for expenses for about $1B.

Then they split the rest ($8B) 40-60 with the players. That's about $3B to the owners.

So owners get about $4B in 2009 and they will also save about $325M.

The TV package for 2011 is over $4B to the owners EVEN IF THEY DON'T PLAY THE SEASON.

What incentive do the owners have to give the players much of anything??? That's the real question. Odds are that the players have very little leverage here and will get force fed most of the terms from the owners, if not all.

 

[TommyGilmore]

The TV package for 2011 is over $4B to the owners EVEN IF THEY DON'T PLAY THE SEASON.

If that's the case, then wouldn't it make sense for the TV networks to chip in a couple billion dollars to the players?

 

[RUSF18]

Players are screwed. Some more than others. End of story.

 

[CalBear]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist.

Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

 

[wdh76]

What a puff peice for the players...I liked how they grazzed over the fact that the savings for the rookie deal (3 years) was from the fact that isnt paid over 5-6 years (which is no SAVINGS at all).

 

[omahabrad]

I think players will have more leverage when people start to realize that the owners are the ones that want the change that's forcing the lockout. Don't think that the TV networks are going to sit on sidelines either, they aren't going to be happy paying these owners that money for nothing in return. They will put some pressure on the owners.

 

[Andrew Garda]

What incentive do the owners have to give the players much of anything??? That's the real question. Odds are that the players have very little leverage here and will get force fed most of the terms from the owners, if not all.

The only leverage for the players is, they ARE the league. Nobody goes to see Jerry Jones play. And nobody will go to see replacement players (which is a mistake I don't think they'll ever make again). And the more we hear about the finances the worse ownership looks.Not that it matters because as the numbers show, we go/watch/spend money anyway. The owners can be the biggest bunch of jackwagons in the world and as long as the product is good, we go and pay through the nose to do it.Short of taking their ball and going home, there's not much the players can do to control the owners. And that's not much leverage as you point out Jeff.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I think players will have more leverage when people start to realize that the owners are the ones that want the change that's forcing the lockout. Don't think that the TV networks are going to sit on sidelines either, they aren't going to be happy paying these owners that money for nothing in return. They will put some pressure on the owners.

Also - I read somewhere at some point that some or all of the TV money may need to be paid back if there is no season. That could be a factor if the lockout persists. I could be wrong....

 

[Andrew Garda]

What a puff peice for the players...I liked how they grazzed over the fact that the savings for the rookie deal (3 years) was from the fact that isnt paid over 5-6 years (which is no SAVINGS at all).

Puff piece? I mean it's definitely on the side of the players but I think the numbers back it up too. I would be more concerned with glossing over the fact that the decrease in contract length from 5 to 3 years is ACTUALLY in many player's favor since they hit the free agent market quicker.And now I'll take a break from Hippling my own thread.

 

[Ksquared]

The elephant in the room is the small market owners vs the big market owners. While the top teams are doing outstandingly well, some of the bottom teams are struggling (relative term in a billion $ business) to stay competitive in a business that thrives on your competitors staying competitive. And several small market owners felt the last CBA was shoved down their throats (they had to sign in an 8 hr span after the agreement) to be sure their would be no interruption in the NFL season. I remember one owner a month after the agreement (I think it was Hunt the Buffalo owner) being very upset they felt they had to agree with the CBA and did not have time to read all the details. He implied there were details in it that the small market owners would not have agreed with a month after the agreement. There was a implication two years ago that the small market owners would vote to opt out of the agreement due to some of these details. I truly believe this is key point in the background behind the owner's voting for opting out of the current CBA.

On the player's side, they do not have a lot of leverage. Short careers, public perceptions of millionaires with repugnant behavior (Haynesworth, ... the myriad of off field issues by so many), etc will make it tough for the players in the long run. They also hired a very hard line labor lawyer as the head of the NFLPA, who I continue to get an uneasy feeling will make an agreement much less likely without losing games. I still think he will purposely try to lose part of the season to be seen as a "great labor/union leader" because he was willing to stare down the owners and not take it from management. Much like Donald Fehr is seen in the union world as a genius, I think this is what D Smith is hoping for himself out of this. To be placed on the Mt Rushmore of labor leaders.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Time for a market correction.

 

[Ksquared]

I think players will have more leverage when people start to realize that the owners are the ones that want the change that's forcing the lockout. Don't think that the TV networks are going to sit on sidelines either, they aren't going to be happy paying these owners that money for nothing in return. They will put some pressure on the owners.

Also - I read somewhere at some point that some or all of the TV money may need to be paid back if there is no season. That could be a factor if the lockout persists. I could be wrong....

This is correct. The owners will be losing the $$ they are fronted by the TV networks in the future years of their TV contract. So it really is like a loan to the owners. They are not just getting money and not losing anything.

 

[wdh76]

Yes, and they pay it back with interest. I love how the union loves to bring this up as if its some new concept. It has been in EVERY TV deal since the early 90s.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

The numbers really paint the picture for the owners.Based on the $ alone, they stand to get about $4B this year even if there are no games at all. They also save more $ by not paying benefits to the players (about $325M).Just using the 2009 numbers, the "ALL Revenue" is over $9B.Owners rake the top for expenses for about $1B.Then they split the rest ($8B) 40-60 with the players. That's about $3B to the owners.So owners get about $4B in 2009 and they will also save about $325M.The TV package for 2011 is over $4B to the owners EVEN IF THEY DON'T PLAY THE SEASON.What incentive do the owners have to give the players much of anything??? That's the real question. Odds are that the players have very little leverage here and will get force fed most of the terms from the owners, if not all.

Does anyone really think that the NFL owners will be able to collect (and KEEP) $4 billion from the TV networks and strip them of a product for the entire season?I highly doubt that the contracts allow for this. However, even if they did, the owners will have to make the TV networks "whole" on their losses. Yes, each and every of the $4 billion paid out without a product back in return will be recouped by adjustments to future year payments, with or without a clause to this effect in the contracts. The NFL/TV are partners. You do not screw your partner in this manner without screwing yourself. The "Free TV money" theory is a red herring and is NOT sustainable.

 

[wdh76]

What a puff peice for the players...I liked how they grazzed over the fact that the savings for the rookie deal (3 years) was from the fact that isnt paid over 5-6 years (which is no SAVINGS at all).

Puff piece? I mean it's definitely on the side of the players but I think the numbers back it up too. I would be more concerned with glossing over the fact that the decrease in contract length from 5 to 3 years is ACTUALLY in many player's favor since they hit the free agent market quicker.And now I'll take a break from Hippling my own thread.

Yes puff peice, coming from Forbes. There are many issues at play here that an outfit like Forbes should already be aware of - They talk about numbers across the board as if the NFL was one intity. We found out from the starcaps case that as of right now they are not. So, great the Cowboys and Patriots had steller years at the cash register! What about the Bills and the Jags? No, the NFL will not open their books because their are many legal exposores in doing so ( again Forbes should know this). The whole peice just felt like a blog fluff piece and not like a Forbes article...

 

[Andrew Garda]

The whole peice just felt like a blog fluff piece and not like a Forbes article...

As an aside - it's not the most well written piece ever. There are some tremendous run-on sentances in there and I don't love the format (question: answer). A more traditional approach where the author established his premise, then backed it ould have looked and read better.

 

[omahabrad]

All the pressure will be on the owners and very little pressure will have to come from the players. The Networks, the official sponsers of the NFL, the companies with naming rights to stadiums and the cities with stadiums that aren't getting 10's of thousands people in the them to spend money will apply all the pressure. College football, UFL and the Home Depot's of the world will profit from the lockout.

 

[sho nuff]

Looking from year to year at the Packers numbers...the NFL is making their case.

The Packers remain a strong revenue team...but what the NFL is arguing and the Packers numbers show, is that income/profit is down...player costs are on the rise at a greater rate than revenue is rising.

They use the Packers numbers, and I look at them not just as a fan of the team, because they are the only numbers that are actually released as a publicly owned team. Their financial information is out there for all to see.

 

[RUSF18]

The elephant in the room is the small market owners vs the big market owners. While the top teams are doing outstandingly well, some of the bottom teams are struggling (relative term in a billion $ business) to stay competitive in a business that thrives on your competitors staying competitive. And several small market owners felt the last CBA was shoved down their throats (they had to sign in an 8 hr span after the agreement) to be sure their would be no interruption in the NFL season. I remember one owner a month after the agreement (I think it was Hunt the Buffalo owner) being very upset they felt they had to agree with the CBA and did not have time to read all the details. He implied there were details in it that the small market owners would not have agreed with a month after the agreement. There was a implication two years ago that the small market owners would vote to opt out of the agreement due to some of these details. I truly believe this is key point in the background behind the owner's voting for opting out of the current CBA.

While it's a valid point that dissension can come from some teams making little to no money while some teams make tons of it with the current setup, the counterpoint is that the most successful teams are giving up big chunks of money to those teams by way of splitting the TV contracts and merchandising revenues equally. Hate on Jerry Jones all you want (plenty of reasons to), but he was right when he brings up the fact that the Cowboys sell the most amount of merchandise of any team, yet he receives the same cut of that pie as the Jags ownership group. It's the same concept with the TV contract. On a per team basis, the Cowboys, Pats, Giants, Jets, etc would be making a ton more money if they were signing their own television deals than by participating in the league-wide contract. How much would Tampa or Buffalo or Jacksonville pull in? That's where you would see these teams fold.

 

[Marvelous]

A lockout really makes no sense at all.

I believe there is a law that states both sides must negotiate in good faith. And if the CBA expires, the owners can implement the terms of their last proposal (once again, negotiated in good faith). If there is an issue on the implementation, the players and bring it to court for a hearing.

Implementing the last proposal must be infimately better than a lockout. It keeps the NFL going and it keeps the fans coming in.

If the players believe the terms implemented are too unfair, they can vote to strike.

 

[g5jamz]

What idiots at TV for making contracts that pay out despite having games or not.

 

[RUSF18]

What idiots at TV for making contracts that pay out despite having games or not.

As others have said, the likelihood that they actually keep all of that revenue on their bottom line is nil. The networks would get obliterated for paying all that money out while getting 10% of the advertising revenue that they would have gotten with the NFL as they air whatever else would play on Sunday afternoons. They're all long term partners, no one wants to bleed the others dry. I would think this kind of thing is put in place intentionally just for the owners to point to as a negotiating tactic like was said above..."we don't need to cave to you and here's why" when they don't have any intent on collecting on that $4 bil.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist. Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

This.If the owners think like Pasquino we'll see a process started that will (eventually) kill off the league's Anti-trust Exemption.

 

[Native]

Frankly, I dont care how they split the money between owners and players, but I DO care about the product they release to the audience.

The slient third party in this negotiation - whom noone is representing - is the Fans. We are the ones who tune into the NFL programming, buy the NFL gear and eat the concessions at the stadium. From the owners perspective, the costs of rising player salaries are largely passed onto TV stations who then pass the cost onto the viewers in the form of commercials. Your team score a TD? Commercial. Subsequent kickoff? Commercial. Injuries or challenges or timeouts to freeze the kicker? Commercials. The reality is that the quality of the product that the NFL puts out is far inferior to the NFL of our youth. According to Wikipedia, the NFL is required to have TEN commercials per HALF. What a joke.

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_timeout

With a lockout looming, I can imagine that the number (and length) of commercials will only increase as the owners and players squabble over revenue share. Thats the real travesty here. Who in the Commissioners office is looking out for the quality of the product? Certainly not Roger Goodell.

 

[Jason Wood]

Some MASSIVE holes in his "analysis"

"Average" profits mean nothing, as he noted a handful of "have" teams skew the average way out of whack. The argument has been for some time that many of the smaller market owners can't turn a profit, he offers nothing up to dispute that

He focused on an estimate of EBITDA, which is not the issue because most owners have ENORMOUS cash flow needs as it relates to paying interest on debt, retiring/refinancing debt, signing bonuses, etc...

 

[Jason Wood]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist. Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

This.If the owners think like Pasquino we'll see a process started that will (eventually) kill off the league's Anti-trust Exemption.

The NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption, only Major League Baseball does. The owners have tried to get one, and have been denied repeatedly (including a ruling in 2010).

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

The slient third party in this negotiation - whom noone is representing - is the Fans. We are the ones who tune into the NFL programming, buy the NFL gear and eat the concessions at the stadium. From the owners perspective, the costs of rising player salaries are largely passed onto TV stations who then pass the cost onto the viewers in the form of commercials.

I don't understand your post at all.player salaries are a fixed % of revenue, and consequently increase as revenue increases.

networks bid on nfl broadcasting rights according to what they think they can charge advertisers, and act in the interest of maximizing their profit on the deal by showing you commercials.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Some MASSIVE holes in his "analysis""Average" profits mean nothing, as he noted a handful of "have" teams skew the average way out of whack. The argument has been for some time that many of the smaller market owners can't turn a profit, he offers nothing up to dispute thatHe focused on an estimate of EBITDA, which is not the issue because most owners have ENORMOUS cash flow needs as it relates to paying interest on debt, retiring/refinancing debt, signing bonuses, etc...

I knew when I mentioned 'finance guys' it would be a Woodrow-signal!

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist.

Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

This.If the owners think like Pasquino we'll see a process started that will (eventually) kill off the league's Anti-trust Exemption.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Native]

The slient third party in this negotiation - whom noone is representing - is the Fans. We are the ones who tune into the NFL programming, buy the NFL gear and eat the concessions at the stadium. From the owners perspective, the costs of rising player salaries are largely passed onto TV stations who then pass the cost onto the viewers in the form of commercials.

I don't understand your post at all.player salaries are a fixed % of revenue, and consequently increase as revenue increases.

networks bid on nfl broadcasting rights according to what they think they can charge advertisers, and act in the interest of maximizing their profit on the deal by showing you commercials.

I hear you. But let me say it differently. When owner costs rise, they increase the minimum bid they will accept from the Networks. The Networks are able to bid more if they can be guaranteed by the NFL that they will get more ad time during games either by increasing the number (or length) of commercial timeouts. Thus the cost is passed onto the viewers in the form of more commercials.

EDIT: I cant confirm this, but its seems obvious that the NFL's Replay policy is directly correlated to its need to extend the game and insert additional windows for commercials. If you compare the NFL Replay Policy (immediate commercial) to the College Football Replay Policy (usually resolved within 30 seconds and no commercial), its clear what the NFL is doing. Whats equally bothersome is how they turn the "challenge" into a strategic element of the game itself (the networks will even show Coaches' Challenege win % ) when its clearly a vehicle to give their advertisers more air time.

When you combine Replay timeouts and injury timeouts to the "standard" stoppages of play that warrant commercials (end of quarter, two minute warning, coach timeout) the networks are regularly able go to reach a staggering six (or more!) commercials per quarter.

Suffice to say, if the NFL would lower its asking price for TV rights, they could negotiate with Networks for fewer commercials in order to improve the viewers experience. But that will NEVER happen.

 

[coolnerd]

 

[Cripster]

I don't think we will see anything happening prior to March. D is out to prove his worth, and will not back down. That is a huge risk to the season. The players can block the lockout by de-certifying the union. However, the owners can make changes such as the 18 games schedule and killing un-restricted free agency if there is no union I believe. The owners will win. I am not so sure the networks will have as much influence on the owners as some think. The owners and networks have already worked this out in a smoked-filed room somewhere.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist.

Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

This.If the owners think like Pasquino we'll see a process started that will (eventually) kill off the league's Anti-trust Exemption.

What do you mean by that?

Just that if the owners don't think the players have any leverage and that they can force something down the players throats, the players will decertify and the NFL will eventually lose the ATE.I get the impression no one thinks the players are serious, but why would they settle for less unless the owners show them the financial evidence. Which of course, as the Forbes piece suggests, the owners can't do.

 

[Summer Wheat]

There are only 32 owners. The player pool is unlimited.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Just that if the owners don't think the players have any leverage and that they can force something down the players throats, the players will decertify and the NFL will eventually lose the ATE.

I get the impression no one thinks the players are serious, but why would they settle for less unless the owners show them the financial evidence. Which of course, as the Forbes piece suggests, the owners can't do.

Once again for the cheap seats:

The NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption, only Major League Baseball does. The owners have tried to get one, and have been denied repeatedly (including a ruling in 2010).

 

[Hooper31]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist. Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

Players are welcome to go start their own league, as are you. My advice? Don't let Donald Trump be one of your owners.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist.

Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

This.If the owners think like Pasquino we'll see a process started that will (eventually) kill off the league's Anti-trust Exemption.

What do you mean by that?

Just that if the owners don't think the players have any leverage and that they can force something down the players throats, the players will decertify and the NFL will eventually lose the ATE.I get the impression no one thinks the players are serious, but why would they settle for less unless the owners show them the financial evidence. Which of course, as the Forbes piece suggests, the owners can't do.

OK but I didn't follow how the owners are thinking like me.....

 

[Insomniac]

Just that if the owners don't think the players have any leverage and that they can force something down the players throats, the players will decertify and the NFL will eventually lose the ATE.

I get the impression no one thinks the players are serious, but why would they settle for less unless the owners show them the financial evidence. Which of course, as the Forbes piece suggests, the owners can't do.

Once again for the cheap seats:

The NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption, only Major League Baseball does. The owners have tried to get one, and have been denied repeatedly (including a ruling in 2010).

This is at least partially untrue.MLB has an anti-trust exemption because of a Supreme Court decision that ruled MLB wasn't interstate commerce.

The NFL has a limited anti-trust exemption from Congress that allows them to sell their TV rights as a single entity, rather than having each team make their own deal. It's very unlikely Congress repeals this law.

 

[Joe Summer]

The TV package for 2011 is over $4B to the owners EVEN IF THEY DON'T PLAY THE SEASON.What incentive do the owners have to give the players much of anything???

What incentive do the owners have to field a team at all? $4 billion in pure profit with almost zero expenses = $125 million per owner. How many owners are making $125 million a year right now?? Not very many, I'd bet. They should just shut down football until the TV contract money runs out.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Frankly, I dont care how they split the money between owners and players, but I DO care about the product they release to the audience.

The slient third party in this negotiation - whom noone is representing - is the Fans. We are the ones who tune into the NFL programming, buy the NFL gear and eat the concessions at the stadium. From the owners perspective, the costs of rising player salaries are largely passed onto TV stations who then pass the cost onto the viewers in the form of commercials. Your team score a TD? Commercial. Subsequent kickoff? Commercial. Injuries or challenges or timeouts to freeze the kicker? Commercials. The reality is that the quality of the product that the NFL puts out is far inferior to the NFL of our youth. According to Wikipedia, the NFL is required to have TEN commercials per HALF. What a joke.

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_timeout

With a lockout looming, I can imagine that the number (and length) of commercials will only increase as the owners and players squabble over revenue share. Thats the real travesty here. Who in the Commissioners office is looking out for the quality of the product? Certainly not Roger Goodell.

Didn't you hear? Your job is to be "loyal" (see other threads) and take what the league gives you.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sorry, Jason is right.

I was hurrying and mixed and matched sports. In the NFL the only reason there are several anti-competitive features is the collective bargaining agreement. So decertification = no union = no draft, no salary cap and etc. And the last thing the owners want, titans of capitalism that they are, is a truly free market for talent.

I do suspect Congress might get involved on the TV deal side if the league skips a year while simultaneously collecting TV revenues though.

 

[thecatch]

Yes, and they pay it back with interest. I love how the union loves to bring this up as if its some new concept. It has been in EVERY TV deal since the early 90s.

Annually, the NFL pulls in more than $4 billion in television network rights fees (see table below). For all of the network partners, they have agreements in place with the league in which the NFL would be paid these fees, even if games are not played. Roger Goodell has said that the league will have to rebate the networks, with interest, when play resumes, but that’s only half true. The DirecTV fees for NFL Sunday Ticket, which are now almost $1 billion, would not have to be returned.

 

[roadkill1292]

I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.

At least we know, given the money involved that the revolution WILL be televised!

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist.

Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

This.If the owners think like Pasquino we'll see a process started that will (eventually) kill off the league's Anti-trust Exemption.

What do you mean by that?

Just that if the owners don't think the players have any leverage and that they can force something down the players throats, the players will decertify and the NFL will eventually lose the ATE.I get the impression no one thinks the players are serious, but why would they settle for less unless the owners show them the financial evidence. Which of course, as the Forbes piece suggests, the owners can't do.

OK but I didn't follow how the owners are thinking like me.....

Thus why e started his statement in bold with the word "IF"

 

[jackdubl]

I don't think we will see anything happening prior to March. D is out to prove his worth, and will not back down. That is a huge risk to the season.The players can block the lockout by de-certifying the union. However, the owners can make changes such as the 18 games schedule and killing un-restricted free agency if there is no union I believe.The owners will win. I am not so sure the networks will have as much influence on the owners as some think. The owners and networks have already worked this out in a smoked-filed room somewhere.

I don't see how you could kill unrestricted free agency just because there is no Union and no CBA. Seems like it would go in the opposite direction. More ineividual player autonomy. Without an agreement or a Union, wouldn't each player become a corporation unto himself? Seems each player could negotiate his own deal however he wants, free from CBA rules. Seems like the big market teams could make out.Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Jason Wood]

I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.

Overdue?Why, because ratings suck? Because fans aren't ravenous about the game anymore? Because the quality of the sport has diminished?

 

[JamesTheScot]

It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist.

Greedy and unscrupulous owners.

This.If the owners think like Pasquino we'll see a process started that will (eventually) kill off the league's Anti-trust Exemption.

What do you mean by that?

Just that if the owners don't think the players have any leverage and that they can force something down the players throats, the players will decertify and the NFL will eventually lose the ATE.I get the impression no one thinks the players are serious, but why would they settle for less unless the owners show them the financial evidence. Which of course, as the Forbes piece suggests, the owners can't do.

Because less pie is better than no pie, and babies needs to eat.Seriously, look at how many of these guys go broke despite making millions over their career. It's not like all of these guys are paying cash for everything and have stuck all the rest in savings and can just sit it out a season in the McMansion. They have invested in things that have debt service, they have huge electric bills, child support and tuition fees to pay over the course of the year. They are living lifestyles that require high income to maintain.

They also know the clock is ticking on their careers. Think guys like L.T., T.O. and Moss wants to lose a year now?

And exactly what are these guys going to do for income for a year? How many of them actually have degrees and how many places are going to hire them for a stint that they know will only last one year? Sure, their celebrity status will get them jobs, but it's not like everyone has endorsement gigs or generates personal appearance demand which allows them to make money off their name. And those that have money tied up in investments are not going to be happy eating up their post-career nest egg to support themselves during their able-bodied years.

Do I think they are serious? Yes. But remember, the owners are threatening a lock-out saying the status quo is untenable, not the players. The owners are serious as well and are in a better position to hold out. That's leverage.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think people really underestimate the staying power of billionaire owners who have been proactively planning for a lock out, and have guaranteed revenue streams versus a players union where, no matter what they SHOULD do, a good many of said players live well beyond their means.