"The One-Finger In The Air" (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Pasquino]

I don't want to get into an "are unions good?" argument, but the athlete's unions are a special case. What separates the NFLPA battle from, say, the airlines, is the size of the pie. The NFL is booming to the tune of record numbers. If the owners and players can't decide how to split up a gigantic pie, I think the fans will turn on them quickly. What are the major issues they are even fighting over? Is it more than this:- 18 game schedule? this one looks like the sticky wicket. Do players get 11% raises because of the longer regular season schedule? Will TV contracts be re-negotiated to accomodate the extra two weeks (or three if a second bye is implemented)? - Rookie wage cap? this is simply a reallocation of player funds from rookie to veteran players.- Player pensions? how well are players taking care of themselves? Are they putting money away for life after football or spending it all during their glory years? Are the richest players willing to put their millions at risk to make sure the "little guy" gets more money after their career ends?I know it all, ultimately, boils down to money. In this case, there is simply too much money on the table for these two parties to mess it up. I am confident a deal will get done before fan loyalty is put to the test.

The NFL benefits from retired players long after they run out of medical insurance. Currently NFL retired players get health insurance for just 5 years after they retire then they are on their own. That's rough considering their health conditions that are likely to be worse than average after years of playing collision sports from ages 15-40.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I agree with Bloom. The NFL would not be the NFL without the players. It would exist just fine, and in many cases would be better, if there were different owners.

This is the real question. If all the current NFL players left to play in the UFL on Sundays next fall, and the NFL still played out its season with scrubs, which league would more people watch? I'm not really sure.

If all of them left most people would watch the UFL, but a lot would stop watching football altogether. The truth is that the players need the NFL almost as much as the NFL needs them.

On that tangent with regard to the quality of the players, how do folks account for the huge popularity of college football?Certainly, there are alumni that factor in. But that's just a portion of the interest. People are glued to Boise State - Va Tech that have no connection to either school. J

College football has a certain mystique to it since the players are college students and not highly paid professionals (in most cases..). I think it adds to the drama of the game because you know most of the players are doing for a love of the game and not expecting to make it to the NFL. Even if you don't care about either school you can appreciate the what the players are going through to win.

And this is why many love college basketball more than the NBA. Everyone loves good stories and team play - that's college ball. Big name talents and celebrities - that's the NBA. If you love the NBA it is likely that you are a fan of Kobe or LeBron. If you love college basketball you probably love a team and guys like Coach K.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

I don't want to get into an "are unions good?" argument, but the athlete's unions are a special case. What separates the NFLPA battle from, say, the airlines, is the size of the pie. The NFL is booming to the tune of record numbers. If the owners and players can't decide how to split up a gigantic pie, I think the fans will turn on them quickly. What are the major issues they are even fighting over? Is it more than this:- 18 game schedule? this one looks like the sticky wicket. Do players get 11% raises because of the longer regular season schedule? Will TV contracts be re-negotiated to accomodate the extra two weeks (or three if a second bye is implemented)? - Rookie wage cap? this is simply a reallocation of player funds from rookie to veteran players.- Player pensions? how well are players taking care of themselves? Are they putting money away for life after football or spending it all during their glory years? Are the richest players willing to put their millions at risk to make sure the "little guy" gets more money after their career ends?I know it all, ultimately, boils down to money. In this case, there is simply too much money on the table for these two parties to mess it up. I am confident a deal will get done before fan loyalty is put to the test.

The NFL benefits from retired players long after they run out of medical insurance. Currently NFL retired players get health insurance for just 5 years after they retire then they are on their own. That's rough considering their health conditions that are likely to be worse than average after years of playing collision sports from ages 15-40.

If the NFLPA feels that they need to have the fans "on their side" - this is how to go after it. Find some press that will run stories about broken down players and their struggles obtaining benefits after their careers end. The owners could offer a combination of extended benefits and forced deferred compensation to help make sure players are planning for life outside of football. All of that said, does it really matter what side fans are on? If a game gets cancelled, fans won't care who is at fault (what percent of fans even know the difference between lock out and strike?) - all they will want is their lazy Sundays back.

 

[az_prof]

All of that said, does it really matter what side fans are on? If a game gets cancelled, fans won't care who is at fault (what percent of fans even know the difference between lock out and strike?) - all they will want is their lazy Sundays back.

If the games are cancelled or scabs play, people will find other things to do or watch. We have seen this before with other leagues where there was a labor dispute: the league suffers popularity and it can take a decade to rebuild fan loyalty and interest. Who will suffer? In the short term, players and in the long term owners. Speaking for myself, I may just give up on the NFL and watch college only. I am already disgusted by how owners manipulate cities in spending tax money on stadiums when the public school system in most of those cities are vastly under funded.

 

[dirtywaters20]

I agree with Bloom. The NFL would not be the NFL without the players. It would exist just fine, and in many cases would be better, if there were different owners. As a fan, I resent how expensive the game has become in general and how money has changed the game (I remember when players stayed with their team for ever and there was real loyalty), but, given that the game has changed I want my money going to players not to fat cat owners.

The NFL will be the NFL even without the players. You can replace them. Yes, the quality would not be as good, but in a few years you'd get used to the lower level of play. If ALL the players that play now are banned from the NFL for life, and replacement players tke their place. Will you give up football forever?And without the fat cat owners, many of the players would be working menial labor.

You obviously didn't watch the "replacement" scrubs in the 1980s. They were horrible. Worse than the top college teams.If the lockout/holdout goes on more than one season, the NFL will have competition. Some smart Billionaire will create a new league and if they recruit the top NFL players and the NFL plays scrubs, it will be a whole new reality. For the most part the NFL has never been challenged since the merger of AFL and NFL. The WFL didn't get enough of the top NFL players to be a real threat. But if the labor conflict goes on too long, trust me, we'll see whether people watch the players or the teams.

Personally, I would rather watch the Minnesota Lumberjacks if they have ADP and Jared Allen, then the Minnesota Vikings with a bunch of guys who don't belong on the field.

If given the choice of the above, I'd rather watch the SEC, PAC 10, etc. All a new league would do is dilute an already thin talent pool (look at some of the starting quarterbacks in the NFL). I'd pass on professional football altoghther in disgust.

If the players think they are going to win public support in the looming labor dispute, they're barking up the wrong tree. Many of us are aware there is an issue but have tuned it out. I don't care about who gets what & I certainly don't want to hear about it. I'm sure I'm not alone when I state that I have many more pressing issues to deal with at the current time. I do resent that I can't get a few hours to escape from the current economic mess strangling this country to watch a football game without some nitwits dragging a disagreement with their employers onto the playing field. If their intention was to draw attention the issue? Bravo, you suceeded (although I question the benefit). If it was to get my support as a historically loyal paying customer? Miserable FAILURE. I haven't picked a side in this fight & don't care to. If I'm forced to however; it will be with the one that has the common sense not to air their dirty laundry in front of their customers. There are acceptable substitutes for those of us that want to watch competitive football without having our noses rubbed in the profitability of the NFL & the subsequent posturing about how to divy it up.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

this is a lot of fuss over a gesture.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Also, wasn't it all the players, not just some?

Really hot topic on Mike & Mike this morning. Marcellus Wiliey thought it was great. Golic thought it was terrible. Greenberg was scared.

I think I come down on Golic's side more. Fans don't care. It's VERY tough to act like you're getting a raw deal as they're announcing Tom Brady's zillion dollar deal.

What I think will be really interesting, is how the league reacts. As of now, the video is on NFL.com. I wonder if it'll be a thing that they do before every single game? Will the league take action or let it ride?

J

I think part of the reason it seems so off-key is that people hear many more numbers associated with player pay than numbers associated with owner earnings. The players union has to do a better job of managing the PR angle that represents their side.More NFL fans seem offended by the Millionaire players fighting for their share than by the Billionaire owners fighting for theirs. Yet the group that is actually sacrificing their well-being for the enjoyment of the fans is the players not the owners. The group that people can identify with as the true "work hard enough and you can succeed" embodiment of the American Dream is the players, not the owners (with a few exceptions in the owner's group).

very

I think the thing is though that very few really identify with the players. They seem just as distant as the owners. If anything they seem more familiar than the owners as they can relate to the model of being offered a job for a certain amount of pay. To them, most have the perception it's an incredibly cool job that most would give anything to be able to do and they feel that they are paid an exorbitant amount of money to do it.I do agree it's fascinating.

I bet if you asked the average guy on this board if he could trade places with Drew Brees and have everything exactly the same (talent / looks / injuries) with the one exception that he would have been capped at a salary of $1 million dollars per year for his entire career, he'd jump at it without thinking a moment. That's the big disconnect the players are missing in my opinion.

Right or wrong, the perception I believe a lot of NFL fans have is that the players are complaining about a job that is an absolute dream.

J

I get that perception, and I would usually agree, but for some reason I think this is different. What NFL fans should realize is that this isn't your typical union, and they need to put themselves in these guys' shoes. Take the money out of it, or divide salaries by 10 or whatever. Now, think from the player's perspective. The owners want more money, the players want more money. It's easy for us to say that it shouldn't matter if you make $10 or $14 million, but it's a different world for these athletes, they are not like us. If you side with the owners, why? They are already billionaires, why should they make more? It's not like this money is coming to us, it's either the league, owners, or players. When I think of it that way, I think Joe is right, that fans should be able to connect better with the players as employees of the big corporation.

I have to jump back in here (and I'm still catching up on this thread) to speak to the bolded part above.The players really don't want MORE money (although they'd love to have more money, sure...) - they don't want to get LESS money. They're 100% thrilled to continue making what they currently make. The owners hate the current system and want player salary cuts - signification ones.

That's probably the best way to look at it. Think of it as the only employer in town and they want to cut all employee salaries 15-25% across the board. It's the only game in town and no employee wants to move (such as going to CFL, UFL, etc.). The employer also wants to add 5 more hours to the work week.

Now does it make sense that the players do have a legitimate gripe with the owners' position?

But it's not the only game in town.Is it the only professional football organization that pays as much as it does? Yes. But the alternative is going out a getting a "real job" and punching the clock or checking into the office from 9-5. And most people don't see that as a horrible alternative.

It isn't a choice of making millions playing football or living homeless on the street. The average guy doesn't think average 9 to 5 is dishonorable or distasteful, even though he would switch places with the NFL player. He looks at the NFL player and, while recognizing that the player works hard at his job, sees that player as a lottery winner in the grand scheme of life. That player was born with a genetic potential that so many more simply lack from the get go. No matter how much Joe six-pack works out and trains, he knows he's never going to run a sub 4.8 or be able to snag a high fastball from Favre with his fingertips while stretched out horizontal in the air.

Joe six-pack would love for you to pay him 2x what he makes now to trade places with the kicker on his favorite team...and he'd admit that kicking isn't really all that cool, but at least he's on the team.

When a player acts like he deserves to make millions, to entertain people, when the average guy is looking at his everyday job as one that isn't glamorous but is at least necessary for western civilization to continue, whether he's an assembly line worker, school teacher, police officer or garbage collector, there's going to be some resentment.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say people should be able to identify with professional athletes and then say that people need to put themselves in the players' shoes because they can't identify with what it's like.

That's why I don't think this will work for the players. It will raise awareness. But they might not like the awareness is raises.

And for those of you who don't think ownership takes a beating for being money-grubbing scoundrels of the highest order, ask Cleveland about Art Modell. Ask a Saint Louis fan about Georgia. Ask anyone on the street what they think of the local team owner when he starts making noise about moving the team unless he gets a new stadium cause he can't make enough money in the old one.

The guy who looks like he's complaining is the guy that gets the fan's wrath.

 

[notdarkyet]

They're simply looking for a ticket at the sold out Phish show.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Also, wasn't it all the players, not just some?

Really hot topic on Mike & Mike this morning. Marcellus Wiliey thought it was great. Golic thought it was terrible. Greenberg was scared.

I think I come down on Golic's side more. Fans don't care. It's VERY tough to act like you're getting a raw deal as they're announcing Tom Brady's zillion dollar deal.

What I think will be really interesting, is how the league reacts. As of now, the video is on NFL.com. I wonder if it'll be a thing that they do before every single game? Will the league take action or let it ride?

J

I think part of the reason it seems so off-key is that people hear many more numbers associated with player pay than numbers associated with owner earnings. The players union has to do a better job of managing the PR angle that represents their side.More NFL fans seem offended by the Millionaire players fighting for their share than by the Billionaire owners fighting for theirs. Yet the group that is actually sacrificing their well-being for the enjoyment of the fans is the players not the owners. The group that people can identify with as the true "work hard enough and you can succeed" embodiment of the American Dream is the players, not the owners (with a few exceptions in the owner's group).

very

No one is putting a gun to their head and making them 'sacrifice'. They don't think the benefits are worth the sacrifice? They can quit and sit behind a desk all day or drive a truck. Isn't their health more important than money?

My point is that it is the players that give up something tangible and important that we directly benefit from in the form of our entertainment, not the owners, yet people seem more willing to make the players out to be villains for trying to maximize their cut, and not the owners.

I agree with Bloom. The NFL would not be the NFL without the players. It would exist just fine, and in many cases would be better, if there were different owners. As a fan, I resent how expensive the game has become in general and how money has changed the game (I remember when players stayed with their team for ever and there was real loyalty), but, given that the game has changed I want my money going to players not to fat cat owners.

I think this is faulty thinking.Would the NFL be the NFL if Chris Johnson isn't in it? Yes.

Would the NFL be the NFL if there wasn't an RB that could run a sub 5.0? No.

But it's the same with owners. You think just anyone can buy and run an NFL team? If it were that easy, everyone could qualify for the loan to do so but no owner would ever sell. It would be too easy an money making venture.

Look at the Pats and tell me that good ownership doesn't make a difference.

To me, that position is about a nonsensical as saying coaches don't matter in the NFL.

 

[Obie Wan]

this is a lot of fuss over a gesture.

good thing it was only a gesture and not just some talk to burn books

 

[Novice2]

this is a lot of fuss over a gesture.

good thing it was only a gesture and not just some talk to burn books

Off with their heads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Breesisdaman]

if they really wanted to show up the owners, they used the wrong fingers.

They should have hired Vick to choreograph this.

 

[moderated]

How much does the average nfl owner clear in profit each year?

Most if not all got the bulk of their money from a different business, it isnt like they became billionares via owning an nfl team.

 

[bonesman]

I agree with Bloom. The NFL would not be the NFL without the players. It would exist just fine, and in many cases would be better, if there were different owners. As a fan, I resent how expensive the game has become in general and how money has changed the game (I remember when players stayed with their team for ever and there was real loyalty), but, given that the game has changed I want my money going to players not to fat cat owners.

The NFL will be the NFL even without the players. You can replace them. Yes, the quality would not be as good, but in a few years you'd get used to the lower level of play. If ALL the players that play now are banned from the NFL for life, and replacement players tke their place. Will you give up football forever?And without the fat cat owners, many of the players would be working menial labor in jail.

fixed

 

[rustycolts]

I kind of wonder what the point is. Are the players trying to prove to one another that they are a solid union? Who is this a show for? The owners? The fans?Drew Brees mentioned we're going to see this quite a bit this season - I'm assuming this gesture. Does it win fans over to their cause to remind them just as they are about to watch a football game that labor unrest is right around the corner? I don't know if that is going to breed sympathy or resentment. What say you?

I say that if the owners and players let a strike happen then they get what they deserve.I for one will never watch again I will strictly watch college ball.

 

[The Rook]

The PR battle takes on a whole different angle in a market where a stadium proposal is potentially in the near future (here in Minnesota) or has recently been done that includes public money.

An owner who is trying to get public money or has recently taken public money to build a stadium may have more of a PR nightmare if they lock out players.

If I'm the players, I focus on the lack of transparency. They say players get 60% and economic times don't make that feasible for the owners, but how do we know those numbers are accurate? I don't expect them to open their books, based on the one public team (Packers) they are making money.

Owners need to get their collective house in order as it seems part of the issue is amongst themselves when it comes to revenue sharing.

Players would be smart to show they are taking care of their own and funding a pension for former players. Maybe they are already doing this (if so they should make sure it's more known) but the Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, etc of the league (maybe everyone over a certain $$ contract) could put a small percentage of their salary towards the pension and have a big impact.

I realize I just ranted about a lot of different topics, but I guess my point is either side has some opportunities to win the PR battle if that is what they are really trying to do. Each side could tell a much better story about what they are doing with their slice of the pie rather than focusing on who has the larger slice.

 

[Philly Hater]

Maybe I'm the only one around with this opinion, maybe not...don't really care either way...

The ONLY thing that I care about is the quality of the product that I pay to watch. PERIOD. I don't care if they stick a needle in their a**. I don't care if they smoke some pot. And I certainly don't care how much money they make....no matter what, it's enough. Just give me a good football game.

 

[tkrull]

This is my question: Will Footballguys refund my subscription for 2011 if there is no season?

 

[shadow2k]

Someone explain to me the tangible value of public opinion on this matter. The players want the average football fan to know that an impending lockout is an "owner action" and not a "player action" - to what end? If football is being played, people will watch it. If it isn't, people will be pissed. It won't ever matter to the average fan whether it's the players' fault or the owners' fault, and even if the average football fan started to care and sided with the players, what could he do? I think the public display has the potential to do a lot more harm than good for the players, especially in this climate.

That's a great question.It really is between the owners and players. Just like a contract negotiation is.But the fans do have an impact as they are the customers of the owner. And their opinion does factor in. Whether the two sides choose to bring that into the equation publicly is always a decision that has to be made. I personally think it's wiser leaving that component out of it publicly.J

I think the fan impact is being overstated. As I said, if football is being played, people will watch it. They don't care about the discrepancy between millionaires and billionaires - to the average guy, that distinction is meaningless - nor do they care about the mechanics of profit-sharing and whatnot. Keep the negotiations behind the curtain.Besides, fans are the customers of the players and the owners. They're the same company. If fans were going to do something to hurt the owners (e.g. stop watching football), everyone loses, not just the owners. I imagine most owners of NFL franchises would have no trouble doing something else to make boatloads of money, while many players are probably looking at some kind of menial labor if they're not playing football.

Look at the baseball strike in the mid-90's. Fans are the ONLY thing that matter. Take away football and we might not come back. MLB found out the hard way how stubborn so many millions of Americans can be.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I'm the players, I focus on the lack of transparency. They say players get 60% and economic times don't make that feasible for the owners, but how do we know those numbers are accurate?

We know the 60% figure is accurate (it's not exactly 60%, but it is whatever it is — something close to that) because the books definitely are open to the players' union, at least the part of the books showing gross revenues (which is what the owners get ~60% of).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Look at the baseball strike in the mid-90's. Fans are the ONLY thing that matter. Take away football and we might not come back. MLB found out the hard way how stubborn so many millions of Americans can be.

Baseball fans came back.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Also, wasn't it all the players, not just some?Really hot topic on Mike & Mike this morning. Marcellus Wiliey thought it was great. Golic thought it was terrible. Greenberg was scared. I think I come down on Golic's side more. Fans don't care. It's VERY tough to act like you're getting a raw deal as they're announcing Tom Brady's zillion dollar deal. What I think will be really interesting, is how the league reacts. As of now, the video is on NFL.com. I wonder if it'll be a thing that they do before every single game? Will the league take action or let it ride?J

It depends on how strong the union is Joe. Again, this is not for the fans, it's for the owners to see. If it's only part of the players, then this won't work. The players would have to be united and stick behind it. Not some guys on the side saying to the media I think this is stupid, we make millions playing football, we don't need more money.The owners won't like seeing these guys doing this before every game and it will effect them as you can see, it definately creates a buzz, and not a positive one. It could get very ugly and really whatever side sticks together the most has a better chance of getting what they want. If both sides are solid, it could take awhile for something to get done.I made a reference earlier to teachers wearing black when in a labor dispute......at a union meeting it was said there either we're all wearing black or nobody is because having only 50 percent of the people doing it actually looks worse, because it shows weakness. If only 6 players are huddled together putting up a finger while the rest of the team kind of walks around acting like they don't know what's going on, that'll do way more harm than good.

 

[whole-show]

Also, wasn't it all the players, not just some?Really hot topic on Mike & Mike this morning. Marcellus Wiliey thought it was great. Golic thought it was terrible. Greenberg was scared. I think I come down on Golic's side more. Fans don't care. It's VERY tough to act like you're getting a raw deal as they're announcing Tom Brady's zillion dollar deal. What I think will be really interesting, is how the league reacts. As of now, the video is on NFL.com. I wonder if it'll be a thing that they do before every single game? Will the league take action or let it ride?J

It depends on how strong the union is Joe. Again, this is not for the fans, it's for the owners to see. If it's only part of the players, then this won't work. The players would have to be united and stick behind it. Not some guys on the side saying to the media I think this is stupid, we make millions playing football, we don't need more money.The owners won't like seeing these guys doing this before every game and it will effect them as you can see, it definately creates a buzz, and not a positive one. It could get very ugly and really whatever side sticks together the most has a better chance of getting what they want. If both sides are solid, it could take awhile for something to get done.I made a reference earlier to teachers wearing black when in a labor dispute......at a union meeting it was said there either we're all wearing black or nobody is because having only 50 percent of the people doing it actually looks worse, because it shows weakness. If only 6 players are huddled together putting up a finger while the rest of the team kind of walks around acting like they don't know what's going on, that'll do way more harm than good.

I agree with you 100% and what alot of people don't get is if it wasn't for unions and our forefathers fighting, alot of stuff people (and yes even those that don't like unions) take for granted like time and a half pay for over 40 hrs worked and time off and a ton of other stuff would more then likely not be there if not for unions. People forget this or don't realize this or don't give a care but it is true unions are the reason why we have alot of the rights we have now as employees. And for the players do that all as one just shows to the owners that they are all in this labor disagreement as one and will fight as one. I loved it and appreciated.

 

[Chumpson]

I tend to side with the players, but if there were a lockout I would likely bag the whole thing and move on to some other form of entertainment. Just figure it out!

 

[3nOut]

I agree with you 100% and what alot of people don't get is if it wasn't for unions and our forefathers fighting, alot of stuff people (and yes even those that don't like unions) take for granted like time and a half pay for over 40 hrs worked and time off and a ton of other stuff would more then likely not be there if not for unions. People forget this or don't realize this or don't give a care but it is true unions are the reason why we have alot of the rights we have now as employees. And for the players do that all as one just shows to the owners that they are all in this labor disagreement as one and will fight as one. I loved it and appreciated.

But our forefathers fought for dignity and a fair workplace where owners do not take advantage of them. Sanitary and safe work conditions, minimum wage salaries, time off, fair benefits. Do NFL players not have these?

 

[gpthatsme]

I agree with you 100% and what alot of people don't get is if it wasn't for unions and our forefathers fighting, alot of stuff people (and yes even those that don't like unions) take for granted like time and a half pay for over 40 hrs worked and time off and a ton of other stuff would more then likely not be there if not for unions. People forget this or don't realize this or don't give a care but it is true unions are the reason why we have alot of the rights we have now as employees. And for the players do that all as one just shows to the owners that they are all in this labor disagreement as one and will fight as one. I loved it and appreciated.

But our forefathers fought for dignity and a fair workplace where owners do not take advantage of them. Sanitary and safe work conditions, minimum wage salaries, time off, fair benefits. Do NFL players not have these?

This is relative. Obviously the owners & the players each feel that their "benefits" are not fair, thus the issue in the first place...

 

[Terps2002]

I meant to post this a while ago but it slipped my mind. Demaurice Smith came onto a local sports radio show in DC and explained the position of the NFLPA and what the owners position is in their eyes. It is only one side of the story so I took it with a grain of salt but I found it a fascinating listen. The link is below, he was on for well over an hour in 3 different segments. I promised that this link won't Rick Roll anybody.

http://1067thefandc.cbslocal.com/2010/08/2...s-hour-3-82610/

 

[Fanatics]

In short, professional athetes are very skilled entertainers and not a lot different from other professions -- actors, musicians, writers, and so on. They choose to be in the high risk, high reward climate of their profession. Being a NFL player is very difficult. Yet, there are very few occupations more glamorus as being an NFL player. Fewer than 2000 men do it each year. If today's 2000 somehow retired from pro football in January, both the Buccaneers and Cowboys of the league will continue to exist in a positive way.While I respect the talents of a star RB and marvel at the talents of a professional LB, I support the team owners and thank them for providing a truly entertaining product for me.

 

[babydemon90]

who cares? and, if they want to strike and get more money, that's their prerogative. That's the whole point of a union....

 

[Terps2002]

In short, professional athetes are very skilled entertainers and not a lot different from other professions -- actors, musicians, writers, and so on. They choose to be in the high risk, high reward climate of their profession. Being a NFL player is very difficult. Yet, there are very few occupations more glamorus as being an NFL player. Fewer than 2000 men do it each year. If today's 2000 somehow retired from pro football in January, both the Buccaneers and Cowboys of the league will continue to exist in a positive way.While I respect the talents of a star RB and marvel at the talents of a professional LB, I support the team owners and thank them for providing a truly entertaining product for me.

Television revenue, ticket sales, concessions, parking, merchandising revenue, tax payers and cities funding stadiums. I'd hardly call that PROVIDING an entertaining product for me. Seems like everybody is PROVIDING for the owners. I have yet to put any money in an owner's pocket who can throw the skinny post, take a hand off to the house or go over the middle and still make the tough catch. That's like my employer taking credit for providing for my family. They pay me a salary for services I provide to them. I in turn provide for my family.Owners could are less if you are entertained. They want to win for the money and their own egos.

 

[puckalicious]

This was all about their contracts?

Silly liberal me thought it was a show of solidarity as Americans, with all the divisive islamophobia out there from conservatives.

Boy do I feel dumb now.

 

[Bad_Mo]

Keep your fingers to yourselves and just go out and play a kid's game that happens to pay you millions of dollars.

Give it a rest with the union solidarity crap.

 

[_lurker_]

The players should shut up or create their own league.

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

I'd love to see an impasse so that either side tries to go their own way. I'd like to see the NFL with replacement players and another players league that tries to play exhibition games for a while. Let's see which games get more viewers.

 

[Donnybrook]

I tend to side with the players, but if there were a lockout I would likely bag the whole thing and move on to some other form of entertainment. Just figure it out!

Pretty much how I feel on the subject. I personally would not watch replacement players because that would ultimately reward the greedy owners.

 

[dickey moe]

This was an effective gesture made to get the more uninformed fans to discuss "what is this all about?" It's a tactic to get the fans on the side of the players, once faced with the fear that there may not be NFL football next season.

Some people say that having no NFL football next season would damage the league and make fans seek an alternative product. But the truth is, fans are absolutely desperate for the NFL product, more so than any other sport. The owners and players have the fans held over a barrel and everyone knows it.

 

[fatness]

Maybe the fans should give them a one finger in the air back. Shut up and play. You will have 2011 off.

Because all those fans want to show up in 2011 to watch nothing?

 

[Angus82]

This was an effective gesture made to get the more uninformed fans to discuss "what is this all about?" It's a tactic to get the fans on the side of the players, once faced with the fear that there may not be NFL football next season.Some people say that having no NFL football next season would damage the league and make fans seek an alternative product. But the truth is, fans are absolutely desperate for the NFL product, more so than any other sport. The owners and players have the fans held over a barrel and everyone knows it.

I was a Die-hard Dodgers fan until the World series was canceled. Except for major headlines, I have not followed baseball since then. If the NFL feels the need to crap the bed I will watch college ball. I do not stay with women who treat me like crap and I damn sure will not spend my money on a sport that takes me for granted.

 

[cstu]

Maybe the fans should give them a one finger in the air back. Shut up and play. You will have 2011 off.

It would make a good week 17 message if the lockout still seems likely.

 

[cstu]

This was an effective gesture made to get the more uninformed fans to discuss "what is this all about?" It's a tactic to get the fans on the side of the players, once faced with the fear that there may not be NFL football next season.Some people say that having no NFL football next season would damage the league and make fans seek an alternative product. But the truth is, fans are absolutely desperate for the NFL product, more so than any other sport. The owners and players have the fans held over a barrel and everyone knows it.

I think you overestimate what percentage of football fans are hardcore like us.

 

[dickey moe]

This was an effective gesture made to get the more uninformed fans to discuss "what is this all about?" It's a tactic to get the fans on the side of the players, once faced with the fear that there may not be NFL football next season.Some people say that having no NFL football next season would damage the league and make fans seek an alternative product. But the truth is, fans are absolutely desperate for the NFL product, more so than any other sport. The owners and players have the fans held over a barrel and everyone knows it.

I think you overestimate what percentage of football fans are hardcore like us.

I think if anything, it's underestimated.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Awesome thread -- a very interesting topic.

Bloom, the article you posted was incredible, and delved deeper into the numbers, issues, and potential outcomes of the case -- thanks so much, phenomenal read.

It's not easy to be truly sympathetic to either side as a fan -- as someone who has to shell out hundreds of dollars for tickets and insane concession prices, I'm not bemoaning either party's potential loss of earnings, especially in what seems to be the most successful professional sport in terms of gross revenues (from the game, from apparel and licensing, etc.).

As to the players, yes, they put their bodies on the line, but pro sports salaries are way out of hand IMHO. I'm glad the players seemed to have gotten away with a good deal in '06 that netted them 59.6% of total revenue and solidifying profit sharing. This makes earnings more equitable in the most popular pro sport in North America. The issue that they are asking for the SAME earnings, as opposed to more, helps get my sympathy.

I like that they are bringing attention to a situation that most fans may not have a true grasp of, but the plan will backfire if they start to paint themselves as akin to Jurgis Rudkus and other 20th century meatpackers in the Chicago Stockyards.

On the owners side, it's easy to look at them as fat cats with billions to spend. I like to separate in my mind the money they've made from personal corporate endeavours and prefer to look at the operating income and expenditures they make from just their football team. Just because they are billionaires doesn't mean they use that wealth to run football teams, or that this personal wealth should be sacrificed to fund their NFL franchises. It's a blurry line, I know, as some owners do use their personal wealth to subsidize their teams, but I prefer to separate the fact that these guys are super-rich and just focus on the business involved in running their football clubs.

Not too many teams open their books, but being a public company, it looks like the Packers did this summer:

"Packers officials said Wednesday that the team posted an operating profit of $9.8 million in the fiscal year that ended March 31, down from $20.1 million the previous year. The team has been in a slide since posting an operating profit of $34 million four years ago...

Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy attributed the decrease mostly to escalating player costs, putting the team squarely in the middle of a contentious debate between players and owners over a new collective bargaining agreement...

Taking into account investment losses that were less severe in 2009-2010 than the previous fiscal year, the team reported net income of $5.2 million, up from $4 million. The team said player costs have increased 11.8 percent annually over the past four seasons, while revenue went up just 5.5 percent annually during the same timeframe."

Margins are still good in the NFL, compared to, say grocery retail, but I wonder if this trend is true across all NFL franchises. Also wonder what other revenue isn't accounted for here (franchise licensing, money from TV contracts, etc.).

I think it's safe to say that in this area, some owners are better off than others -- Jerry Jones, for example, levered massive amounts of debt for the new stadium, while other stadiums (like the Cards') are run with relatively little expenditure by the teams. Taxpayers just aren't funding new stadiums anymore, and looking forward, a lot of this expenditure and risk will fall to the owners.

Bottom line, both parties are facing some risk -- and both parties have it pretty damned good in an economy that still hasn't righted fully. Like any standoff, I'm hoping this results in a way that keeps players salaries relatively stable (can't put the cat back in the bag on that one) and providing some risk tolerance for owners facing escalating costs and investment need.

As long as the fan doesn't contiunally get screwed....

 

[Terps2002]

Awesome thread -- a very interesting topic.

Bloom, the article you posted was incredible, and delved deeper into the numbers, issues, and potential outcomes of the case -- thanks so much, phenomenal read.

It's not easy to be truly sympathetic to either side as a fan -- as someone who has to shell out hundreds of dollars for tickets and insane concession prices, I'm not bemoaning either party's potential loss of earnings, especially in what seems to be the most successful professional sport in terms of gross revenues (from the game, from apparel and licensing, etc.).

As to the players, yes, they put their bodies on the line, but pro sports salaries are way out of hand IMHO. I'm glad the players seemed to have gotten away with a good deal in '06 that netted them 59.6% of total revenue and solidifying profit sharing. This makes earnings more equitable in the most popular pro sport in North America. The issue that they are asking for the SAME earnings, as opposed to more, helps get my sympathy.

I like that they are bringing attention to a situation that most fans may not have a true grasp of, but the plan will backfire if they start to paint themselves as akin to Jurgis Rudkus and other 20th century meatpackers in the Chicago Stockyards.

On the owners side, it's easy to look at them as fat cats with billions to spend. I like to separate in my mind the money they've made from personal corporate endeavours and prefer to look at the operating income and expenditures they make from just their football team. Just because they are billionaires doesn't mean they use that wealth to run football teams, or that this personal wealth should be sacrificed to fund their NFL franchises. It's a blurry line, I know, as some owners do use their personal wealth to subsidize their teams, but I prefer to separate the fact that these guys are super-rich and just focus on the business involved in running their football clubs.

Not too many teams open their books, but being a public company, it looks like the Packers did this summer:

"Packers officials said Wednesday that the team posted an operating profit of $9.8 million in the fiscal year that ended March 31, down from $20.1 million the previous year. The team has been in a slide since posting an operating profit of $34 million four years ago...

Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy attributed the decrease mostly to escalating player costs, putting the team squarely in the middle of a contentious debate between players and owners over a new collective bargaining agreement...

Taking into account investment losses that were less severe in 2009-2010 than the previous fiscal year, the team reported net income of $5.2 million, up from $4 million. The team said player costs have increased 11.8 percent annually over the past four seasons, while revenue went up just 5.5 percent annually during the same timeframe."

Margins are still good in the NFL, compared to, say grocery retail, but I wonder if this trend is true across all NFL franchises. Also wonder what other revenue isn't accounted for here (franchise licensing, money from TV contracts, etc.).

I think it's safe to say that in this area, some owners are better off than others -- Jerry Jones, for example, levered massive amounts of debt for the new stadium, while other stadiums (like the Cards') are run with relatively little expenditure by the teams. Taxpayers just aren't funding new stadiums anymore, and looking forward, a lot of this expenditure and risk will fall to the owners.

Bottom line, both parties are facing some risk -- and both parties have it pretty damned good in an economy that still hasn't righted fully. Like any standoff, I'm hoping this results in a way that keeps players salaries relatively stable (can't put the cat back in the bag on that one) and providing some risk tolerance for owners facing escalating costs and investment need.

As long as the fan doesn't contiunally get screwed....