NFLPA--not the smartest guys in the room

[NoSaint]

I pay to see the best football in the world. That doesn't exist without these players, but unless they have a secret plan to form an independent league for 2011, it doesn't exist without the owners, either.

 

It only exists in 2011 if they get together and strike a deal, and the details of that deal don't really concern me; the players are well paid and the owners make good profits. Separate from that, as long as there's revenue sharing and/or a salary cap that assures the teams will be on equal footing, I don't care. I don't care if the players share 99% of the revenue evenly team-by-team or 1%.

 

and thats the thing, without the players, the owners can still produce what would be the best football in the world -- even with lesser players, it would be better then any alternative... the players can not put on that show unless they all decide to go to the ufl and play for pennies on the dollar.

[NoSaint]

I think both sides are being very hard headed letting this go farther then it had to. I think that both sides need to start deep negotiations now while they still have a year to come to a agreement. Owners feel like players salaries are increasing too fast and too many franchises are loosing money. While the players feel like their deals are already not guaranteed and that a cap didn't stop the rise in salaries.

 

Its all about a compromise that needs to be reach unfortunately both sides feel the other side is replaceable and wrong.

 

Its not that they are losing money, but to put it in real world terms, because frankly, on this issue it is entirely real world -- the team is an investment. A billion dollar investment needs to produce certain percentages of revenue or its not worth operating them. is the nfl making money? yes. if some of the owners sold there team and invested in other businesses would they make more revenue? probably. when you look at the cost of ownership they are HUGE (stadiums, salary, etc...), and the return on that in many cases is very small compared to what you would expect out of a company that size with that kind of capital investment.

[BillsfaninFl]

For the last time people you can't compare the real world to the NFL at all. In the NFL the players are the only ones in the world that can do what they do at the level to which they do it.

 

That may be true, but the gap in quality of play would only be temporary. During the strike, years ago; the replacement players sucked. But they were mostly rookies thrust into a short training period and season all at once. If they continued to play the next year, they would have been much improved, and so forth. In a few years, most of the current elite players will no longer be playing at that level and will be replaced by new stars anyway.

 

Remember, each year the league drafts about 220 players and many make their team. Others are signed undrafted and a few get to stick around. If there is a lockout and the union decertifies, there will be an ugly court battle and congress will be pressured to make changes in the special treatment of the NFL. But the owners will ultimately be hurt less, because they are financially set (as individuals) no matter what happens. If the owners have to start over with new players, they may be smart enough to learn lessons from their past greed and establish pay scales that are more reasonable.

 

We fans pay both parties, and can reasonably expect to pay far less for tickets in a corrected pay structure. Not to sound uncaring, but even with the physical risks it is crazy to give a guy millions of dollars per year. There are lots of jobs where people are in danger of being injured or killed (police, fireman, mine workers, etc.) but the employees don't earn enough in a few years to make them set for life (if they are smart about their finances). I wish we could cut back on what the owners make, but they make the product we love, so they are going to pick our pockets. But if the top players (and especially draftees) make less, we should not stand for paying the same prices for the entertainment.

[Doc]

Looks like the players just had a very belated "hey.....wait a minute"

The players were smart enough to get a billion (give or take several million) from the owners over the past 5 years with that last CBA. I think it's safe to say that they realize the windfall they got, and that when the owners opted-out of it just 2 years after signing it, the gravy train was going to end. What you're seeing out of them is every attempt to gain leverage in negotiations, by claiming the TV contracts were rigged in their favor, or putting the TV money in escrow. Kind if like how the SCOTUS NFL versus ANI case helped the players immensely. If it works, it's a huge win for them. If it doesn't, it's no change from before.

 

And the players have no reason to agree to the owners' demands until the 11th hour. While a lockout might hurt the owners less, it's still far from an ideal situation for them since it will hurt viewership, ratings will go down, and ad revenue will go down, which the networks can recoup from the owners later-on. Ultimately I see the players accepting a deal somewhere between the first CBA and the last one, again close to the deadline of getting something done.

[drewfla]

I think the Wegman's comment thread is absolutely correct. I'm shocked no one has mentioned the UFL yet as well. how many former NFL players occupied those 6 (4?) teams last year. The quality of play will be different but they have no leverage. This is a league of teams not players. The NBA is a league of players, personalities.

[bills88]

I pay to see the best football in the world. That doesn't exist without these players, but unless they have a secret plan to form an independent league for 2011, it doesn't exist without the owners, either.

 

It only exists in 2011 if they get together and strike a deal, and the details of that deal don't really concern me; the players are well paid and the owners make good profits. Separate from that, as long as there's revenue sharing and/or a salary cap that assures the teams will be on equal footing, I don't care. I don't care if the players share 99% of the revenue evenly team-by-team or 1%.

 

Possibly the most intelligent post ever.

[bills88]

That may be true, but the gap in quality of play would only be temporary. During the strike, years ago; the replacement players sucked. But they were mostly rookies thrust into a short training period and season all at once. If they continued to play the next year, they would have been much improved, and so forth. In a few years, most of the current elite players will no longer be playing at that level and will be replaced by new stars anyway.

 

Remember, each year the league drafts about 220 players and many make their team. Others are signed undrafted and a few get to stick around. If there is a lockout and the union decertifies, there will be an ugly court battle and congress will be pressured to make changes in the special treatment of the NFL. But the owners will ultimately be hurt less, because they are financially set (as individuals) no matter what happens. If the owners have to start over with new players, they may be smart enough to learn lessons from their past greed and establish pay scales that are more reasonable.

 

We fans pay both parties, and can reasonably expect to pay far less for tickets in a corrected pay structure. Not to sound uncaring, but even with the physical risks it is crazy to give a guy millions of dollars per year. There are lots of jobs where people are in danger of being injured or killed (police, fireman, mine workers, etc.) but the employees don't earn enough in a few years to make them set for life (if they are smart about their finances). I wish we could cut back on what the owners make, but they make the product we love, so they are going to pick our pockets. But if the top players (and especially draftees) make less, we should not stand for paying the same prices for the entertainment.

 

Better argument to go along with this is that high player salaries causes higher ticket prices. That is, like most producers, the NFL passes costs onto consumers. So higher labor prices will just force them to raise ticket prices. I.e. they have to play their local market. Which may hurt the Bills. The best thing for the Bills is the salary cap. So no matter who is right in this debate, whether owners or players and gets a percentage of revenue, the Bills need a salary cap.

[Thurman#1]

Sure there is. Goddell has already hinted they are going to use replacement players. Look the League is going to go on in some form or fashon, with or without the current players.

 

the NFLPA better cut the bull ****, they can't win this.

 

 

 

Yeah, and I'll be there for the replacement games. Watching and savoring. Not. Running replacement games didn't turn out a success for the league last time, though not a failure either. Nobody came.

 

And sure the NFLPA can win. A lot of things can happen.

[Thurman#1]

and thats the thing, without the players, the owners can still produce what would be the best football in the world -- even with lesser players, it would be better then any alternative... the players can not put on that show unless they all decide to go to the ufl and play for pennies on the dollar.

 

 

 

Nah. If the product isn't any better than the CFL or the Arena League or college, they won't be able to sell it for 10% of what they're getting now.

 

 

Both sides have some power. Both sides have something to lose.

[Thurman#1]

That may be true, but the gap in quality of play would only be temporary. During the strike, years ago; the replacement players sucked. But they were mostly rookies thrust into a short training period and season all at once. If they continued to play the next year, they would have been much improved, and so forth. In a few years, most of the current elite players will no longer be playing at that level and will be replaced by new stars anyway.

 

Remember, each year the league drafts about 220 players and many make their team. Others are signed undrafted and a few get to stick around. If there is a lockout and the union decertifies, there will be an ugly court battle and congress will be pressured to make changes in the special treatment of the NFL. But the owners will ultimately be hurt less, because they are financially set (as individuals) no matter what happens. If the owners have to start over with new players, they may be smart enough to learn lessons from their past greed and establish pay scales that are more reasonable.

 

We fans pay both parties, and can reasonably expect to pay far less for tickets in a corrected pay structure. Not to sound uncaring, but even with the physical risks it is crazy to give a guy millions of dollars per year. There are lots of jobs where people are in danger of being injured or killed (police, fireman, mine workers, etc.) but the employees don't earn enough in a few years to make them set for life (if they are smart about their finances). I wish we could cut back on what the owners make, but they make the product we love, so they are going to pick our pockets. But if the top players (and especially draftees) make less, we should not stand for paying the same prices for the entertainment.

 

 

 

People want to compare it to firemen, mine workers, etc., like you do, but it simply isn't a good comparison. A good comparison is movie stars. They get outrageous salaries, far more than they probably deserve based on the quality of their acting. But without stars, people won't come out in big numbers to see movies. Stars are worth every penny because girls go to see Brad Pitt movies and guys go to see Angelina Jolie movies.

 

There are lots of rock bands playing in bars who are probably 80% as good as the Stones or Bruce or Lady Gaga. But they can't sell stadiums, so the famous bands are worth every penny they're paid. Same with pro football. People will pay to see Manning, Brady, Ray Lewis and maybe Jairus Byrd down the road.

 

They won't pay for luxury boxes or $50 for end zone seats to see replacement ball even if it's 80% as good.

[Mr. WEO]

The players were smart enough to get a billion (give or take several million) from the owners over the past 5 years with that last CBA. I think it's safe to say that they realize the windfall they got, and that when the owners opted-out of it just 2 years after signing it, the gravy train was going to end. What you're seeing out of them is every attempt to gain leverage in negotiations, by claiming the TV contracts were rigged in their favor, or putting the TV money in escrow. Kind if like how the SCOTUS NFL versus ANI case helped the players immensely. If it works, it's a huge win for them. If it doesn't, it's no change from before.

 

And the players have no reason to agree to the owners' demands until the 11th hour. While a lockout might hurt the owners less, it's still far from an ideal situation for them since it will hurt viewership, ratings will go down, and ad revenue will go down, which the networks can recoup from the owners later-on. Ultimately I see the players accepting a deal somewhere between the first CBA and the last one, again close to the deadline of getting something done.

Most players are likely disappointed in the last CBA because the vast majority of them never realized/are still waiting for this "windfall" to appear in their contracts.

 

The fact that the union is just now deciding the TV contracts are "rigged" shows how far behind their leadership is compared to that of the owners. This issue of guaranteed TV money for the league even if a strike/lockout was "news" long ago. The special master will likely chuckle at this lame motion.

 

There won't be a lockout.

[KD in CA]

the players better start to understand that they are not partners in the league but are employees.

Exactly.

 

Sure, but there is no league without the players...

There are tens of thousands of players out there who would kill for the chance to get paid to play in the NFL.

 

 

Nah. If the product isn't any better than the CFL or the Arena League or college, they won't be able to sell it for 10% of what they're getting now.

The Bills have been playing CFL quality football for ten years and are still selling out. The NFL is a success due to its marketing and will continue to be so. There are very few players that would really be missed 2 years down the road of the NFL completely restocked its teams.

[Delete This Account]

the players better start to understand that they are not partners in the league but are employees.

that's not entirely accurate. they are partners in the league based on the fact their salaries are directly tied to revenues generated, and plenty of that money having to do with TV contracts. like it or not, the TV share each team gets has had plenty to do with setting the salary cap bar.

 

yes, the players are "employees," but it's not to say they don't have a stake in the league or its revenues. and that's where the difference comes in. my salary, for example, is based on an agreement reached between my employer and union, but it has very little to do with whether the AP generates $1 billion more this year then it did last year. barring a bonus, i would still get my salary.

that is not the case in the NFL and most pro sports leagues.

 

jw

[NoSaint]

Nah. If the product isn't any better than the CFL or the Arena League or college, they won't be able to sell it for 10% of what they're getting now.

 

 

Both sides have some power. Both sides have something to lose.

 

 

Thats the thing though, it would be better then the CFL or the Arena league. The play would be better, the coaching better, the gameday experience better, the TV production and marketing would be better..... The owners would take a hit to, but the loss in comparison to what Joe Player would experience - peanuts.

 

Where the trouble for the owners comes in, is ones that have just built new stadiums (see jerry) and have loan payments to make. A team like the bills would not see that problem.

 

And if you think college football doesnt get a 1/10 of the NFL revenue -- Try to buy a ticket to any powerhouse game (Florida v Bama, USC v Notre Dame) and see what those run for. LSU season tickets are as much as my Saints tickets, and the TV contracts are right there on any of the elite programs. You would be selling a similar product, but without 100 powder puff teams to put on the schedule to water things down.

[Beerball]

Sure there is. Goddell has already hinted they are going to use replacement players. Look the League is going to go on in some form or fashon, with or without the current players.

 

the NFLPA better cut the bull ****, they can't win this.

Funny, I remember reading just the opposite. No replacements this time around.

[TheLynchTrain]

Funny, I remember reading just the opposite. No replacements this time around.

 

 

Of course. Theres a difference between a lockout and a strike.

[Captain Caveman]

I also don't see much incentive to go on with replacement players if the owners are still getting their TV money.

[Doc]

Most players are likely disappointed in the last CBA because the vast majority of them never realized/are still waiting for this "windfall" to appear in their contracts.

 

The fact that the union is just now deciding the TV contracts are "rigged" shows how far behind their leadership is compared to that of the owners. This issue of guaranteed TV money for the league even if a strike/lockout was "news" long ago. The special master will likely chuckle at this lame motion.

 

There won't be a lockout.

All players saw more money from the last CBA doc. From the superstars making tens of millions more, to the scrubs making tens of thousands more in minimum salaries. To the tune of around $1B collectively.

 

And don't mistake the NFLPA's tactics as them just discovering the truth. We on this message board have been talking about this stuff for a year now. They obviously have known about it for awhile and are trying every avenue to gain leverage as the 11th hour approaches.

[Rob's House]

Don't employees usually form unions? All in all it amazes me how many people side with the owners over the players. In most labor negotiations I tend to side with labor over management and with football it amazes me how people side with the billionaires over the millionaires who actually put their bodies on the line week in and week out.

 

I think both sides are being very hard headed letting this go farther then it had to. I think that both sides need to start deep negotiations now while they still have a year to come to a agreement. Owners feel like players salaries are increasing too fast and too many franchises are loosing money. While the players feel like their deals are already not guaranteed and that a cap didn't stop the rise in salaries.

 

Its all about a compromise that needs to be reach unfortunately both sides feel the other side is replaceable and wrong.

 

Poor millionaires. They make more than they've ever made, their pie grows every year and they still want more. These aren't guys busting their ass and risking their health for $60k/yr.

 

Plus the owners aren't going to run a defecit, they have to make money. Nobody's out their to be your entertainment charity no matter how much you pout. I'm all for the players getting paid what they can. I don't begrudge them their millions, but these guys are getting right damn greedy themselves and they're not going to win the PR battle b/c nobody feels sorry for sniveling whiney millionaire athletes.

[Perkins]

I was listening to Sirius radio either last night or this morning and they were disussing this very topic about the new CBA. They basically said the players don't have much for options but one way they could sock it to the owners would be to strike this year for the playoffs.