Drew Brees received just over 550K from NFLPA

[KRC]

Maybe it is our business, but it seems to me, Nixon has an ax to grind, and is just throwing a bunch of stuff against a wall here...it seems this could be very incomplete information. Current players are going after owners, and former players are going after current players. I completely agree that former players deserve more than they have gotten in the past, it seems like Nixon is just going after D Smith, to show how much money is being made. He has some information about the NFLPA, but discounts what the owners are making, and what they are doing with their money. I really feel for the former players, every time I here Joe DeLamieleurre talk about it, I get amped up...but, sometimes, it seems like the former players are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Nixon has been critical of both the owners and NFLPA*. All he is concerned with is getting more money for retired players. He feels that both need to do more. Brees and the NFLPA just happen to be his target this particular time.

[yungmack]

 

 

As long as the money isn't coming out of the taxpayers' pocket (like it does with gov't unions), this really shouldn't be an issue.

Whether or not there are government unions, those employees are getting paid out of the "taxpayers pocket," as you put it. And the players in the NFL are being paid out of our pockets as well through ticket sales, increased costs to us by advertisers of NFL games, etc. But that's the case with every exchange. Why single out unions?

[sfladave]

Whether or not there are government unions, those employees are getting paid out of the "taxpayers pocket," as you put it. And the players in the NFL are being paid out of our pockets as well through ticket sales, increased costs to us by advertisers of NFL games, etc. But that's the case with every exchange. Why single out unions?

Government unions, contractors or employees are paid by taxes which we have no choice on whether or not to pay. I can choose whether or not the NFL or players receive any money for me or not... BIG difference!

[yungmack]

Government unions, contractors or employees are paid by taxes which we have no choice on whether or not to pay. I can choose whether or not the NFL or players receive any money for me or not... BIG difference!

I think you might be missing the point, that whether government employees are union or non-union, they're still getting a check ... paid for by the taxpayers. So, I ask again, why the anger towards unions?

 

Whether you choose to go to a professional sporting event or not, whether you'd rather watch Project Runway than ever watch Path to the Draft, you pay for sports through your cable/satellite fees which bundle the higher prices of licensing sports channels into their packages, through the higher prices automobile manufacturers have to charge to cover the costs of advertising on those sporting events (same for all the beer, pizza and other products advertised), through higher taxes for stadiums, through increased police protection at sporting events, trash removal, wear and tear on the highways, on and on.

 

Whether he likes it or not, a pacifist, non-automobile driving Amish farmer's costs of living are impacted by rising costs of oil, and part of his taxes go to support a military that protects the nation's access to oil and to the sea lanes where it is transported. And just like that Amish farmer, like it or not, some part of your expenses in this country do go to owners of sports franchises and to the people that work for them.

 

Here's an interesting article about the NFL situation:

 

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/10/nfl_strike_good_for_america&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

[Orton's Arm]

I think you might be missing the point, that whether government employees are union or non-union, they're still getting a check ... paid for by the taxpayers. So, I ask again, why the anger towards unions?

 

Whether you choose to go to a professional sporting event or not, whether you'd rather watch Project Runway than ever watch Path to the Draft, you pay for sports through your cable/satellite fees which bundle the higher prices of licensing sports channels into their packages, through the higher prices automobile manufacturers have to charge to cover the costs of advertising on those sporting events (same for all the beer, pizza and other products advertised), through higher taxes for stadiums, through increased police protection at sporting events, trash removal, wear and tear on the highways, on and on.

 

Whether he likes it or not, a pacifist, non-automobile driving Amish farmer's costs of living are impacted by rising costs of oil, and part of his taxes go to support a military that protects the nation's access to oil and to the sea lanes where it is transported. And just like that Amish farmer, like it or not, some part of your expenses in this country do go to owners of sports franchises and to the people that work for them.

 

Here's an interesting article about the NFL situation:

 

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/10/nfl_strike_good_for_america&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

The linked article was interesting, albeit propagandistic and pro-union. He makes good points about head injuries and the 18 game season. He seems to like unions in general, while ignoring the problems they create. (Driving the American automakers into bankruptcy, for example.) He seems to think that racism and classism are important parts of the current NFL labor dispute, while providing no clear explanation about why he feels this is the case. He alleges that the Tea Party was funded by corporate fat cats, while ignoring the fact that the Tea Party is largely a response to both political parties' abandonment of the American people in response to incentives from those same fat cats. He complains about, "a continuing pervasive discrimination against female college athletes which is frequently an attempt to protect the existence of large college football teams. Title IX, the federal law mandating fair play for women, requires an equity between male and female athletes."

 

In 2010, the 68 college football teams which were in major conferences collectively grossed $2.2 billion in revenue. Perhaps that $2.2 billion might go a small amount of the way toward explaining why college football programs are given more resources than, say, women's lacrosse. Doubtless 98% of the reason for that preference is that college administrators are sexist pigs in desperate need of being exposed by writers like Robert Lipstyle. But the $2.2 billion might explain the remaining 2% of college administrators' motivation.

 

Edit: from Wikipedia

*******

On April 20, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test and procedures for implementing it. On that date, the Commission on Civil Rights released several recommendations on Title IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities."[39]

********

 

Title IX is designed to promote equality of athletic outcomes. The idea is that if your college's student population is X% female, then roughly X% of your student athletes should also be female. Because a smaller percentage of women than men are interested in joining college sports teams, Title IX effectively means getting rid of some programs aimed at male athletes to create the required equal outcomes. The fact that Lipstyle likes this particular example of misguided, unnecessary, and harmful government interference significantly detracts from his credibility.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[Mr. WEO]

The linked article was interesting, albeit propagandistic and pro-union. He makes good points about head injuries and the 18 game season. He seems to like unions in general, while ignoring the problems they create. (Driving the American automakers into bankruptcy, for example.) He seems to think that racism and classism are important parts of the current NFL labor dispute, while providing no clear explanation about why he feels this is the case. He alleges that the Tea Party was funded by corporate fat cats, while ignoring the fact that the Tea Party is largely a response to both political parties' abandonment of the American people in response to incentives from those same fat cats. He complains about, "a continuing pervasive discrimination against female college athletes which is frequently an attempt to protect the existence of large college football teams. Title IX, the federal law mandating fair play for women, requires an equity between male and female athletes."

 

In 2010, the 68 college football teams which were in major conferences collectively grossed $2.2 billion in revenue. Perhaps that $2.2 billion might go a small amount of the way toward explaining why college football programs are given more resources than, say, women's lacrosse. Doubtless 98% of the reason for that preference is that college administrators are sexist pigs in desperate need of being exposed by writers like Robert Lipstyle. But the $2.2 billion might explain the remaining 2% of college administrators' motivation.

 

Edit: from Wikipedia

*******

On April 20, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test and procedures for implementing it. On that date, the Commission on Civil Rights released several recommendations on Title IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities."[39]

********

 

Title IX is designed to promote equality of athletic outcomes. The idea is that if your college's student population is X% female, then roughly X% of your student athletes should also be female. Because a smaller percentage of women than men are interested in joining college sports teams, Title IX effectively means getting rid of some programs aimed at male athletes to create the required equal outcomes. The fact that Lipstyle likes this particular example of misguided, unnecessary, and harmful government interference significantly detracts from his credibility.

Great post.

[KD in CA]

Whether or not there are government unions, those employees are getting paid out of the "taxpayers pocket," as you put it. And the players in the NFL are being paid out of our pockets as well through ticket sales, increased costs to us by advertisers of NFL games, etc. But that's the case with every exchange. Why single out unions?

 

Yes, "taxpayers' pocket" is how I put it. How would you put it? The point is, gov't unions create abuses and waste, the result being that far more people are on the gov't payrolls than we need, and it is the primary reason state governments are billions in debt.

 

 

And if you really don't understand the difference between a gov't employee union and the NFLPA already, I'm pretty sure no one will be able to explain it to you.

[yungmack]

The linked article was interesting, albeit propagandistic and pro-union. He makes good points about head injuries and the 18 game season. He seems to like unions in general, while ignoring the problems they create. (Driving the American automakers into bankruptcy, for example.) He seems to think that racism and classism are important parts of the current NFL labor dispute, while providing no clear explanation about why he feels this is the case. He alleges that the Tea Party was funded by corporate fat cats, while ignoring the fact that the Tea Party is largely a response to both political parties' abandonment of the American people in response to incentives from those same fat cats. He complains about, "a continuing pervasive discrimination against female college athletes which is frequently an attempt to protect the existence of large college football teams. Title IX, the federal law mandating fair play for women, requires an equity between male and female athletes."

 

In 2010, the 68 college football teams which were in major conferences collectively grossed $2.2 billion in revenue. Perhaps that $2.2 billion might go a small amount of the way toward explaining why college football programs are given more resources than, say, women's lacrosse. Doubtless 98% of the reason for that preference is that college administrators are sexist pigs in desperate need of being exposed by writers like Robert Lipstyle. But the $2.2 billion might explain the remaining 2% of college administrators' motivation.

 

Edit: from Wikipedia

*******

On April 20, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test and procedures for implementing it. On that date, the Commission on Civil Rights released several recommendations on Title IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities."[39]

********

 

Title IX is designed to promote equality of athletic outcomes. The idea is that if your college's student population is X% female, then roughly X% of your student athletes should also be female. Because a smaller percentage of women than men are interested in joining college sports teams, Title IX effectively means getting rid of some programs aimed at male athletes to create the required equal outcomes. The fact that Lipstyle likes this particular example of misguided, unnecessary, and harmful government interference significantly detracts from his credibility.

I suppose we're drifting a little far from football here, but as this thread has to do with labor/management relations, perhaps its okay.

 

First off, I didn't say I agreed with Lipsyte only that his article was interesting. As to Title IX, I understand why it exists though I don't care for it. And however much Lipsyte may believe in it, it doesn't undermine his main points which, as I understand them, come down to this: the owners want to cut their employees pay while increasing their work load, claiming they are in deep financial doo-doo, all the while refusing to open the books to prove such is the truth.

 

BTW, bigtime college football also funds all the money-losing men's sports as well. And as I understand it, that's pretty much all of them with the exception of an occasional money-making basketball program.

 

The last thing I'd willingly choose to do is defend the UAW. I've known too many knuckleheads who are not qualified to mow my lawn who've made big bucks as rivetheads for me to do that. However, as to the unions "driving the automakers into bankruptcy," I know of no accepted study that shows any such thing. On the other hand, there are many that point the finger at decades-long inept management as the cause. The unions have been "giving back" benefits since at least the 1970s though, interestingly, the heyday of American automakers coincided with the heyday of the unions.

 

Finally, the originators of the Tea Party movement came out of the Ron Paul campaign. But once that "movement" gained purchase, they were fairly quickly marginalized by "Tea Party" groups created, funded and operated out of K Street, with people such as Dick Armey and the Koch brothers playing crucial roles. That's why you saw the rapid pivot from strictly financial concerns to "social issues" such as immigration, abortion, guns, god and gays. In other words, the same old goofy far right nonsense.

 

Kee-rist, I can't wait to get back to some football!

[Orton's Arm]

I suppose we're drifting a little far from football here, but as this thread has to do with labor/management relations, perhaps its okay.

 

First off, I didn't say I agreed with Lipsyte only that his article was interesting. As to Title IX, I understand why it exists though I don't care for it. And however much Lipsyte may believe in it, it doesn't undermine his main points which, as I understand them, come down to this: the owners want to cut their employees pay while increasing their work load, claiming they are in deep financial doo-doo, all the while refusing to open the books to prove such is the truth.

 

BTW, bigtime college football also funds all the money-losing men's sports as well. And as I understand it, that's pretty much all of them with the exception of an occasional money-making basketball program.

 

The last thing I'd willingly choose to do is defend the UAW. I've known too many knuckleheads who are not qualified to mow my lawn who've made big bucks as rivetheads for me to do that. However, as to the unions "driving the automakers into bankruptcy," I know of no accepted study that shows any such thing. On the other hand, there are many that point the finger at decades-long inept management as the cause. The unions have been "giving back" benefits since at least the 1970s though, interestingly, the heyday of American automakers coincided with the heyday of the unions.

 

Finally, the originators of the Tea Party movement came out of the Ron Paul campaign. But once that "movement" gained purchase, they were fairly quickly marginalized by "Tea Party" groups created, funded and operated out of K Street, with people such as Dick Armey and the Koch brothers playing crucial roles. That's why you saw the rapid pivot from strictly financial concerns to "social issues" such as immigration, abortion, guns, god and gays. In other words, the same old goofy far right nonsense.

 

Kee-rist, I can't wait to get back to some football!

I agree that making a false or non-credible assertion about one thing (in this case Lipsyte's assertion that Title IX is a positive thing) does not invalidate an assertion about some other subject.

 

That being said, the reason Title IX exists is because of a false belief: that men and women are the same (except for a few physical differences), and that different behavior patterns among the two genders are due strictly and wholly to outdated and sexist social conditioning. That belief is a communist and radical feminist belief, and is false. Only someone who accepted this belief could reasonably expect college men and women to participate in organized sports to exactly the same degree. That Title IX would result in the elimination of men's sports programs should have been fairly obvious. (Or at least, those who failed to foresee that consequence ought not be engaged in the creation or promulgation of further government controls.)

 

The UAW has done very significant harm to the American car industry in a number of ways: 1) the benefits to retirees are more than car makers can afford, 2) wages are also more than the car makers can afford, and are several times higher than what auto workers could expect to receive if they lost their current jobs, 3) restrictions on which workers can do which tasks have been very harmful. (These restrictions are of the "only an electrician who is also a union member can plug anything in" variety.) 4) The union has helped promulgate an "us versus them" mentality with respect to management. (Though clearly management has significantly contributed to that situation.)

 

Nothing in the previous paragraph is meant to absolve management, or to suggest that the executives responsible for running the car makers during their decline shouldn't have been replaced. But it's beyond question that inflicting the UAW on any business would result in a significantly worse business outcome than would otherwise have been the case.

 

As for the Tea Party, I agree that some of the issues you mentioned (such as gays) seem to have been chosen more for emotional appeal than because a rational argument could be made that restricting gay rights would somehow solve this nation's social ills. Immigration is in an entirely different category, however. Corporate America favors a high immigration rate because increasing the size of the workforce lowers the wage rate and increases competition for jobs. There is the claim that immigrants are here to "do the jobs Americans won't do," implying that Americans are lazy; and that there is a general shortage of unskilled labor which necessitates a large wave of immigration.

 

The reality is that many jobs were created in response to the massive influx of unskilled labor. For example, it is not strictly necessary to have some guy with a leaf blower get rid of each and every leaf almost as soon as it touches the ground. Had this massive wave of immigration not occurred, wage rates for unskilled labor would be significantly higher, and leaf blowers would be used less often.

 

Needless to say, many Americans are not entirely pleased by the reduction in wage rates associated with large-scale immigration. Nor do Americans necessarily welcome the demographic and cultural changes often associated with large-scale immigration. In contrast, a subset of corporate America sees the weakening of local, organic cultures as an opportunity to expand its own cultural influence. This is a clear case where the best interests of the American people are diametrically opposed to the objectives of corporate fat cats. While an overwhelming number of major American and multinational corporations have lobbied for high levels of immigration, the Tea Party has opposed it.

 

A better model would be the one employed by Japan. Staring in the '50s, good economic policies helped Japanese companies create a large number of jobs. Eventually they created more jobs than there were available Japanese workers. Japanese companies responded by building factories in places like the Asian mainland, Pacific islands, and the U.S. In this way, people living in non-Japanese nations could obtain gainful employment without having to leave their homelands, and without having to worry about whether their own cultural values would fail to be passed on to their children as a result of a decision to immigrate. Japan's culture was also protected, and was not subjected to a massive wave of immigration. While a Japan-style solution can make good economic sense, and is sensitive to the need to maintain existing cultures, most major American companies do not seem to have even considered it.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[Buftex]

Nixon has been critical of both the owners and NFLPA*. All he is concerned with is getting more money for retired players. He feels that both need to do more. Brees and the NFLPA just happen to be his target this particular time.

 

I will take your word on that KRC, I didn't even realize that Jeff Nixon was writing for a living. Good for him!

 

I wasn't necessarily knocking Nixon, because I feel that former players should be taken care of. I am sure I don't have to retell the horror stories of what these guys have sacrificed, for our entertainment, to you least of all. It just seems whenever I hear the ex-players, who are lobbying for their cause, it seems like they just want to go after the players, and, in the case of Gene Upshaw particualarly, their representation. I am not even saying their complaints against the players and their union have been un-warrented, but as they say, "hate the game, not the player".

[KRC]

I will take your word on that KRC, I didn't even realize that Jeff Nixon was writing for a living. Good for him!

 

I wasn't necessarily knocking Nixon, because I feel that former players should be taken care of. I am sure I don't have to retell the horror stories of what these guys have sacrificed, for our entertainment, to you least of all. It just seems whenever I hear the ex-players, who are lobbying for their cause, it seems like they just want to go after the players, and, in the case of Gene Upshaw particualarly, their representation. I am not even saying their complaints against the players and their union have been un-warrented, but as they say, "hate the game, not the player".

 

I am not sure I would say that he writes for a living, but he does do a lot of blog writing as an advocate for retired players.

 

As far as the stories about players, you are correct. I talk with retired players all the time and hear their stories. Some will break your heart.

 

Alumni are bitter about Upshaw. He did not care about the retired players, but was happy to exploit their names and images to make money for the NFLPA*. They see De Smith talking about caring for the retired players, but he has yet to make a meaningful gesture to help those in need. While the owners are no saints in this, they have at least done something to help retired players. They even send out a quarterly report of exactly how much they spend on retired players and where the money went. They need to do more and the NFLPA* needs to get off their butts and do something.

 

Just think...all of the money that is currently going to lawyers in this mess could have helped a lot of players in need. Now, it is going to getting bigger homes and more cars for the lawyers.