Smith contemplating permanent decertification

[1B4IDie]

The pool of revenues the players are drawing from was much much bigger, even with the billion off the top. Hence the reason the cap jumped from $85 million to $110 million or so in the first year after the new CBA.

 

Prior to 2006, i think the total % was based off just the TV money, or TV and ticket money. Now, the players get a cut of everything, including stadium revenue, etc.

The piece about Stadium Rev is definitely off. Concessions and Luxury Boxes are not shared amongst owners or with players.

Why do you think new stadiums have so many boxes? and so many owners have remodeled old stadiums to add boxes?

 

The more people try to defend the owners moves on some altruistic ideals. The weaker the argument becomes.

 

Its just a simple money grab. There is no long view economic climate change motivation. It's just a leverage play. They thought they had some leverage to get more money by locking the players out for a year and cashing TV checks.

They can't cash the TV checks now. The squeeze play on the players may not work.

 

Its ok that its a money grab. I have no moral dilemma with that, but don't try to create a fictional excuse for the money grab. The owners are actually arguing against a free market.

 

The owners want to change the deal in the middle of the CBA because they think they can and they want more money. Its as simple as that.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[K Gun Special]

The pool of revenues the players are drawing from was much much bigger, even with the billion off the top. Hence the reason the cap jumped from $85 million to $110 million or so in the first year after the new CBA.

 

Prior to 2006, i think the total % was based off just the TV money, or TV and ticket money. Now, the players get a cut of everything, including stadium revenue, etc.

 

But thats not what you said. And owners dont share luxury box revenue and a few other things.

 

The jump is not explained simply by the CBA and it being bad for the owners as you and others have continued to posit.

 

you do know that in 2006 NBC signed a huge TV contract worth 650 million PER YEAR.

 

Oh and ESPN in 2006 signed on for MNF for 1.1 BILLION per YEAR..... another 20 million per team for the cap.

 

 

But no, this jump as youve explained can only be because the poor owners signed a bad deal. These guys are super wealthy and know what they are doing. They didnt get hosed by the players union. The made a deal and exercised their right to get out of it claiming they were losing money.

[Taro T]

But thats not what you said. And owners dont share luxury box revenue and a few other things.

 

The jump is not explained simply by the CBA and it being bad for the owners as you and others have continued to posit.

 

you do know that in 2006 NBC signed a huge TV contract worth 650 million PER YEAR.

 

Oh and ESPN in 2006 signed on for MNF for 1.1 BILLION per YEAR..... another 20 million per team for the cap.

 

 

But no, this jump as youve explained can only be because the poor owners signed a bad deal. These guys are super wealthy and know what they are doing. They didnt get hosed by the players union. The made a deal and exercised their right to get out of it claiming they were losing money.

The owners don't share those revenues, but those ARE included in the revenues calculating the salary cap and the players' %age of revenues.

 

Those, and some other items, weren't included in the prior CBA.

[Mr. WEO]

You might want to read your own weak reference yourself.

 

 

And comparing meat packers to hard to find highly athletic very skilled athletes is funny.

 

Here is the question if you'd like a second try

 

 

 

 

 

The bolded is not completely true.

 

And this is genius logic:

 

 

It doesn't count that the owners opted out early because at the end of the agreement they were going to try to renegotiate something different anyway?

 

Amazing.

The bolded is true. If you haven't by now grasped that this is the very heart of the disagreement between owner and players then you never will.

[Hplarrm]

The bolded is true. Prior to 2006, the salary cap and the % cut the players got were from a specific set of revenues. Which ones exactly, i dont remember. The 2006 CBA gave the players a % cut and based the salary cap on ALL revenues. Huge difference.

And it was this agreed upon difference which was huge because when the players first threatened decert after they got their butts kicked in the mid-80s lockout, this got the players led by their talented tenth and Gene Upshaw to threaten to force the NFL into a free market where they had no union partners and without these co-conspirators the courts would not allow restraints of free trade like the draft.

 

It was the NFL team owners who begged the NFLPA to come back to the table so that the NFL would be allowed to restrain participation by individuals in free trade. This co-operation between the NFL and the NFLPA resulted in a draft still being held which unlike almost all the industries mentioned restricts an individual to negotiate with one and only one team (which drafted the player and requires him to live in a particular city without regard to what the individual prefers).

 

Even more outrageous to my sense of principle, the NFL and NFLPAS have conspired to prevent adults from signing contracts or playing in the NFL. If you are 16 and a good baseball player you can submit yourself to the MLB draft. If you are 16 and a minor you can still sign with parental consent. If you are 18 you can sign without consent as you are an adult. However if you are 20 and even talented enough to play in the NFL the NFL and NFLPA (and the courts allow under the limited antitrust exemption) a conspiracy to restrain trade against this adult and you cannot sign a contract.

 

One aspect of the NFLPA decertifying itself is that the restraint of trade known as the draft is going to continue on without a recognized bargaining agent for the players. The NFL is claiming the decert is a sham and by reversing the lower court ruling the courts are essentially ordering the NFLPA to represent the players (it claims not to want to represent) and even worse it is being ordered to restrain trade of potential draftees who have no say or representation even under the best conditions. The reversal is stupid in terms of forcing representation when the representing parties do not want to be recognized as a bargaining agent. It actually is completely outrageous when this forced representation is used as a figleaf to restrict the rights of individuals. Perhaps this will stand if the Supreme Court like the 8th Circuit Appeals court is willing to reject the finding of fact in the lower court and stand conservative principles on its head and force the players to have a union and also force the union to give away the rights of non-member draftees to negotiate with whom and where they want to negotiate but as best as I can tell the appeals court has come down firmly on the side of the Golden Rule, he who has the gold rules.

 

The BFLPA is playing a dangerous game. A purely doctrinal free trade view would fully embrace the decert free trade stance Smith is talking up here. However, Smith and the NFLPA realize that in this case the free market though fair to the individual does not produce the most profit and highest economic efficiency.

 

A socially based compact does that with greater profit and greater economic efficiency than a free market approach. However, it just seems harsh and stupid if the courts like the appeals court has done is going to insist that the NFLPA be a negotiating union even when it does not want to be. Even further, if the Supreme Court chooses to merely impose the last owner offer on the NFLPA and makes the players play under that order it would be ordering adults to live in a world of restrained trade which not only do they have no voice in the NFLPA until they sign but the NFLPA does not want to be their voice anyway.

 

In this case siding with the owners is both anti-the game (if the players win we play if the owners win we lockout) but it also runs against free trade by restraining college players.

[1B4IDie]

The bolded is true. If you haven't by now grasped that this is the very heart of the disagreement between owner and players then you never will.

 

How about backing up your claim with actual numbers? Or link to a article that shows what financial problems the owners have as a result to the deal? Or maybe some analysis that shows what they would have made under the '98 CBA and the '06 CBA? That would be compelling. I wonder why that comparison doesn't exist? Wouldn't that be any easy thing for the NFL owners to show? You know if they're claiming hardship, lets see the hardship? Every other major company that claims hardship seems to have no problem dragging out downward pointing graph charts. Curious the NFL doesn't drag something out to show the owners' plight.

 

 

What is really ironic, is the same people that cry, "Oh that player is a bum, for holding out. He signed a contract and should live up to it! He shouldn't back out of the deal. Hang him high!"

are the same people that are saying.

"Oh the poor owners signed a bad deal because they were tricked into it by the mean players. It's ok if they back out of the deal because they got roasted over the flames. (Let's ignore the fact that the NFL has seen record profits and everyone is cashing huge checks since the '06 CBA.) "

Edited June 2, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[Mr. WEO]

How about backing up your claim with actual numbers? Or link to a article that shows what financial problems the owners have as a result to the deal? Or maybe some analysis that shows what they would have made under the '98 CBA and the '06 CBA? That would be compelling. I wonder why that comparison doesn't exist? Wouldn't that be any easy thing for the NFL owners to show? You know if they're claiming hardship, lets see the hardship? Every other major company that claims hardship seems to have no problem dragging out downward pointing graph charts. Curious the NFL doesn't drag something out to show the owners' plight.

 

 

What is really ironic, is the same people that cry, "Oh that player is a bum, for holding out. He signed a contract and should live up to it! He shouldn't back out of the deal. Hang him high!"

are the same people that are saying.

"Oh the poor owners signed a bad deal because they were tricked into it by the mean players. It's ok if they back out of the deal because they got roasted over the flames. (Let's ignore the fact that the NFL has seen record profits and everyone is cashing huge checks since the '06 CBA.) "

Look, I said thqat the 2006 CBA was fundamentally different because it for the first time allowed for the players to have a fixed percent (59.5%) of the total revenues, minus the write off. You said this fact is "not completely true". That's wrong. This single fact forms the crux of the current impasse.

Another point of yours that need some work--the owners didn't simply "back out of a deal", they exercised their right (agreed upon by the players union) to end the agreement early (and completely legally). Everyone involved back then--including Tagliabu AND Gene Upshaw knew that this was an agreement of convenience that would never last the full term of the contract. They knew the owners would opt out early back in 2006.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[1B4IDie]

Look, I said thqat the 2006 CBA was fundamentally different because it for the first time allowed for the players to have a fixed percent (59.5%) of the total revenues, minus the write off. You said this fact is "not completely true". That's wrong. This single fact forms the crux of the current impasse.

Another point of yours that need some work--the owners didn't simply "back out of a deal", they exercised their right (agreed upon by the players union) to end the agreement early (and completely legally). Everyone involved back then--including Tagliabu AND Gene Upshaw knew that this was an agreement of convenience that would never last the full term of the contract. They knew the owners would opt out early back in 2006.

I guess I look at fundamentally a little different. I'll leave it at that.

[Orton's Arm]

I've never understood the whole "anti-trust" thing. The owners should get together and re-form the NFL as a corporation with 32 shareholders (owners), and 32 franchises. The reality is that the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets (for example) do not compete like Target and Wal-Mart. No NFL team has a main revenue-generating product (football), unless there is at least 1 other NFL team involved. If the NFL wouldn't be allowed to set up drafts, player salary caps, or other "monopoly" behavior, why would it be allowed to dictate how many yards are on the field, how many points a touchdown is worth, or what the playoff system is like? It seems to me that these should all be contracted in individual joint ventures between pairs of teams, right? Otherwise there is collusion going on to some degree.

I strongly agree with this. NFL owners should definitely rid themselves of a need for a players union--as you've described--especially because it's become increasingly clear that nothing constructive is going to get done as long as DeMaurice Smith is in a position to block progress.

 

I also strongly agree with Ramius's post about how a pure free market system would benefit a few players--such as Manning and Brady--while significantly harming many others. Think of all the guys on NFL rosters who are currently receiving the NFL minimum wage. A lot of those players are backups/special teams players, and are often considered expendable and interchangeable. Eliminate the NFL's minimum wage, and what do you think happens to the salaries of the worst 20 - 30 players on any given team? Further, how many more mini camps, training camps, etc. do you think NFL teams are likely to require if a pure free market system is implemented?

 

If the NFL turns itself into one big corporation--as you've described--then there'd be no harm in DeMaurice Smith picking up his marbles and going home. On the contrary. The NFL, as a single entity, could implement a salary cap, a draft, minimum salaries for players, restrictions on the number of training camps, etc. If it did these things fairly and equitably, the players would (hopefully) choose not to re-unionize. Of course, the threat of re-unionization would always exist if the owners got too greedy.

[K Gun Special]

I strongly agree with this. NFL owners should definitely rid themselves of a need for a players union--as you've described--especially because it's become increasingly clear that nothing constructive is going to get done as long as DeMaurice Smith is in a position to block progress.

 

I also strongly agree with Ramius's post about how a pure free market system would benefit a few players--such as Manning and Brady--while significantly harming many others. Think of all the guys on NFL rosters who are currently receiving the NFL minimum wage. A lot of those players are backups/special teams players, and are often considered expendable and interchangeable. Eliminate the NFL's minimum wage, and what do you think happens to the salaries of the worst 20 - 30 players on any given team? Further, how many more mini camps, training camps, etc. do you think NFL teams are likely to require if a pure free market system is implemented?

 

If the NFL turns itself into one big corporation--as you've described--then there'd be no harm in DeMaurice Smith picking up his marbles and going home. On the contrary. The NFL, as a single entity, could implement a salary cap, a draft, minimum salaries for players, restrictions on the number of training camps, etc. If it did these things fairly and equitably, the players would (hopefully) choose not to re-unionize. Of course, the threat of re-unionization would always exist if the owners got too greedy.

 

THe NFL operates more along the lines of communism than the so called free market. They share almost all significant sources of income. This allows them to maximize revenue by keeping interest alive in every city as best they can.

 

There is a reason the NFL can grown significantly more since they instituted this non free market system in 2006 and leagues like the MLB have not.

 

Going to a free market system would destroy the NFL.

[Ramius]

The piece about Stadium Rev is definitely off. Concessions and Luxury Boxes are not shared amongst owners or with players.

Why do you think new stadiums have so many boxes? and so many owners have remodeled old stadiums to add boxes?

 

The more people try to defend the owners moves on some altruistic ideals. The weaker the argument becomes.

 

Its just a simple money grab. There is no long view economic climate change motivation. It's just a leverage play. They thought they had some leverage to get more money by locking the players out for a year and cashing TV checks.

They can't cash the TV checks now. The squeeze play on the players may not work.

 

Its ok that its a money grab. I have no moral dilemma with that, but don't try to create a fictional excuse for the money grab. The owners are actually arguing against a free market.

 

The owners want to change the deal in the middle of the CBA because they think they can and they want more money. Its as simple as that.

 

There's nothing altruistic about the owners side of the argument. But i'm baffled as to why some of you think its ok for the players to demand more money (as they did in 2006), but its not ok for the owners to do the same thing.

 

TV money aside, the squeeze on the players will work. If thing is still at its current impasse in august/september, the players will come crawling back when the game checks aren't rolling in.

 

The NHL was much better off after a missing season. If missing a year is what it takes to snap the neck of demaurice smith, than so be it.*

 

*Disclaimer: i think that a deal would get done that would be mutually beneficial if brees and brady, etc sat down with the owners and were allowed to negotiate with smith stuffed in a closet somewhere. He's the real problem and the biggest obstacle in this entire mess.

[K Gun Special]

There's nothing altruistic about the owners side of the argument. But i'm baffled as to why some of you think its ok for the players to demand more money (as they did in 2006), but its not ok for the owners to do the same thing.

 

TV money aside, the squeeze on the players will work. If thing is still at its current impasse in august/september, the players will come crawling back when the game checks aren't rolling in.

 

The NHL was much better off after a missing season. If missing a year is what it takes to snap the neck of demaurice smith, than so be it.*

 

*Disclaimer: i think that a deal would get done that would be mutually beneficial if brees and brady, etc sat down with the owners and were allowed to negotiate with smith stuffed in a closet somewhere. He's the real problem and the biggest obstacle in this entire mess.

 

The point is the owners are claiming decreased revenue, Not just because they want more $$$. Thats a substantial difference in posture. That should be clear if you were following the news on this.

If you put TV money aside, and you accept the owners position that they are losing money--- the squeeze doesnt work. Where are they getting $$ from? I mean they are cutting salaries for the little guys in the organization..... so where is the $$ coming from?

 

The problem is not one man. Have you heard the players speak on the topic?? They are just as opposed, smith is merely their mouthpiece to advocate on their behalf.

[1B4IDie]

There's nothing altruistic about the owners side of the argument. But i'm baffled as to why some of you think its ok for the players to demand more money (as they did in 2006), but its not ok for the owners to do the same thing.

 

TV money aside, the squeeze on the players will work. If thing is still at its current impasse in august/september, the players will come crawling back when the game checks aren't rolling in.

 

The NHL was much better off after a missing season. If missing a year is what it takes to snap the neck of demaurice smith, than so be it.*

 

*Disclaimer: i think that a deal would get done that would be mutually beneficial if brees and brady, etc sat down with the owners and were allowed to negotiate with smith stuffed in a closet somewhere. He's the real problem and the biggest obstacle in this entire mess.

I think you're right on about the negotiations.

 

But I'll try to unbaffle you, The player's money grab called for 0 missed time of football.

The Owners money grab calls for missed time of football.

 

Thats really all I, and most fans care about.

 

Its seems to me they can work something out without missing any time. Its silly on the part of the Owners because the CBAs are not that long. They're usually missing 6-8 years. So you're missing out on 1/6 or 1/8 of revenue to get a certain percentage more through a work stoppage. It better be more than 20% more otherwise its foolish and if its a swag by that big of a percentage, something really, really went wrong in 2006.

 

So go ahead and grab as much money as you can just don't F with my Sundays! and Mondays, and Sometimes Thursday! and Saturdays during playoffs!

 

The NHL had a problem with the game. (Neutral Zone Trap, Clutching & Grabbing, Two line passes etc . . .)

There isn't a problem with the game in the case of the NFL.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

So you're missing out on 1/6 or 1/8 of revenue to get a certain percentage more through a work stoppage. It better be more than 20% more otherwise its foolish and if its a swag by that big of a percentage, something really, really went wrong in 2006.

I think this fairly accurately presents the way the owners look at their financial choices, with one exception. You are assuming that it will take a lost full season for the owners to get economic concessions from the players that would make up, over the full term of a new CBA, for lost game-related revenue (including the TV revenue) for however many games are lost. Just my opinion, but I think it will take less.

 

Why? Because if your assumption about a new CBA having a 6 to 8 year term is correct, the owners will have 6-8 years to recover their lost work stoppage revenue through reduced player costs over the full term of the CBA. Conversely, the average player will be in the league for less than 6-8 years, so for any given player who eventually votes on whether to accept a proposed new CBA deal, that player has less time to recover work stoppage losses than his team's owner. And that's true even if you make the dubious assumption that the owners and players are financial equals in other respects (e.g., equally deep pockets to start with, equal advance planning for the effects of the work stoppage, equal ability to get loans to meet cash flow requirements during the work stoppage, etc.). Moreover, even if you somehow think that the average NFL career also lasts 6-8 years, roughly half of the players who will be voting on any proposed new CBA will already be half-way through that 6-8 year career at the time of the vote. Such players would only have 3-4 years to recover their work stoppage losses.

 

Stated differently, if the proposed term of any new CBA really is 6-8 years, then the owners can withstand a longer work stoppage, as compared to the players, before the owners lose the ability to recover their work stoppage losses from future game-related revenue.

 

I don't know if your assumption about a likely 6-8 year term for a new CBA is accurate, but it seems to me like the owners have a structural bargaining advantage if the proposed term of any future CBA is more than 1/2 of the length of an average NFL career.

 

Just my 2 cents - - but this seems logical to me.

[Orton's Arm]

I think this fairly accurately presents the way the owners look at their financial choices, with one exception. You are assuming that it will take a lost full season for the owners to get economic concessions from the players that would make up, over the full term of a new CBA, for lost game-related revenue (including the TV revenue) for however many games are lost. Just my opinion, but I think it will take less.

 

Why? Because if your assumption about a new CBA having a 6 to 8 year term is correct, the owners will have 6-8 years to recover their lost work stoppage revenue through reduced player costs over the full term of the CBA. Conversely, the average player will be in the league for less than 6-8 years, so for any given player who eventually votes on whether to accept a proposed new CBA deal, that player has less time to recover work stoppage losses than his team's owner. And that's true even if you make the dubious assumption that the owners and players are financial equals in other respects (e.g., equally deep pockets to start with, equal advance planning for the effects of the work stoppage, equal ability to get loans to meet cash flow requirements during the work stoppage, etc.). Moreover, even if you somehow think that the average NFL career also lasts 6-8 years, roughly half of the players who will be voting on any proposed new CBA will already be half-way through that 6-8 year career at the time of the vote. Such players would only have 3-4 years to recover their work stoppage losses.

 

Stated differently, if the proposed term of any new CBA really is 6-8 years, then the owners can withstand a longer work stoppage, as compared to the players, before the owners lose the ability to recover their work stoppage losses from future game-related revenue.

 

I don't know if your assumption about a likely 6-8 year term for a new CBA is accurate, but it seems to me like the owners have a structural bargaining advantage if the proposed term of any future CBA is more than 1/2 of the length of an average NFL career.

 

Just my 2 cents - - but this seems logical to me.

Just to add to what you've written: this also has a lot in common with what in game theory is known as the game of chicken.

 

Imagine two teenage guys on bicycles--guys who have challenged each other to a game of chicken. The two teens ride toward each other at a high speed. If neither player swerves, they will collide and end up with serious injuries. This is considered the worst possible outcome from both teens' perspective. On the other hand, they could both choose to swerve at the last second. This is a fairly neutral outcome: neither teen gains nor loses much social status, and they both walk away unhurt. However, there's also the chance that one teen will swerve while the other doesn't. The one that swerves loses social status and gets called a chicken; the one who didn't swerve gains social status. Being called a chicken isn't as bad as ending up with broken bones, but it's still bad.

 

Suppose you're playing a game of chicken. You know that your opponent has swerved the last ten times he's played. Your inclination would probably be to not swerve. That's the smart choice if you know he's going to swerve.

 

Back in 2006, the owners and the players played a game of chicken. The owners swerved and the players didn't. It's been a while since either a) the owners have chosen to stand their ground, or b) the players have chosen to swerve. At this point, the owners need to establish that they're not always going to be the one that swerves. They need to establish this even if it means a bicycle collision and resulting broken bones. What they establish here affects not just this upcoming collective bargaining agreement, but the collective bargaining agreements which will follow. The alternative is to always allow the players to take a little more and a little more of collective revenues, while the owners' share gets progressively smaller.

[BillsfaninFl]

Looka t the the top grossing teams year in and year out in the NFL--other than NE, the only other outliers are the COwboys, the Skins and the Texans. None of them has "dominated"--except in futility. The SB winner list the past 10 years is dominated by middle of the road revenue teams (which includes about 80% of all teams.

 

What are you worried about? If you think parity has suffered because of revenue differences, you are worrying about nothing. The truth is that the NFL has had fewer different champs over the past 10 years than MLB--so revenue has little to do with parity. The best managed teams/franchises dominate post-season play in the NFL.

 

I didn't say the NFL now has the same elite teams every year. I said I would hate to see that happen. My comment about a trend toward that was in reference to the growing influence of the richest owners toward a lesser percentage of revenue sharing (of the total income) among the teams. As the league's revenue sharing becomes less of a priority, the potential is real for a huge financial gap in the future that would create less parity. This is especially true if there is more of an open market for signing players (something that could happen if the players have their way).

[Mr. WEO]

I didn't say the NFL now has the same elite teams every year. I said I would hate to see that happen. My comment about a trend toward that was in reference to the growing influence of the richest owners toward a lesser percentage of revenue sharing (of the total income) among the teams. As the league's revenue sharing becomes less of a priority, the potential is real for a huge financial gap in the future that would create less parity. This is especially true if there is more of an open market for signing players (something that could happen if the players have their way).

There is no trend towards less revenue sharing. The 2006 CBA included the largest revenue sharing deal between teams in league history.

 

The richest owners' influence has not altered the "parity" of the league one bit. One of the richest, Kraft, has been a vocal supporter of revenue sharing for many years.

[Orton's Arm]

There is no trend towards less revenue sharing. The 2006 CBA included the largest revenue sharing deal between teams in league history.

 

The richest owners' influence has not altered the "parity" of the league one bit. One of the richest, Kraft, has been a vocal supporter of revenue sharing for many years.

The problem to which BillsFaninFL was referring is that over the last decade or so, owners have generally focused on growing their unshared revenues a lot more than their shared revenues. Take a guy like Jerry Jones for example. If someone like that gets a new stadium, the things about that stadium which will make him drool will be the luxury suites, PSLs, corporate sponsorship deals, and other sources of unshared revenue. New stadiums typically have many more luxury suites and other things associated with unshared revenue than do older stadiums. While there are limits to the amount of unshared revenue any team can bring in--especially in a down economy--the concern is that they are much higher limits for teams like the Cowboys or the Redskins than they are for teams like the Bills.

[Mr. WEO]

The problem to which BillsFaninFL was referring is that over the last decade or so, owners have generally focused on growing their unshared revenues a lot more than their shared revenues. Take a guy like Jerry Jones for example. If someone like that gets a new stadium, the things about that stadium which will make him drool will be the luxury suites, PSLs, corporate sponsorship deals, and other sources of unshared revenue. New stadiums typically have many more luxury suites and other things associated with unshared revenue than do older stadiums. While there are limits to the amount of unshared revenue any team can bring in--especially in a down economy--the concern is that they are much higher limits for teams like the Cowboys or the Redskins than they are for teams like the Bills.

And? What has all that extra unshared revenue brought the Skins and the Cowboys? Nothing but the proof that, in this league, big spending cannot trump intelligent management. If Jones, or Snyder (or Ralph, for that matter) had a billion in extra revenue, nothing would change regarding their success in this league. Indy, NO, Pitt all prove you don't need a market of 5 million people or revenue of 300 million to win a SB. There is no evidence that this will change in the future.

 

I would guess that Jones, with all his extra sources of income, is barely getting his monthly nut covered. Buffalo's economy has been bad for a decade or more, not just the past 3 years. But Ralph's bottom line has proven recession proof.

[Mickey]

I strongly agree with this. NFL owners should definitely rid themselves of a need for a players union--as you've described--especially because it's become increasingly clear that nothing constructive is going to get done as long as DeMaurice Smith is in a position to block progress.

 

I also strongly agree with Ramius's post about how a pure free market system would benefit a few players--such as Manning and Brady--while significantly harming many others. Think of all the guys on NFL rosters who are currently receiving the NFL minimum wage. A lot of those players are backups/special teams players, and are often considered expendable and interchangeable. Eliminate the NFL's minimum wage, and what do you think happens to the salaries of the worst 20 - 30 players on any given team? Further, how many more mini camps, training camps, etc. do you think NFL teams are likely to require if a pure free market system is implemented?

 

If the NFL turns itself into one big corporation--as you've described--then there'd be no harm in DeMaurice Smith picking up his marbles and going home. On the contrary. The NFL, as a single entity, could implement a salary cap, a draft, minimum salaries for players, restrictions on the number of training camps, etc. If it did these things fairly and equitably, the players would (hopefully) choose not to re-unionize. Of course, the threat of re-unionization would always exist if the owners got too greedy.

Owners love the union, they made the players reform the union as part of the settlement in the anti-trust case they lost. So long as there is a union, players can't avail themselves of the anti-trust statutes. The presence of a union gives the league what congress has not, a blanket exemption from the laws of the United States. A "threat" to reform the union would be met with popping champagne corks in every owner's office in the league.

 

The result of a pure free market system is a bit of a guessing game. Theoretically the teams that are most successful are going to be the teams that win games. A team with a few stars and everyone else getting minimum wage would lose to more balanced teams because no matter how good Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is, they don't block, they don't kick field goals, they don't cover WR's etc, etc. Football is still about those things, blocking and tackling.

 

People are wrongly concluding that the players are hell bent for leather to get rid of the draft and exclusive rights to players that limit their ability to bid out their services. Yes, in the past they sought to remove limits on player movement but that was at a time where there was no such thing as free agency. They won that argument with court victories in the early 1990's and we were then headed towards an open player market. Because the owners were facing that doomsday scenario, they finally buckled. They cut the players in on the take and allowed for a free agency which, though it was limited, was still light years beyond anything that had gone before. The players have shown that they will give away their freedom to work for whoever they want to for the good of the league but only if they are essentially partners in that league.

 

I also think it is more than a bit paternalistic to say that we know what is best for the players as a whole, that really, they are better off without an open market. And if Peyton Manning can command more money in the market place than the 20 to 30 worst players on the team, why is that unfair? Why does Peyton Manning have to sacrifice his earning power?

 

 

 

The problem to which BillsFaninFL was referring is that over the last decade or so, owners have generally focused on growing their unshared revenues a lot more than their shared revenues. Take a guy like Jerry Jones for example. If someone like that gets a new stadium, the things about that stadium which will make him drool will be the luxury suites, PSLs, corporate sponsorship deals, and other sources of unshared revenue. New stadiums typically have many more luxury suites and other things associated with unshared revenue than do older stadiums. While there are limits to the amount of unshared revenue any team can bring in--especially in a down economy--the concern is that they are much higher limits for teams like the Cowboys or the Redskins than they are for teams like the Bills.

 

The ultimate issue really may be just that, owners who don't want to share with owners who aren't making the same $ for whatever reason, be it small markets or whatever. The have-not's want better revenue sharing. That money can either come from the have's or the players. Increased revenue sharing would be a lot more palatable to owners who are flush if its coming from a bigger pie, made so with money formerly going to the players. Isn't that what they are going to do with the extra billion they said they need for expense? They would split it up with equal shares to each franchise, ie, revenue sharing of different sort. Players