Skip to content

Goodell says salaries will continue to grow

We said we wouldn’t have anything more to say about the labor situation today.

But we said that at a time when we didn’t expect any further news on that front.

As it turns out, Commissioner Roger Goodell appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation this morning.  He said that, even if the percentage share of revenues paid to the players is reduced, the total dollars will continue to grow.

Goodell justified the reduction in total cents per dollar by pointing to the importance of the owners retaining money to devote to the growth of the game.

“You have to invest in these stadiums that we’re in today,” Goodell
said.  “You need to find new ways of creating revenue, whether it’s
international or otherwise.  And that takes investment.  And we need to
make sure that the owners have the capital to be able to do that.  And
then the pie grows, and everyone benefits.”

It makes sense.  But the decision of union Executive Director De Smith to describe the league as wanting an “18-percent pay cut” makes it hard for the two sides to stake out a win-win solution.

Then again, it could be that Smith is characterizing the league’s position as being more onerous than it really is, which will allow him eventually to sell to the rank-and-file modest movement by the league as a dramatic jump.

If that’s the case, we’ll know a deal is close if/when Smith begins to characterize the talks in terms of the additional total dollars that the players will be paid — and if the league makes firm commitments as to the total money the players will receive moving forward.

Permalink 14 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
14 Responses to “Goodell says salaries will continue to grow”
  1. SmackMyVickUp.com says: Feb 7, 2010 4:42 PM

    The propaganda machine picks up speed.

  2. afiresnake says: Feb 7, 2010 4:45 PM

    Ummh, why don’t they just cap the 60 percent the players get now up to the xth billionth-dollar, and above that limit, reduce it to 55 or so?
    Players get safety (no less $) and owners as well (less overall pct).
    But maybe De Smith vs. the league are just up for a pissing match. Because the players will turn down any offer with the reasoning “unless you don’t open your books, well be fooled anyway”

  3. Bob S. says: Feb 7, 2010 4:51 PM

    in about 5 and a half hours ALL 32 teams will be tied for first place AND for last place in the 2010 regular season standings.

  4. Catamount says: Feb 7, 2010 4:52 PM

    He takes every chance to push international play; he is going to learn it isn’t all about expanding NFL borders and billion dollar stadiums. What are PSL owners going to say in Carolina when he strips them of a home game when they own the seats so the Panthers can amuse the drunks in Germany during Octoberfest? What will become of Green Bay and Lambeau Field, the opposite of what he feels is necessary to fuel the greed?
    Why not cut salaries and allow the owners to make money–they have everything invested and the players have nothing? We are lining the pockets of 22-year old men playing a game! They don’t need millions to do that. Pay them decent salaries and provide enough for a substantial retirement. Instead of paying DeMarcus “Sorry excuse for a QB” Russell enough to decorate himself with diamonds like a Christmas tree. Wasted money on a player, player wastes it buying diamonds to make himself look important. The fleecing of the fan–tickets rise to decorate clowns like this.
    Why not make all pay scale incentive based?

  5. Football Fan says: Feb 7, 2010 5:27 PM

    I like the incentive based pay scale. I have always thought they should do that. Pay all rookies the same base salary starting out and then pay millions based solely on if they earn that money.

  6. last starfighter says: Feb 7, 2010 5:28 PM

    “The propaganda machine picks up speed.”
    Amen brother. While I’m sympathetic to the owners in some respects, Goodell just seems like a phony shill as he tries so hard to dominate the media message using fear tactics (a familiar tactic used frequently by a certain political party). My question is, does the game need to grow? I don’t think it really does. Keeping it the current size it will continue to rake in the bucks without screwing up what they have.

  7. DC_Bengals_Fan says: Feb 7, 2010 5:47 PM

    “And then the pie grows, and everyone benefits.”
    Except the people who have to spend the money to make the pie, which would be the fans and citizens in cities that tax themselves to build stadiums.
    At some point, the league needs to realize that salaries (and by necessity prices) can’t grow by double digits annually forever. Eventually that will crash on itself.
    The warning signs are around now, with a lot of fans deciding that games are simply too expensive to attend.

  8. It WAS a fumble says: Feb 7, 2010 6:00 PM

    But how often do the team owners actually pay for their new stadium themselves? Part of the reason L.A. doesn’t have a team is that the NFL expected the taxpayers to pay for it, AND give them a for-profit parking lot on-site where the league got to keep all of the revenue. I’m glad that the CA governor told the NFL that we have more important things to spend our tax dollars on than cutting costs for a multi billion dollar a year industry.
    I also find the PSLs to be a total and complete scam. Why should we have to pay extra money for the “privilege” of paying for season seats/tickets? I think that Congress should be going after the league for these issues.

  9. edgy1957 says: Feb 7, 2010 7:23 PM

    It’s ludicrous to believe that the owners are going to have to put out a penny to build a stadium. San Diego wants to stay in the city but they have an offer on the table from Chula Vista (Of course, if they take that and they acquiesce to the city’s demands of changing their name to the Chula Vista Chargers, the team has said that they will do it if the city foots 100% of the costs) OR they could go to LA, as could the Raiders or Vikings or Jaguars or Rams.

  10. Mike Rendahl says: Feb 7, 2010 8:44 PM

    Invest in stadiums? Are you high Goodell, you must be! How sweet of a deal can you and your greedy creep owners exploit from the fans! You guys come up with these insane Billion dollar stadiums and then tell the people YOU PAY FOR IT, SO WE CAN PROFIT FROM IT OR ELSE YOUR TEAM WILL BE IN L.A.! Goodell you don’t give a rip about “the game” and or it’s “history” Pete Rozelle was a great man, because it was all about the game for him, for the fans, for the players and the owners and football has NEVER been the same since he left. If he didn’t like what he saw happening to the NFL while he was still alive, I can’t imagine what he could say now. (hint, it wouldn’t be good)

  11. Mike Rendahl says: Feb 7, 2010 8:59 PM

    NFL Teams should be owned my the fans via public stock offerings. It certainly worked in Green Bay (although the NFL despises it).
    What sense would it make to have the Viking owned by someone in Texas? or someone from New York? Exactly, it wouldn’t make any sense at all.
    Here’s another example if you’re still struggling…
    What sense would it make to have the Green Bay Packers owned by someone in Texas? or someone from New York? Exactly, it wouldn’t make any sense at all.
    It’s all about control, control, control for the greedy owners of the NFL and exploiting fans, states and cities to no end.

  12. RaiderChile says: Feb 7, 2010 11:23 PM

    They higher the salaries the higher the tix, memorabilia, concessions, parking and everything else you need to buy at a football game.
    If they don’t put a ceiling on the salaries, the fans will not be able afford to go to games at all. If the fans to go to the games, the teams don’t make money. The teams don’t make money, the NFL doesn’t make money.
    The NFL could run itself into the ground.
    Goodell is the Obama of football.

  13. Deb says: Feb 8, 2010 5:51 PM

    @Raider Chile …
    The pie grows and the syrup trickles down to the folks at the bottom of the food chain? Trickle-down economic theory is a Reagan staple. McCain was the Reagan disciple, not Obama. I’d prefer if those of you who aren’t happy about the 2008 election outcome simply sucked it up and waited for 2012 or took your whining to a POLITICAL BLOG rather than CONTINUALLY beating PFT fans over the head with your political diatribes. But if you’re going to complain about politics all the time, at least try to be educated about it.

  14. Deb says: Feb 8, 2010 5:55 PM

    Ah, yes … the pie gets bigger and everybody benefits. How many of us have heard corporate bosses say that? And how many have gotten a chunk of the profits when the corporation got bigger? Raise your hands? Uh-huh. I’d ask Goodell who he thinks he’s kidding, but sadly, people have been falling for that line for centuries.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!