Skip to content

League’s new labor site tries to drive wedge between players, union

We’ve tried to make it clear over the past few days that we have only one constituency when it comes to the ongoing labor feud between the NFL and the players union — football fans.

And so we are committed to calling out both sides when necessary in the hopes of pressuring the parties to put the interests of the game — and football fans — above their own bickering regarding the question of whether too much is ever enough.

Last night, we pointed out that multiple agents believe that the union is doing a subpar job of providing information to players regarding the rules of the uncapped year.  Now, we take issue with the manner in which the NFL is using its brand new NFLLabor.com web site.

The current lead item trumpets an article from Pete Dougherty of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, in which Dougherty declares, “As free agency begins, owners have an edge over players.”

Dougherty points to the fact that more than 200 players who won’t be eligible for unrestricted free agency due to the rules of the uncapped year constitutes “a big loss for performers in a young man’s game.”

Though the NFL didn’t write the article, the decision to feature Dougherty’s piece as the top item on a web site dedicated to the labor dispute has one obvious purpose — to stir up the players who are going to miss their shot at unrestricted free agency in 2010.

The apparent goal?  To get the 200-plus players who’ll be relegated to restricted free agency to squeeze the union into taking the best deal that the league offers before March 5 — or after March 5 to spark a mutiny once the money begins to flow to the players who are eligible for unrestricted free agency.

Again, this isn’t how business partners should be behaving.  There can be no NFL without NFL-caliber players, and NFL-caliber players will have no place to play south of Canada without the NFL.  Fairly obvious tactics by both sides to drive wedges and/or curry favor with the average fan will only create more obstacles to doing a deal — and the only impact it will have on the general public is to get the public generally pissed off at everyone involved.

Last Sunday, 55 percent of the nation’s televisions weren’t watching the ultimate annual product that the NFL has to offer.  It means that there are plenty of other things that we can do with our time, and plenty of football fans will find something else to do if the NFL and the NFL players can’t work out their differences — regardless of which side is actually at fault.

But, hey, the Bob Batterman playbook worked great for the NHL.  Just ask all the people who stopped following hockey during the one-year lockout, and who never have gone back.

Permalink 35 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
35 Responses to “League’s new labor site tries to drive wedge between players, union”
  1. Sinister79 says: Feb 14, 2010 1:28 PM

    Hockey ending their lockout? Huh…..

  2. slipkid says: Feb 14, 2010 1:29 PM

    people will watch the lockout league till the locked out players are down to the bling. then they will crawl back.

  3. TryTheVeal says: Feb 14, 2010 1:31 PM

    Text “BLING” to NFLPA.org to make a donation and help these poor players out. Or you could text “GREED” to NFLowners.BS to help the owners out.

  4. edgy1957 says: Feb 14, 2010 1:44 PM

    I know that this is a repeat but I think that it emphasizes the importance of the stars getting out front and center on this issue and how they can sway the others to stand firm (Of course, if some of them are too selfish to put their own self-interest or images on the line then what’s a union to do?):
    BTW, folks, one thing that I think that the big stars like Peyton Manning can do is put themselves out front and center and get the owners to with the players instead of against them. If you don’t think that this will work then you should see what happened with the NBA.
    The owners there went nuts with what they were going to pull on their players and then some idiot executive told CBSSports.com that, “if they don’t like the new max contracts, LeBron can play football, where he will make less than the new max. Wade can be a fashion model or whatever. They won’t make squat and no one will remember who they are in a few years.” Let’s just say that the next thing you know, James, Garnett and Anthony showed up at the next meeting and the owners tore up their proposal and they’re starting all over.
    “I think we’ve learned a lot from the past bargaining agreement,” San Antonio’s Tim Duncan said. “That was a big turning point in the last one, when a lot of the big guys stepped up and made their voices heard. That helped the situation. I think everyone will be involved a lot more this time. People will understand what it takes. Everyone understands changes are going to be made. We need to step up and make our voices heard so it’s not an extreme change.”
    Story: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4910277
    Peyton, time for you and the other high priced talent to inject yourselves into the talks for the good of ALL the players.

  5. edgy1957 says: Feb 14, 2010 2:06 PM

    I’m supporting the players because let’s face it, they’re the ones that are bringing in the revenue. If the owners want them to give back something to pay for new stadiums and new revenue streams then maybe they should try to work out some kind of partnership deal that pays the players back for what they have to give up. I don’t buy ANY argument that says that they’ll make more money simply because there will be more money because if their share of the revenue goes down then what did they gain? If the owners make the players give up money to bring in more revenue and yet, don’t share it with them then what was the purpose? If the league takes 18% and it brings back 59% then what did the players get for helping them out? Let’s face it, there is a lot of NON-FOOTBALL related income that will go into the owners’ pockets when the new stadiums are built so the players won’t be getting a taste of that (especially since the other owners won’t receive a share of that). Just think how you’d like it if your boss did the same thing to you?

  6. RuggSkins says: Feb 14, 2010 2:11 PM

    I was a huge hockey fan before the lock-out… Now I’ve watched hockey maybe 3 times since the lock-out 3-4 years ago….
    C’mon NFL Players, & Owners…. how much is enough? Why be so greedy?

  7. brasho says: Feb 14, 2010 2:36 PM

    Edgy-support the players all you want but it is because of the players’ high salaries they most people can’t afford to go to football games anymore.
    The owners like owners of any business, are there to make money, why would somebody purchase a business to lose money?
    I think the players should be paid well, but c’mon, these guys play 7-8 years in the NFL and they are set for life. Then on top of that they get the standard NFL retirement which beats most retirement packages regular people get for working 30 years, plus they had ample opportunity and time to get their college degree free of charge and with numerous perks. While the rest of us schmoes paid for our own college education and it would take most of us 10+ years for us to make what an NFL player makes at the veteran minimum…..all to play a GAME!
    I’m 36 years-old and I still play football because I love it… but like most other people I have to pay play…and these fools, thugs, and felons (not everybody but there are too many) are making way too much money to do something most people would kill to do.
    Seriously, endorsing the players is like endorsing an elitist society where a person can make millions despite being a total sociopath, thug, or general screw-up, just because he runs a little bit faster, or is a little bit stronger (the differences between guys on rosters and guys not quite making the cut are often nominal) than the other guys. Sports salaries are a joke, I believe players should be getting rich but when a guy like Antonio Bryant gets “Stuck” with the franchise tag and are unhappy about getting paid $9.88 million and he did very little to justify the contrac to begin with, then there is something seriously wrong.

  8. Deb says: Feb 14, 2010 3:52 PM

    @brasho …
    That is the most ridiculous assessment of the labor situation I’ve ever heard.
    The owners aren’t going broke while paying undeserving players a fortune out of the goodness of their hearts. In any business, labor makes up the bulk of the operating costs. It’s no different in the NFL–except in the NFL, the owners skim $1 billion off the top before they even start to divide the rest of the pie. I don’t care how much the players make, their salaries are based on what they contribute to the bottom line. If the players didn’t make it, the money would go straight into the pockets of the owners–not back into the pockets of the fans. And the owners are jacking up ticket prices to line their own pockets, not to pay player salaries. That money comes primarily from television revenues.
    There are nearly 2,000 players in the NFL, and most are never arrested for anything. All professions–including yours–have their share of bad apples. They got where they are because they took their natural gifts and worked their butts off to train and discipline themselves to become elite athletes–the injuries, the surgeries, the training schedules. You have no idea what you’re talking about if you think the NFL elite got to this level just because they could run a little faster.
    This is about greedy corporate execs who already take a larger piece of the cut than in almost any industry wanting an even bigger piece. Meanwhile the players, whose careers last only a short time, have to earn what they can while they can–before a serious injury destroys their earning potential altogether. You can support the poor lil owners if you want. But they sure as heck wouldn’t support you. And even if everything goes their way in these negotiations, don’t be holding your breath waiting for those ticket prices to come down.

  9. edgy1957 says: Feb 14, 2010 4:06 PM

    brasho says:
    Edgy-support the players all you want but it is because of the players’ high salaries they most people can’t afford to go to football games anymore.
    ***********************
    Who told you that – the owner-fairy? Puhleeze. The players didn’t force the owners to build new stadiums, no matter what you think and most of the money came from the public so the owners didn’t pay a damn thing for them, in the first place. The Dallas Cowboys priced their fans out of the seats with their PSLs that STARTED at $16,000 and went up to $150,000 – the most expensive in sports. I was a season ticket holder for an AF2 team that moved into a new arena THAT THEY DIDN’T PAY ONE DIME FOR and my season tickets TRIPLED in price. I asked them for an explanation since the arena was already bought and paid for and instead of an explanation, they moved me BACK into a different section (I was in the front row at the time). The team wasn’t even in the playoff race in the first AF2 season UNTIL the league changed its rules and added 4 more teams before the season ended and because of the fact that they were a “playoff team” the year before, they jacked up the price of tickets the next year and I dropped my season tickets for a couple of years and so did a lot of other people (and I dropped my season tickets when they tripled them and I haven’t answered one of their pleas to renew since). Players’ salaries had NOTHING to do with why they tripled the ticket prices in the first place and they really don’t have much to do with the NFL situation, either. Take away the ticket revenue that the AVERAGE fan pays and the NFL teams still suckle from an average $200 mil teat PER TEAM. When ticket prices skyrocket in the playoffs and the Super Bowl, do you think that the NFL players are seeing an incredible jump in THEIR take of that? How about the preseason games that you pay for that feature guys who are barely getting paid by NFL standards and NFL starters DON’T make a prorated salary that equates to their regular season salary and YET, you pay nearly full price for those tickets.
    Look at the Super Bowl. Let’s count 106 players that get paid. That mean that for that game, the winning and losing players got $6,625,000 and based on the attendance, the “fans” paid $89.46 per ticket to pay for the players’ salaries. Stub Hub says that the “fans” paid an average of $2400+ per ticket and if we say that it’s a big mark up and the league only got $800 per ticket, where is all that player expense? Again, PLAYER ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
    Set for life? Who told you that, the fantasy-fairy? These guys have to pay for their own healthcare and it costs a hell of a lot more than you’ll ever pay for and it’s bankrupted a lot of them (past AND present). Do you think that hip-replacement surgery is cheap? There are far more of these guys that played ONE season and won’t see crap from their time with the NFL except long term bills and misery from injuries that put them out of the league.
    Oh and it’s funny how schmoes like you whine about the players “just playing a game” and yet, you don’t complain about actors “just pretending to be someone else” and the biggest stars make a hell of a lot more than the biggest stars in the NFL. Plain and simple – jealousy is the main drive behind all of this.

  10. GoBrowns19 says: Feb 14, 2010 4:20 PM

    While looking out the window of my $700 a month apartment that I can’t afford, I find myself crying…nah…sobbing for these poor players. 6 Mercedes? That’s for peasants. 3 Houses? Hell, I could get three houses with $600,000, so that’s nothing. These guys are so screwed.

  11. smashmouthd says: Feb 14, 2010 6:02 PM

    @ edgy1957
    That does indeed seem logical, certainly if I had no experience trying to run a business I might be inclined to be swayed by your logic.
    Lets say the players did indeed only get roughly 11% of the NFL’s total take of those SB tickets.
    Now, who pays for the security that worked the SB, the private company as well as the state and local police that worked the game?
    Who pays for all the support persons who take care of the field, keep the stadium running, work the phones, the electricians, plumbers, etc. ?
    Who paid for the half-time show, and how much did it cost them (in million$) to get the WHO to perform?
    How about the staff of both teams?
    Travel costs?
    Production?

  12. smashmouthd says: Feb 14, 2010 6:31 PM

    Deb
    This isn’t about fairness or right or wrong, its about business and who has the power in these negotiations.
    In 2006 the players had equal or more power than the Owners did, and the owners were not united, and the players did very well for themselves.
    In 2010 the owners have more power, the owners have been planning for this show-off since 2006 when many of them were not happy with the deal… they now have negotiated contracts with the networks that will pay them even if there is no football in 2011. Some of the owners have many of the players’ contracts ending in 2010, anticipating years in advance, some even have coaches contracts that are void if their is no football in 2011.
    On top of that the economy is weaker, which means the smartest thing for owners to do is FREEZE ticket costs, and other fan costs… and I don’t think the owners have any interest in increasing player salaries and benefits while doing so.

  13. edgy1957 says: Feb 14, 2010 7:52 PM

    smashmouthd says:
    Who pays for all the support persons who take care of the field, keep the stadium running, work the phones, the electricians, plumbers, etc. ?
    **************************
    Do you believe that costs for upkeep at the stadium went up by 10 times between the end of the regular season and the Super Bowl? What’s the excuse for raising the prices for playoff games NOT named the Super Bowl? The year before free agency, Super Bowl tickets cost $175; the year after – the very same $175. There WAS a time where even the average person could pay for a ticket to the Super Bowl but that’s not the case any more. Do you honestly believe that it’s because of the players? Their share of the playoff pie is even SMALLER than what they get in the regular season and yet, the owners raise the price of tickets and end up pricing the ordinary fan out of the game and replacing them with corporate fat-cats, who don’t have 1/10 the devotion of their REAL fans.

  14. SpartaChris says: Feb 14, 2010 8:17 PM

    edgy1957 says:
    February 14, 2010 2:06 PM
    Let’s face it, there is a lot of NON-FOOTBALL related income that will go into the owners’ pockets when the new stadiums are built so the players won’t be getting a taste of that (especially since the other owners won’t receive a share of that). Just think how you’d like it if your boss did the same thing to you?
    ====================================
    Yeah, so what? Unless they purchased a share of the stadium, why should they receive any compensation for non-NFL related events? Should they also be entitled to a piece of the team owner’s non-football related investment portfolio? Perhaps they should also be receiving compensation from the owners other business dealings?
    Your logic is fatally flawed.

  15. edgy1957 says: Feb 14, 2010 9:05 PM

    SpartaChris says:
    Yeah, so what? Unless they purchased a share of the stadium, why should they
    ******************
    You haven’t been paying attention: they WILL be purchasing a share of the stadium because the money will come from what the players WOULD HAVE GOTTEN and it’s specifically for new stadiums and new revenue streams.

  16. SpartaChris says: Feb 14, 2010 10:16 PM

    I love the “would have” argument. Well here’s one for ya- If I “would have” hit the lottery numbers last night, I “would have” gotten $20 M. So using your logic, should I be entitled to a portion of that money from the person who ultimately won? Or how about this- If I “would have” started Microsoft or Dell, I “would be” a billionaire. Perhaps I should be entitled to a portion of that money as well?
    I mean, in both scenarios, I “would have been” a rich man. So, using your logic, shouldn’t I be entitled to something?
    As I said before, your logic is fatally flawed.

  17. realitypolice says: Feb 14, 2010 10:32 PM

    Oh and it’s funny how schmoes like you whine about the players “just playing a game” and yet, you don’t complain about actors “just pretending to be someone else” and the biggest stars make a hell of a lot more than the biggest stars in the NFL. Plain and simple – jealousy is the main drive behind all of this.
    —————–
    I couldn’t agree more. Why do we begrudge athletes, who actually have to be good at what they do and suffer tremendous risk to their health, the money they make, while others with much less talent, make so much more? Julie Kavner- the woman who does Marge Simpson’s voice on the Simpsons, makes much more per year than 95% of the players in the league. And she will get many, many more years in which to earn $$ than most athletes, who will make 95% of the money they will make their entire lives by the time they are 30.

  18. Deb says: Feb 14, 2010 10:47 PM

    @smashmouthd …
    Not sure why you addressed that to me. I was simply taking to someone who thinks the owners are choirboys and the players are trying to bilk them. I thought I’d made it clear that I’m well aware who the power players are in this scenario.
    I’m also well aware that labor negotations have never been about fairness. Yes, the owners have set themselves up quite nicely and I expect things will go just as they’ve planned. But I’ll still keep calling them out for the greedy, exploitive SOBs most of them are. And I’ll still keep pointing out that any fan who thinks the players are the bad guys and the owners are poor fellas just trying to pay their bills is a bloody fool. Workers are workers, whether they make $10/hour or $10 million/year. And I’m with them.
    @GoBrowns19 … You can buy three houses for $600,000? Three? For $600,000? You obviously don’t live in Florida.

  19. realitypolice says: Feb 14, 2010 10:47 PM

    I’m 36 years-old and I still play football because I love it… but like most other people I have to pay play…and these fools, thugs, and felons (not everybody but there are too many) are making way too much money to do something most people would kill to do.
    ———————————-
    And if you had ever in your life been good enough where someone would have considered paying you to play, you would have gladly taken the money. I love when two bit wannabes compare themselves to elite athletes.

  20. edgy1957 says: Feb 14, 2010 10:50 PM

    SpartaChris says:
    – If I “would have” hit the lottery numbers last night, I “would have” gotten $20 M.
    ***************
    Talk about flawed logic. Try this one for size, genius: I go into your wallet and take $20 and buy lottery tickets and hit the jacket pot. Are you entitled to anything even though it was MY idea to buy the ticket and all I did was use your money? Your fantasy scenarios hinge on the fact that you didn’t do anything but sit back and complain while the reality is that someone took money from someone else and if they hadn’t, they wouldn’t have gotten the revenue in the first place. NEXT….

  21. realitypolice says: Feb 14, 2010 10:52 PM

    GoBrowns19 says:
    February 14, 2010 4:20 PM
    While looking out the window of my $700 a month apartment that I can’t afford, I find myself crying…nah…sobbing for these poor players. 6 Mercedes? That’s for peasants. 3 Houses? Hell, I could get three houses with $600,000, so that’s nothing. These guys are so screwed.
    ———————————–
    Did you watch TV today? Did it bother you that everyone on every show will make more this year than you will in your life? That people who starred in sitcoms that ENDED 10 years ago will make more in residuals for doing NOTHING this year than you will in your entire life? No? Then why all the venom towards pro athletes?

  22. realitypolice says: Feb 14, 2010 10:57 PM

    Seriously, endorsing the players is like endorsing an elitist society where a person can make millions despite being a total sociopath, thug, or general screw-up, just because he runs a little bit faster, or is a little bit stronger (the differences between guys on rosters and guys not quite making the cut are often nominal) than the other guys. Sports salaries are a joke
    ———————
    But supporting the owners, who were mostly already billionaires before they bought their teams, is NOT endorsing and elitist society?

  23. SpartaChris says: Feb 15, 2010 1:03 AM

    Oh please, enough with the “They risk their health” nonsense. It’s ludicrous and makes you look like an idiot. They know full well what the risks are, and no one is holding a gun to their head, or otherwise forcing them to play football. They have a choice whether they decide to play or not. Should they choose to do so, they can decide to give up the exorbitant amount of money they make and seek a safer job elsewhere.

  24. magni says: Feb 15, 2010 1:22 AM

    Smashmouthd has is right. The owners are still unhappy about the deal they got last time and thought they way over paid the players. This time the economy is down and they want to make up for giving up too much last time.
    The players might be in a “be careful what you wish for” situation. They might think it’s great not to have a cap, but then there’s also no floor and teams could pay as little in team salary as they want. Go ask the Tampa Bay Rays how they liked that when A-Rod made more than their entire roster.
    They need to get this together before March and implement a slotted rookie salary. Seems like that should take all of a day to hammer out. And then bump up the veteran minimums to make them happy. Freeze the cap for two years with this poor economy and then put in a standard of living increase for the next few years after that. Done.
    I realize it’s not that simple, but come on, if both sides screw the pooch on this, they might never get back the game that we love.

  25. ispysomething7 says: Feb 15, 2010 7:27 AM

    Florio, they strike, then you’re unemployed. I say everyone should take a cut. Cut the player salaries and cut the ticket, merchandise, and other football related costs; ex. TV ad revenue. Let the fans have a peice of the pie. That way the owners make less.
    People are forgetting that everyone has their hand out, not just the players and owners. And we as fans keep paying.

  26. Deb says: Feb 15, 2010 3:58 PM

    @SpartaChris …
    Yes, injuries are part of the risk of playing professional sports. The point in bringing it up is that these players have a limited career window. In my line of work, as long as my mind functions and my fingers can type, my earning power can last 50 years or more. Star pro football players may have 10-12 years. The average player has 3-4. If they suffer a catastrophic injury, their careers are over immediately. In the past, the owners exploited the athletes, forced them to play injured, paid them mediocre wages, and threw them away with nothing to fall back on when they could no longer function. Fortunately, players today have a little more leverage. Now they need to get all they can while they can. That’s their business reality.

  27. SpartaChris says: Feb 15, 2010 10:42 PM

    edgy1957 says:
    February 14, 2010 10:50 PM
    Talk about flawed logic. Try this one for size, genius: I go into your wallet and take $20 and buy lottery tickets and hit the jacket pot. Are you entitled to anything even though it was MY idea to buy the ticket and all I did was use your money? Your fantasy scenarios hinge on the fact that you didn’t do anything but sit back and complain while the reality is that someone took money from someone else and if they hadn’t, they wouldn’t have gotten the revenue in the first place. NEXT….
    ======================================
    Dude, no. There’s no comparison. You’re talking about STEALING money from someone. The owners aren’t stealing anything. Negotiating a salary reduction is not the same. You’re an idiot if you think it is.
    Man, I really hope you don’t breed.

  28. SpartaChris says: Feb 15, 2010 10:54 PM

    @Deb- I’m not arguing their business reality. It’s not like I thing the players should make peanuts. I have no problem with them making as much as they can while they can, as they should. They should most definitely be well paid as it’s deserved in my mind.
    But I don’t have sympathy for the short career/injury risk argument. Sorry, but they know the risks ahead of time. They know professional football careers don’t last all that long, and yet they still choose to play. It’s a choice they willingly make.

  29. SpartaChris says: Feb 15, 2010 11:00 PM

    @edgy-
    Let me explain the differences to you before you try to come back with some other lame example.
    Negotiation is about give and take. It’s where two parties work together to come to some mutual agreement. In this case, the owners are simply asking the players to voluntarily take a pay cut. In exchange, the players union will likely ask the owners for some kind of concession.
    The ridiculous example you made where you steal my wallet and in turn buy lottery tickets is, well, stealing. There was no negotiation. You picked my pocket and used the stolen money for your personal gain.
    See? Negotiation = two people working together to reach a mutual agreement.
    Stealing = stealing.
    Stealing != negotiation.
    Thus ends the lesson. I hope you took notes. I tried to type slow so you could understand it all.

  30. edgy1957 says: Feb 15, 2010 11:48 PM

    SpartaChris says:
    The ridiculous example you made where you steal my wallet and in turn buy lottery tickets is, well, stealing. There was no negotiation. You picked my pocket and used the stolen money for your personal gain.
    ****************************
    What incentive is there for them? You say that it’s give and take and yet, all I see is GIVE and that = STEALING. I proposed a concession and just like one of the owners, you spit on it. ALL GIVE AND NO TAKE.
    When you put your money down to watch a game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Tennessee Titans, do you do it so you can watch 60 minutes of shots on the giant big screen of Jerry Jones and Bud Adams or is it the 100+ players who are playing football on the field?
    When you buy NFL apparel, do you buy a jersey that’s a replica of one worn by or is it one that Dan Snyder wears when he’s playing. Oh, that’s right, Dan doesn’t play.
    Does EA Sports make a game featuring all 32 owners playing against each other or is it 1300+ REAL players?
    The money that comes into the league is SOLELY because of the players. Now, if they were actors, you’d just ignore what’s going on like everyone else does but since they’re athletes that just play a game for millions of dollars that you jealous people feel that they should get down on their knees to kiss their owners’ asses for being lucky enough to get paid, you can’t see past your own jealousy.
    The NFL has said that they’re bleeding money BUT they changed their tune after the players asked them to open up their books and now, the tune is that they need the money to build new stadiums and open up new revenue streams. If they’re going to take it from the players’ portion then the players need to get a taste of the action because without the players, they wouldn’t have had the money in the first place (Let’s face it, quite a few of these owners were in the Arena League and they NEVER had the kind of success there that they had in the NFL, which shouldn’t have been a surprise to those that watched them piss away NFL Europe(a)).
    If the NFL owners want to keep the money then they should either use their own money or they should borrow it like a normal business. They don’t even want to partner with EACH OTHER on the revenue, let alone the players so I have no sympathy for them. People talk about what a genius Jerry Jones is but more than $475 million of the $1.15 billion it took to build his arena came from the city of Arlington and the NFL and the rest came from PSL seating that priced the ordinary Dallas Cowboy fan out of the stadium (BTW, for those of you who want to cry for Jerry, the team leases the stadium for $2 million per year AND is kept off the city’s tax rolls. They also have an option to buy the stadium out right in 30 years). For full details about the deal (Outdated because it was supposed to only cost $650 mil to build it: http://www.ci.arlington.tx.us/citysecretary/pdf/110204/110204_faq_english.pdf). In addition to that, concessions are handled by a company that’s owned by George Steinbrenner and George Steinbrenner-wanna-be, Jerry Jones. Talk about a sweetheart deal and you want people to believe that the players don’t deserve a share of the pie that THEY are responsible for – JEEZ.

  31. SpartaChris says: Feb 16, 2010 11:31 AM

    edgy1957 says:
    February 15, 2010 11:48 PM
    What incentive is there for them? You say that it’s give and take and yet, all I see is GIVE and that = STEALING. I proposed a concession and just like one of the owners, you spit on it. ALL GIVE AND NO TAKE.
    =================================
    Yeah, that’s what negotiating is. The owners, same as the players union, have a right to “spit on” any offer made. It’s called a collective BARGAINING agreement for a reason. They make deals with one another to come up with an equitable result.
    How’s this: How about you buy (or start) a business and then, pay me as an employee with absolutely no liability with the business 60% of what you make.
    You like to point out that without the players, there would be no NFL. While true, the same is true the other way. If it weren’t for the owners taking the risk to own and operate the team, the league also wouldn’t exist.

  32. edgy1957 says: Feb 16, 2010 12:55 PM

    SpartaChris, what liability are you talking about? What risk? Please, you spend so much time using those terms but you have NEVER, EVER defined what they mean? What risk? What liability? Just exactly do they risk? Their money? What? Please, show us your financial genius by telling everyone here what tangible proof that you have that they do so and then be prepared to be proven WRONG.

  33. edgy1957 says: Feb 16, 2010 6:54 PM

    The NFLPA accuses the NFL of short-changing low-revenue clubs on the amount of money that has been distributed from the supplemental revenue pool:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4919107

  34. SpartaChris says: Feb 16, 2010 8:07 PM

    edgy1957 says:
    February 16, 2010 12:55 PM
    SpartaChris, what liability are you talking about? What risk? Please, you spend so much time using those terms but you have NEVER, EVER defined what they mean? What risk? What liability? Just exactly do they risk? Their money? What? Please, show us your financial genius by telling everyone here what tangible proof that you have that they do so and then be prepared to be proven WRONG.
    =======================================
    Well yeah, genius, they’re risking their money. And lots of it. To the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s why it’s important for these teams to be self sustaining and profitable.
    Have you ever invested in a business? How about stocks? Judging by your naivety, I’m guessing not, so here goes: Businesses can (and do) lose money, which means owners can (and do) lose money.
    Jesus, go take an economics class. Then take a business 101 class. You might actually learn something.

  35. edgy1957 says: Feb 16, 2010 9:53 PM

    Well yeah, genius, they’re risking their money. And lots of it.
    *****************************
    Apparently an economics class did YOU no good (If you ever took one because it’s apparent that you never did) because you can’t even understand SPORTS economics, which is FAR different from what all other businesses have to put up with. For example, genius, if all the companies in an industry attempted to do what the NFL did, they would all find themselves in violations of — wait for it – ANTI-TRUST LAWS.
    These guys risk NOTHING. “To the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.” Are you freaking serious? They don’t risk ANY of their own money. They get cities and states to build them stadiums and if they have to put up their “own” money, they get their fans to put up PSL money (Go look at the Cowboys new stadium and look at the fact that there are 4 – count ‘em – 4 sections in the entire stadium, all in the nose bleed section, that have no OPTION money that you have to pay to get seats. Other than that, the rest of the 80,000 seats have options and if you can’t afford to pay for it all at once, they’ll finance it at 8% over 30 years AND get this – they’ll only guarantee the ticket prices for one year. Even the Jets give you 5 years. Yep, cry for Jerry).
    The owners get an average $236 million from revenue that doesn’t involve ONE CENT of their money. It comes from a $3.7 billion TV teat, tickets, luxury boxes, licensing fees (that are because of the players) and other misc revenue. Do you honestly believe that Jerry Jones is even close to losing money? He ONLY pays $2 million in rent and $500,000 for a youth program in Arlington. Woo Hoo, given all the revenue that he got from TV and the gate, just where is the risk? Is it because of his marketing genius? Well, the Arena League can tell you a different story about his genius there. Face it, if NFL Films had declared the Miami Dolphins as America’s Team, Jerry Jones would have had a much harder time trying to market his team. Dallas’ national following exploded after that and he had nothing to do with it (Just as the game between the Giants and the Colts put the NFL on the map, at a time when it was more of a national joke). Now, if the revenue ever DID go down then so would the ceiling and the floor so there’s also a safeguard built into the system. Yes, they’re risking a lot of money…JEEZ.

Leave a Reply

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