Last week, the NFL Players Association held its annual meeting in Hawaii, attempting to create a sense of unity.
This week, the NFL owners gather for their annual meeting in Orlando, boasting an unprecedented degree of togetherness.
But is it real? More importantly, is it lasting?
We don’t think so.
It’s easy for the owners to unify as to the notion that the players are getting too much money under the current labor deal. But when it’s time to work something out with the hired help, there’s a more complex issue that continues to linger: How will the 32 teams handle the problem of unshared revenues?
The league successfully has buried a source of friction that four years ago the NFLPA used to leverage the current deal, wisely tying an agreement on the players’ share to an agreement among the 32 teams regarding a system for sharing unshared money from various revenue streams that weren’t contemplated when the NFL adopted a Three Musketeers approach in the 1960s. The fact that the NFL has tried, unsuccessfully, to scuttle the current system of supplemental revenue share suggests that plenty of them think it isn’t working. If that’s the case, a new approach must be devised.
It’s an issue that still has the potential to divide owners, with low-revenue teams advocating expanded sharing and high-revenue teams wanting to keep more of what they earn. Forging a solution won’t be easy, and it will require real leadership from within the ranks of the owners.
The point is that any unity among the owners applies only to the fact that they believe the players now get too much. When the question becomes their own respective pieces of the pie, the 32 folks currently acting as one will suddenly begin looking out only for No. 1.
Even for us long-time, serious NFL fans, it’s nearly impossible to put ourselves in the shoes of “ruling elite”, i.e. team prez, GM, or owner, and at the end of the day, this is strictly a business. No different than the grocery store down the street, just with alot more money, publicity, and in some cases the morale of a city or region on their shoulders. On the whole, unity is good, but not if it’s fleeting and insincere, because then it’s just a front and essentially collusion. Alot of players got screwed this season because of the change in the clause re: years played in the league and free-agency eligibility, but neither the players or management want to walk away unhappy. Why celebrate the teams’ unity? Let’s work for NFLPA and NFL-management unity…that’s legitimate and can sustain the league now and years into the future.
They are so unified that they can’t agree on revenue sharing! Oh snap
Are these arrogant billionaires truly this stupid? They really feel the players get too much?
If anything, the players deserve more, not less. These evil morons need to get over themselves. Most of them were born into money and have never done anything to deserve the “fame” and status they have. Why do they deserve multi million dollar profits for doing nothing? I guess I just don’t get it.
I hope the players hold out until the league just collapses. I know they won’t, but I wish they would. America is turning into a slave labor country. All over the USA, the hard workers are being forced to take less. Positions continue to be eliminated and those who keep their jobs are forced to work harder for less money, while CEOs/Owners continue to get richer and richer.
Total bull. I hope the players don’t take a penny less.
Wow, really just_a_cigar…you’re equating NFL player salaries to slave labor? Nevermind the fact that NFL salaries have been going up for as long as I can remember it, not going down.
And I’m on the side of owners. Players share none of the financial responsibility the owners have to. The owners (the majority of them) have debts on their stadiums (both new & old) that were built not only to increase attendance but to also increase the revenue stream that goes to these players. The players don’t suffer the fallout of fan ire from knuckleheaded players.
I find it hard to believe that any business can successfully operate for long when 59% of their revenue goes to paying their employees (in this case, the players).
And nevermind the fact that most of these owners made their money from taking business risks and succeeding. Yeah, they’re rich but for the most part, they’ve earned it. But I guess if you work hard, are successful, and get rich doing so, you’ve obviously exploited someone along the way to do so.
just_a_cigar: The players need the owners CONSIDERABLY MORE than the owners need the players, for the reasons you mentioned. The Owners have much more power here. Players will cave under paternity suits (ok, maybe that’s just cromartie), etc etc, and the owners have other business/inheritances to fall back on.
The players make ENOUGH. The problem is the owners have to be careful here, because I bet the players will concede their amount of the revenue a little to get more GUARANTEES on their contracts. That would be worse for the owners than the current situation.
I’m sick of all the wealth envying democratic mind set people regarding this issue. This is a business. Period. There are owners, CEO’s, managers and employees. All you have to do is move the decimal points to the left and…BOOM! its no different than the businesses that make up America. A successful business is NOT run and dominated by the employees. Just look at the Union dominated industries. They are failing in America (i.e. the auto industry). If the NFL players union dominates the product will fail.
And another thing. The NFL team owners are not people who were born with great athletic ability and were ushered through high school and college by boosters and administrators. Then given insane signing bonuses based on “up side” Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young…do you think these guys EVER passed an English or Math class in their life?
These are savvy, accomplished business men who have EARNED their money and created a high demand product. Everyone needs to lose the Obama Marxist attitude towards ownership and NFL management. Look where Obama economics has got us so far!
Mkepackfan,
I don’t think he meant the NFL players salaries are comparable to that of slavery. If you read carefully, you would read that this is something happening all over the country no matter which profession your in. Owners never make seem to make enough money no matter what, and they always seem to try to squeeze every drop they can out of a dry stone. Unfortunately, it always means that the little guy gets screwed. I thank god the Packers have no owner and are a non-profit organization. It must really suck to always be worrying about your team packing up and moving to LA. I do think their is a problem when a team like the Packers has to take some of their profits and give it to a billionaire owner who has a floundering attandence record (Queens). If these owners are having so much trouble making money, they should either move the team to someplace where they can make money, or sell the team all together. I don’t think it’s fair that a small market team like the Packers who run a solid, profitable business should have to pick up the slack for some cheap ass billionaire who made a bad business decision. It’s like the government is running the NFL sometimes.
just_a_cigar, why don’t you admit that your motto is “Workers of the world unite”? You are such a communist. Labor always thinks it “deserves” something. The fact that owners are wealthy does not make them evil, except to people like you. The players haven’t ponied up any of their money to take the risks involved with starting and maintaining a league. If it wasn’t for those “evil” owners, most of them would be plying their trade in the custodial arts industry. Get this, you socialist buffoon, players are EMPLOYEES, and the are entitled to NOTHING more than their contracts say the owner of the team they WORK FOR will pay them.
@ De Smith: I hope you realize the rason for Obama getting elected is because of the mess Bush placed us in. The players have to deal with so much physically after their playing careers are over,so I’m for them fighting for every dollar they can get. Hopefully both sides can strike a deal that mutally beneficial.
Johnnyb612,
I understand your concerns, but the NFL (and all sports leagues) need to begin thinking of themselves as one large business where each of the owners owns a slice. It does one franchise no good to succeed financially if the others are failing…they need each other. The league’s poorer teams are partially responsible for the success of the richer teams, because no one is paying $75 plus parking plus concessions plus Sunday Ticket to watch the Patriots or Cowboys or Redskins play an intrasquad game.
I think if teams have built their stadiums with little or no public money, then they should be able to keep a good chunk of stadium revenue for themselves. If the owners want to set up some kind of watchdog system to make sure none of them are taking the money and running, or slacking on their efforts to create revenue, then fine. But I think they need to have a comprehensive revenue sharing program. These guys rise or fall together.
Johnnyb612,
excellent point. The pack are as small market as it can get and very successful business wise and yet we subsidize billionaire owned teams with bigger markets who can’t run a franchise or motivate a fanbase. Maybe Obama will nationalize the NFL.
# Johnnyb612 says: March 21, 2010 1:51 PM
Mkepackfan,
I don’t think he meant the NFL players salaries are comparable to that of slavery. If you read carefully, you would read that this is something happening all over the country no matter which profession your in. Owners never make seem to make enough money no matter what, and they always seem to try to squeeze every drop they can out of a dry stone. Unfortunately, it always means that the little guy gets screwed. I thank god the Packers have no owner and are a non-profit organization. It must really suck to always be worrying about your team packing up and moving to LA. I do think their is a problem when a team like the Packers has to take some of their profits and give it to a billionaire owner who has a floundering attandence record (Queens). If these owners are having so much trouble making money, they should either move the team to someplace where they can make money, or sell the team all together. I don’t think it’s fair that a small market team like the Packers who run a solid, profitable business should have to pick up the slack for some cheap ass billionaire who made a bad business decision. It’s like the government is running the NFL sometimes.
===============================
I don’t disagree with anything you said. However, I feel those on the side of the players need to take a look at the financial statements coming from the teams. Granted, the only team that has published theirs is the Packers because they are publicly owned.
Looking at the Packers, they’re roughly a $1 billion dollar franchise and for the last fiscal year their financials have been published for (08-09) their profit was only $23 million (before taxes and extraordinary items and investment income/losses). $23 million for a franchise worth $1 billion…some players are getting close to making that in 1 year! And the Packers are one of the more popular franchises who are near the top in merchandising income and usually in the top 10-12 in overall revenues.
I can only imagine how the other teams are doing.
Not sure what’s worse: Tea Party Animals or Donkey Logic.
And now we’ve got football fans to lead us through this difficult time. *mouthfart*
I don’t think there is any way the players will take concessions, if they do they will get it back in some other way.
This business is not like many others so it’s hard to compare it to that. Yes the billionaire owners put up the initial financial responsibility but the players are the talent. The NFL would be nothing without the talent. People are not going to pay to see average players or scrubs. So it’s not like the owners can just get rid of these employees and go hire some new ones. This gives the workers/talent in the NFL more power than in a avreage business employees. These guys are unique in there talents and they are putting there health on the line to go to work. So saying this is like an average business is just untrue.
jerry wants the players to take less as he needs mo re for another leather face
MkePackFan says:
The owners (the majority of them) have debts on their stadiums
***************************
Who told you this, the ownership fairy? The majority of the owners don’t owe a thing on their stadiums because they got someone else to build them for them. 10 of the stadiums were built 100% by the public, 6 stadiums required outlays of $11 mil to $49 mil from the teams, while 9 teams less than 50% of the costs and only 6 have been financed by more than 50% by the teams and quite a bit of that has been financed by PSL.
I’ve compiled what it has cost so far (not counting the new stadium for the Giants and Jets but that is coming soon as well as updating “public” and “private” financing as some of the “private” financing is actually public. For example, Qualcomm has been listed as “private” but it was financed via a referendum and that’s hardly “private”, which would be what the owners pay) at boards.edgy-sports.com. Just look up The “Risk” That Owners Take.
MkePackFan, you need to look at that “profit” because they are a non-profit and they’ve declared a lot of retained earnings (they had as much as $83 mil in retained earnings back in the ’90s and none of it was negative cash flow), which isn’t always a negative. Their biggest problem was that they took a $50 mil loss in investment income, which they had in stocks and real estate. The Packers are in very good shape and so are most of the teams in the NFL. None of these teams are unprofitable. They might not be AS profitable but they’re still in the black (unless you look at their raw numbers, which can use a lot of accounting tricks to make it look like they’re in the red until they’re forced to disclose that they’re using them).