Skip to content

League, union continue to squabble over “60 percent”

GoodellSmithCongress AP

The NFLPA and the NFL continue to be under the impression that the fans care about their efforts to spin the financial aspects of their labor dispute.

They don’t.

As a result, we were tempted to ignore the latest exercise in semantics regarding the current labor deal.  But, hey, it’s kind of slow today.

In an effort to reverse the perception that the players get 60 cents of every dollar generated by the game, the union has sent a letter “to sports editors nationwide” explaining that the players get less than 60 cents on the dollar, because “owners take expenses credits off the top.”

The union then lists the actual percentages received by the players since 2000.  The amount is much closer to 50 cents on the dollar.

Before bothering to gauge whether anyone happened to hear a tree falling in a forest of ambivalence, the NFL responded with the creative notion that the players still get 60 percent of all revenues because the money that is “committed to revenue-generating costs and investments such as stadiums” doesn’t count as revenue at all.  In a move that does nothing to reflect the spirit of the season, the league also called the union’s characterization “voodoo economics.”

Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong, depending on how the term “revenue” is defined.  Frankly, we think that the union is more right than wrong, because the money that is “committed to revenue-generating costs and investments such as stadiums” comes from (wait for it) revenue generated by the game.

Moreover, the money that is “committed to revenue-generating costs and investments such as stadiums” ordinarily would come out of the pockets of the people who own the teams.

So score one for the union.  If you care.

And you don’t.

Permalink 19 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
19 Responses to “League, union continue to squabble over “60 percent””
  1. stanjam says: Dec 17, 2010 5:59 PM

    Look, you are all bloody rich. Just sign a deal so you all can make millions more than most of us struggling fans EVER will, and get on the field and play!

    I don’t care who gets what, bottom line is the FANS pay the bill, and it is the FANS who will suffer if you don’t get going. So get going and play!

    We really don’t want to hear a bunch of wealthy owners and wealthy players cry about who gets the most millions. Frankly we don’t understand it, because if ANY of us were offered a salary anywhere NEAR what you would get, we wouldn’t stir the pot, just get on our knees and thank God we are so lucky!

  2. hobartbaker says: Dec 17, 2010 6:02 PM

    Originally Atallah was going to go with the spin that “Players are not getting 60%, the owners are getting 40%.”. But even DeMaurice Smith wasn’t baffled by that for very long.

  3. plt2006 says: Dec 17, 2010 6:15 PM

    Actually, there are non-trolls who post on this site who actually care about the CBA negotiations.

    Revenue is revenue. It can be operating revenue, incidental revenue, etc, but it’s still revenue.

    I’m of the opinion that the NFLPA is doing the players a disservice if they’re just going to push for more immediately available money in terms of salary in lieu of actually getting better and longer term benefits for current and former players. They need better job training programs for players transitioning out of the league, better financial management education, better long term healthcare, etc. But since that isn’t really the direction they seem to be headed, I’d be inclined to argue that those putting up the capital to run the league (owners) should keep a larger share, especially since public funding for stadiums seems to be drying up with the austerity measures that cities and states are having to adopt these days.

  4. elyasm says: Dec 17, 2010 6:23 PM

    Surprisingly enough, accountants have actually invented words to help clarify situations like this. Those words are ‘net’ and ‘gross’. I suggest the Players’ Union and the League use them in the future to avoid any further confusion.

  5. ineptguy6 says: Dec 17, 2010 6:32 PM

    Not that I care, but revenue should be defined as every other person in the world defines it. Revenue is any money that comes in. Not money after expenses or any other crap. The owners want to use some weird version of “revenue” that is a cross between actual revenue and profit. Funny that they accuse the players of using “voodoo economics.”

  6. sdboltaction says: Dec 17, 2010 6:34 PM

    Very astute. You’re right, I don’t care.

  7. FinFan68 says: Dec 17, 2010 6:43 PM

    The problem seems to be that the union is looking at an overall percentage instead of what constitutes just pay based on the service provided. The players get compensated very well as it is. League minimum for a vet is over $300,000. The players are compensated very well for their injury risk. They asume no financial risk or burden whatsoever. Management will pay adequate compensation to their employees or the employees will look elsewhere for work…that is not the case here. If individual players had that much of an issue, they could always go work for the UFL…why don’t they? Because they know how good they actually have it but they always want more. Name a non-sports union that demands to get more than 50% of company revenue? Offer them 65% of revenue as long as they take ony 35% of the financial burden…they wouldn’t take it because they would actually lose money.

  8. pftuser says: Dec 17, 2010 6:43 PM

    revenue – definition
    1. For a company, this is the total amount of money received by the company for goods sold or services provided during a certain time period. It also includes all net sales, exchange of assets; interest and any other increase in owner’s equity and is calculated before any expenses are subtracted.

    Easy google.

  9. joetoronto says: Dec 17, 2010 6:54 PM

    Is it right for the players to want more when attendance is down all over the league?

    I don’t think so.

  10. cliverush says: Dec 17, 2010 7:00 PM

    If you put up the money for a team you take a risk that it may lose money. If you play football for a living you are taking a risk but you are getting paid to do so. It is a brutal way to make a living for many who play but the rewards can be enormous. The two parties do not seem to care if they hurt the fans. I am a fan and I care. If you go out this time I will not come back. No NFL Network, premium cable, game tickets, nothing. The entertainment industry has already polluted the game with the broadcast now. They never allow us to see change of personal and barley allow time to absorb the formations. We get plenty of ole’ Britt though. Lots of pictures of idiots dressed up to attract the camera and annoy the fans behind them.

  11. waccoforflacco says: Dec 17, 2010 7:29 PM

    What about Haynesworth getting a $21 million bonus in April to play ANYWHERE they wanted him to play and then keeps all the money and refuses to play.

    Then Defarcus Russell decides to beef up to 300 pounds and have his purple DRANK after he collects his whopping bonus.

    Looks like a lot of thievery on the part of some players is way out of hand. The 60% stuff is small stuff compared to this kind of garbage.

  12. bigdogsolec says: Dec 17, 2010 8:17 PM

    Any normal buisness can’t opperate like this , opperating costs ,credit payments, utilitys,loans should be right off the top. employees next “if they can’t afford a high profile guy , DON’T GET HIM” . what evers left thats the owners profit. IF the owners want ALL THE PROFIT THEN THEY SHOULD BUILD THE STADIUM THEMSELVES. then there’d be no loan payments, and there team would be worth more” Redskins”

    this guy hit it tho .

    Look, you are all bloody rich. Just sign a deal so you all can make millions more than most of us struggling fans EVER will, and get on the field and play!

    I don’t care who gets what, bottom line is the FANS pay the bill, and it is the FANS who will suffer if you don’t get going. So get going and play!

    We really don’t want to hear a bunch of wealthy owners and wealthy players cry about who gets the most millions. Frankly we don’t understand it, because if ANY of us were offered a salary anywhere NEAR what you would get, we wouldn’t stir the pot, just get on our knees and thank God we are so lucky!

  13. nivekred says: Dec 17, 2010 8:50 PM

    All I have to say is that I am in the US Army and make enough to barely get by. These people on both sides need a reality check! I risk my life, who is worth more!

  14. bigdogsolec says: Dec 17, 2010 9:46 PM

    AFTER thinking about it , they should put a cap on how much players are allowed to make” per position ” the econemony is always gonna go up ” last year was $10-$20 MILL per yr for QBS, now it’s looking at $20-$30 MILL? PER YR ? put a max on it , player’s back in the 20’s 30’s ,40’s,50’s,60’s,70’s,80’s ,even the first half of the 90’s, would be praying to god,the’yd have the chance to play JUST 1 GAME AT THESE PAYROLES. PUT A MAX ON POSITIONS , STOP THE FREE AGENCY AUCTION CR-AP

  15. bigdogsolec says: Dec 17, 2010 10:08 PM

    nivekred , YOU ARE WORTH MORE , SERVING OUR COUNTRY, STANDING UP FOR FREEDOM.

    THANK YOU
    ” FOR YOUR SERVICE ”

    These MORONS ” players ,owners ” ,that hold us UNDER PAYED USA CITIZENS, hold us responcible while they pay for those illegale immiagrants, for taking our jobs. ” can’t tax those illegale immagrants”

  16. pftisprocensorship says: Dec 17, 2010 11:21 PM

    FinFan
    You cannot possibly be serious with this. Professional sports are unlike any other industry. In an industry where the product is self reliant on talent and personal skill, it is impossible to compare its industry standards to those with a tangible product. While antitrust regulations are not what they are for baseball, the fact of the matter is there is no comparable corporation to the NFL, as far as the players are concerned. While I do not believe their stated union goals are the best for the union entity, they are entitled to fight for what they believe is fair.
    PS. Union goals should be more geared toward ancillary benefits such as financial education and healthcare.

  17. goldsteel says: Dec 17, 2010 11:39 PM

    As though any of us can do anything about it. Why both sides are obsessed with public opinion if beyond me. They carry the responsibility for the success of the CBA. How we feel about the process and participators is beside the point.

  18. tubal22 says: Dec 18, 2010 12:07 AM

    How about you give 60% of the revenue Haynesworth sucked up back to the rest of the union?

    This is why Unions are garbage. You get a hack like Haynesworth who obviously isn’t worth the paper he uses to wipe his ass, and the union and all their glorious attorneys do everything they can to force the Redskins to pay him.

    You get whiney rich kids (Snyder) paying whiney poor kids (Haynesworth) and have crooked whiney union hacks and brooked whiney attorneys mediating.

    Such is the NFL.

  19. dvnelson72 says: Dec 18, 2010 12:17 PM

    If an important employee, or potential partner, wanted a percentage of GROSS revenue, I would tell them to pound sand. Anyone who gives up a percentage of gross is an idiot.

Leave a Reply

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