Skip to content

Report: CBA talks broke down after union proposed 50-50 split

DeMaurice Smith

So much for optimism.

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Thursday’s bargaining session between the NFL and the NFLPA was canceled after the two sides hit a wall regarding the most important aspect of the deal, the formula for splitting up the money.

Mort reports that the NFLPA proposed a split of roughly 50-50 between players and owners, and that the owners walked away from the table in response.

Apparently, the meeting — which lasted far less than the expected nine hours — got off to a bad start when the NFL’s negotiating team supposedly interpreted the players’ proposal of 49-to-51 cents on the dollar as being the cut of “total football revenue,” not “all revenue.”

Currently, the players get 59.6 cents of each dollar of ‘total football revenue,” a number that is roughly $1 billion less than all revenue generated by the sport.

The league’s misinterpretation of the proposal is a bit surprising, since a 50-50 split of total football revenue would have reflected the much-debated 18 percent reduction that the owners’ reportedly have asked the players to take.  Then again, the union’s decision to propose essentially a 50-50 sharing of all revenue is equally surprising, given that the players currently get roughly that amount under the current deal.

According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the players received 51.87 percent of all revenue in 2002.  In 2003, it dropped to 50.23 percent.  In 2004, it was 52.18 percent.  In 2005, 50.52 percent.  In 2006, it was 52.74 percent.  In 2008, it was 50.96 percent.  In 2007, it was 51.84 percent.  In 2008, it was 50.96 percent.  In 2009, it was 50.06 percent.

Thus, an offer to take 50 cents of every dollar represents no concession at all.

That said, we think it was unreasonable for the league stormed out.  We assume the proposal reflected an opening offer from the union under an “all revenue” model, and opening offers implicitly contain room to move.  With the league refusing to open the books to justify the desire to cut the players’ share, it’s not unreasonable for the players to say, “Look, let’s quit bickering about the league taking money off the top and let’s just work out a formula based on every dollar that comes in.  Our first move is to ask for roughly what we currently get.  Feel free to counter.”

If the NFL truly wanted to do a deal, the NFL would have countered.

It makes us think that the NFL actually wants to lock out the players, or to push the negotiations to the brink of a lockout in the hopes of getting the players to drop their proposal without a counter.

That said, if the union made its proposal as a take-it-or-leave it gesture, then it makes us think that the NFLPA wants to force a lockout in the hopes of getting a better deal via the application of litigation and/or political pressure, a strategy that to date has failed miserably.

Either way, the outside lawyers who are handling the negotiations (Jeffrey Kessler for the union and Bob Batterman for the league) continue to bill by the hour, and every hour of effort expended on the negotiations and a lockout and whatever comes next will serve only to fatten their coffers.

So maybe, just maybe, Robert Kraft — and Shakespeare (possibly a/k/a John Florio) — were right.

Permalink 77 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
77 Responses to “Report: CBA talks broke down after union proposed 50-50 split”
  1. toe4 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:00 AM

    Isn’t that the exact expected opening offer from the union?

  2. mhsx says: Feb 10, 2011 11:02 AM

    If the league wanted a deal equivalent to what they already had, they wouldn’t have opted out of the current CBA.

  3. sdchargers25 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:04 AM

    R.I.P NFL

  4. domeunit says: Feb 10, 2011 11:05 AM

    Good to know that the owners walked on the idea of a fair deal. I may want to start saving for NHL season tickets next season

  5. upperdecker19 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:06 AM

    Remaining optomistic given Mort’s propensity to be completely wrong on just about everything he reports.

  6. commoncents says: Feb 10, 2011 11:07 AM

    The Union has no overhead, they share no risk with the owners, and wouldn’t be tied to any risk like a bad year or bad economy. The Union does not deserve 50-50!!! Most of these players couldn’t survive a year without a paycheck.

  7. 8man says: Feb 10, 2011 11:08 AM

    Somewhere the UFL brass is trying to cobble enough money together for just one more year and hopes that one of the major sport broadcasting players will come knocking…..

    “Hello ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Sunday UFL game of the week on TBS. Today we have the Virginia Destroyers hosting the Las Vegas Locos…”

  8. Old Guy says: Feb 10, 2011 11:10 AM

    I’m already sick of it. Talk radio, newspapers, the internet, and sports television are full of stories about the NFL labor dispute, and, already, I don’t care. So, I’m checking out. I’ll be back to watch and/or read about the draft in April, because I’m still (for now) a fan. But I’m not wasting one more minute listening to either side whine or cry about how bad they have it.

    I’ll leave both the players and the owners with a single thought before I go: Be careful. Don’t assume that you can do whatever you like, and that we’ll be here to embrace you when it’s all settled. Some of us will, but some of us won’t. Your next fight just might be over who gets which piece of a much smaller pie. Don’t believe me? Ask baseball.

    See you in April.

  9. mdpickles says: Feb 10, 2011 11:10 AM

    Too many numbers, couldn’t read. Mongo like football, get er done.

  10. brobokil says: Feb 10, 2011 11:12 AM

    Nothin but greed. It’s sickening. If you care so much about your fans try acting like adults.

    Oh boohoo we each get a couple million less taken from our hundreds of millions we don’t need and never will have any use for other than to keep our fans poor.

    As though you’re not just going to keep raising the ticket prices like you always have.

    Nothing that ANYONE does in the NFL is worth what they already make!

  11. cusoman says: Feb 10, 2011 11:12 AM

    The NFL is just a microcosm on the entire country’s growing obsession with greed and power. This is what happens when two greedy forces fight against each other and the result is the same as it’s always been over time – the common people like you and me lose.

  12. tubal22 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:16 AM

    The ESPN article I read said that there are two “revenues”. “total revenue” and “all revenue”.

    “Total revenue” is after the owners take a $1 billion credit.

    “All revenue” is all revenue.

    In simple terms, the old deal is “total revenue”. The owners read the new deal to include “all revenue”.

    That’s why they walked out.

  13. BC says: Feb 10, 2011 11:17 AM

    The league is angling to get this to an “impasse” situation, so they can impose the current agreement and force the players’ hand. Players strike, they look like the bad guys. Simple.

  14. 3octaveFart says: Feb 10, 2011 11:18 AM

    Just more proof that it’s the owners and not the players who will be depriving us of football next year.

    Good job guys.

  15. lunarpie says: Feb 10, 2011 11:19 AM

    Greed at its best. Both sides are gonna destroy the world’s most popular sport all due to money. Both sides need to look around at the world today and how some people have very little money. A clear sign of how the world is crumbling due to GREED!

  16. sirsupersouthern says: Feb 10, 2011 11:20 AM

    Its obvious the owners mean to squeeze the players as hard as they can this time. The owners can afford to and know that time is on their side. The current system is profitable as it is but the owners still want more.

    It’ll be the owners’ collective faults if there’s no football in 2011, 32 people can essentially ruin an entire year for the rest of the country if they want to. How depressing…

  17. Davo says: Feb 10, 2011 11:22 AM

    “If the NFL truly wanted to do a deal, the NFL would have countered.”

    This pretty much sums it up. Anyone who’s been in negotiations knows you open high and move lower, I can’t believe the NFL doesn’t know this.

    Perhaps a real offer on the table caught them by surprise?

  18. macgee10 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:25 AM

    It just doesn’t make sense why does the league want to lose millions and millions of dollars?? According to this article it seems like the owners are being greedy p*icks with the whole revenue sharing thing. A 55/45 split doesn’t seem THAT bad if the owners want that much favor. It’s still a big drop off but it’s better than nothing.

  19. randolph32 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:25 AM

    Not a surprise for the real first meeting….if the Union did it any other way they’d have an issue with their members.

  20. chapnastier says: Feb 10, 2011 11:29 AM

    By removing the union there is no need for a CBA. Instead, the free market will be allowed to do its job. Players will get paid more for their services if they deserve it and those who are not needed will be forced to find other employment. The NFL could start up 401k plans and profit sharing that would be able to help them after their careers are over. They could even set up education reimbursement much like a company that you or I work for encouraging players who left college early to finish their degrees part time so that they have the ability to earn more money after they retire.

    As a result of all of this, profits would sky rocket, players have the potential to earn more money over a longer period of time and fans would be able to dictate the success of teams. No blackouts would exist because teams that were not able to make money would be forced to move to another market in hopes of making more money.

    Of course none of this has even, nor will it ever be talked about by the media which pushes the idea that unions are essential, even though recent history has shown that all unionized areas of industry fail. Just ask the American Auto Workers.

  21. toe4 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:30 AM

    Players getting in the neighborhood of 42% of all revenue seems about right to me.

    Owners get an 18 game regular season but in exchange pay for all medical expenses for anyone to have played in more than 90 regular season games.

    That was easy.

  22. unbreakable02215 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:30 AM

    Whenever a negotiation becomes a legal matter
    whether it be a collective bargaining agreement,
    a private law suit…a divorce, one side may feel
    it won, both sides may feel they’ve won. But
    the lawyers ? They ALWAYS win. They never
    lose.

  23. macgee10 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:32 AM

    55/45 owners favor it’s alittle ridicious but maybe
    it will get a deal done

  24. 3octaveFart says: Feb 10, 2011 11:36 AM

    Up until now, I really believed both sides would eventually sit down, come to their senses and get a deal done.

    But now with this news, I have for the first time accepted the fact that there won’t be any football next year.

  25. richm2256 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:37 AM

    If the NFL truly wanted to do a deal, the NFL would have countered.

    It makes us think that the NFL actually wants to lock out the players, or to push the negotiations to the brink of a lockout in the hopes of getting the players to drop their proposal without a counter.

    That said, if the union made its proposal as a take-it-or-leave it gesture, then it makes us think that the NFLPA wants to force a lockout in the hopes of getting a better deal via the application of litigation and/or political pressure, a strategy that to date has failed miserably.
    ————————————————-

    Clearly neither side wants to get a deal done.

    At this point then, they should just come out and tell fans that neither side really gives a crap about the fans, and that it’s all about getting the best deal for THEIR side, not the best deal for football as a whole.

    Then fans can just see that it’s all about greed and nothing but greed, and we can walk away in disgust. This news today has got to have turned Madden’s stomach.

  26. richm2256 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:38 AM

    domeunit says:
    Feb 10, 2011 11:05 AM
    Good to know that the owners walked on the idea of a fair deal. I may want to start saving for NHL season tickets next season

    ————————————————-
    You mean the league that lost an ENTIRE SEASON due to a work stoppage of their own a few years back …….. THAT league?

  27. toe4 says: Feb 10, 2011 11:41 AM

    mdpickles had a great post.

    I care about the dispute only insofar that it gets done before one second of football is missed.

    I could care less what the terms are.

    My NFL opinion rating is about 95% favorable at the moment. Every second after March 4 it lowers a little more. Some of that will be recovered the first time I see a touchdown pass in week 1 without missing any football time, but not all of it.

  28. Burritto says: Feb 10, 2011 11:42 AM

    I don’t care how absurd (or not) the offer was. There’s no justifiable reason to walk out and not counterpropose and finish the session.

    If anything, a ludicrous offer means it’s time to do MORE work, not less.

    If the 2011-12 season doesn’t happen, I’m completely removing the NFL from my life

  29. johnelwayismydad says: Feb 10, 2011 11:48 AM

    Does anyone have a Canadian football league schedule, or an Arena football schedule?

  30. browns4ever says: Feb 10, 2011 11:49 AM

    The Golden Goose’s head is on the chopping block & is just about to be put in the oven!

  31. belichickrulz says: Feb 10, 2011 11:50 AM

    At this point I couldn’t care less about what is or isn’t going on. I think both sides are behaving like greedy children and forgetting that without people willing to pay to watch, they won’t have ANY money at all to fight over. I’m not a season ticket holder, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’ll watch games if they play them, or I’ll do something else if they don’t. Either way life goes on.

  32. broncsfan says: Feb 10, 2011 11:53 AM

    @commoncents:

    Would you feel more exposed to risk if you were an owner in a sport that posted staggering profits during the worst recession possibly since WWII, or a player who’s one tackle away from calling it a career?

  33. jc1958coo says: Feb 10, 2011 11:55 AM

    who on here would take a 10 % cut in pay!
    your company is making record profits, our you out of yor mind!!!

  34. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Feb 10, 2011 11:55 AM

    There are two certainties during these labor negotiations. First, there will be a new CBA at some future point. And second, if there is a lockout, then advantage NFL owners. In the interim, and with that in mind, the NFLPA and its players would be better served to spend more time in the negotiating room than in the courtroom.

  35. play4blood says: Feb 10, 2011 11:56 AM

    Greedy owners forcing players into an 18 game season so that their “concession” actually nets them a sizable profit, and that piece of garbage Goodell is at the forefront of the propaganda.

    Disgraceful.

    It would serve the owners right if the players pushed until they were locked out, and then went to the UFL and CFL for a year. I’d actually watch the UFL and CFL if that happened, in spite of their ass ugly uniforms.

  36. nothimagain says: Feb 10, 2011 11:57 AM

    Not saying this is the case here, but union negotiating teams throughout the country have a history of trying to bully ownership.
    From the league’s perspective, if that’s what happened here who in their right mind would sit around for another 5 hours?

  37. tomnickle says: Feb 10, 2011 11:58 AM

    The Players are going to drag their feet on this. The union will crumble. They can get along with each other now and they can’t find a league to earn them anything close to the salaries they’ll get in the NFL. The owners have all of the leverage. The NFL brand is what has made these players wealthy in the first place, if they would like to keep building on that wealth, they’ll have to concede the revenue battle to a certain degree. In exchange, the league should keep the 16 game schedule as it is.

  38. play4blood says: Feb 10, 2011 11:58 AM

    So…is DirecTV still going to try to charge me for Sunday Ticket? I get the sinking feeling I better cancel my early renewal.

  39. emmac13 says: Feb 10, 2011 12:00 PM

    The concessions workers, ushers,parking lot workers, traffic cops, PA announcer, uniform washers, grounds keepers, and…………so on get paid too. Not to mention local businesses that make money like bars and gas stations. They need to stop being greedy. I could careless how they split it. One thing is for sure prices need to drop. But I don’t see that happening. Let them shot themselves in the arse. Didn’t they learn from Plaxico. The poor players feel like they have been treated like Vicks dogs.

  40. angrycorgi says: Feb 10, 2011 12:02 PM

    Why is it shocking that the owners got up and walked out? They got shafted last time a CBA was done and now the NFLPA shows no interest in budging to make things fair again. Imagine this: You buy $1000 worth of Apple stock in April. In June you cash it out. At that time its worth $1400. Your stock broker steps in and takes $200 of the $400 profit. You get $200 profit pre-tax. Is that fair? The stock broker did his/her job and bought/sold the stock when they were told to. So they deserve 50% of the profit, right? Later in July, you take your original $1000 and buy more Apple stock. Two weeks later, its announced that all the Apple computers manufactured in the past 5 years were made using a radioactive element and tons of people are getting sick from it. You immediately run to sell the stock before it crashes and you wind up with $800 from the sale. The broker takes $200 and leaves you with $600. Who cares if you lost money, the last time you did business set a precident in his/her mind, and now all transations will carry a broker commission of $200 or 50% of the gain (whichever is larger). Not fair? The broker still bought/sold your stock like you asked.

    Newsflash: the players = the broker…they get paid come hell or high water and have no financial risk as they have not invested anything from the onset of the deal.

  41. dadindebt6 says: Feb 10, 2011 12:03 PM

    The owners should counter with offering 50% of all revenue but the players have to start paying for 50% of things like travel expenses, medical insurance, pension contributions, stadium leases, coaches and other staff salaries.

    The union would run from that so fast that Chris Johnson would look slow by comparison. The owners have a lot of other expenses. Not just players salaries. So 50/50 is not really the fair deal that most people assume it is. Let it be 50% of all revenue after all expenses other than players salaries and then you are talking fair. But the union would never agree to that.

  42. descendency says: Feb 10, 2011 12:08 PM

    @tubal22
    Read the story. You’ll see why what you said is irrelevant.

    The NFLPA suggested they want a 50-50 split of all revenue. That is what they got in 2002-2009. So, that’s basically the same deal.

    The original deal was like 60-40 of “total revenue”. (but this translated to 50-50 of “all revenue” in practical terms)

    —-

    This is of course without any agreement to share the burden of responsibility for costs that the owners pay now. The owners would gladly take 50-50 if the burden of cost was even.

    The entire debate is basically one neatly told lie after another.

    The owners and players both want 50-50. It’s just 50% of what that they are not telling you and what that really means.

    The owners want 50% of the fully burdened revenue (net profit, essentially). The Players want 50% of all revenue (gross profit, essentially).

    See how it’s a lie?

  43. marvin49 says: Feb 10, 2011 12:12 PM

    Ya know, there is ONE NFL team whose books are WIDE open. It just happens to be the current Super Bowl Champion and its only because its publicly owned. They made something like 30 mil 2 years ago, 20 mil a year later and like 10 mil this year.

    There are PLAYERS in the NFL that make more than that in a single year.

    I don’t understand why peeps think its such a bad thing for the owners to want to make money. Thats the point of a business. We don’t care because we just want to watch the games, but we don’t have a financial connection to the teams. They do.

    The NFL gave in once to a deal that they didn’t like simply because they wanted to keep the game going. That produced a very bad deal that they are now forced to back out of.

    Its the PLAYERS who need to make a concession because they KNOW they got a sweet deal that last time. Opening the conversation with a proposal thats exactly the same as what they are currently getting is ludicrous.

  44. Caldon says: Feb 10, 2011 12:20 PM

    There is a difference between the standard protocol of opening and then working your way to a balanced agreement and what the Union did. When you make your first offer, even though it won’t be your last/best offer, it needs to be a reasonable offer and in good faith.

    The fact that their first offer is basically the same as what the owners just opted out of, shows it was not a good faith offer and a joke. The owners were right in walking out until the union can make a good faith offer to start with.

    A 17 game schedule, 55/45 revenue split with something the players are looking for (such as medical/benefits for players retiring) is an example of a good faith starting point that can be negotiated.

  45. contract says: Feb 10, 2011 12:26 PM

    “Thus, an offer to take 50 cents of every dollar represents no concession at all.”

    When a 1% reduction equals ~ $100,000,000 … that is a significant concession.

  46. vicksdawgpound says: Feb 10, 2011 12:42 PM

    All about the $$$$$ always how about they all take a pay cut and offer cheaper tickets to the game. Ha Ha would never happen. Corporate America making the rich richer!

  47. jefeweiss says: Feb 10, 2011 12:42 PM

    The figures that the author of the article is using to come up with 50% sharing in 2009 aren’t necessarily accurate figures. No one but the owners really know how much money they make. There’s plenty of ways that the numbers can be juiced and I think you would be pretty foolish to assume that the owners aren’t using any accounting tricks. The fact that they won’t give up the numbers leads me to believe that there are a lot of shenanigans going on.

    If you use the figures that they give out, the split might look like 50%, but part of the dispute is that the players don’t know how much money the owners are making.

  48. fin72 says: Feb 10, 2011 12:56 PM

    There’s really no difference between Goodell/Owners, and the Wall Street types who screwed our country… All deceitful LIARS!!!

  49. masterofthegridiron says: Feb 10, 2011 1:11 PM

    lock’em out, eventually they will give…sucks for fantasy players though

  50. nika1287 says: Feb 10, 2011 1:18 PM

    Reminds me of something Jerry Glanville once said, “NFL….stands for Not For Long if you keep making calls like that.”

    It’s a negotiation I know but the two sides need to work it out and do so efficiently. There is no reason to use emotion in a business setting, it’s not personal so no need to walk out. Counter and let’s see if we can move forward here.

  51. mick730 says: Feb 10, 2011 1:19 PM

    If the players and their union really feel themselves to be equal partners in the business that is the NFL, then they should be willing to take their fifty percent from Net Profits and not Total Revenues. Take the exact same income statement that exists today, add back player salaries, and the fifty percent of the bottom line would then be the amount available to player salaries for the following year.

    When the players demand 50 percent of every penny earned, but share none of the risk nor share in any of the operating expenses, they aren’t partners.

  52. montsta says: Feb 10, 2011 1:24 PM

    So on one side you have old white businessmen, many of whom come from “old money”, who have net worth’s in the billions along with liquid assets probably in the tens or hundreds of millions.

    On the other side you have mostly uneducated athletes, who cruised through high school and college playing football without actually retaining most of what they learned, all the while buying designer clothes, luxury cars, throwing money at friends and family, paying (multiple) child support(s), and having 30 year mortgages on mansions that they simply won’t be able to afford without a game check.

    Now tell me which one can outlast the other?

    I mean honestly from a purely business standpoint, what motivation do the owners have to make any concessions during negotiations? The NFLPA has no cards to play, and they have zero leverage. I agree that both sides are being greedy, but the owners will continue to be paid in the event of a lockout and you’ll see once all of the Cromartie’s of the NFL realize that their 7 baby mama’s still want that fat check every month, the players will buckle. I promise you that this will be the case, and a deal will be reached the moment the game checks start to be missed.

  53. Akula says: Feb 10, 2011 1:25 PM

    It was my understanding that there was to be no math.

    Nobody in this has clean hands. You just have to sit back and wait. No use riding the media rollercoaster of he said he said and what it all means.

    Wait for the black smoke and you will know there is a new Pope.

  54. detroitexile says: Feb 10, 2011 1:26 PM

    Here’s how I interpret the offer, using the numbers in this and the Mortensen article:

    60% of $8B is $4.8B for the players (current CBA)
    50% of $9B is $4.5B for the players (NFLPA proposal)
    40% of $7B is $2.8B for the players (Owners proposal)

    So the NFLPA just gave up $300M in potential player salary.

    The other thing is that union has voted to decertify. If the union exercises that option the NFL will be subject to antitrust laws and will no longer be able to do anything to control salaries, and may not even be able to negotiate national TV deals. Last time the NFLPA decertifed was 1989 and the outcome was an anti-trust judgment against the owners and the introduction of free agency. This will, over time, turn the NFL into MLB.

  55. marthisdil says: Feb 10, 2011 1:27 PM

    Here’s what needs to happen:

    1) wage scales for ALL players based on X number of years in the game (that way, you don’t get crappy rookie draftees making more than BETTER players who have been in the league for years and years)

    As part of the scale, there are set BONUS guidelines for each position type – minutes played, yards gained, defense ranking, etc, etc. All standardized. That way the GOOD players can earn bonuses, and the 3rd stringers still get paid based on years of service.

    Each team is given Y amount of money to spread around as they see fit.

    2) Healthcare for the players paid for as insurance taken from a fund that ALL teams pay into EQUALLY. Each team has the same number of players, so why should the Cowboys pay more than the Bills or Packers or Browns?

    3) All contracts standardized, with updates to the Player policies for behavior.

    4) FULL drug/steroid testing. All players MUST give a blood and hair test at the start of camp or they don’t get paid. Random tests for players during the year. MANDATORY test for any player arrested. If they don’t test, they don’t get paid.

    5) Retirement benefits for players – both team matched and player contributed (just like normal 401K plans now).

    6) Revenue sharing – I’m still up in the air about this. But I think that the league can continue with a system similar to what it has now so small market teams can get along fine.

    Perhaps then, costs to go to a fvcking game will go down, and people with a family of 4 can afford to go to a game and not have to pay $600+ for crappy seats and bad food.

  56. joe6606 says: Feb 10, 2011 1:37 PM

    I don’t understand why peeps think its such a bad thing for the owners to want to make money. Thats the point of a business. We don’t care because we just want to watch the games, but we don’t have a financial connection to the teams. They do.

    ==============================
    Owning an NFL team is not and should NEVER be treated as a business.

    What is the value of the Cowboys if they were to be ejected from the NFL?? Oh yeah, how about NOTHING.

    The value of a team is completely and solely determined by its participation in the NFL. As much as the scumbags like J Jones and D Snyder try to appeal to disgusting pro-business fans, the fact is their ownership is a PRIVILEGE, one granted to them under an implicit understanding that what makes the NFL great is its socialistic treatment of revenue and players such that even small markets like GB and Pitts have an equal shot and winning a championship.

    And unlike alot of businesses, the value of a franchise is solely determined by the players. Replacing stars with scabs is not an acceptable option, as was proven the last time there was a lockout. And unlike other businesses, the players participate KNOWING that they are at a minimum going to have a lifetime of extensive health problems, and a good chance of having a much shorter lifespan than they otherwise would.

    So in this weird market where the players incur all the risks, ownership is NOT a typical business-like arrangement, the players DESERVE every penny they get.

    60/40 players all revenue IMO

  57. deerpathdave says: Feb 10, 2011 1:40 PM

    It sounds to me like the Owners care very much about the structure of the deal. The current structure inherrently favors big market teams over small market teams. The Owners want to rectify that by taking a set amount of revenue off the top and then doing the split. This sort of structure would give a fairer playinf field to the small market teams.

    What the Players proposed moves in exactly the opposite direction and would grossly favor the big market teams. Using that structure, you would never get all the owners to agree.

    The Players need to let the Owners set the structure to one that works for all the Owners and than negotiate the dollars under that structure.

  58. slickster35 says: Feb 10, 2011 1:42 PM

    Roger Goodell is the worst thing to happen to the NFL, ever.

  59. docredskin says: Feb 10, 2011 1:46 PM

    @commoncents:

    Would you feel more exposed to risk if you were an owner in a sport that posted staggering profits during the worst recession possibly since WWII, or a player who’s one tackle away from calling it a career?

    Therein lies the risk. Players are, at the risk of sounding crass, assets to their teams. If one of your assets is so relatively fragile then you’d want to be covered as well as possible, too. I understand the player’s risk personally, but that’s the nature of the beast. Don’t play if you don’t want to run that risk.

  60. expatpatfan says: Feb 10, 2011 1:56 PM

    I’m on board with the owners when it comes to the rookie wage scale, but that’s about it.

    1. They’re asking their employees to work more. There’s a long answer to why the 2 preseason/18 regular season is more work then the current 4/16 split, but I’m sure most of you are familiar with it.

    2. They’re asking their employees to take a paycut.

    3. They’re asking for an additional $1 billion off the top before revenues are split because of financial hardship.

    4. The league is wildly popular and generates amazing revenue. Owners won’t open their books to demonstrate said hardship.

    I know every year a handful of individual players say or do something remarkably dumb that makes it tough to be sympathetic, but from a labor agreement point of view, I’m entirely in their corner.

  61. expatpatfan says: Feb 10, 2011 2:02 PM

    Ya know, there is ONE NFL team whose books are WIDE open. It just happens to be the current Super Bowl Champion and its only because its publicly owned. They made something like 30 mil 2 years ago, 20 mil a year later and like 10 mil this year.

    There are PLAYERS in the NFL that make more than that in a single year.

    I don’t understand why peeps think its such a bad thing for the owners to want to make money. Thats the point of a business. We don’t care because we just want to watch the games, but we don’t have a financial connection to the teams. They do.
    ====================================

    Marvin, re-read what you just posted. GB *did* make money–$60 million over 3 years during a recession. The problem is that owners have decided that making those sorts of profits isn’t enough and want to put their players at greater risk in order to realize their “deserved” level of compensation.

  62. expatpatfan says: Feb 10, 2011 2:03 PM

    Marvin, re-read what you just posted. GB *did* make money–$60 million over 3 years during a recession. The problem is that owners have decided that making those sorts of profits isn’t enough and want to put their players at greater risk in order to realize their “deserved” level of compensation.

  63. tikyle says: Feb 10, 2011 2:03 PM

    @angrycorgi

    Great analogy but you’re dead wrong. The players risk is not financial. It’s a mental and physical risk. Look at Al Davis. He’s in his 80′s and he looks, old man old. Now look at some NFL players in there late 50′s and they look and respond way worst than Al Davis.

    So yes they get paid come hell or high water but the job and the pay doesn’t compensate for their life expectancy being drastically cut and their likelyhood of catastrophic disease or injury growing exponentially.

    Everything isn’t money!

  64. sufferingbirdsfan says: Feb 10, 2011 2:12 PM

    There will never be a day when I will pay to see Jerry Jones throw a ball to Jeff Lurie. The players deserve what they get in the NFL more than any other league. Other than the absurd rookie wage scale, the current deal is obviously fine. Ratings are high, TV contracts are fat, and everyone involved is rich and getting richer. Just renew what’s working and move on!

  65. nard100 says: Feb 10, 2011 2:15 PM

    commoncents says:
    Feb 10, 2011 11:07 AM
    The Union has no overhead, they share no risk with the owners, and wouldn’t be tied to any risk like a bad year or bad economy. The Union does not deserve 50-50!!! Most of these players couldn’t survive a year without a paycheck.

    Tell that to people like Charles Woodson or Tony Romo. Also, if you’re right then the NFLPA will capitulate because it will have no choice; starve or play for a reduced rate. I think we both know better than that! Are player costs to high? Absolutely. But let’s remember why that’s the case. Owners who are now crying mendicant PAID those ridiculous salaries. I think the big problem is that there are teams that can’t afford to stay in the league plain and simple. They want to be in the NFL on a CFL budget. I think it’s interesting also that they want an 18 game season don’t you? Won’t that raise player costs? Won’t that raise risk? Also what alot of us have to understand is that there is plenty of revenue that owners make that is not available to the players and that’s why they don’t want to open the books. Also badly managed teams would have to answer media questions they don’t want to and they know it. That’s why it’s a bit disingenuous when the owners say there’s no point in opening up the books. Here’s a reason – credibility! I know it sounds like I side with the players, but what I really want to know is this. if the NFL plans to do what the NHL did and lock out players until they give in. What is going to prevent the Al Davises and Jerry Joneses and from spending things right back up again and then another “correction” is in order. Exactly. Nothing!

  66. bluestree says: Feb 10, 2011 2:48 PM

    Why don’t the owners just open their books, prove to the players and the fans that revenues are declining, and back the union into a corner?
    Why? Principal? Stubborness?
    Or is it that they can’t? They can’t open the books because they are cheating on their taxes, cheating on the CBA, cheating each other, and cheating the fans?
    They follow the players around, collecting their urine, to make sure they aren’t cheating.
    Why don’t the owners want to pee in the cup?

  67. silverdeer says: Feb 10, 2011 2:49 PM

    I say that all of the teams should go public just like the GBP. Then the players can buy stock in their teams and have a vested interest other than just winning. Should they leave via free agency they have to sell their stock to eliminate a conflict of interest. Furthermore, if the profits start to tank the clubs can off shore the jobs just like the rest of the companies here in the US.

  68. tikyle says: Feb 10, 2011 2:58 PM

    @nard100

    PREACH!

    Even if they get a rookie scale and a new CBA that fits the owners, richer owners will still overapay like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones and it will be just like the NBA.

    (current) NBA and NFL (of the future)
    A salary cap? check
    A rookie scale? check
    Overpaid players? check
    Bad salaries? check
    Over indulgent power owners? check
    Cheap bottom feeders? check
    Eventual b*tching from the owners for a new deal? check-mate!

  69. cappa662 says: Feb 10, 2011 2:58 PM

    60 – 40 is insane.

    The owners are just plain greedy.

  70. zaggs says: Feb 10, 2011 3:01 PM

    Funny how there is no mention that Mort’s entire report comes strictly from the union side.

  71. edgy says: Feb 10, 2011 3:16 PM

    chapnastier says:

    ******************

    What color is the sky in your world and is it painted like CandyLand? Seriously, you honestly believe that drivel? You get rid of the union and I GUARANTEE YOU that the players make almost nothing and that’s the reason why they went with a union in the first place. If the owners actually dealt with the players in good faith, they’d have never had to deal with a union but when you force players to buy their own equipment AND underpay them AND make a profit to boot, what else can you expect.

  72. marvin49 says: Feb 10, 2011 3:59 PM

    @expatpatfan

    Um….you’re really missing my point. I didn’t say they didn’t make a profit, I said that there are individual players in the NFL that made MORE than a TEAM in an individual year.

    That really makes no sense to me.

    Would you expect to go to work and earn MORE than your entire company made in profit?

    Seriously? Think about it.

  73. marvin49 says: Feb 10, 2011 4:02 PM

    @cappa662

    How do you figure?

    The players don’t have any freakin expenses!! If the players would take on 50% of the liability, the league would GLADLY give up 50% of the profit.

    The Union doesn’t want 50% of the profit. They want 50% of the total revenue and want the league to pay for all of the benefits and take on all the liability.

    How is that equitable exactly?

  74. icematrix69 says: Feb 10, 2011 4:33 PM

    That was an opening proposal for crying out loud!! The best response for the league at that time would to come back with something to set the basement and then negotiate from there. I mean hello???? Isn’t that what they are suppose to be doing, you know, negotiating?

    Just another sign that the league is hell bent on ruining the game at the costs of lining their already golden pockets.

    This is one 30 year fan that is completely disgusted with the NFL. Maybe it’s time to sell the NFL merchandise and start migrating towards the NCAA where the greed isn’t as evident!!

  75. expatpatfan says: Feb 10, 2011 4:48 PM

    Marvin, you realize that profit is established after expenses, which includes salaries, are paid, right? This is distinct from revenue, which is much higher and for which owners already get $1 billion off the top. There is no player in the nfl who makes more than a team’s revenue–no one really comes close. The league’s annual revenue is $7.8 billion–although revenues aren’t evenly distributed, that’s roughly $244 million/team. Some players are overpaid, but no one is THAT overpaid.

    In terms of net profit vs. salary, who contributes more to the Colts’ success and adds the most value to the franchise–Peyton Manning or Jim Irsay? Keep in mind Irsay employs other people (who are compensated outside of the $25m figure) who actually make football-related decisions.

    For example, the 2009 Dolphins had $242 million in revenue, $134m if which went towards player salaries (incl. bonuses) and $26.6m went towards expenses, which includes facilities upkeep, staff salaries and so forth.

  76. vietnambob2473 says: Feb 10, 2011 5:35 PM

    I thought that they should have gone 50/50 all along but apparently the league rejected that idea. I’m slowly starting to side with the union on this one…how is 50/50 not fair for the league when they already shave 1 billion off the top?

  77. edgy says: Feb 12, 2011 12:00 PM

    marvin49 says:

    ********************

    You’re kidding, right? That $9 billion dollar pie comes with $1 billion lopped off the top right NOW and the owners want another $1 billion. That’s before they pay any salaries or expenses. Is that equitable?

    Anyone that wants to talk risk needs to name ANY business that has the kind of revenue coming into their business before they even open up the doors like the NFL? The NFL owners used to be part owners in the Arena League and guess what, they didn’t generate any where near the revenue that the NFL did and they had the same financial “geniuses” like Jerry Jones that were thumping their chests about how much more revenue they were able to generate than other NFL owners but they weren’t able to do any better than the “original” Arena League owners were doing. RISK is the Arena League. A license to print money is the NFL. Not because of the owners but because of the players.

Leave a Reply

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