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

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.

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.

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!!

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?

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.

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

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.

The owners are just plain greedy.

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!

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

==============================
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.