Skip to content

Batterman addresses current issues in CBA fight

Batterman-L-Robert-0025-Web-195x230

In an interview with 790 the Zone in Atlanta, NFL outside labor counsel Bob Batterman reviewed several of the current issues in the CBA conundrum.

Here’s a quick summary on where things stand:  (1) the union still wants to examine the books; (2) the league still says no; (3) the union at some point proposed a 50-50 split of all revenue, which is roughly what the players currently get; (4) it remains unclear whether the union proposed a 50-50 split as an opening offer or a bottom-line demand.

As to the issue of the books, Batterman continued to recite the financial information that the players have:  all revenue information, player costs, and expenses for which the league gets a credit under the current revenue-sharing system.

The key is that, without looking at the rest of the costs, there’s no way that the players can determine the amount of profit.  Batterman concedes this point.

“Basically, the only thing left is profitability,” Batterman said, “which no league has ever been able to get a union to deal with in a legitimate context.  If it shows the Green Bay Packers are making $9 million a year and they used to make $34 million a year, it shows they are making fewer profits and less money, but what does it show in terms of whether $9 million is too much, too little or just the right number?  It doesn’t show anything.”

That’s not entirely correct.  Appropriate profits can be determined in light of the size and value of the business.  For a billion-dollar operation, $9 million in profit represents a return-on-investment of less than one percent.

Clearly, that’s not enough.

The problem is that the union will be inclined to sell $9 million per year to the average person as enough, and that the average person will be inclined to agree, since $9 million to the average person is a very large chunk of change.  Indeed, that’s what the union has done in conjunction with the Packers’ profits, with NFLPA executive director De Smith essentially scoffing at recent drops in the margin without acknowledging that reduced profits will shrink the value of the business and, eventually, will persuade the owner of a shrinking business to invest his or her money elsewhere.

Batterman also said that there has been no suggestion that the league has “cooked the books,” but the league undoubtedly is concerned that, if the union gets access to the books, the union will look for evidence of book-cooking and any other stones that could be thrown at the numbers in order to suggest that the profit is bigger than the books suggest.

Batterman said the league understands that the fans will be upset with both sides if regular-season games are lost, and that the two sides are trying to make something happen.  He brushed off recent disputes as part of “the nature of collective bargaining,” calling it “deadline bargaining.”

He then reiterated the argument that, under the current deal, the pendulum has swung too far to the players.

“In typical collective bargaining negotiations, the union is looking for more, whether it is more benefits, another dollar an hour or whatever it may be in normal collective bargaining, and the employer is sitting there saying, ‘We are happy with where we are,’” Batterman said.  “But the world doesn’t work that way.  There are changes.  Every once in awhile you have to recognize that collective bargaining is a two-way street and the balance has to be re-struck.  That’s what we are saying here. . . .

“The deal in ’06 gave the players a great deal.  We analyzed it.  The owners have analyzed it.  They are sophisticated businessmen.  With the growth in expenses over the past decade or so with the number of privately financed stadiums that didn’t exist at the time this deal was originally structured in 1993, there are expenses that are not properly taken into account that need to be taken into account.

“We are talking about righting this sport so that we can have the kind of growth for the next 15 years that we had for the past 15 years. We are not looking to turn this back in time for purposes of sticking it to the players.  We don’t want the players to be unhappy going forward.  We don’t want them to be in the position we are in today saying that the deal has now swung too far back the other way.  We are trying to strike a balance.  That is all we want.”

It sounds good, but without information regarding current profitability — and, frankly, without clear and reliable projections regarding future profitability — the players are being expected to take the owners at their word, and to overlook the possibility that this entire effort arises from a belief that the players are simply getting too much money, that they have no other way to make that kind of money, and that they can be squeezed into taking less because they have no leverage and because they have shown in past disputes that they can go only so long without getting paid.

So where is this heading?  Until the two sides find a way to get past the stare down over financial information, it won’t be going anywhere.

That’s why the union’s proposal to take 50 cents of every dollar has so much appeal.  If it was an opener and not a bottom line, it means that the union will eventually move toward a number less than what they currently get.

Though we’ve yet to hear anything definitive, we have reason to believe it was an opener, and that the discussions could continue along the lines of a formula based on all revenue.

“We made a proposal to take additional cost credits because of the change in the business,” Batterman said.  “We are now looking at a totally different approach at the union’s request.  The negotiations have moved to a different place.”

In other words, it’s entirely possible that the league and the union have decided to focus on the all-revenue model, and that someone from the owners’ side of the table has realized that 50 cents on the dollar is a fair and reasonable opener for the union.

On closer review, it’s more than fair.

NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told PFT last year that 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.

If the union offered to take 50 cents per dollar, that’s less of a cut than anything the union has gotten in the past decade.

Even if it wasn’t an opener, the league should assume it was an opener and make a response.  Then, the two sides can chip away at the difference until a number is reached.  And once a number is reached all the other issues can be resolved fairly quickly; indeed, solutions to the other key issues will be included within the offers and counteroffers as the circles of the Venn diagram get closer and closer to pecking each other on the cheek.

For now, there’s reason to think that some progress is being made, even without formal talks.

“When there are no meetings, it is because there is a reason for no meetings,” Batterman said.  “When there are meetings, it is because there is a reason to have meetings.  We still have several weeks and the parties are in communication.”

That’s always a good thing.  Unless the communications involve profanity.

Permalink 39 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
39 Responses to “Batterman addresses current issues in CBA fight”
  1. brutus9448 says: Feb 17, 2011 10:19 AM

    In what business do the employees take 50 cent of every dollar earned? None.

    Usually its about 33cents of every dollar. I say get the replacements and start the season with scrabs. After 5-6 weeks the players will be crossing the picket line in masses

  2. FoozieGrooler says: Feb 17, 2011 10:22 AM

    “If it shows the Green Bay Packers are making $9 million a year and they used to make $34 million a year, it shows they are making fewer profits and less money.”

    And this folks, is how corporate America operates.

    Publicly, they wouldn’t call this a $9 million profit, but rather a $25 million loss.

  3. chapnastier says: Feb 17, 2011 10:24 AM

    I wonder how many Apple, Facebook, Google etc. employees get paid millions of dollars. I mean their companies make far more money than the average NFL team. Players are lucky they get what they get. Bring on Shane Falco!

  4. marvsleezy says: Feb 17, 2011 10:29 AM

    This is so much fun, they should sign a one year CBA so we can do this every year!

  5. fivetwos says: Feb 17, 2011 10:36 AM

    An individual player should not even come close to earning in one season what an entire organization turns as a profit in one season.

    The Packers made $9M in what I’m supposing was 2009.

    How many PLAYERS in the league earned more than that in 2009? Probably quite a few.

    I completely understand where the owners are coming from.

    Even if the union accepts what the owners currently propose, they are still in good shape. Probably better than they realistically ought to be.

  6. finfanbernie says: Feb 17, 2011 10:43 AM

    You are still leaving out the most important part of this. Who is going to pay the bills and for all the doctors, lawyers, PR officals, oxygen etc. If the players want to split those bills then I say give them half. If the 9 million profit is correct then that means that at least two players on that team make more than the actual team does. You tell me that is how it should be. Thats like saying NBC should pay you more money than they make. The problem with this is that, over time you will find yourself right back where you were before because NBC would have to file bankruptcy at some point. Get real, no one puts billions in to make millions. Its just not smart business

  7. brucehumbert says: Feb 17, 2011 10:47 AM

    So how do you make this work….

    50% of the Cowboys $430 Million [Forbes Estimate] = $215 Million – if all 32 teams made the same revenue as the Cowboys then the players proposal leads to $215 Million in player costs/compensation…

    Forbes estimated the Cowboys Player Costs at $143 Million – anyone want to guess what happened to the $72 Million difference betwwen $215 and $143?

    On the other hand…

    The Tampa Bay Bucs brought in $248 Million, 50% of that number is $124 Million – a whole lot less than the Cowboys $215 – Forbes estimated player costs at $118 Million – so the Bucs did not even match the 50% payout the Union wants [it appears the Forbes numbers are 209 – not sure]

  8. iffybiz says: Feb 17, 2011 10:48 AM

    Before you can divide the “pie” you have to decide exactly what the “pie” is. There’s two solutions. Either the owners have to open their books or continue to use the same “pie” as before and re-work the percentages.
    The owners don’t want to open the books and the players don’t want it to look as though they are settling for less (even if they are willing to under a “total pie”) in the eyes of their members.
    What if they kept the same “pie” with the players taking a slightly smaller “slice” but rasing the minimum that each club has to spend, while setting some sort of rookie salary cap (I proposed a bonus cap elsewhere) which would force more money to the veterans.

  9. clintonportisheadd says: Feb 17, 2011 10:56 AM

    Everyone knows Batterman is the lawyer you call when you want to do some union busting. I would not be surprised if he didn’t have the phrase printed on his business cards.

    The way things are shaping up now, the union most certainly will de certify and sue the NFL on anti trust grounds. And the “American Needle” case has already shown that such a tactic would most likely be successful. Its why the NFL is freaking out about the union’s plans.

    The GREED of the NFL (most recently on display for the whole world to see at the Super Bowl seat fiasco) is now becoming legendary. Forcing fans to pay full price for glorified practices (aka pre season games) with the threat of losing your rights to buy tickets to regular season games.? Check. Wanting to extend the season to 18 games (which is guaranteed to cause more injuries) while claiming player safety is number one? Check.

    I hope the players force the owners to cancel the upcoming season. If if they try to run in scabs, the players ought to be at the training camps and taking names. Jerry “Get off my lawn” Richardson already laid out the owners point of view-too many black folks getting too much on MY money.

  10. mick730 says: Feb 17, 2011 11:01 AM

    The comments quoted of DeMaurice Smith ane then the posting of one of his supporters show why it is pointless for the NFL to open its books or to try and spend countless hours trying to explain basic finance, accounting and economics to the likes of Peyton Manning and Drew Brees.

    Smith feels that Green Bay’s bottom line of 9 million dollars in 2009 is sufficient for that organziation and therefore no change in the CBA is warranted.

    The point is that in 2006 the Packers earned over 34 million dollars. During the time period 2006 through 2009, the Packers had the youngest team in the NFL yet their payroll costs rose more than 15% per year. In 2009 they made 9 million, in 2010, I guarantee you they will earn even less. The trend is unsustainable and obvious to everyone with an ounce of understanding of these matters.

    But the problem is that the NFLPA and their supporters do not understand and are only concerend with lining their pockets.

    The poster who wrote that businesses will not invest billions to earn millions is entirely correct. If the current trend continues, the Packers, and all of the other 31 franchises will reach a point at which enough will simply be enough, and the players and their union will learn the hard way.

  11. mackenzie83 says: Feb 17, 2011 11:09 AM

    Lets see what happens. Turn on the jeopardy theme song.

  12. FoozieGrooler says: Feb 17, 2011 11:11 AM

    fivetwos says: Feb 17, 2011 10:36 AM

    “An individual player should not even come close to earning in one season what an entire organization turns as a profit in one season.”

    Then talk to the owners.
    Who do you think gave it to them in the first place?

  13. packfannchitown says: Feb 17, 2011 11:16 AM

    You people do realize that the percentage of NFL players who make “millions” is quite low and that most make the league minimum?

    Yes it is true that most companies don’t give employees 50%, but how many of those companies are geared to where the employees, (i.e. players) ARE the business?

    People don’t flock to the stadiums because they like to pay $8.00 for a beer, they go because they want to see the PLAYERS on their team compete.

    Not saying the owners or players are right or wrong but please don’t bring the tired “teachers and firefighters don’t make that much, why should athletes” analogy out.

    You need to compare the NFL to other professional sports such as the NBA and MLB, (NHL doesn’t really compare, nothing against hockey and all).

    On the other hand, since the lockout is being conducted by the owners and not by the players, can you still get scabs to come play? I thought that was only for a strike.

    Shane Falco indeed!

  14. bigsuede says: Feb 17, 2011 11:26 AM

    Hey brutus- you want to know what businesses pay employee’s 50% of all revenue???

    Try entertainment! costs for movies, televisions shows, many plays- costs of labor oftentimes dwarfs everything else. Many movies, Actors would make more profit than the studio’s

    that is what happens when the source of ALL your revenue comes from the public wanting to see your employees. The league makes money because we want to see Peyton Manning, Tom Brady etc

    stop trying to compare the entertainment biz with your manufacturing biz

  15. betterandbetterthan says: Feb 17, 2011 11:27 AM

    Unfortunately, as usual, your logic is off. As with all industries, some competitors operate far more efficiently than others. The league had $7.8b in revenue FYE 2010 (avg), that would be $243.75m in revenue per team, with half going to players. If you can’t turn a larger profit with $120m to play with for all of your other expenses then you aren’t doing smart business. The Kraft’s and Jones’ of the world aren’t having issues (though they’ll act as though they do) with printing money, as they are efficiently growing their businesses.

    What we do have is a large group that is incapable of keeping costs in line with other teams while begging for public financing/subsidies for all of their construction. What we have is a large group afraid to show true revenue/profit because it will affect their ability to lobby for public financing.

    No one wants to hear about the billionaire fighting the millionaire over a few sheckles, in the end it is just going to turn away fans who only want to see the product, not hear a back and forth over two sects who are clearly making money, but can’t agree on who gets the fractionally bigger piece of the pie. It isn’t like someone is getting stuck with the give to charity on the pie chart showing what I’d do if I won the lottery.

  16. toe4 says: Feb 17, 2011 11:28 AM

    The owners (and many fans from the looks of things) view the NFL as a typical business. It is not. It is a specific type of entertainment business.

    The players view the NFL as a partnership, one cannot survive without the other. The owners view the players as employees.

    The players want 50% of every dollar. The League wants to give somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of every dollar. Lets make it 45 and move on, it really isn’t that difficult.

    Jim Irsay inherited the Indianapolis Colts from his father. He didn’t inherit much else. He is now one of the 400 richest men on the planet. Clearly the owners are not hurting.

  17. scudbot says: Feb 17, 2011 11:34 AM

    Under the current CBA, the Packers net operating revenue becomes a loss by 2012 despite increased revenue from merchandise sales and tv. That’s due to increased expenses for players, up $40M from 2006-2010. That leaves teams having to get the difference from the fans or having to sell off players for cash, and that will kill the game.

  18. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Feb 17, 2011 11:48 AM

    It’s unreasonable for the union to expect the owners to open up every aspect of the books. Contrary to the views of some, the owners and the players are NOT equal business partners in this business enterprise called the National Football League. Indeed, it’s my understanding that the business relationship between NFL teams and their players remains, fundamentally speaking, that of employer/employee. To my knowledge, this relationship is not of one of members of a general partnership, for example, where the owners and players are deemed equal partners operating on the same side of the business aisle with equal liability and responsibility. How would the union feel about sharing equally in paying business taxes, debts, tortuous liability awards, and every other conceivable team expense?

    One concession the owners should make to the players, assuming the union is willing to agree to an additional sizable credit off the top of total revenue for game growth, is to make a detailed, annual financial accounting—certified by an independent auditor– to the players union of how exactly that “reinvestment” money is being used by the league to grow the revenue pie for the long-term benefit of both sides. That’s reasonable.

  19. clintonportisheadd says: Feb 17, 2011 12:08 PM

    The entertainment industry analogy is the most appropriate one-especially since most of the NFL revenue is from TV money.

    No one ever turned on NBC on Thursday nights to watch Bob Wright or Jack Welch or Alan Horn. The less industry savvy among you may have to google those names….

    They tuned in to watch the TALENT of Jerry Seinfeld, Kelsey Grammer, etc. And that talent commanded huge sums of money. Such is the case with pro sports. The old BS “if he could not play football he would be sweeping floors” applies to may professions. If he wasn’t funny-If she couldn’t sing-If he wasn’t so good looking blah blah blah.

    The difference is that while the folks that make TV and films know that Tom Cruise makes “too much money” the fact is they gladly pay it because THEY MAKE EVEN MORE! Jerry Jones may resent paying Tony Romo millions but the fact is when he succeeds then Jones makes tens of millions.

    The economics of the NFL cannot be compared to those of a lumber yard or a glass factory as so many simpletons here often do.

  20. finfanbernie says: Feb 17, 2011 12:37 PM

    First of all dont get the owners and the league mixed up. Second they want 50% of all revenue not 50% of the profits. I dont see how anyone would agree to that. Thats like saying that MYself and a friend bought a bought a business. It cost $100,000 and my friend wants 50% of our revenue. If the is $1 million/yr he wants $500,000/yr. The cost of operation is $250,000 so that means my friend makes $500,000 and I make $250,000 why would I do that? Please tell me? For the guy who spoke of the entertainment industry, I bet they dont get 50% of total revenue they may get 50% of the sales but I doubt even that is true

  21. mick730 says: Feb 17, 2011 12:37 PM

    “Jerry “Get off my lawn” Richardson already laid out the owners point of view-too many black folks getting too much on MY money.”

    Strange, I could have sworn that Manning and Brees looked an awful lot like two white guys? And this poster has the nerve to call others “Simpletons”?

  22. toe4 says: Feb 17, 2011 1:02 PM

    In 2009 movie The Blind Side Sandra Bullock made $5m plus a percentage of the prophets. The total budget of the movie was $29m.

    Sandra Bullock earned 1/6 of the entire budget of the movie. (plus prophet sharing)

    In 2009 Peyton Manning’s cap number was $21m and the total operating budget for the team was $148m (about 1/7 of the entire budget of the team)

    If the owners wanted to earn a greater prophet they should have bought a movie studio and not an NFL team. The Colts made $215m in 2009 and the movie made $255m. The movie was considerably cheaper to make ($30m vr $150m)

    You can only really compare a sports league to another sports league with a cap. What do other sports leagues players make as a percentage of revenue?

  23. toe4 says: Feb 17, 2011 1:04 PM

    finfanbernie,

    If your company you made with your friend is an internet company, and you know nothing about computers than your friend has the necessary skill that you lack.

    You do that because without your friend you make $0.

  24. thefiesty1 says: Feb 17, 2011 1:09 PM

    One of these days we’ll be talking about REAL money. Give me a break!

  25. clintonportisheadd says: Feb 17, 2011 1:14 PM

    “Jerry “Get off my lawn” Richardson already laid out the owners point of view-too many black folks getting too much on MY money.”

    Strange, I could have sworn that Manning and Brees looked an awful lot like two white guys? And this poster has the nerve to call others “Simpletons”

    ——————–

    Its funny how a guy like Richardson who cries poverty can afford a PR person to defend him on PFT. I would have originally suspected you were one of his sons coming to Dad’s defense but then I remembered he fired them a few years ago!

    He’s a real piece of work….

  26. flr29 says: Feb 17, 2011 1:24 PM

    Can someone who supports the owners please explain why free markets are bad, and a salary cap is good? The USSR and the love of planned economies died two decades ago, or so I thought.

    Why is it that NFL players are not worthy of being paid what the market determines they are worth, but the rest of us are free to negotiate with our employees/employers within the market, absent an artificial cap?

    While millions of entrepreneurs in our country have the intelligence and discipline to create a budget, and adhere to that budget, and still make money (while dealing with market forces, and not some socialist-inspired cap on expenses), why is it that you feel NFL owners do not possess the same intelligence and discipline, and need this artificial help?

  27. biggerballz says: Feb 17, 2011 1:33 PM

    why are all your articles related to the CBA pro union?

  28. scudbot says: Feb 17, 2011 1:42 PM

    Going down flr29’s road, then just fo free market and end revenue sharing. That will ensure that there are a handful of dominant teams that may or may not prosper and the rest of the league can just go fold. Like it or not, the current CBA is a major contributor to pro football’s problems. The union expected the owners to opt out because they knew the CBA wouldn’t be sustainable. It isn’t.

  29. SpartaChris says: Feb 17, 2011 1:51 PM

    flr29 says:
    Feb 17, 2011 1:24 PM
    Can someone who supports the owners please explain why free markets are bad, and a salary cap is good? The USSR and the love of planned economies died two decades ago, or so I thought.

    Why is it that NFL players are not worthy of being paid what the market determines they are worth, but the rest of us are free to negotiate with our employees/employers within the market, absent an artificial cap?

    While millions of entrepreneurs in our country have the intelligence and discipline to create a budget, and adhere to that budget, and still make money (while dealing with market forces, and not some socialist-inspired cap on expenses), why is it that you feel NFL owners do not possess the same intelligence and discipline, and need this artificial help?
    ===================================
    I’m not sure theres a correlation between supporting the owners and believing free markets are bad and a salary cap is good. You can be anti-owners and still believe in both free markets and a salary cap for the NFL.

    But to your point, I think it’s a stretch to compare free markets as a whole to the NFL’s structure. The NFL, as a private business, is free to impose whatever rules on it’s franchise as it deems fit. This is the same as McDonalds telling each of it’s franchise owners that they must use specific wrapping for their burgers.

    Keep in mind, the players don’t have to play for the NFL either. They are free to seek opportunity elsewhere if they feel they are being underpaid.

  30. FoozieGrooler says: Feb 17, 2011 2:04 PM

    biggerballz says: Feb 17, 2011 1:33 PM

    “why are all your articles related to the CBA pro union?”

    ..maybe because they understand the owners are 100% in the wrong here?

  31. flr29 says: Feb 17, 2011 2:21 PM

    By definition, you cannot believe in a free market and a salary cap. You either believe in salaries determined by the market, or by an artificial cap.

    No one is forcing the owners to pay large salaries. And the owners pay them, because they know the players are not overpaid. Which is why they want the salaries capped at below market value.

    Why do the owners not possess the ability to make their own budgets, and the discipline to stick to those budgets?

    The National Restaurant Association does not determine a cap for salaries that McDonald’s and Burger King can pay; the market does.

    Should we cap costs on coaches’ salaries? Stadium renovation costs? Administrator salaries? No.

  32. mick730 says: Feb 17, 2011 2:54 PM

    The league could certainly do away with revenue sharing and a salary cap, which would ensure that several, many in fact, of the current franchises would cease to exist. Green Bay, Indy, Tampa, Jacksonville, Charlotte, New Orleans, Detroit, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Kansas City, St. Louis just to name a few could not compete with Jerry Jones and the Cowboys on any level.

    It is strange indeed that the posters on here who cry the loudest about “billionaire owners” are in fact proposing an arrangement where there would only be “billionaire owners” in the NFL; and it would be a much smaller NFL. So small in fact, that my guess is more than half of the existing teams would cease operations. Guess what union goons? That means a huge reduction in jobs and in particular, a huge reduction in the requirement for NFL players. Half the teams, half the players. Less demand, lower salaries.

    As usual, union goons cannot see past their class and racial resentment, envy and even their bigotry.

  33. mick730 says: Feb 17, 2011 2:56 PM

    “Its funny how a guy like Richardson who cries poverty can afford a PR person to defend him on PFT. I would have originally suspected you were one of his sons coming to Dad’s defense but then I remembered he fired them a few years ago!

    He’s a real piece of work….”

    I could care less about Jerry Richardson or his franchise, but I just wanted to point out to everybody that you are a racist and my guess is everything you see in life is based on your race based resentments.

  34. clintonportisheadd says: Feb 17, 2011 3:14 PM

    flr29 says: Feb 17, 2011 2:21 PM

    By definition, you cannot believe in a free market and a salary cap…………

    ————–

    You want a salary cap if 1) you have a monopoly as the NFL does and 2) you don’t trust one our your fellow owners to pull a Tom Hicks/A-Rod deal.

  35. clintonportisheadd says: Feb 17, 2011 3:17 PM

    mick730 says: Feb 17, 2011 2:54 PM

    The league could certainly do away with revenue sharing and a salary cap, which would ensure that several, many in fact, of the current franchises would cease to exist. Green Bay, Indy, Tampa, Jacksonville, Charlotte, New Orleans, Detroit, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Kansas City, St. Louis just to name a few could not compete with Jerry Jones and the Cowboys on any level.

    ——————

    Never happen.

    The full force of the US Senate and US House would come down on the NFL like a ton of bricks. Nothing hath more fury than a Senator whose state has just been threatened with the loss of it’s football team.

    The NFL knows this although it’s not surprising you don’t judging by he lack of quality in your previous posts.

  36. bigsuede says: Feb 17, 2011 3:58 PM

    Mick writes
    “It is strange indeed that the posters on here who cry the loudest about “billionaire owners” are in fact proposing an arrangement where there would only be “billionaire owners” in the NFL; and it would be a much smaller NFL. So small in fact, that my guess is more than half of the existing teams would cease operations. Guess what union goons? That means a huge reduction in jobs and in particular, a huge reduction in the requirement for NFL players. Half the teams, half the players. Less demand, lower salaries.”

    Mick- having the players make 50% of the revenue of the NFL wouldn’t hurt any of the teams. Personally I don’t see why owners should really be making a profit on football anyway. Being an owner of a football team is a dream- and there are many more rich individuals who would want to buy a sports team than there are teams out there to buy. Do you think owners of nascar teams make money??? No- they do it for the love of the sport, if they break even, they are lucky.

    Basketball players get 57% of all revenue. Baseball players get 47%. NFL football players asking for 50% is not outlandish- and I personally believe they deserve more money than baseball or basketball players because they have much more to lose due to injury.

    And seriously- why are the owners arguing for more money? so they can build bigger stadiums like the one built for the cowboys- do we really need these things? Does the average fan want prices to go up so they can be crammed into even smaller seats and rely on a huge mega-television to be able to watch the game?

    It is silly-if the owners don’t like it, sell the team, take your profit and shut up!

  37. SpartaChris says: Feb 17, 2011 5:41 PM

    flr29 says:
    Feb 17, 2011 2:21 PM
    By definition, you cannot believe in a free market and a salary cap. You either believe in salaries determined by the market, or by an artificial cap.

    No one is forcing the owners to pay large salaries. And the owners pay them, because they know the players are not overpaid. Which is why they want the salaries capped at below market value.

    Why do the owners not possess the ability to make their own budgets, and the discipline to stick to those budgets?

    The National Restaurant Association does not determine a cap for salaries that McDonald’s and Burger King can pay; the market does.

    Should we cap costs on coaches’ salaries? Stadium renovation costs? Administrator salaries? No.
    ====================================

    Sure you can. As a free market guy, it’s not up to me to tell the NFL which kind of business model they should use for their own, private business. I believe it’s within the NFL’s rights to conduct business in a legal and ethical way as they see fit. Put another way, they are free to conduct business in the best way they see fit. If that means a salary cap for their franchises, so be it. It’s their business, they can run it the way they want to. It’s not up to you or me to decide how they should run it.

    On the flip side, if another league wants to step up and compete against the NFL and offer an un-capped system, they too are free to do so.

    No, no one is forcing the owners to pay large salaries, but they aren’t forcing the players to play either. If a player feels he’s under-paid, he’s free to take his talents to elsewhere. I hear South Beach is a pretty nice place.

    While I get your point about owners making up their own budgets and going after whomever they want, the league has decided part of doing business is adhering to a spending limit on players so as to ensure parity throughout the league. It’s within their rights to have such a policy, just like it’s McDonald’s right to pay someone what they feel the job is worth.

  38. toe4 says: Feb 17, 2011 6:35 PM

    To the guys wondering how a salary cap fits in with a free market.

    Turn off FOX news and open up a text book to learn what the term “free market” means.

  39. SpartaChris says: Feb 17, 2011 7:31 PM

    toe4 says:
    Feb 17, 2011 6:35 PM
    To the guys wondering how a salary cap fits in with a free market.

    Turn off FOX news and open up a text book to learn what the term “free market” means.
    =================================
    Not sure what Fox News has to do with the discussion.

    The players are not commodities bought and sold on an open market. They’re contracted employees. That’s it. Not sure how “Free markets” really fit into the discussion of the NFL and their decision to implement a salary cap.

    What I think some of you are trying to say, albeit badly, is you don’t like the salary cap as you feel it stunts the earning potential of the players. That’s fine and is a fair point. But this idea that the NFL should not be allowed to have a salary cap because many global and world markets are “free” is kinda ludicrous. The NFL is a private business.

Leave a Reply

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