Skip to content

The NFLPA* statement on issues preventing a new CBA

Drew Brees AP

The end of federal mediation between the NFL and NFLPA included such a flurry of statements and press conferences that we still haven’t got to addressing them all.

In response to the NFL’s summary of its final proposal to the union last night, the NFLPA* posted their own summary on NFLLockout.com of why the NFL’s offer was unacceptable.

The end of negotiations has caused both sides to increase their transparency to fans.  Or at least their separate versions of transparency.

Alex Marvez of FOXSports.com put it best: “After digesting nfl/nflpa claims & responses on proposals to the other party, I’m wondering whether both sides were even in the same building.”

The full NFLPA statement is after the jump.  Take a look at what the NFL is claiming they offered and you’ll see how they aren’t even speaking the same language.

“The NFL demanded a multi-billion dollar giveback and refused to provide any legitimate financial information to justify it.

The NFL’s offer on March 7 to give the NFLPA a single sheet of numbers was NOT financial disclosure. The players’ accountants and bankers advised that the “offered” information was meaningless: only two numbers for each year.

The NFL wanted to turn the clock back on player compensation by four years, moving them back to where they were in 2007.

The NFL offered no proposal at all for long-term share of revenues.

NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.

The NFL refused to meet the players on significant changes to in-season, off-season or pre-season health and safety rules.

The NFL kept on the table its hypocritical demand for an 18-game season, despite its public claims to be working toward improving the heath and safety of players.

The NFL wanted cutbacks in payer workers’ compensation benefits for injured players.

The NFL sought to limit rookie compensation long after they become veterans — into players’ fourth and fifth years

THE PLAYERS WANT TO KEEP PLAYING

The players offered repeatedly to continue working under the existing CBA, but were rejected by the NFL five times.

Despite publicly admitting no club was losing money, that TV ratings, sponsorship money, etc. were at an all time high, the NFL continued to insist on an 18-percent rollback in the players’ share of revenues and continue to deny the NFLPA’s request for justification.”

Permalink 77 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Features, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
77 Responses to “The NFLPA* statement on issues preventing a new CBA”
  1. mick730 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:38 PM

    Too late kiddies. Your leader, Mr. De Dig it, screwed the pooch and you guys along with it.

  2. snnyjcbs says: Mar 12, 2011 2:39 PM

    One side is lying their rears off, my guess is that it is the players.

  3. chatham10 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:42 PM

    The spin is on. The facts remain that both sides did not think of the fans during this action and no matter how they spin the story it still stinks and the fans have no say so they are wasting their time.

  4. txchief says: Mar 12, 2011 2:42 PM

    Does all this mean there will be more episodes of “Dhani Travels the Globe” this year on Travel Channel? I like the show.

  5. canadian52niner says: Mar 12, 2011 2:42 PM

    The players reps are liars … Plain and simple! Fire demaurice the snake and Kessler his pawn and bring back Troy vincent and then give us back our game!!!

  6. hedleykow says: Mar 12, 2011 2:43 PM

    The players could accept the offer, under protest, and run all their plays going the wrong way, thereby scoring a touchdown for the opposing team on every play. That would make for a safer game with fewer concussions, and fans everywhere would learn to love the teams they once hated.

  7. scudbot says: Mar 12, 2011 2:44 PM

    I just listened to a SiriusXM NFL Radio interview with George Martin, a former NFLPA Executive Director who walked a picket line for 57 days, went through decertification and legal battles, etc. He’s also the current President of the NFL Alumni Association. Neither DeMaurice Smith nor anybody else from the NFLPA has talked to him about anything for over a year despite his offers of assistance and requests for information. He has not been made privvy to any details regarding any veterans’ provisions in what the NFL offered, not even any details about the proposed deal to take the savings from the proposed rookie salary schedule and give them to the vets.

    There’s your 2011 NFLPA.

  8. skoobyfl says: Mar 12, 2011 2:44 PM

    Players offered 5 times to keep a hugely biased player deal going, that’s what I call negotiating.

  9. oldhamletman says: Mar 12, 2011 2:45 PM

    this statement seems dramatically weaker than the NFL statement earlier today…

    another player/union misstep…

    the players should be getting prepared to get really screwed.. they have already seen the best offer… and it’s never coming back now….

    my money is on the multi billionaires when it comes to court action….

  10. txchief says: Mar 12, 2011 2:46 PM

    If the current players really wanted to keep playing, they would be.

  11. tebowsgonnagitya says: Mar 12, 2011 2:48 PM

    That isn’t from the Players, I don’t think all the owners have any idea who gets the chance to play in the new non-union league.

  12. waitingguilty says: Mar 12, 2011 2:48 PM

    I’ve reviewed the statements and claims from both sides and I have to say that right or wrong, the owners appear to have their act together while “The artists formerly known as the NFLPA” are speaking in vague generalities.

    “THE PLAYERS WANT TO KEEP PLAYING”

    Great.

    Why not address the NFL’s version line by line, as they have offered the public much more insight into their offer.

    Now it appears the players rush to court will allow the “Sham defense”, which probably means no off season.

    Oh well…I’m over this whole thing.

    The funniest things now is for both sides to start losing revenue.

    Maybe the next time there is football we will see fan friendly ideas like ala carte tv/internet streams of out of market games, reduced ticket prices, parking prices, stadium food prices etc.

    I now hope they drive this thing into the ground so it has to be built back up and they have to compete for our money instead of us throwing it at them.

  13. waldoampere says: Mar 12, 2011 2:51 PM

    “the NFL’s summary of its final proposal to the union”

    Everyone knows it’s not their final proposal – there will be another one. Let’s just hope the next one doesn’t come in the middle of October.

  14. threefold520 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:53 PM

    I don’t understand the blind trust in the owners. I mean, I’m not wild about how the players have handled themselves either, but as someone who’s been following this for months, I don’t understand the overwhelming support for the owners in the comment sections here.

    What people forget is that the owners and NFLPA were bargaining as partners, not employer/employee. If the latter were the case, asking to see the books would be as unacceptable as people are making it out to be. But as that’s not what’s happening, the only thing that has me not choosing a side (because otherwise, the owners would have my support), is that the owners are providing very insufficient data to back up their claim to an additional 11% of the league’s revenue. Do I think they needed the “ten years audited statements” that De Smith requested? No, but something more than what they received was necessary. Business is still booming in the NFL. Record TV ratings, record advertising revenue, record sales, yet the league still claims it isn’t making enough money. Open the books, and then we’ll be on your side, guys.

  15. Patriot42 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:55 PM

    Sounds like Rosenthal is in bed with the players

  16. eagles83 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:55 PM

    It’s hard to believe either side. Screw them both. Just give us our damn football. I don’t care who is to blame or who stomped there foot here and yelled for mommy there, STFU and get on with it.

  17. pfii63 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:55 PM

    I agree with snnyjcbs… I suspect the players are full of crap… they just didn’t want to see that big a rollback no matter what the numbers showed. Why the two sides can’t agree to a 50/50 split is beyond me.

  18. rpiotr01 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:56 PM

    A multi-billion dollar give back? Who wrote this, Dr. Evil?

  19. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 12, 2011 2:57 PM

    “The NFL demanded a multi-billion dollar giveback and refused to provide any legitimate financial information to justify it.”

    This sounds like 95% of the problem.

  20. deckard26354 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:58 PM

    In the end, the players are going to heavily regret listening to De.

  21. madtolive5 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:58 PM

    I have no idea why the readers of this site continue to support thr owners. A group who used illegal tactics to try to cause a lockout weeks ago and refuses to show there books.

    Why wont they show their books? Because the salaries they give their family members are rediculous. Look at every masthead of an NFL team….all in the family and all earning salaries

  22. spectre14 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:59 PM

    The NFL’s statement is specific. The NFLPA’s statement is vague. It doesn’t take too much intuition to figure out which side’s statement holds more truth.

  23. src3346 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:01 PM

    One this is for sure, The NFLPA was not in the room on Friday. They were busy drafting an Antitrust Lawsuit, Letters to the NFL notifying of Decertification. In order to negotiate both parties have to listen…duh

    A really great starting point would be to look at the leagues proposal. It seems to have some substance which is far different from the garbage that the so called NFLPA leader is spewing. The League is putting in writing what they are willing to do. Where is the NFLPA’s substantive proposal.

    Smith is a complegte farce.

  24. cappa662 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:02 PM

    If my boss told me to work harder for less pay, I’d tell him to go F himself. I’m better off getting laid off and collecting unemployment.

    Gene Upshaw had it right, once you give them (owners) something… you’ll never get it back.

    Thumbs up for the players for sticking up for themselves. Most football players have 3 years or less to earn as much money as possible. Any down, can be your last down.

  25. cbluem says: Mar 12, 2011 3:03 PM

    The players continue to look worse and worse. I understand that they would play at the current CBA. It was huge in their favor. The owners were wanting more money, but it came down to about 10 million per team. The owners were letting them have less practice time in the offseason and more benefits. The players could have given a little at the bargaining table.

  26. ladystpaul says: Mar 12, 2011 3:04 PM

    Something definitely stinks in Denmark, but methinks the stench arises from both sides.

    It’s not without the realm of possibility that the wealthy owner types are just better at spin.

  27. dontcallmepete says: Mar 12, 2011 3:05 PM

    I would feel myself a fool if I watched a sport but couldn’t stand the players. A lot of you guys are too young to remember the AFL and how it started. Max Winter, Lamar Hunt, Bud Adams and others wanted NFL franchises. The NFL told them to go screw themselves. Max Winters by the way called his team the … Minnesota Vikings. When the NFL saw that these guys were serious they tried to allow only “selected” guys in to the NFL but didn’t expand because there weren’t enough players or stadiums. They decided where the franchises went, or so they thought. When they have to compete with others for players the lose. America isn’t about the boss telling you what to do and you do it or hit the highway. If you don’t like the players then don’t watch the damned game. Nobody’s forcing you are they? Tell you what, have your team play with scabs and its’ owner make dozens of millions more and I’ll have my team play with the best players and my owner make money but a little less and see how it turns out.

  28. jeff061 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:05 PM

    De Smith – the guy with no ties to football and the guy who has stated his political aspirations to family and friends – has viewed this all along as an opportunity to raise his profile

    He’s a loser – looking to advance his own cause – while whipping the players up in a frenzy over ridiculous claims of distrust

    Owners are trying to create a sustainable league that will profit leading to years of prosperity for both sides. The players are cooking the golden goose

  29. dirtmcgirt24 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:07 PM

    Why not stop the ankle grabbing and let this play out? There’s almost 6 months until the first game (unless you get jacked up for pre-season games). There’s little impact on fans at this time, certainly not enough to justify some of the comments with people being “done” with the NFL. You’re lying (you’ll be back), and you’re getting worked up over negotiations and ploys that have little to no effect on you.

    These are big boys fighting for as much as they can, as is generally the case in most, if not all, negotiations over billions of dollars. You would all do the same thing, regardless of what side you happened to be on.

    Unless you’re prepared to state that if you were part of a labor group and wouldn’t do all you could to use your leverage to fight for billions of dollars and you would just take whatever deal was offered to you, then enough of the union bashing.

    Unless you’re prepared to state that if you were the owner of a for-profit business and wouldn’t try to cut costs by billions of dollars if you knew you had a chance to do so, then enough of the ownership bashing.

    There’s 5 months to go before you all will be hanging yourselves without your beloved football. Until then, relax, sit back and watch.

  30. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 12, 2011 3:09 PM

    #
    madtolive5 says: Mar 12, 2011 2:58 PM

    I have no idea why the readers of this site continue to support thr owners.

    ————————–

    Because they not too clever sheep following the lead of the folks that run the site.

    Bet they censor this one too!!!

  31. zaggs says: Mar 12, 2011 3:09 PM

    Want proof to see how full of crap the union is? Notice their utter lack of showing they offered anything to the owners? Exactly. The union never gave a crap about negotiations.

  32. angrycorgi says: Mar 12, 2011 3:12 PM

    This is a BS spin job by the PA…

    “The NFL wanted cutbacks in payer workers’ compensation benefits for injured players.”

    —-they offered a flat 1 million payout instead of contract gaurantee payout (rich veterans would see it as a cut, the average player would see it as a great improvement, and injuries wouldn’t bankrupt teams)

    “The NFL sought to limit rookie compensation long after they become veterans — into players’ fourth and fifth years”

    —-the owners wanted to reduce the grossly overpayed 1st round rookie payouts and distribute some of it to veterans and some to later round players as well as set the minimum 1st round contract to 5 years. The PA’s claim only makes sense as a complaint of a small % of rookies, not the whole…and they call a 4th year player a veteran…4 years in you are just starting to EARN your pay after learning the game for the previous 2-3 years and costing more than you’re worth.

    Regardless of who wins the lawsuit, the players have lost Ll of my respect.

  33. zaggs says: Mar 12, 2011 3:13 PM

    Also interesting to note is that the league offered more then just the numbers they initially presented. Yet the union is silent on that issue.

  34. rsjem1979 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:14 PM

    I’m absolutely flabbergasted at the number of people siding with the owners.

    That’s the group that put the previous CBA in a paper shredder and created this entire situation in the first place. They’re the side trying to change the agreed-upon terms of shared revenue.

    The simple fact is, if the owners ARE taking a financial hit, it’s on a local level, the revenues they DON’T SHARE with the players whatsoever. Because of that, they want the players to give back a portion of what they do share.

    Trying to frame the conversation in any other way is disingenuous and an outright lie. The players aren’t asking for more out of the deal, they’re asking for an explanation to justify getting less. It’s entirely on the owners to provide that justification since they’re the ones who have been threatening a lockout for over two years.

  35. bucforever says: Mar 12, 2011 3:14 PM

    Another WIN for the lawyers!

  36. JimmySmith says: Mar 12, 2011 3:15 PM

    The players made their biggest mistake the day they hired DeMaurice Smith. He is far more interested in promoting his career than he ever was in reaching an agreement. In fact, reaching an agreement would have hurt his career and thus set up this sham.

    I don’t see much good coming until they get rid of this clown and we all know that is never going to happen.

  37. browns99 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:16 PM

    Just give them a counter offer. I understand the leagues compromise is probably not as sweet as they make it out to be but the NFLPA’s arguments are so absolute and deceptive, I’m really having a hard time supportring their cause. OK Mr. Toad, you want to talk honesty? Let’s look at your talking points.

    1) “The NFL demanded a multi-billion dollar giveback and refused to provide any legitimate financial information to justify it.

    Oh really? Yeah, two weeks ago that was the case. How about he last proposal. You know meet in the middle?

    2) The NFL’s offer on March 7 to give the NFLPA a single sheet of numbers was NOT financial disclosure. The players’ accountants and bankers advised that the “offered” information was meaningless: only two numbers for each year.

    Who cares. You are getting paid a lot of money and you are assuming the fans money will always be there. This is an arguement for the sake of an argument.

    3)The NFL wanted to turn the clock back on player compensation by four years, moving them back to where they were in 2007.

    Last time I checked the league didn’t have a 160 million dollar salary cap in 2007.

    4) The NFL offered no proposal at all for long-term share of revenues.

    You can’t even agree upon one year. Where is your proposal?

    5) NFL demanded 100% of all revenues which went above unrealistically low projections for the first four years.

    I don’t even know what this means but unrealistically is an opinion. What is considered unrealistic?

    6) The NFL refused to meet the players on significant changes to in-season, off-season or pre-season health and safety rules.

    Oh really? Check the NFL’s statement. I guess he is arguing what ‘significant changes’ means?

    7) The NFL kept on the table its hypocritical demand for an 18-game season, despite its public claims to be working toward improving the heath and safety of players.

    Wrong. No 18 game season for the next two years. Ok, they would like to talk about it in the future but so what? And they did cut back on player practices.
    8) The NFL wanted cutbacks in payer workers’ compensation benefits for injured players.

    Didn’t they offer money in the second year of injury? Something that wasn’t offered before.

    9) The NFL sought to limit rookie compensation long after they become veterans — into players’ fourth and fifth years

    Ok. So pay the rookies a salary for one year? Then they are veterans?

  38. bunjy96 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:19 PM

    Except for possibly Drew Brees, I haven’t seen one player make a comment that was of reason.
    Have not seen De make one non inflammatory comment.

    They went there to decertify and make the fans think they were negotiating. Brady et al didn’t walk into court at the last minute with no paperwork or research.

    Kesler was screaming for decertification a week ago.

    All of the first leaks from the mediation came from NFLPA.

    Wake up people!

    Players are EMPLOYEES.

  39. larryfinfan says: Mar 12, 2011 3:19 PM

    Threefold520, sorry to inform you of this, but the players are not PARTNERS in this deal…they are employees. No other company exposes it’s books to their employees…why should the NFL. What has changed for the owners is that over the last 5 yrs is a declining economy and now, mostly due to that economy, THEY have to supply the monies for the upgrades and new stadiums where in the past they didn’t have to. If the players are not smart enough to not see the change in the economic factors that the owners are challenged with now, shame on them. Naturally, it doesn’t matter to the players that the owners now incur more costs and it shouldn’t be their concern. They all make much more than 95% of the rest of us anyway. They certainly haven’t seen a negative change in their economic status.

    There are varying reasons for this labor strife, and the owners and players, at this point share all of the blame…time for them to fix things…

  40. drslipdadic2me says: Mar 12, 2011 3:24 PM

    While keeping us so entrenched in their mouth, they failed to keep us in their mind while negotiating. I really don’t care to point fingers at anyone. I tend to agree with Robert Kraft’s statement that all would have worked without issue had all lawyers exited the room.

    Bottom line is there is no league & no football. Most importantly, there are plenty of folks on the bottom end of the payroll & indirect positions (sports bars, sports retailers, etc) with their jobs in jeopardy.

    My concern hasn’t swayed today from 11 days prior….. FIX IT. Instead of spending excessive days wasting more time playing the blame game, spend your time trying to fix the problem. The problem lies within both parties.

    To the owners…. If there is no loss for any of the 32 clubs & all clubs are at an all time high regarding profitability, drop your complete point & get your @$$ back to work & get this problem fixed.

    To the players….. If the money the owners are asking for can result in even more profitability both short & long term for the whole partnership, including retired players, then give them what they need & get your @$$ back to work & get the remaining issues at hand fixed.

    Currently, you’ve both:
    a) Cut off your nose to spite your face
    b) pi$$ed down our backs & told us it was raining
    c) $h!t in our cereal
    d) have not taken into account that not only are you affecting fans, your affecting other folks jobs who have nothing to do with any of this. Innocent folks making a living & you’ve interfered with that. I take that personal, & I don’t profit from anything that has to do with the NFL.

  41. oldhamletman says: Mar 12, 2011 3:24 PM

    to comment on why there seems to be a lot of owners support, it really boils down to two things:

    - the Players PR is poor in comparison to the Owners, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of agreement between the accounts, and the Players message seems to be very vague, making it seem like just a bunch of exaggerated bitching … and us Fans hear enough of that in our every day lives

    - regardless of the legalities, Players are seen as overreaching to ask for the Owners financials.. the fans never get that from their employers, and this fact combined with Players like Brees trying to play the ‘poor downtrodden worker’ card just exposes the truth: the Players are nothing like us fans… they are pushing to take as much as they can and try to hold the owners hostage.

    are both the Players and Owners arrogant jerks? yes.

    the difference is, the Owners aren’t trying to say “hey, we are just like you”… the Players, while making an average of $1.3M per year, are trying to pull that one over on us fans… and we see it for what it is: trying to use us to get their way.

  42. bahamallama says: Mar 12, 2011 3:25 PM

    I don’t see why everyone is jumping on the side of the owners.
    Every year when my NY state budget comes up they want to scale back the union wages or benefits, everyone sides with the poor workers over the state, this is the same thing but worse!
    People actually thnk the owners are telling the truth because their statement has more details? Lawyers and liars know for your side to “appear” believable you include details, you also omit details as well!
    The details provided by the owners are a smoke screen to get the public on their side, and most people here are falling for it! They left out any of their demands and the fact they won’t show the books enforces they are the ones not being open and honest.

    You can’t compare the players situation to yours unless you are in a union, in which case if your employer cut your salary by 17% your union would be up in arms and they would put a stop to it!

    If you are jealous of the players, that’s not their fault, if your jealous because you can’t go to your boss and demand a raise, that’s not a good reason to hate the players.

    I think we are a long way away from the truth and in the end it will between what both claim.

  43. angrycorgi says: Mar 12, 2011 3:27 PM

    “I’m better off getting laid off and collecting unemployment.”

    You exemplify everything that is wrong with this country.

  44. dontcallmepete says: Mar 12, 2011 3:27 PM

    I’m absolutely flabbergasted at the number of people siding with the owners

    —————————————
    It’s particularly perplexing when they themselves would never stand for such treatment. The owners make money no matter if their teams win or not. What other American business can claim that. Jerry Jones was fined for talking about the Minnesota stadium situation.

    “Right now, we are subsidizing this market,” Jones said. “It’s unthinkable to think that the market you’ve got here, with 3.5 million people, and have teams like Kansas City and Green Bay subsidizing this market. That will stop. That’s going to stop. That’s called revenue sharing.
    That’s on its way out”

    Revenue sharing built this league. Rich owners don’t want to continue that. The smaller owners don’t want to have to compete with mega-stadiums. I mean owners come and ask for tax dollars and the very people who’re so anti-tax that schools around the country are closing side with the owners.

  45. larryfinfan says: Mar 12, 2011 3:28 PM

    rsjem1979: The simple fact is, if the owners ARE taking a financial hit, it’s on a local level, the revenues they DON’T SHARE with the players whatsoever. Because of that, they want the players to give back a portion of what they do share.

    That’s a serious oversimplification of the situation RS. The fact is the owners now have more costs to maintain the business. The players won’t accept this fact. That said, the PA has bargained even less than the owners in mediation. They haven’t changed their status one iota from what they asked for 2 yrs ago….that’s not bargaining….Seems to me, they are the culprits in the work stoppage, no matter whether you call it a lockout or strike…

    I wonder where De Smith’s next check is coming from ??

  46. azelli1 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:34 PM

    Oh to be one of the owners……

    I would first begin by telling the former union that there will never be a union again if they decertify. Any further talk of unionization in the future will result in the immediate dismissal of all players.

    From this point forward, all future contacts with players will have $0 guaranteed $$. All money will be incentive based payable at the end of the season. You don’t like it, form your own league.

    I would also inform them that the owners will decrease their offer every day until a new deal is signed. At a certain point, players will have to pay the NFL for the right to play for a year and prove themselves worthy.

    I am sick of the entitlement. The owners are the ones who became successful wealthy business men. They don’t hav eto prove themselves or their motives to anyone.

    This is just another example of unions destroying this country. We should let the gov of Wisconsin lead the NFL. He is the smartest man in America.

    Go owners. Screw these guys early and often.

  47. angrycorgi says: Mar 12, 2011 3:36 PM

    An OG was on Sirius today talking about the players’ view…he said the owners could let the season play out and not lock the players out if they really wanted to play football while the “legal proceedings continued”…the idiot was acting like a lawsuit is a benign event…that would be like me inviting my neighbor over for a BBQ at my house while he’s suing me for $2 million in emotional damages after accidentally running over his favorite shrub…I am getting more and more convinced that the players are players because their IQ is far too low to be successful in real life…apparently they think we are equally as stupid and automatically buy al the BS they are selling…

  48. threefold520 says: Mar 12, 2011 3:41 PM

    Larry, you’re saying that owners have to take a financial risk to own a team? Shocking. While the owners are the employers of individual players, they negotiated with the former players’ association as partners. A conglomerate of 32 businesses can’t negotiate with a large group of individual employees without breaking antitrust laws, so they must negotiate as partners. The owners’ problem is that, in a terrible economy, their profits aren’t growing as quickly as they’d like. They’re still growing, mind you, just not quickly enough for their liking.

  49. JL says: Mar 12, 2011 3:53 PM

    Mike, would it possible to do a feature that analyzes the (public) last offers of both the NFLPA and the league in order to find out who was being unreasonable.

  50. ntafnofunions says: Mar 12, 2011 3:58 PM

    lets have the players open their books for the last ten years. I’d like to see how much Brady, Manning, Brees, and Peterson all made in endorsements. They should add all that money to the pie since the NFLPA wants everything open and shared in this “partnership” between the owners and players.

  51. theembalmed says: Mar 12, 2011 4:03 PM

    The whole situation is funny as hell. And some of these comments and ideas are even funnier. Bottom line here is…

    Owners own the teams and pay the players. In this country they dont have to provide any benefits for current or former players, no pension, no revenue sharing, no nothing. They are only required to pay their employees.
    If the owners want to shut it down terminate every contract and go hire new employees that will be appriciative, they can.
    the players have been pampered by the the union, the courts, the fans, and the owners for to long.

    Fire all the players, have no season this year, and start from scratch with whatever system the owners want to employ….it maynot be pretty this first 5-10 years, but it would be best. Screw the players little “union today, not tomorrow” ploy they keep using. If a union decertifies then it should be gone, all contracts void, and no union can be put in place for 5 yrs afterwards.

    the players wanted court all along so they get more just like the last time. they dont want to play, just go to court decertified and get as much as possible, restart the union and do it again in 15 years.

  52. unselfishone says: Mar 12, 2011 4:21 PM

    I mentioned some of this earlier on a different article and of course was given the thumbs down but here goes the summary:

    1. Comparing players to the rest of our earnings is irrelevant. Actors, lawyers, athletes, bank CEO’s, politicians etc all make more than they are worth. This is just about two sides divying up a large pot that they agreed they would share in some percentage. Hhonestly, all of us in each of our occupations do what we can to get the most income and best benefits. This is nothing but the same concept on a grander scale.

    2. The players and owners are partners-that is clear-despite the posts that they are employees. They set up this arrangement years ago, partially to keep the Anti trust issues from occurring. They share revenues and always will.

    3. If the fans on these sites want to complain about the salaries and costs of NFL related items then stop attending games, stop buying tickets, buying merchandise, and purchasing the expensive NFL TV packages. Otherwise please stop complaining because your monies have contributed to the issue and it is hypocrital to be complaining.

    4. In any negotiations, just because one side starts out asking for a Billion dollars and then agrees to split the difference, that does not necessarily make it a fair or reasonable offer that has to be accepted. The owners have the burden to prove that earnings have declined as they are claiming(even though all indications are they are rising) .They opted out and have made the claim. I have seen no concrete data to support a declining revenue base in the NFL and in fact I think as fans we know it is growing not shrinking. In addition, most franchises are now worth over a Billion dollars net of debt and are growing in value annually. That value goes entirely to the owners. Stadiums are more expensive because the owners have such huge egos they are building palaces and legacies rather than just football stadiums.

    5. If the NFL thinks they have supplied sufficient financial information then ask yourself one simple question: Is this the same info they provide and show to banks when they borrow for construction of stadiums? If not then it was either insufficient or intended to be incomplete and I would not trust it.

    6. It is ridiculous for the owners to claim that the increased safety protections should be a compromised issue for the owners that they should be given credit back on other issues. There is no doubt both sides should ethically want better safety and long term health and in other industries it is regulated and required. How can anyone even use this a part of the negotiations as leverage. This should be off the table and just done.

    7. The 82 Million in benefits over the next 2 years proposed by the owners actually comes out of the players pot. If you ask for $325 million annualy in additional credits off the top from the players, then giving $82 million on the first 2 years is not coming out of your pocket. Keep in mind the $325 million is annually to the owners on top of the existing $1 Billion the owners get and will be in place every year. If I was the owners I would gladly give back money that I never had to begin with. To call it a huge concession is deceptive and misleading.

    8. The rookie wage scale is actually not a concession at all from the owners. They are actually just swapping money paid to first round picks and distributing it back to other veterans,(subject to the salary cap limitations) so for the owners press release to even talk about this like a concession is just not truthful.

    9. There is good historical precedent for the players and player reps not trusting owners. Many of these owners are ruthless and as indicated by the television contract negotiations, they will do anything to break down the players and union.

    I am neither pro union or pro players, but I simply cannot understand some of the comments supporting the owners in this fight.

    Unlike some businesses, owners clearly have a marketable product and huge revenues because of the talent and sweat equity of the players. Unlike many companies, the owners could not walk on the field and replace the players.

  53. sudzy11 says: Mar 12, 2011 4:28 PM

    Every time I start to side with the owners over the players I remember that the owners didn’t get interested in negotiating until they lost their $4 billion lock out insurance. I will keep backing the players regardless of how many stupid things they do or say. It is better than being on the side of Jerry Jones and little Danny Snyder (please don’t sue me, Danny).

  54. scytherius says: Mar 12, 2011 4:37 PM

    Owners are a friggin joke. Let the entire thing die. Serves ‘em right.

  55. scytherius says: Mar 12, 2011 4:39 PM

    @unselfishone

    EXCELLENT post. Most of the complainers here are just ignorant. They have zero understanding of anything beyond their little world. Stupid is everywhere, isn’t it?

    But, again, excellent post.

  56. richm2256 says: Mar 12, 2011 5:00 PM

    cappa662 says:
    I’m better off getting laid off and collecting unemployment.
    ————————————————–
    Speaking as someone who IS laid off and IS collecting unemployment while busting his a$$ looking for a job in this wonderful Obama “recovering” economy, let me say that I hope your boss FIRES your sorry a$$ Monday morning and contests your unemployment benefits.

    Moron.

  57. contract says: Mar 12, 2011 5:08 PM

    “I don’t understand the blind trust in the owners. I mean, I’m not wild about how the players have handled themselves either, but as someone who’s been following this for months, I don’t understand the overwhelming support for the owners in the comment sections here.”

    1) It has become common for businesses to hire people to flood places like this with the party line under the guise of being customers or ordinary fans.

    2) Decades of anti-union brain washing in this country have had an effect. Nothing makes my head hurt worse than people railing against union workers because they get better pay and benefits than “average Joes” like them do … apparently too dense to conclude that they too could have better pay and benefits if they unionized.

  58. contract says: Mar 12, 2011 5:16 PM

    “Players are EMPLOYEES.”

    So are the guys playing in the UFL … but for some reason that league doesn’t seem to be raking in the mega bucks like the NFL does.

    No one pays money to watch Jerry Jones own a team. Almost no one pays to watch inferior talent in lesser football leagues. The players are the product. The players bring in the revenue by attracting the fans and the advertizing dollars … all the owners do is live off the players and extort cities for tax dollars.

  59. tremoluxman says: Mar 12, 2011 5:40 PM

    Wow. I’d wager that 99% of the posters here are working stiffs and I find it remarkable that there is such animosity toward the union and sympathy for the owners. Do you guys really think ownership has the best interests of the players at heart? They are the raw material that pours money into their accounts, nothing more. They know they have an endless supply of willing bodies coming out of the colleges. Guys who will play for whatever they can get and hoping to strike it rich. You’ve seen how a veteran player supposedly signs a huge contract, but often only a portion is guaranteed. When he reaches a certain age or when the big bucks are due to kick in, he’s cut or asked to work for less than agreed on. Then signed back at a much lower rate. I’d be insulted and humiliated.

    Yes, players make good money. But they work in an industry where it is all relative. Like movies and music and TV. We can’t relate because our pay is real world. Movies, music, and TV is not real world, 9-to-5, like our jobs. Another point is that the majority of players aren’t making the Favre, Manning, Brees, etc. type money. I’d say probably 5%-10% of the players are making about 85% of all the money. Yes, they make more than us, but they won’t be playing 15-25 years for the same team at a steadily increasing salary. Most peak out shortly after 30 and then it’s AMF from management.

    Ownership gets their stadiums publicly financed for the most part. They get loans from the NFL, too. Given the labor history in this country over the last 120 years, I’ll take a union’s word over ownership any day.

  60. richm2256 says: Mar 12, 2011 5:58 PM

    tremoluxman = Drew Brees

    Go home, Drew, we’re sick of listening to you.

    The a$$clown players are fighting with the a$$clown owners over NINE BILLION DOLLARS, and both sides are trying to align themselves with the $40,000 – $60,000 a year working slobs that they’re BOTH screwing over.

    Memo to Owners and Players:
    Shut the hell up, $hit-can the damn lawyers, and broker a deal that’s fair to BOTH sides, while Joe Sixpack still gives a damn about either of you!

  61. rsjem1979 says: Mar 12, 2011 6:07 PM

    Tell me again how trustworthy the owners are:

    What they say – “We care about the best interests of the fans.”

    What they do – PSLs, forcing fans to pay full price for preseason games as part of season ticket packages, games in Europe, $800 face value Super Bowl tickets, new stadiums fans never asked for.

    As a Giants fan, I’ve always admired the Mara family because it was Wellington’s unselfishness that helped establish the massive national TV contract that funds the entire league.

    However, listening to John Mara yesterday made me sick. I’d been on the Giants season ticket waiting list for a decade when they decided to build a new stadium. There wasn’t a Giants fan anywhere who thought a new stadium was necessary. Those are the fans who helped build the original Giants Stadium, and filled it week after week regardless of how the team was doing . How did they reward that loyalty? By building a new stadium and extorting massive PSLs out of season ticket owners who wanted to continue to see the Giants every week.

    Before that, I was probably another 10 years (at least) away from reaching the top of the season ticket list. Now, not a week goes by that I don’t get an email from the team offering the the “once in a lifetime” chance to plunk down 10 grand just FOR THE RIGHT to buy season tickets.

    There isn’t an owner in the NFL who sees fans as anything but a walking, talking wallet. So, excuse me for not buying the spin they’re putting on this entire situation. To suggest that the actions of the NFLPA forced the lockout is the biggest load of crap imaginable since they’ve been threatening it for two full years, and tried like hell to create a security blanket of guaranteed money. Only when that was taken away did they start attempting to “negotiate” with the players – so don’t tell me they’re even remotely credible in this scenario.

  62. oldhamletman says: Mar 12, 2011 6:22 PM

    again:

    are both the Players and Owners arrogant jerks? yes.

    the difference is, the Owners aren’t trying to say “hey, we are just like you” to fans… the Players, while making an average of $1.3M per year, are trying to pull that one over on us fans… and we see it for what it is: trying to use us to get their way.

    —————

    The comparison between Players and Fans IS relevant because the Players have taken that position… you bring that out and now you have to live with it.

  63. varaider says: Mar 12, 2011 6:33 PM

    Some of these comments are ridiculous…

    Whoever assumes that Smith makes the decisions is a damn fool… he is only their “SPOKESMAN”, the one they chose to RELAY what THEY want…

    Whatever Smith is claiming, is whatever the players COLLECTIVELY agreed upon… (Or at least the Majority)…

    So instead of throwing all this HATE towards ONE man, how about you you throw it (whether unjust or not) at the players as a whole, INCLUDING Smith… not just at ONE man…

  64. stevecmh says: Mar 12, 2011 6:42 PM

    OK, let me get this straight…

    The owners willingly agreed to a labor agreement with the players’ union.

    The owners decided to terminate that contract (as they were entitled to do).

    The owners negotiated TV contracts that required network payments even if there was a lockout, leaving cash on the negotiating table that should have been shared with the players. A federal judge has determined this violated the labor contract.

    The owners claimed they can no longer afford the terms of the contract they signed but have not provided sufficient financial information to the union to justify the need for players to give back $1 billion.

    During negotiations, the owners reportedly reduced their requested give back to approximately $327 million. [I guess their $1 billion claim was inflated a little.]

    The owners rejected five union offers to continue operating under the existing contract so negotiations will have additional time to produce a new contract.

    After all of this, most people who take the time to add a comment have sided with the owners? I find that very disappointing and somewhat scary.

    I don’t begrudge players the salaries they make, nor do I object to the high salaries of others in the entertainment business.

    From a legal perspective, the players ARE employees just like most people working in America. They are represented by a union, as 1 of every 6 Americans. Parts of the labor contract ARE structured as a sort of partnership because the two sides agreed to split certain revenues between them. However, the players are still employees.

    If the owners are really in financial distress, they should be motivated to convince the union of that fact. Releasing partial information is just a PR gambit. Why won’t the owners document their financial problems? Because it’s not true? Who knows?

    The two sides should be able to structure the release of financial data so that the union gets sufficient information but the owners protect unrelated proprietary information. The fact that an acceptable structure was not achieved is a sad state of affairs for which I hold both sides responsible. Personally, I would question the legal advice both sides received on that point.

  65. dare5259 says: Mar 12, 2011 6:45 PM

    It seems as though we have some number of NFL players actually watching, reading and posting comments in these blogs. I find that fascinating. It’s difficult to know whether it is an actual player or someone putting themselves in the player’s shoes, but it appears to be people on that side of the fence. Often, in these arguments, such people make claims that presuppose a few things, one such argument is that player’s careers are short and that somehow entitles them to more pay and benefits. I’d like to counter that argument.

    There is no reason anyone should assume that a short (successful or not) playing career entitles any player to a life of financial solvency. The financial state of the player is their own making. As such, the idea that each player should be fighting for maximized benefits over their NFL careers is reasonable and expected. However, this does NOT mean that being an NFL player ENTITLES that player to affluence for the remainder of their lifetime, which is what these exorbitant CBAs propose.

    Every player enters the league in the hopes of a long, successful career. It will not be that way for most. Every player needs to understand and accept that this will not (in most cases) be the only job they ever hold. Supply and demand dictates that the players will earn more during their playing years than they will earn in their post-NFL careers, and players should plan accordingly (no one’s going to pay you extra to work for HR in their company because you can run fast or jump high). It is not the responsibility of ownership, nor should it be the goal of the union, to protect the players from themselves.

    Plan for life after football. No one owes you anything. Make as much as you can, for as long as you can, and expect to be a part of the working world when you leave. This whole CBA struggle seems more and more centered around players expecting their short NFL career to replace a lifetime of work. Don’t expect that. Use the opportunities you have in the NFL to make your future more secure. There are only a handful of players who will be able to truly retire after leaving the game of football, and you should not assume to be one. The revenue sharing in the NFL has created this dynamic between the League and union. Players feel entitled to the success the owners enjoy. How is that? Players come and go and the teams remain successful organizations. Enjoy the high risk, high reward career you have, and make sure it takes you as far as possible.

    Just like anyone else in the world, success today does not equal success tomorrow. Every day requires a renewed dedication, and unless you go into broadcasting, acting, or some other high profile, high demand career, you will never match the money you make in the NFL. The success you enjoy during your career will only carry you as far as you make it – that is not the owner’s responsibility.

    Those that keep using the argument that other union workers should back the players, or that the union is only doing what is in the best interest of the league seem to be lacking the necessary perspective to see both sides of this. This is not a fight for a safe work environment so that you can work there for 30 years and retire. It is an understood risk with generous reward and limited shelf-life. Stop trying to milk the 3 year cow for a lifetime – it’s going to dry up and you’ll be left holding the spoiled milk.

    This is what most of us mean when we say “for the love of the game”. Making it to the NFL should be an exciting part of your life, but it will not be your LIFE…only a part. You’re expecting too much. Most of us see it as greed and an irrational demand.

  66. prmpft says: Mar 12, 2011 7:06 PM

    “cappa662 says:
    Mar 12, 2011 3:02 PM
    If my boss told me to work harder for less pay, I’d tell him to go F himself. I’m better off getting laid off and collecting unemployment.”

    ____________________________________

    I’m betting money that you – in fact – in this economy (unless what you do is in emergency demand) would NOT do that…see, the problem with thinking that the man is NOT in control is not a GIVEN – unless “ATLAS SHRUGGED” is correct, then there are still enough producers out there to be sick of moochers and looters…look at a more common example – “Animal Farm” you would probably be NO DIFFERENT than the bosses if YOUwere the boss…

  67. Kave Krew says: Mar 12, 2011 7:27 PM

    HEY, just one second now……….I see you place an asterik * next to the NFLPA*.

    There can only be one asterisk in the NFL and that belongs to my New England Patriots – as in 19-0*, 18-1*, Bill Belicheater*, etc*…….

    I will file a lawsuit over the infringement rights for that asterisk…….come up with your symbol…..

    NFLPA-$ has a nice touch to it…….

  68. FinFan68 says: Mar 12, 2011 7:33 PM

    cappa662 says:
    Mar 12, 2011 3:02 PM
    …Thumbs up for the players for sticking up for themselves. Most football players have 3 years or less to earn as much money as possible. Any down, can be your last down.
    ————————————–
    You and others keep pointing to this “3 years” stat and likely have no idea where it comes from. The “average” NFL career lasts 3 years is often a statement made by players/agents. Think about your fav players and then think about how long they have played…more than 3 years, huh? Here’s why. The number of players on each team at the start of camp is somewhere in the 80′s and then gets whittled down to the 53 at the end of preseason. ALL those cut players count just as much as as the vet players but these guys usually account for .x% of one year each. That drastically reduces the average career length when it is factored. It is just a numbers game that the players use to help make their point seem more important. In essence the average career length has more to do with the ability to make a team than it has ever been about injury.

  69. lennydpocketqb says: Mar 12, 2011 7:43 PM

    Can’t wait for the scab players to start playing. It will be glorious!

  70. stevecmh says: Mar 12, 2011 7:46 PM

    @dare5259

    I will not suggest that you’re an NFL owner because your comments support their position. Why do you suggest that some of those who post comments supporting the players’ position are actually NFL player themselves? Is that statement really necessary?

    In my opinion, starting your post with such comments only serves to devalue what you’ve written. I doubt that was your intention.

  71. FinFan68 says: Mar 12, 2011 7:52 PM

    varaider says:
    Mar 12, 2011 6:33 PM
    Some of these comments are ridiculous…

    Whoever assumes that Smith makes the decisions is a damn fool… he is only their “SPOKESMAN”, the one they chose to RELAY what THEY want…

    Whatever Smith is claiming, is whatever the players COLLECTIVELY agreed upon… (Or at least the Majority)…

    So instead of throwing all this HATE towards ONE man, how about you you throw it (whether unjust or not) at the players as a whole, INCLUDING Smith… not just at ONE man…
    ——————————————-
    Wow. Do you actually think a majority of the players would have turned down that last offer? No, way.

  72. stevecmh says: Mar 12, 2011 7:54 PM

    @cappa662

    NFL experience in this context is actually determined by being on an NFL roster DURING the regular season. That is what earns service credit toward the pension, toward free agency qualification, etc.

    While it is an admirable accomplishment to participate in an NFL training camp, play in exhibition games, etc., those players are not included in the calculation of average career length statistics.

  73. dare5259 says: Mar 12, 2011 7:55 PM

    @stevecmh

    While my statement may seem to serve to devalue my position, I believe it to be true. It seems that a number of posters on this particular site come across as the athletes themselves. It is merely an observation. I do not intend that to suggest that ALL player-supporting opinions are from players, there are certainly many more that are from average readers/fans. You may be right that my statement devalued the post, and that was certainly not my intent. However, the majority of my post was addressed to players specifically; therefore, if none of the suspected players are ACTUAL players, my post was pointless anyway.

  74. thefiesty1 says: Mar 12, 2011 8:42 PM

    What’s De going to do now that there is no union? Poor baby is going to have to get a real job. Good luck, nobody in their right mind would hire him.

  75. puregreed says: Mar 12, 2011 10:49 PM

    madtolive5 says:
    Mar 12, 2011 2:58 PM
    I have no idea why the readers of this site continue to support thr owners. A group who used illegal tactics to try to cause a lockout weeks ago and refuses to show there books.

    Why wont they show their books? Because the salaries they give their family members are rediculous. Look at every masthead of an NFL team….all in the family and all earning salaries

    Of course the owners give their families salaries its a write off, and why else would you not want share y0ur earnings with your family?

    Why do these players feel they need to make half of the money anyway. Your special talents are what running fast etc. How does that equate to the real world? A special talent is transplanting a heart not “playing” a game. You provide nothing to society that matters, and the league will survive without you.

    You say your career is an average of 3 years long. So why would I miss you? College and high school regularly change players and they still have my support. You players may be “gods” to the uneducated but to the educated you are “Court Jesters” here to amuse me and the rest of society.

    Bring on the scabs I love the game of football not the men that play it

  76. oldhamletman says: Mar 13, 2011 3:10 AM

    stevemch puts a spin to events that ignores the plain cold hard facts

    - that the Owners have legally withdrawn from the previous CBA contract, thus there is a new contract negotiation going on…
    - the Players will not be having to ‘give back’ / write checks for $1B to the Owners.. that $1B was at issue in the new contract, an interesting choice of language
    - the Union offers to continue work during negotiation became moot when the Union walked out of the negotiations and filed to decertify, thus forcing the Owners into the lockout

    spin it any way you want, the reason they aren’t at the table tonight is the Union…..

  77. ontboltfan says: Mar 13, 2011 5:18 PM

    I don’t agree w the notion NFL teams pay out ridiculous salaries to their family member employees. First, there are limits to the # of positions, ie not in coaching or training so it limits it to some sprinkled in operations, scouting, marketing etc. 2nd the business needs profit to sustain itself and to meet requirements for bankers, leasing firms etc. If all profit was paid in salaries how would a banker see ability to repay loan comittments etc.

    If the NFL provided audited results, all the NFLPA needs to see are 2 items, revenue and profit as both have to follow GAAP acctg rules and can’t be misstated. So that claim sounds like bs.

    Bargaining wise the players opening offer was the same, a lower % but now looking at total revenue.

    The owners came down from $1B back to the NFL to where the sides were $640 M apart. Then they asked to split the dif or $320M. The NFLPA’s best offer was $127M.

    So the NFLPA moved 10%. I hope they fight and lose in court. Then hopefully the NFL can just hire them as employees and we all wont have to deal w this bs.

Leave a Reply

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