Skip to content

Solving the philosophical debate over player pay

MoneyDealGettyImage

At the core of the current labor dispute isn’t the question of how much money the owners will take off the top or how much the players will share in any amounts that exceed the league’s obviously conservative revenue projections.  The real debate centers on whether and to what extent the players will continue to get roughly 50 cents of every dollar that passes through the cash register as the NFL continues to enjoy annual growth in total revenues.

If the players and owners operate as partners, the answer is easy.  Yes, a 50-50 split is fair and appropriate.

If the owners are the bosses and the players are the workers, the bosses eventually are going to wake up and say, “We can get away with paying these guys a lot less than 50 cents on the dollar.”

Actually, that’s essentially what the owners decided after the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement began to take root.  The bottom line, in our view, is that the owners think the players are getting too much of the bottom line.

And so, as the revenue grows, the owners will prefer to focus the discussion on total dollars, which will continue to grow.  In turn, and as demonstrated by the letter sent from the NFLPA* to Roger Goodell on Saturday, the players will focus not on dollars but on percents, complaining that they’ll be getting much less of the total money than they used to receive.  The players contend that they have gotten 50 cents from every dollar for the past 20 years, and they have no reason to believe that shouldn’t continue, no matter how large the dollars become.

The challenge for George Cohen or anyone else who finds himself or herself in the middle of this tug-o-war will be to find an acceptable middle ground.  And that’s where it’s important for the owners to demonstrate that a fixed percentage of every future dollar earned will be devoted to stadium construction and maintenance.  For example, if the owners commit to diverting 10 cents per dollar to stadium costs and other expenses that the parties agree to share, the players probably would be willing to take 45 of the remaining 90 cents, since they would still be splitting the rest of the money on a 50-50 basis with the owners.

It seems like it shouldn’t be that simple, but it really is.  Once we strip away the mumbo jumbo and the double talk, it all comes down to the costs that the owners and the players will agree to share, and the manner in which they’ll share whatever is left over.  So the negotiation should hone in on determining the costs that will come out of both parties’ pockets, and then the rest should be split equally between the players and the owners.

Now, let’s make it happen.  Before the amount that the parties will have to split gets much smaller.

Permalink 80 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
80 Responses to “Solving the philosophical debate over player pay”
  1. Kave Krew says: Mar 20, 2011 12:55 PM

    Ok……over/under time…..

    Over/under 12……how many references by the “PFT old timers” insinuating that the anti-player posts are actually conspiring with the NFL owners in some sort of organized blog stuffing………

    Cuckoo, cuckoo

  2. Magic blueberry says: Mar 20, 2011 12:56 PM

    It is that simple. The owners need to be completely transparent with their books in order to convince the players that their expenses are legit. Once they do that, negotiations should proceed quickly.

  3. rculross7 says: Mar 20, 2011 12:57 PM

    Imagine how popular the NFL would be if they gave some of that money back to the fans. If ticket prices were lower, and revenues were used for new stadiums instead of taxes, most of the negative press would go away and the NFL could grow the pot even more. The players and owners need to remember the fans!

  4. grantgoodman93 says: Mar 20, 2011 12:58 PM

    Your shift and 8 (or asterisk) keys must be busted to death at this point.

  5. t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:01 PM

    couldn’t agree more.

    if they players wants to be “partners” so bad, then they shouldn’t have an issue with splitting ALL operating costs that aren’t player, coach, or GM/front office salaries.

  6. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: Mar 20, 2011 1:04 PM

    As fans, are we entitled to see ten years of DeMo’s audited financial statements?

    You know, because we provide 100% of the players NFL revenue!

  7. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 1:05 PM

    The entire conflict reduced to one sentence:

    The owners want to remove $1 billion from the players, and all the players want is to know why.

    /Yet many people still can’t grasp this…

  8. t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:06 PM

    Magic blueberry says: Mar 20, 2011 12:56 PM

    It is that simple. The owners need to be completely transparent with their books in order to convince the players that their expenses are legit.
    ————————————————–
    They don’t have to be “completely” transparent with their books. They just need to hire a 3rd party auditing group (not one biased towards the players) and every year have the teams submit their books to them. that firm calculates total revenues & legit costs for the owners & players to split & thus determines the cap for the next year. that way neither the other owners nor the players/public will ever see the owners books. proven legit numbers without public scrutiny of how the private companies runs their businesses.

  9. bucngator says: Mar 20, 2011 1:07 PM

    Commented in an earlier article, but it’s more appropriate here!!

    Yesterday, I blasted the players, today is for the owners…

    ATTENTION NFL OWNERS: You Suck!!
    Successfully negotiating a deal, that paid cash in the event of a lockout, was a pretty crappy thing to do, and has ultimately led to this huge lack of trust. (Specifically MY DirecTV money!! Which of course I’ve cancelled since then!!)

    It’s time to change the business model…. The days of paying your wife’s brother a salary for picking his nose, are GONE!! We’ve ALL had to change our business model in this economy, and legitimate business expenses are imperative, going forward.

    It was the OWNERS that declared the players as business parteners, and now it’s finally time to start acting like it!! You’ve offered the last five years of “open books”, and while that should be sufficient for ANY negotiation, it’s important going forward, to have an “Open Book” policy, making sure this NEVER happens again.

    Look, it’s your money, and you can do what you want with it…… but YOU are the one’s that declared a partenership, and anyone would expect their business partener to be “straight up” with the receipts!!

    Going forward, it’s time to run an efficient operation, that can withstand the scrutiny of ANYONE challenging legitimate expenses.

    What’s in the past, is in the past….. it’s time to clean it up and do the right thing for the FUTURE of the game!!

  10. mattsffrd says: Mar 20, 2011 1:12 PM

    I’m going to go into work tomorrow and demand that me and my fellow workers receive 50% of the company’s revenue. I’ll probably be looking for work by 9:00.

  11. bronco1st says: Mar 20, 2011 1:19 PM

    Yeah, and every American worker should allow a 5% deduction from their gross paychecks to be contributed to their bosses to improve/upgrade/rebuild their present work facility. Of course the owners will chip in 5% as well, except the owners will own 100% of any improvements/upgrades/new buildings completed from those funds and the workers just get the privilege of working there. Sounds fair, so get your paychecks out America, we can help our bosses build or renovate extravagant, shiny new workplaces for you.

  12. scudbot says: Mar 20, 2011 1:19 PM

    Although it’s only one of 32 teams, the Packers’ books are open and on the table. The former NFLPA discounts them, ignores them, and/or trots homer analysts out who lie about them. Anybody listening to Jim Miller recentlyhas heard him insist that real estate investment losses are part of overall net from football operations? I have. They aren’t. He’s not dumb enough to believe that they are.

  13. packa7x says: Mar 20, 2011 1:22 PM

    How about the players open their personal financial statements and demonstrate a need for more money.

  14. drslipdadic2me says: Mar 20, 2011 1:22 PM

    BUT, the players do not have to employ a front office for operations of each individual team. The players do not have to employ financial gooroo’s to properly balance billions of dollars & the others who are paid to invest in the right markets. The players do not have to hire the best of the best to manage the team operations, coach on the field, draft & properly employ veterans onto the limited amount of roster spots alloted to each franchise. They do not employ “capologists” to make sure the team is within the league guidlines & find ways to add additional high end talent while still staying within the guidelines.

    The players are drafted (hired), come to work (workout, practice, watch tape, go to team class, show up to team mandated performances/media relations), & they are paid handsomely for that. Now, can someone tell me where the owners have only earned half of the pie?

    The players only control the success of the team in a football aspect. The owners, they must control the complete operation of the franchise & not only provide a successful product on the field, but also make the franchise, as a whole, a profitable business.

    See, nobody is thinking of the big picture. A profitable football league can be ran without the players. It happens in college football, it happens in the Canadian Football League, & it happens in the American Football League. Same with the NBA, you have over seas ball, the ABA, the CBA, the PBL, etc. The game will go on as long as there are fans that are interested & smart business men that surround themselves with talented professionals in the business world. The players need to embrace the FACT that they don’t make that money without GREAT OWNERSHIP, a GREAT FO, & A GREAT FAN BASE! Without that, these players are nothing more than normal citizens with an everyday normal life…. Not the life of fame & glory!

  15. jw731 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:27 PM

    So….what you are saying is…..It’s about the money…..This is unknown territory for labor disagreements, has it ever happened before? Way to state the obvious….Captain

  16. scudbot says: Mar 20, 2011 1:35 PM

    If somebody wants to bring a co-op team to the NFL and the league allows it, that would be a different story. For now, the players should have nothing whatsoever to do with a team’s real estate and construction operations. Players do not own equity.

  17. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 1:42 PM

    mattsffrd says:
    Mar 20, 2011 1:12 PM
    “I’m going to go into work tomorrow and demand that me and my fellow workers receive 50% of the company’s revenue.”

    Another poster equating his fry-cook job at McDonald’s with playing in the NFL.
    /facepalm

  18. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 1:45 PM

    packa7x says: Mar 20, 2011 1:22 PM

    “How about the players open their personal financial statements and demonstrate a need for more money.”

    More money?
    When have the players asked for one additional penny?

  19. oldhamletman says: Mar 20, 2011 1:46 PM

    3octaveFart says:
    Mar 20, 2011 1:05 PM
    The entire conflict reduced to one sentence:

    The owners want to remove $1 billion from the players, and all the players want is to know why.

    /Yet many people still can’t grasp this…

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

    that’s the Players sentence and is delusional…

    The Players want to continue to get 50% off the top… the Owners / Employers are NOT going to do that anymore… they need to negotiate a pay plan… the Players aren’t talking about it.

    The Players aren’t “giving back” …. they aren’t “partners” … they are employees who are saying to a private employer “show me all your private finances and prove you can’t give me 50% of gross… or else”… sounds like the Mafia to me.

    reality is probably 30% + is going to expenses… 50% to Players… 20% or less left for the Owners… so the Players have been making 250% of what the owners are….. if I were the Owners I would renegotiate also…

  20. kairn42 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:47 PM

    First off, both sides are at fault for this mess. The players for not being grateful for what they were getting and thinking the game can’t go on without them, and the owners for thinking of the players as nothing more than cogs in a machine. The one thing that irks me about all these comments though are the ones that are “pro owner” on the basis of they are the ones ‘taking all the risk’.

    Tell that to people like Theismann and Utley, Reggie Brown and Kevin Everett, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Darryl Stingley, Sterling Sharpe…

    Maybe people like Jerry Jones and Jerry Richardson should pad up and take some hits if they truly feel they’re shouldering “all the risk”

  21. touchdownroddywhite says: Mar 20, 2011 1:55 PM

    @bronco1st

    Yeah, and every American worker should allow a 5% deduction from their gross paychecks to be contributed to their bosses to improve/upgrade/rebuild their present work facility.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Reading comprehension is key. The players didn’t have any part in building the stadium but they get to play there free right? Don’t most teams pay rent at the stadium?

    So while the owners will benefit from the value of improvements, the players will benefit by not sharing in the cost of the rent.

    Players cant be employees and partners at the same time you know.

  22. footballfan292 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:56 PM

    Its amazing how so many people are anti-players in this fight. The players didnt start the fight. The players don’t want more money. In fact they admit there needs to be a rookie wage scale. They are even willing to give up some money.

    The owners started this. The owners opted out of the deal. The owners are demanding the players give up a billion dollars, and all the players want answered is why…

    The owners are not struggling. These guys have multiple mansions, yachts, and private bowling allies. I don’t feel bad for either side. And I don’t really care. But for the owners to come out and say they are losing money is a total crock of s***! And everyone knows it. Maybe their revenues are down but they sure as hell arnt losing any money!

    This is about greed. Pure and simple.

  23. tweener8292 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:05 PM

    In looking at books, don’t forget GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices), which complicates how the books are interpreted. For example, GAAP can allow the Colts to state Peyton Manning as a “diminishing asset”, citing his age, injury history, etc. Same for the Saints with Brees and the Patriots with Brady.

    GAAP as an accounting principle can allow for varying interpretations of “worth” for both sides. Why can’t all sides, as well as state and local governments who are called upon for the public financing of stadiums, capital improvments, etc. (remember that most stadiums are NOT owned by the teams), agree to binding arbitration and the examination of the books by an agreed upon accounting firm like Price Waterhouse? For the “anti-union” set, the NFLPA’s can be looked at also.

    For those who are calling for looking at the players’ accounts, that’s just WAY out of bounds. That’s like a company being able to look at your bank accounts, credit statements, mortgages, etc. How can you state that for others when you’d scream loud enough to wake the dead if your employer said that to you?

  24. geobh says: Mar 20, 2011 2:07 PM

    players. please go to walmart and apply for a job.
    demand they pay you 50% of total revenue.
    see how far that gets you.
    idiots

  25. tiredofthestupid says: Mar 20, 2011 2:07 PM

    @drslipdadic2me

    However, these players offer something the average person/worker cannot: skills.

    Put on a pro league without the best players and paying them the best wages and you get the CFL or the UFL. Sure they will exist, sure they might make “some” money.

    But they will NEVER make the 9 billion a year the NFL currently makes.

    Failure to accept that it’s not whether the owners make money, it is HOW MUCH THEY MAKE.

    The owners want more, the players want more. It takes a balance of good ownership and player excellence to expand the brand and increase the bottom line.

    That gives the owners leverage but it also gives the player leverage.

    What amazes me is that you think that because the players make more money than the average person, they should be “grateful”. THAT is not the free market system, me boyos. THAT is communism.

    Drew Brees gets to decide what he’s worth and ONLY he decides what he signs for. THAT is HIS right under the LAW. No owner HAS to pay him for it. If Brees asks too much, no one will hire him and he has to lower it until someone DOES.

    YOU, the fan, don’t get to say crap, other than with your money. But I guarantee, the guys arguing the hardest, for or against either side will be there no MATTER the outcome. NO ONE WILL BOYCOTT games if they think the owners get screwed. And NO ONE will boycott games if they think the players get Screwed.

    But the casual fan, the “fair weather fan”, the one that advertisers go after and PAY for. The ones that TRULY generate the 9 billion in revenue. THEY might not come back because something else might come along that draws them in. WHY DO YOU THINK FANTASY FOOTBALL IS SO POPULAR with the casual fan? Why do you think the NFL spends MILLIONS promoting FF leagues?

    So, keep saying things without trying to understand the intricacies and subtleties of the business side and try to oversimplify it. That seems to be the way America is going anyways. “Fire EVERYONE if they won’t toe the company line!” Nice fascist-like talk…

    Players like Brees would NEVER get paid the money they get paid if they weren’t worth it, for varying financial reasons, to the owner.

    Deal with it that YOU, the common fan, aren’t valued like these guys are. You don’t get to tell them how to get what they can get out of life.

    And I will tell you what, those rich owners sure as hell will get as much as THEY can, through just about any means they can. THAT you can take to the bank.

  26. brambo67 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:09 PM

    Yet again, Mike takes a swing ansd misses.
    He does realises the very real problems that the 2006 CBA created for an increasing number of franchises.

    The players total salaries is based upon TOTAL NFL REVENUE. Simply put in case Mike ever reads the comments, the salary cap can be increased for lower revenue teams without them having increased revenue, or even with revenue having been reduced!

    Does that make any sense? You can be making less money and being told to pay more on player salaries! If the NFL total revenue increases by $250m, each team has to increase the minimum slary cap figure by $4.2m even though they might not have an increased profit.

    And enhanced revenue sharing is not the answer. Legally it would be difficult to pursue and more importantly, what reason would a team have to find new revenue streams if they then had to give away 63/64ths of it? Remember they have to give a little over 1/2 of their 1/32nd share to the players!

    Mike, I have a better proposal.
    The players salaries should be based upon three things:

    (1) TV Broadcast rights revenue.
    (2) NFL Products revenue.
    (3) Gate receipts.

    I propose that they get: 75% of all revenue from TV broadcasting, 75% from all NFL products revenue and 100% of the 40% of non-premium ticket sales that are currently shared equally.

    Not that they EVER, EVER read anything OR take notice of an e-mail to them either!

  27. thestrategyexpert says: Mar 20, 2011 2:14 PM

    That’s funny, my boss doesn’t offer us a 50-50 split, why? Because that’s not logical in the business world. That’s what the players don’t understand, simple economic logic of how the world should work.

  28. drslipdadic2me says: Mar 20, 2011 2:15 PM

    To add to my last post, here is what I would go to the table with as an owner noting the above as well as the additional financial opportunities that players have in commercialization, memorabilia, etc that is not a shared profit with the owners:

    1) 10% off the top for operational costs
    2) 5% off the top for health care & retirement benefits
    3) that leaves 85% profitability – 45% owners, 40% players
    4) Rookie wage scale:
    Pick 1 – 5 years 25 million – 10 million bonus – can opt out after 4 years if escalators are attained
    Pick 2 – 5 years 23 million – 9 mil bonus
    can opt out after 4 years if escalators are attained
    Pick 3 – 5 years 22 mil – 8 mil bonus
    can opt out after 4 years if escalators are attained
    Pick 4 – 5 years 21 mil – 7 mil bonus
    can opt out after 4 years if escalators are attained
    Pick 5 – 5 years 20 mil – 6 mil bonus
    Picks 6-10 – 4 years 17.5 mil – 5 mil bonus
    Picks 11-15 – 4 years 16 mil – 4.5 mil bonus
    Picks 16-25 – 4 years 15 mil – 4 mil bonus
    Picks 26-32 – 4 years 13 mil – 3.5 mil bonus
    Picks 33-64 – 3 years 8 mil – 2 mil bonus
    All players eligible after season 2 to renegotiate to a vet contract based on performance.

    This grows the eligible monies for vet players & also forces these rookies to EARN a big contract by proving themselves as being worthy of a big boy contract. This can also cure alot of the ignorance we see by some of these rookies coming into the league. Forces them to work hard to get a Bradford type contract in season 3.

    Think about it for a minute, it is still a split. the 5% to HC & Retiree benefits is not profitable to the owners other than in terms of maybe write offs. That money strictly benefits the players during their tenure in the league & their pay/health benefits after football.

  29. brambo67 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:15 PM

    footballfan292 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:56 PM

    Its amazing how so many people are anti-players in this fight. The players didnt start the fight. The players don’t want more money. In fact they admit there needs to be a rookie wage scale. They are even willing to give up some money.

    The owners started this. The owners opted out of the deal. The owners are demanding the players give up a billion dollars, and all the players want answered is why…

    The owners are not struggling. These guys have multiple mansions, yachts, and private bowling allies. I don’t feel bad for either side. And I don’t really care. But for the owners to come out and say they are losing money is a total crock of s***! And everyone knows it. Maybe their revenues are down but they sure as hell arnt losing any money!

    This is about greed. Pure and simple.

    _____________________________________

    What exactly does the owners wealth have to do with anything?

    The very fact that the last CBA had an agreement for either side to opt out displayed enough that it was rushed and inherently flawed.

    Tagliabue wanted a legacy and rail-roaded the owners into it.

  30. sakatak says: Mar 20, 2011 2:16 PM

    The owners made the players partners, if the players are indeed partners why would they need a union. How many business partners have union representation? Just curious.

  31. g34uxd4ddy says: Mar 20, 2011 2:17 PM

    How are the players partners in owning the stadium, if revenue sharing from non-football events isn’t on the table? Is Jerry Jones willing to write checks for profit sharing from blockbuster boxing matches? Are the penny pinching Glazers going to write checks for concerts, monster truck rallies, college games, etc.? I’m pretty sure none of them will be forthcoming about profits from non NFL events, if they won’t tell you how much they make from pro football.

    Why should the players be on the hook to build and maintain a venue in which they aren’t full beneficiaries of the fruits of their investment?

  32. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 2:17 PM

    oldhamletman says: Mar 20, 2011 1:46 PM

    “that’s the Players sentence …”

    Sure it is, since if you read any of the PR statements issued by Goodell or the owners, they still won’t even acknowledge it.

  33. brownsbigshot says: Mar 20, 2011 2:17 PM

    PFT should do a poll asking what side the fans are on in the labor deal. That would be awesome!!!

  34. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 2:22 PM

    If the owner’s books were filled with nothing but legitimate business expenses, and cracking them open would put this whole conflict to rest, don’t you think they’d have done it?

    Exactly.

  35. 2009kenny says: Mar 20, 2011 2:25 PM

    Footballfan, of course the players like it the way it is because like they have said severally, the last deal favored them greatly. Secondly, why does it bother you that the owners have private bowling alleys and yatchs? They are successful wealthy business men. The minute you realize the players are simply employees, albeit with a unique skill set the easier it will be for you to understand this. The owners should never totally open their books. As much as it hurts me to say this, they should consider losing this season to sort this stuff out forever. The last time we had this, the owners agreed not to challenge the authenticity of the union decertifying. Guess what, the union went ahead and decertified. Show me one person who believes this isn’t a sham

  36. dallasc228 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:32 PM

    It boggles the mind that players do not understand that the owners wants to forecast operating cost to avoid the the leauge from going under in the near future.

    The owners knows they can’t ask the tax payers to continue to pay for all these new stadium. Jerry Jones asked the tax payer to pay for 300 mil for a $1.2 billion stadium instead of the tax payers picking up the whole tab.

    (BTW, The Cowboys Stadium is booked all year round so he is bringing in revenues regardless. He does not have to show those revenue to the players since its occuring during off season. He does however share those profit with the city of Arlington. The players are not entitled to those finance report. He shares those cost with the city as part of the agreement to build a new stadium. Just like individual players earning from their endorsement deals. If the players wants to share their gains from endorsement deals with the owners, then they will be entitled to a full share and partnership with the league. Manning would not make 45 million a year in endorsements if he is not an NFL player. 99.99.99% of America would not know who he is if the NFL do not promote his image.)

    With that said, the owners must forecast operating cost to avoid the Federal Gov’t from bailing the league out like they did with all the big banks and G.M. I can imagine the rhetoric if that happened.. The league is too BIG to fail. This is what the owners are trying in vain to avoid. Keeping the gov’t out of the game but the players are too stubborn to realize that.

    It is unfortunate that the players feels entitlement, just like the guy that stands on the corner with his hand out who is capable of working and earning an honest living.

    They work hard to make it to the NFL and therefore, he doesn’t have to do anymore or anyless and it entitles him to ask for more $$$$ from the people who worked hard to keep what they earned and create businesses to employ more people. Players are too selfish to understand that, and they also listen to those (DeSmith) with their own agenda. Their so called leader is using the NFL lock out to gain clientelle and secure his law firm for the future and don’t give a damn how the lesser player will be in few years after this fiasco.

    I also agree with the comments here about rooting for the team and not a player. I hated Deion Sanders until he became a Cowboys. I cheer for the uniform and not the players. I root for Roy Williams because he wears the Cowboys uniform even though he sucks.

    Please note the owners bare some of the blame but they have the right to keep most of the profit. These owners take on bigger risk than the players and don’t give me the health risk issue. All of us know the risk we face everyday in our jobs and more. If the players can not invest for the future instead of making it rain at some strip club with your life long buddies, or buy 20 cars that sits in your garage while loosing values while the average American is struggling to make one car payment, than it is obvious that you do not need to make more money.

    If the players truly care about the future of the game, take the offer and assure the NFL is around for the kids today.

  37. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 2:32 PM

    geobh says: Mar 20, 2011 2:07 PM

    “players. please go to walmart and apply for a job.
    demand they pay you 50% of total revenue.”

    I don’t think you can equate your job with playing in the NFL. Apples and oranges.

  38. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 2:34 PM

    brownsbigshot says: Mar 20, 2011 2:17 PM

    “PFT should do a poll asking what side the fans are on in the labor deal. That would be awesome!!!”

    They did.
    Twice.
    Over a week ago.

  39. tweener8292 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:35 PM

    WHY fans are on the owners’ side speaks to societal elements that go far beyond sports….. Elements of race, socioeconomic class, self-perceptions of owner/employee, etc. What it reveals about individuals and the society as a whole does say something. Lastly why these “challenges” are not as visible in other segments of the entertainment world like music, tv, and movies are revealing of “something” as well.

    For those of you that are “pro-owner” – Why? How do you view yourself in this world?

  40. taxlaw26 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:38 PM

    It is not that simple. It is significantly far from that simple, that what you have said is misleading. Partners splitting 50-50? Sounds good. What if one of those partners then has to pay all expenses for the entire enterprise out of their 50? Not just capital improvements, but lease, admin, marketing, travel, etc???

    To begin with, I do not accept the player friendly viewpoint that the two sides are partners. To own an NFL team, these owners have to invest hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions that took a life time of hard work and risk taking to accumulate.

    However, even if I did accept the partnership viewpoint, then it would only be ‘fair and appropriate’ if the players shared ALL costs, which they are not even close to doing.

  41. hedleykow says: Mar 20, 2011 2:39 PM

    The owners have directed all coaches, trainers, and stadium janitors to direct their grade school kids and grandkids to make pro owner comments on pft and then give thumbs up to each other all day long.

    Time for your nap, kave krew.

  42. norwoodfor3 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:40 PM

    Heres a wild idea: the NFL generates something like $10-15 billion per year in revenue… How about cutting salaries by as little as 10% ($1 billion) and donate it to something such as medical research. Im not sure about you all, but Id feel better about supporting these absurd salaries if I knew at least some part of it went to something worthwhile…

  43. Kave Krew says: Mar 20, 2011 2:42 PM

    brownsbigshot says: Mar 20, 2011 2:17 PM

    “PFT should do a poll asking what side the fans are on in the labor deal. That would be awesome!!!”

    Plz make sure there are 3 choices
    Players
    Owners
    Both are wrong

  44. t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:42 PM

    bronco1st: kinda hard to OWN things like the local advertising done by teams, or the salaries of employees like the concession stand workers or the masseuses the players use. BUT all the revenue those things help generate the players get a nice big cut of (about 50% worth).

    footballfan: the owners have said their profits are decreasing to the point where players are making more than them. not a single one has said they lost money.

  45. Entropy says: Mar 20, 2011 2:47 PM

    “If the players and owners operate as partners, the answer is easy. Yes, a 50-50 split is fair and appropriate.”

    A 50-50 split of WHAT exactly?

    Revenues? Expenses? I guarantee you that the owners would be more than happy to split 50% of both with the players.

    The problem is that the players want 50% of revenues while paying 0% of expenses.

    [BTW, this post's implication that both the players and owners have previously agreed to a 50-50 split is rhetorical nonsense. Neither side has made any such commitment.]

  46. moggy6actual says: Mar 20, 2011 2:48 PM

    tweener8292 says:
    Mar 20, 2011 2:05 PM

    For those who are calling for looking at the players’ accounts, that’s just WAY out of bounds. That’s like a company being able to look at your bank accounts, credit statements, mortgages, etc. How can you state that for others when you’d scream loud enough to wake the dead if your employer said that to you?

    ———————————————-
    As a business owner, I run a credit check on every one of the people that reach the interview process when I’m hiring. I pretty much know all of that about my employees – or at least at the time they apply for a job.

  47. drslipdadic2me says: Mar 20, 2011 2:50 PM

    @tiredofthestupid:

    A) The players should be grateful. Why? Well because without that casual & that die hard fan, they don’t make what they make. Without that owner who marketed a product that the public felt was worth spending their money on, they don’t make that money.
    Cause & effect pal. Was the league started by players who bandied together & said, hey, we can draw in a lot of people for this & they will pay a lot of money…. Who has the money to start it & the business sense to run it out of this group of dumb@$$es. NOPE…. It took smart business people who knew how to properly market the product to the public. It took those same folks to market their product to sponsors. It took those same folks to go sell their product to a service provider & sell them on the amount of money they could make by paying the league hundreds of millions to reserve exclusive rights to their product.
    It wasn’t Drew Brees.

    B) You may want to read a little more proficiently. I am not telling anyone to jump to either side, nor am I telling anyone that the players should bow down to the man. I am saying that the players should look more into what the owners responsibilities are in making what it takes to write their checks. I think both parties need to put out ALOT more respect to the hand that feeds them…. John Q Fan.

    C) If you would have read my follow up post, you would see where I stated to: 1) Give the owners 10% off the top for operations cost 2) Give the owners 5 % off the top for Health Care & Vet Benefits to be paid to the players, which is essentially a profit for the players, yet a write off for the owners on the Health Care. 3) Split the remaining 85% @ 45% owners, 40% players.

    D) I cancelled my half package season tickets & my Sunday Ticket. Will I go back? Maybe, it all depends on how long this lasts. For me, it has a couple week timeline. Personally, I think the ignorance both sides are currently showing is not deservant of my money. If they stop acting like morons & spend more time negotiating, then I have no problem going back to being a fan. I’m a life long fan of the Browns & the game in general. I would love to continue that, but not at this current rate where so much disrespect is felt by the fans with all parties treating us like we are completely stupid.

  48. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 2:54 PM

    tweener8292 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:35 PM

    “For those of you that are “pro-owner” – Why? How do you view yourself in this world?”

    Republicans.

  49. scudbot says: Mar 20, 2011 3:24 PM

    “For those of you that are “pro-owner” – Why? How do you view yourself in this world?”

    I’m all about the game. I want my football still even though it’s overpriced. But if it gets much more overpriced I won’t be able to have it. I want the league to remain somewhat balanced, unlike what’s happened to MLB and the NBA. If the owners have been saddled with a model that works against that over the foreseeable future then I’m for them getting a fairer model that works. As for the rest of it, there’s plenty to dislike about both camps.

  50. wallyballz says: Mar 20, 2011 3:37 PM

    3octaveFart says:
    Mar 20, 2011 2:54 PM
    tweener8292 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:35 PM

    “For those of you that are “pro-owner” – Why? How do you view yourself in this world?”

    Republicans.

    No, most of us view ourselves as Capitalists. I don’t make a lot of money, but I want to live in a country where I know I have that opportunity, and I don’t want the workers I employ to be able to demand that I give them a certain percentage of the money I’m making. Labor should be paid a fair market wage; in the case of the NFL, nobody seems to know what that is. However, I don’t believe that it is a percentage of revenues. Revenue and profit don’t go up and down hand in hand; sometimes revenue goes up, and profit goes down, for many reasons. The players are not partners in the NFL, so to me they don’t deserve to be paid like it.

  51. t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 3:37 PM

    tweener8292 says: Mar 20, 2011 2:35 PM

    For those of you that are “pro-owner” – Why?
    ———————————————–
    i think both sides have been a$$es, but i’ve made mainly pro-owner comments. I think the players never offered any sort compromise in negotiations despite them acknowledging they got a very pro-player deal the last time. in fact, the players have demanded MORE from the owners than they got in the last deal by wanting complete access to financial statements for the past 10 years. plus, the players were the ones who walked away from negotiations (thus causing the lockout) & are currently refusing to negotiate by saying it’s in the lawyers hands now. despite their claims of “wanting to play” their refusal to negotiate has pushed everything back & implies that they intended to go the route of litigation the entire time. furthermore, 29 players made more money in 2009 (based upon their cap number) than the well run & well supported GB packers. and another 5 players were within 500K. so there is a legitimate basis for the owners deserving more of the pie because it’s crazy when 34 players (more ppl than the starters on one team) make more or an equivocal amount to ppl who have invested 100′s of millions of dollars into the exact same business.

    i do get why 99/100 (with the exception being ppl paid with taxes) blue collar workers support other blue collar workers in their fight against “da man” to get an increase in benefits. but these multi-millionaire players aren’t “blue collar” workers (you don’t see any players making league min making public comments). these “slaves” are pampered celebrities who are paid to play a game & it’s outrageous to hear them talk like they are bigger than the game.

  52. iced107 says: Mar 20, 2011 3:41 PM

    I think its pretty cut and dry where the real blame is.

    First offer from owners: Take a billion out and split it among themselves, then the remaining goes 60% to owners, 40% to players.

    Players retorted: 50% of the Entire revenue, or open up all the books and show the reason why all the players shouldn’t be entitled to that full billion.

    Owners rejected.

    NFLA decertified, here we are.

    I understand this is simplistic breakdown (as thats the intent), but then again -this is the core issue. A 50/50 split sounds pretty dam fair to me,and thats how it should be imo.

  53. toe4 says: Mar 20, 2011 3:56 PM

    The NFL is a business that turns a profit based 100% on the talents of the employees.

    The players have specialized talent that cannot be reproduced by another person. There are only 5 guys on the planet that play the quarterback position at the highest level. Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees are the only five people on the globe that can do what these guys can do.

    There are another five or so who can do it close to these guys.

    Thats it. The Owners complain about paying 50% of revenue to these specialist who can do what no other person on the planet can do. Without the greatest players on the planet the NFL would be the UFL.

  54. Deb says: Mar 20, 2011 4:15 PM

    Excellent analysis, Mike. And as we all know, the owners like to pass their stadium costs on to their communities … then poor-mouth about their stadium costs ;)

  55. CKL says: Mar 20, 2011 4:26 PM

    kairn42 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:47 PM
    Maybe people like Jerry Jones and Jerry Richardson should pad up and take some hits if they truly feel they’re shouldering “all the risk”
    _____________________________________

    Now that’s some unintentional comedy gold right there. Jerry Richardson is the ONLY owner in the NFL who is qualified to speak from a player’s point of view since he did in fact play the game as a WR for the Colts…you know, back before the wussy Competition Committee soft as a baby’s butt passing game rules were put in.

  56. gbfanforever says: Mar 20, 2011 4:27 PM

    “Yeah, and every American worker should allow a 5% deduction from their gross paychecks to be contributed to their bosses to improve/upgrade/rebuild their present work facility. Of course the owners will chip in 5% as well, except the owners will own 100% of any improvements/upgrades/new buildings completed from those funds and the workers just get the privilege of working there. Sounds fair, so get your paychecks out America, we can help our bosses build or renovate extravagant, shiny new workplaces for you.”

    Terrific post bronco12st, you nailed it. This is essentially what is being proposed by owners who refuse to have revenue splitting remain flat. Oh and for people who think they are so clever by comparing the players situation to their own work situation, you are just embarrassing yourself. First off, guys that can throw a ball 60 yards on a rope are not replaceable, but you sure are. Also, do you face a high risk of permanent paralysis every time you step into your cubicle?

  57. bunjy96 says: Mar 20, 2011 4:53 PM

    t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:06 PM

    Magic blueberry says: Mar 20, 2011 12:56 PM

    It is that simple. The owners need to be completely transparent with their books in order to convince the players that their expenses are legit.
    ————————————————–
    They don’t have to be “completely” transparent with their books. They just need to hire a 3rd party auditing group (not one biased towards the players) and every year have the teams submit their books to them. that firm calculates total revenues & legit costs for the owners & players to split & thus determines the cap for the next year. that way neither the other owners nor the players/public will ever see the owners books. proven legit numbers without public scrutiny of how the private companies runs their businesses.

    *****************************
    Offered and refused by the union!

    How many times does this have to be written!!!!!

  58. southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 4:56 PM

    Actually, you player worshipers are embarrassing yourselves. For the most part, I think people don’t worry that the players make money for their “skills.” (Show me a player who can play a violin in a professional orchestra by the way)

    The problem is when they act like the victim while more money than any employee on earth. Please. Lots of people have skills, but cry me a river on the lockout. The players made a power-play, business decision. They walked away when the owners had moved on every issue. Any whining by them is just irritating. Especially when most of us would play for free.

  59. southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 4:57 PM

    while MAKING more money than any employee on earth

  60. discostu570 says: Mar 20, 2011 5:06 PM

    Let’s also have a philosophical debate over owner pay. It’s hard to see why exactly most owners get paid anything at all.

    Furthermore, let’s have a philosophical debate over costs to the fans. Perhaps owners and fans should both consent to lowering stadium beers to under five dollars.

  61. elrushbo2 says: Mar 20, 2011 5:20 PM

    As long as the players insist on being thought of as partners nothing will be resolved. Again for the 10 billionenth time…….they are just employees….. their benefits and salary are already fantastic. There isn’t a person in America that wouldn’t want the pay and benefits they already have… so stop whining and consider yourselves very lucky to have what you have especially in this economic climate. Thousands of people are losing theirs jobs their homes pensions etc…… the world is on fire and you guys just want more and more and to heck with everyone and everything else…. GREED. And before Deb brings up how the poor players risk their lives and their health (by their own choice) playing pro football…… the true heroes in our society are not spoiled pampered professional athletes….they are the members of the U.S. military, cops fireman, EMS workers that risk their lives every time they go to work (12 months a year/8+ hrs a day) for what pro athletes would consider tip money.

  62. ignoranceisawesome says: Mar 20, 2011 5:21 PM

    “discostu570 says: Mar 20, 2011 5:06 PM

    Let’s also have a philosophical debate over owner pay. It’s hard to see why exactly most owners get paid anything at all.

    Furthermore, let’s have a philosophical debate over costs to the fans. Perhaps owners and fans should both consent to lowering stadium beers to under five dollars.”

    They own the business and they run their business to make a profit, as do almost all business owners. Is everyone that posts on here this stupid?

  63. ignoranceisawesome says: Mar 20, 2011 5:27 PM

    “southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 4:56 PM

    Actually, you player worshipers are embarrassing yourselves. For the most part, I think people don’t worry that the players make money for their “skills.” (Show me a player who can play a violin in a professional orchestra by the way)”

    Show me a violinist who can endure a single play as a defensive lineman.

    Show me a violinist who has the physical endurance to take the ball and try to hammer it past a defense for 20-30 plays a game and actually gain yardage.

    Show me a violinist who has the coordination to catch a ball one armed, in mid air, on the edge of the field and manage to get both feet down inside the lines all while being drilled by a defender and having forward motion.

    Is this really a fair way to compare to skills? I don’t think so.

  64. southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 5:41 PM

    ignoranceisawesome… Who cares if a violinist can run or take a hit? You guys are the ones who brought up the skill comparisons, trying to “prove” the players “deserve” their money.

    Using the same logic, then the violinist deserves to make 10.5 million a year.

    Just pointing out the ridiculous logic for ya. Look, it’s ok for the players to leverage for a better deal. But it’s kinda dumb to say they deserve it because they have “skills.” Please. Lots of people have skills. The players are blessed with having skills in a wildly popular sport. They should treat that golden goose with some respect. Most “Skilled” people aren’t so lucky.

  65. scudbot says: Mar 20, 2011 6:05 PM

    ” Jerry Richardson is the ONLY owner in the NFL who is qualified to speak from a player’s point of view”

    Strictly true, but Mark Murphy represents the Packers and he played. Not only did he play, he used to work for the union.

  66. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 6:46 PM

    @bunjy96

    The owners have NOT offered to show 5 years of their books so please stop saying that.

    What they have offered is a set of books with a bunch of unspecified information deleted.

    So they could, for example, remove information that the owners were paying themselves big salaries so give the appearance of lower profits.

  67. diamonddave13 says: Mar 20, 2011 6:50 PM

    Why I continue to subject myself to reading the rambling nonsense of these basement dwelling commenters I’ll never know.

    Your post is spot on, Mike, but it seems most of your audience is of the belief that the players deserve nothing and should continue to kill themselves for our entertainment. Perhaps these idiots should talk to former Pats/Eagles FB Kevin Turner & see what he’s got to say. Ya better hurry though, he’s only got about 6 months to live…

  68. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 7:02 PM

    I think both PFT and several commentators here are making the same mistake.

    I do not believe the owners want the players to have much or any share in the explosive revenue growth that they privately project.

    So they are NOT interested in any deal that commits the players a percent of all future revenue.

    That’s whatever that percentage may be (30, 40, 50).

    Bottom line: the owners want a permanent league salary cap that goes up slowly enough to allow them to keep most if not all of the billions in the huge revenue growth they foresee.

    Bob Kraft, Jerry Jones etc do not want to see revenue growth in Europe or Asia going toward 100 million dollar Haynesworth type player contracts.

    Period.

    Personally I’m not sure the big potential overseas revenue is there but I am convinced the league/owners think it is.

    But then again I just got back from a few weeks in Asia and the few NFL jerseys I saw for sale were all on clearance racks. Manchester United and Liverpool FC jerseys, on the other hand, could be seen and bought everywhere.

  69. mike11119 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:48 PM

    show the books?? go in to work tomorrow and ask the boss to show the books.

  70. eagleswin says: Mar 20, 2011 8:29 PM

    diamonddave13 says:
    Mar 20, 2011 6:50 PM
    Why I continue to subject myself to reading the rambling nonsense of these basement dwelling commenters I’ll never know.

    Your post is spot on, Mike, but it seems most of your audience is of the belief that the players deserve nothing and should continue to kill themselves for our entertainment. Perhaps these idiots should talk to former Pats/Eagles FB Kevin Turner & see what he’s got to say. Ya better hurry though, he’s only got about 6 months to live…
    ———————-
    People who live in glass houses .. etc.

    BUFFALO, N.Y. — Sam Dana, who was the oldest living former NFL player and once played football alongside Lou Gehrig at Columbia, died in his sleep late Monday night. He was 104. He even played with Lou Gehrig, imagine that?

    A football player who lived to the ripe old age of 104. Who would’ve thought? Did you send your condolences to him when he died 3 years ago?

    (from a medical article on ALS)
    At this time, it is not known why ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) occurs. It’s also unknown why the disease occurs in some people and not others. ALS research scientists are still examining a number of possible causes associated with ALS, including genetic mutations, glutamate, autoimmune responses, and the environment. Future research may show that there are many possible ALS causes.

    It’s always easier to try to gain support if you are able to trot out a victim but there’s no proof that football is the cause or if it was whether it’s the only cause. All you know is that he’s an ill exfootball player that you can exploit.

  71. t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 8:35 PM

    bunjy96 says: Mar 20, 2011 4:53 PM

    t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:06 PM

    Magic blueberry says: Mar 20, 2011 12:56 PM

    It is that simple. The owners need to be completely transparent with their books in order to convince the players that their expenses are legit.
    ————————————————–
    They don’t have to be “completely” transparent with their books. They just need to hire a 3rd party auditing group (not one biased towards the players) and every year have the teams submit their books to them. that firm calculates total revenues & legit costs for the owners & players to split & thus determines the cap for the next year. that way neither the other owners nor the players/public will ever see the owners books. proven legit numbers without public scrutiny of how the private companies runs their businesses.

    *****************************
    Offered and refused by the union!

    How many times does this have to be written!!!!!
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    not exactly. the key part is LEGIT costs. they offered to have a firm to the profits and show ONLY the avg profits of a team per year to the union. problem is, it’s been proven that some owners like mike brown pay himself an annual GM salary even though he’s not officially listed as the GM & doesn’t do any actual GM work. yet any body with any training in accounting knows that, that would be counted as operating cost when it really should be counted as profit for brown. things like that need to be weeded out otherwise the players will never agree to it.

    don’t get me wrong, i’m pro-owners as you can see from the rest of my comments, but i want things to be fair.

  72. commandercornpone says: Mar 20, 2011 8:42 PM

    it is interesting that so many people are pro-union when there are a lot of crooked unions that basically finance a political party that wont cut anything when the nation is drowning in red ink.

    are owners rich and can they be bad guys? sure. but someone has to own the teams.

    and it sure looks like union types get violent, whereas unionbusters did 90 years ago. most of those speaking for the union shouldnt be allowed near a microphone.

    duh was hired to do a sham decert. that was his plan all along. the owners otoh had the right to call the deal over based on the original agreement. tags did cave.

    and lets get this straight – the players want more $ too. read what duh says.

    the players are not equal partners and can all be replaced much easier. and apparently cheaper.

  73. eagleswin says: Mar 20, 2011 8:43 PM

    realfann says:
    Mar 20, 2011 6:46 PM
    @bunjy96

    The owners have NOT offered to show 5 years of their books so please stop saying that.

    What they have offered is a set of books with a bunch of unspecified information deleted.

    ———————————-
    Can we stop with the player propoganda yet? The misinformation the player supporters put out is absolutely staggering. The union refused to look at what the league gave them and yet you still blame the owners. Unbelievable.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6196585

    “… Earlier this week, the NFL agreed to disclose league-wide profits and to show how many clubs had declining profits over the course of the most recent CBA, agreeing to a request NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith made in October and it had originally balked at. When the NFL did, the NFLPA declined to see it, a source familiar with the process told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter, because it would compromise their public position on financial transparency. …”

  74. brewdogg says: Mar 20, 2011 8:48 PM

    First of all, let’s be clear about something. The players aren’t employees or partners in the NFL. They are the product. Let me repeat that one more time…..

    THEY ARE THE PRODUCT.

    The players are the raw materials that are turned into the finished product that is put on the field and on our tvs. The employees are the coaches and front office personnel who are hired to put the best PRODUCT on the field. It just so happens that this product happens to be human beings.

    It’s simple…. Without the players, there is no business. We pay all this money to watch these players because they are the best at what they do, just as we pay extra for the very best quality of any other product. We are paying for Ferraris, leather jackets, the best cuts of steak, high-end mattresses, etc etc…. If the owners put Hondas, windbreakers, chunks of fat and gristle, and cheap metal-spring boxes in front of us and try to get that $9 billion, they are in for a rude shock.

    And let’s be clear about something else…. $4.5 billion divided by 32 comes out to a bit more than $140 million. These are successful businessmen, not foolish 20-something kids with giant paychecks. I would love for someone to detail to me how the operation of a football team requires $140 million per year when the price of the players’ contracts are subtracted.

  75. Deb says: Mar 20, 2011 9:30 PM

    @elrushbo2 …

    I agree: The work soldiers and firefighters perform is more heroic than the risks football players voluntarily take to be on the field. But you forgot to mention that it’s also more heroic than the financial risks some fat cats voluntarily took to own a football team.

    I also agree that this is about GREED. That’s exactly why the owners opted out of the current CBA, significantly low-balled projected revenues for years to come, then told players they need to cut back on their share–which also covers health care and pensions for retirees–without supporting their projections.

    BTW, as a longtime PFT regular, I’m flattered that someone who only registered with the site last week to post pro-owner comments keeps singling out my posts. Nice to know you care. :)

  76. elrushbo2 says: Mar 20, 2011 10:55 PM

    @Deb

    “But you forgot to mention that it’s also more heroic than the financial risks some fat cats voluntarily took to own a football team”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    You seem very well versed in player propaganda. Your posts outline the union’s talking points perfectly, I applaud your attention to detail. If your employed by the former NFLPA* wink wink… you are worth every cent. I’m guessing from the above comment that you are not a supporter of capitolism and/or our free market system. It’s just that type of socialist mentally that is turning a once great nation into a third world economy or a banana republic if you will.

  77. eagleswin says: Mar 20, 2011 11:13 PM

    brewdogg says:
    Mar 20, 2011 8:48 PM

    And let’s be clear about something else…. $4.5 billion divided by 32 comes out to a bit more than $140 million. These are successful businessmen, not foolish 20-something kids with giant paychecks. I would love for someone to detail to me how the operation of a football team requires $140 million per year when the price of the players’ contracts are subtracted.
    ————————-
    I’m not going to look it up but the easiest place to get that answer would be the Green Bay Packer’s financials as they are public. If you take the time get an answer please let us know.

  78. Deb says: Mar 21, 2011 12:02 AM

    @elrushbo2 …

    No, I’m not employed by the players’ trade association. But as a contract writer, I’d be thrilled to take them on as a client. It’s always nice to work on materials you can support.

    Been to any third-world countries lately? You might want to visit a couple before you decide our (dramatically holds hand to heart) once great nation has fallen from glory. Even in hard times, most Americans hear “banana republic” and think “clothing store.”

    Why, yes, I do believe in the free market. That’s why I believe the players should be paid commensurate with the revenue they generate. :)

  79. brewdogg says: Mar 21, 2011 2:20 AM

    eagleswin says:
    Mar 20, 2011 11:13 PM
    brewdogg says:
    Mar 20, 2011 8:48 PM

    And let’s be clear about something else…. $4.5 billion divided by 32 comes out to a bit more than $140 million. These are successful businessmen, not foolish 20-something kids with giant paychecks. I would love for someone to detail to me how the operation of a football team requires $140 million per year when the price of the players’ contracts are subtracted.
    ————————-
    I’m not going to look it up but the easiest place to get that answer would be the Green Bay Packer’s financials as they are public. If you take the time get an answer please let us know.
    ————————————-

    Thank you for the obvious…. I guess I will.

    http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2010/7/15/1570671/the-packers-financial-report-is

    According to this, the cost of operating the Green Bay Packers organization, outside of player salaries, was an estimated $87 million in 2009. Now, while the net profit of the organization is small, it should be pointed out that so is their gross revenue compared to the league average, which, at $9 billion divided by 32, would be $281 million.

    So, if we use $87 million as the mark for operating the franchise, against the average of the $140 million owner’s share of our proverbial pie here, that equates to an average net profit of $53 million. Until another team shows undoctored and verifiable books that present a substantially larger figure for operating costs, I think I can understand why players would cry foul over owner’s claims that they can’t afford to continue operating under the present business model.

    Also, if you look more closely at the report as stated in this article, while player costs rose $22 million, overall operating costs (including player costs) only raised $20 million, indicating a 2.25% DECREASE in non-player operating costs.

    The point is this: By tying the player’s revenue directly to a percentage of gross league revenue at an even split, they insure that player salaries will not outstrip gross revenue. The only way that owners can claim that a 50/50 split is unsustainable is to claim that either a) non-player operating costs will increase at a rate greater than gross revenue, or b) gross revenue will decrease. The Packer’s financial report suggests neither.

    Therefore, with no other information available to us, the contention that owners need a greater percentage of gross revenue leads to only one logical conclusion: they want more money in their pockets.

    If the owners want that $1 billion off the top, than I think it should have a stated and monitored purpose. For example: each owner’s share of that money will be inversely proportional to their gross revenue against average team gross revenue. i.e.:

    Team A has a gross revenue of $200 million, or appr 71.2% of average team revenue. Therefore, they receive an inverse proportion, or 140.5%, of the team average of $1 billion (31.25 million), or 43.9 million. This redistribution will help insure that all teams are keeping payroll closer to the salary cap and not the minimum salary cap, meaning more money eventually finds its way into the players hands.

  80. t1mmy10 says: Mar 21, 2011 8:29 PM

    @ brewdogg

    first off, the packers revenue is higher than half the teams in the league (tied for 14th). second, there HAS been an increase in non-player salaries expenses for some teams since many are having to purchase their own stadiums. that would account for the small operating profit for both the jets & giants in 09. third, the cap on player revenue has been increasing every year since 07. THAT’S the problem that it’s gone to far. the 50% of revenue is essentially the cap minimum.

    you can’t take the avg league income for all teams, use that as your starting point and say “see, all the teams are making enough money.” just like you can’t take the the 4.5 billion, divide it among the 1696 players on active rosters and say “see, nfl athletes make $2.65 million/y.” you have players like manning making 20 mil in a year & other players making 500k. the same is true for nfl teams & that’s a major part of the issue.
    you ignore that the packers spent more than the “$140/team” allotment by $21 million on player salaries or other teams that do so. you also didn’t mention how their revenue only went up 5.5% but their total costs increased by 8.8% & player costs increased by 11.8%. that doesn’t point towards long term sustainability. that points towards player revenue increasing too fast.

    and to counter any arguments that all owners are making so much they can afford to allow player salaries to continue to expand at this rate: the packers are a very well run, well supported albeit small market team & had a successful season in 09. according to forbes, in 09 the packers were 6th to last in operating profit. 29 players made more money than them that year (going by cap valuation so signing bonuses will be treated more fairly) and another 5 made within 500k (or <5% difference of profits). so 34 players in the league made equivocal amounts or more than 20% of the league owners in 09…the same league owners that have 100's of millions of dollars invested in their teams.
    http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playersbyposition.aspx?pos=135
    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html

    and don't give me this crap that "financial risk doesn't outweigh health risks." i bet almost any younger man in america would be willing to trade concussions, contusions, an increased risk of dementia and eventual knee replacements & arthritis in exchange for what ANY nfl team would sell for. i know i would.

Leave a Reply

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