Skip to content

Stephen Ross speaks out against paying players a percentage of the gross

Buffalo Bills v Miami Dolphins AP

In the past couple of days, we think we’ve finally identified (better never than late, or something) the heart of the dispute between the NFL and the players.  The players have historically received roughly 50 percent of the gross revenues, and as the gross revenues continue to grow, the owners no longer want to stick with that model, because 50 percent of $10 billion is . . . abacus on . . . $5 billion.

We figured it out on Sunday, and NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith agreed with our assessment during an extended appearance on Monday’s PFT Live.

Dolphins owner Stephen Ross confirmed our suspicions on Monday.

“Costs are going up.  We’re at the point now people can’t afford to pay more for their entertainment,” Ross said, per Omar Kelly of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. “Typically, that’s what has always happened.  You always raised the prices.  But we’re at the point where you can’t raise prices anymore.  I think everybody accepts that but our costs keep going up.  You have people earning $2 million-plus a year.  Where do you think the line of reason falls?

In other words, the owners think they’re paying the players too much money, and the owners think they can squeeze them into taking less.

“Anybody who has been in business [knows] you don’t pay players the percentage of the gross,” Ross said.  “The expenses have just grown so great as compared to the revenues, there’s no real reasonable return to anybody’s bottom line.”

In other words, the owners think they’re paying the players too much money, and the owners think they can squeeze them into taking less.

To summarize, the owners think they’re paying the players too much money, and the owners think they can squeeze them into taking less.  The players don’t want to take less, and so we are where we are.

Permalink 107 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
107 Responses to “Stephen Ross speaks out against paying players a percentage of the gross”
  1. bchampeau says: Mar 21, 2011 9:55 PM

    I have an idea….let’s all go ask our employers to open up their books tomorrow because we don’t feel like they’re paying us enough.

    How do we think that will work out for us?

  2. saberstud75 says: Mar 21, 2011 9:59 PM

    I totally agree. The players make entirely too much money and the fans are picking up the tab for it.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I am tapped out.

  3. souldogdave says: Mar 21, 2011 10:02 PM

    This is rich, “The expenses have grown so great as compared to the revenues…” is the biggest lie I’ve heard in a while. When you won’t open the books…

  4. djstat says: Mar 21, 2011 10:03 PM

    Wow. You needed Stephen Ross to makes those comments to figure that out? Duh. Its a shamenew owners like Disco Dan Snyder and Stephen Ross have entered into the game and tried to ruin it.

  5. tiredofthestupid says: Mar 21, 2011 10:07 PM

    First of all, you can’t ignore the blatant falsehood Mr. Ross floats, as the players don’t get a percentage of the gross. They get a percentage of the gross, after the 1 BILLION dollar credit. That number is NOT the Gross. THAT is spin by this owner.

    Who asked Jerry Jones to build a 1.5 billion dollar Stadium with two rediculously large screens on them? Or the new one in New York? Or the new ones they will hold localities hostage for?

    How about the OWNERS live within their means instead of asking the players and fans to finance their palaces?

    My guess? The players WOULD take an overall revenue cut if it was justified, but that would require opening the books to do so.

    But again, how many family members are employed by their “dads” making 7 figures for showing up three days a week currently on the payrolls of these NFL teams? How much revenue are these stadiums REALLY generating that they hold cities hostage for? They don’t want, we the fans, finding out that Daddy’s little boy is getting a salary that FAR surpasses HIS qualifications.

  6. duanethomas says: Mar 21, 2011 10:10 PM

    That’s what owning a football team is to him “entertainment”, with all his celebrity part-owners. Can you as an attorney cease & desist posting statements from fringe players, ill-informed players and owners not committed to putting a winning product on the field. This guy doesn’t know if a football is stuffed or inflated, he got into to the NFL for profit and to be a south beach celebrity. Him, Cromatrie, Montell, AJ Smith and the such should be ignored until this thing is settled. STFU!

  7. sportstalkryan says: Mar 21, 2011 10:12 PM

    This is bad logic by Mr. Ross. People always want a raise — even if it’s just to keep up with inflation, but moreso to believe that the knowledge and experience they’ve gained over the last year makes them more valuable. That applies to every industry, even professional sports where average salaries are measured in millions of dollars.

    If Mr. Ross is correct in that the NFL’s future revenue growth is slowing, perhaps even becoming static, then the owners should keep paying the players a percentage of revenue. That way, the players’ annual raises are tied directly to that slowing rate of revenue growth, and the owners can thus control those player demands.

    The owners’ last offer had average salary cap increases of 4.5%/year. That was only a good deal for the owners (over the long-term) if revenue grows at a greater rate.

  8. rculross7 says: Mar 21, 2011 10:14 PM

    Thank goodness someone recognizes I can’t keep paying more and more and more for my season tickets. I want to be able to take my family to a game for a reasonable price and if it means locking out the players to keep entertainment costs in line, then I’m on board.

  9. FinFan68 says: Mar 21, 2011 10:15 PM

    This is coming from the man that willingly paid Marshall a ton of money and made Dansby one of the highest paid LBs. The league is paying some players too much money. The players have the right to be paid exceptionally well and I believe they already are. I like the competitive balance the league has enjoyed but there has to be a way to iron out the differences and get a deal done without damaging the future of the leauge. The players are not looking at what they are being compensated and judging if that is fair for what they do…they are comparing what they are getting to what the owners of the teams are getting. It is much like some of the holdouts by players only interested at being the highest paid player at their position. Both sides are stuck on egos that won’t let them collaborate for a sustainable compromise. If the players want to compare their compensation to something more relevant, they ought to look at the compensation packages for players (same job) in the AFL, CFL and UFL. They will quickly see that they are making a killing.

  10. brownsfn says: Mar 21, 2011 10:15 PM

    I agree…if the players want 50% it should be after all other expenses are paid such as health ins, stadium costs, coaching, scouting, maintenance, insurance premiums, ect, ect, ect…These players are making way to much of the pie and shouldering NONE of the risk…

  11. commoncents says: Mar 21, 2011 10:17 PM

    I don’t know what a better support system for retired players is, but I am for it.

  12. profootballwalk says: Mar 21, 2011 10:18 PM

    In Hollywood, they used to swindle actors by paying them a part of the net. Then, no matter how big the movie is, somehow it never makes a profit, so there is no net. It’s a bookkeeping swindle. A movie can gross a hundred million dollars, but never net a penny.

    That’s what the owners want to do to the players. That’s why they don’t want to show the books. Showing the books would reveal how they hide profits in fake costs.

  13. 49er33 says: Mar 21, 2011 10:18 PM

    I love how you reiterated the same point three times. Now thats what I call doing your research.

    Why I still come on here is beyond me, maybe because its comical. Keep up the lousy work.

  14. iknowfootballandyoudont says: Mar 21, 2011 10:21 PM

    To summarize:
    The players have a very good deal. However the owners have been too generous and now they need to divy up the pie so that the players dont get such a big chunk.

    To summarize:
    Players are overpaid. Owners are too generous. It’s time to change for the good of the game, but the players are too greedy.

    To summarize;

    Win the lockout hearing. Crush the employees. And make them accept less compensation.
    They will still be overpaid, and spoiled, and greedy/ But they will be less overpaid.

  15. Deb says: Mar 21, 2011 10:23 PM

    Have they put it like that to the players? Did they provide realistic cost projections? Did they talk to them like men about some of these financial realities?

    We know they repeatedly threatened a lockout. We know financial analysts believe they low-balled revenue projections. We know they kept pushing back negotiations without providing a viable proposal and rejected the players’ proposal. We know Goodell bald-face lie all year about the public demanding an 18-game season. We saw Goodell fine players through the roof for hits that weren’t flagged and that replay often showed were legal. We know the fines didn’t reduce the number of head injuries.

    So what did the owners do to help the players better understand these financial issues and avoid getting to this point? And what are they doing now to move forward? Well, they’re talking about negotiation but won’t call the players and get started. And they won’t rule out hiring replacements. Yeah, that’s real productive. :roll:

  16. nekelund says: Mar 21, 2011 10:23 PM

    If the owners were to provide players with a percentage of gross revenue, they would want assurances that the players would voluntarily agree to have their salaries reduced if gross revenues decreased.

    I doubt the PA would agree to that and, even if they did, I doubt that they would accept any audit or assessment that ever indicated that gross revenues either stagnated or stayed the same. Ironically, if this is the sticking point resulting in a prolonged non-season, a decrease in gross revenue could be the exact outcome, which would benefit neither side.

  17. windowace says: Mar 21, 2011 10:26 PM

    Duh, Whats new about that ??????????

  18. freedomispopular says: Mar 21, 2011 10:27 PM

    This was kinda confusing….if I read this correctly, the owners think they’re paying the players too much money, and the owners think they can squeeze them into taking less?

  19. prior0knowledge says: Mar 21, 2011 10:30 PM

    Right now the very top players make $20M/yr, the good to very good make about $5M and the avg player makes about $1M. If we drop that to
    $15M, $4M, $800,000, which is where it was a few years ago, does any rational person think that is “unfair”?

    $20M is more than the top doctors in the USA make. It is the asking price for the top movie stars, where the movie without the star would be a bust. If Tom Brady retired today, would the Patriots go broke? If Peyton Manning retired, would the Colts fans stay home and watch bowling? You only have to look at perennial losing teams to realize that fans love the team almost regardless of how good they are. As long as the team is trying hard, fans will support them.

    And the player’s rhetoric is crazy: “This is war!”… War? A labor dispute is not war, it is a labor dispute. That is an insult to real soldiers that died on the battlefield. That froze and lived on rats while still fighting. So please don’t compare a labor dispute to war.

    “This is the worst sports deal in history.” I read where Lombardi when confronted with a player agent immediately traded that player. Talk about bad deals!

    I heard the other day on 106.7 FM in Washington, DC, a player say, “This not about the money.” What a liar! This is ONLY about the money. The NFL offered lifetime medical benefits, cutting of OTAs and padded practices and reducing the length of training camp, so what is left but money.

    “We only want what is fair.” What garbage. Fair? Tell me how making $5M/yr instead of only $4.5M/yr per year is more fair?

    This is a simple labor dispute. The owners are squeezing the players to take less money and the players are squeezing the owners to get more money. That is all. There is no “fair” to this. It is only how much they can squeeze from each other.

  20. threefold520 says: Mar 21, 2011 10:30 PM

    In 2005, the last year of the previous CBA, player costs were $3.32 billion, while total revenue was $6.49 billion. Player costs were 51.2% of total revenue. In 2009, under this CBA, player costs were $4.5 billion, while total revenue was $8.88 billion. Player costs were 50.7% of total revenue.

    Either this problem has been around for a long time, at least two CBAs, or the owners were fed misinformation about how much the players were making.

    Source:
    Fendrich, Howard. “NFL Players Got 53 Percent of Incremental Increase – NFL – Yahoo! Sports.”

  21. bhindenemylines says: Mar 21, 2011 10:32 PM

    “Anybody who has been in business [knows] you don’t pay players the percentage of the gross,” Ross said.

    Well Mr. Ross, you agreed to it originally, so who’s fault is it?

    Like the saying goes “You can’t un-ring that bell”. And if you agreed to pay them a percentage, should they be satisfied when you tell them “Yeah, it’s all there. Trust us.”

    Anybody who has been in business knows you should never trust upper management 100% because they are always looking to save/make more money.

  22. waldoampere says: Mar 21, 2011 10:34 PM

    “Anybody who has been in business [knows] you don’t pay players the percentage of the gross,” Ross said.

    Actually entertainers in the recording industry, authors, and even the top stars in the film industry are paid a percentage of the gross. That’s what royalties are.

  23. 1pjw says: Mar 21, 2011 10:35 PM

    To summerize the summary the owners ARE paying the players too much money.

    Businesses have expenses, ink toner, practice facilities, advertising, health insurance, equipment, etc. etc.

    To be fair players have expenses also, Make it rain money, bar tabs, defense counsel fees, bail money.

    Bottom line……..they are both off their rockers.

  24. thefuture3424 says: Mar 21, 2011 10:38 PM

    “In other words, the owners think they’re paying the players too much money, and the owners think they can squeeze them into taking less.”

    …No? In other words, the owners are saying the players don’t have to pay for the rising prices of upkeeping an NFL club, and yet they want to make the same cut as before despite the fact that the owners will be making less. 60% of net revenue would account for the owners having to pay more, but since it is gross revenue it does not take into account the fact that owners are having to part with more money to upkeep their team

  25. 1pjw says: Mar 21, 2011 10:38 PM

    p.s.

    A percentage of revenue is a bad idea all around.
    It promotes PFT’s pet “duty to maximize revenues” screwing of the fans. This results in the inability to operate their business as they see fit.

  26. scudbot says: Mar 21, 2011 10:39 PM

    First, it’s heartening to see the recognition that prices can’t be raised any further. It’s true that business owners and their enterprises can’t do well long term by paying a percentage of the gross because economic conditions change. Then assuming the owners want the players to take a percentage of the net from football operations, they most definitely will have to allow their books to be audited by a third party and the players will have to be satisfied with the income statement that’s produced. That may be a perfect storm that will ensure lawyers and CPAs plenty of income, but it’s more workable than the ex-CBA. Or maybe the players will just be happy to be paid salary plus a bonus that’s contingent on excess net income. No, wait – that would be too reasonable.

  27. footballisking says: Mar 21, 2011 10:39 PM

    “the owners want to squeeze the players into taking less money”

    I thought we established that a long time ago!!!!!!!!

  28. packerfantastic says: Mar 21, 2011 10:41 PM

    The owners are right.

  29. jc1958cool says: Mar 21, 2011 10:42 PM

    poor people work for tips!! (a.ka.) % of total bill!
    tell the owners to shove it, and take a year off I can live without football!!!!!!!!

  30. fbman says: Mar 21, 2011 10:42 PM

    The players need to get over it, that’s how business works. Everyone’s costs are up, and the owners can’t charge any more for seats than they do already. They are putting up tons of cash upfront and they are going to make a reasonable return for their buck. The players need to accept that they are making tons of money, and they will continue to make more as long as they let the league keep growing total revenues. If the owners aren’t making enough on their investment they aren’t going to drop a bunch more $$ into it to try to keep growing it. Instead of fighting over what would really be a pretty small amount once spread out (a chuck of which would get taken from rookies with a reasonable rookie cap) and risk killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, just suck up your pride and take the very reasonable deal that was offered.

  31. rexisgay says: Mar 21, 2011 10:45 PM

    i am with you Ross!
    Here are two numbers to think about: $42,967 and $770,000.

    Both are yearly salaries and both of the groups who make those salaries want more money. The average Arizona teacher makes the first number and the average National Football League player makes the second. The only difference? You’ll only find football players sitting on the sidelines next year if they don’t get it.

    Players are demanding more money and a strike may be inevitable if they don’t get it. The NFL collective bargaining agreement is about to expire and the players and owners are up in arms about who will split the league’s approximately $9 billion revenue pie.

    The players want a bigger slice and the owners don’t necessarily want to give it to them. But should we really be sympathetic if players don’t get their money?

    To be fair, NFL player salaries fall towards the bottom in comparison to the three other major professional sports. According to ESPN , the average salary rankings go like this:

    1. NBA: $5.36 million
    2. MLB: $3 million
    3. NHL: $2.4 million
    4. NFL: $770,000

    Taking a closer look, although the NFL may average the lowest salaries, they also top out at some of the highest. For example, New England’s quarterback Tom Brady takes in $18 million per year at the top compared to Tampa Bay’s center Vincent LeCavelier who shares that spot in the NHL making a mere $10 million per year.

    The same caveat can not be given for our educators. According to the “ Quality Counts ” annual report, the average Arizona teacher salary comes in at 47 out of 50 states, falling $4,800 below the national average. And in many cases in Arizona, teacher salaries are even lower, nearing the $30,000 mark in low-income districts.

    But back to the original question: Putting things in perspective, should we feel sympathetic for the players who are nearing or eclipsing millions of dollars each year?

    DeMaurice Smith , the executive director of the NFL Players Union, would have you believe the answer to that question is yes because it directly affects you. He says a player lockout next season is a “near certainty,” and that it would cost the U.S. economy an estimated $5 billion in lost wages, taxes and other revenue if the entire season is canceled.

    Smith also says a lockout would mean a big local economic hit.

    “The magnitude of the loss would be at the very least about $160 million to $170 million per team-city,” Smith said.

    Here in Arizona, that would mean a big loss for restaurants and shops near University of Phoenix Stadium, possibly forcing them to shut down.

    But what about the effects of a teacher strike? That is a little more difficult to quantify, but you would presumably have less than qualified people replacing our teachers to educate our state’s children and who knows what price tag you can put on that loss.

    Comparing teachers to football players is not exactly apples to apples, but it is interesting whose salaries keep going up. Both sides want more money, but only football players have gotten it recently. Take a look back at Arizona’s legislative history and you’ll find that teacher raises are few and far between.

    The last time football players didn’t get what they want was 1987 when the league was on strike, but that only lasted one week into the season. I’m not saying teachers deserve a raise and players don’t, but I am posing one final question.

    If there happens to be no football this coming season, and that really upsets you, is it because you believe the players deserve to make more money or because you’ll miss watching them score touchdowns?????????

  32. fbman says: Mar 21, 2011 10:45 PM

    waldoampere says:
    Mar 21, 2011 10:34 PM

    “Actually entertainers in the recording industry, authors, and even the top stars in the film industry are paid a percentage of the gross. That’s what royalties are.”

    How often do royalties make up 50% of the gross?

  33. unfkwthabl says: Mar 21, 2011 10:48 PM

    when players “out perform their contracts” they want to hold out ala action jackson…and say things like “i cant work for $550,000″ ala CJ… but when they dont live up to those contracts, they never offer ti give any back

    How many top ten picks in the last decade EARN their huge checks?

    d carr, a smith, r bush, or anyone drafted by the lions other than suh… any of return any of that money? …no you get guys like j russel be forced into a starting job for years because hes too expensive to sit on the bench…

    This is why even poor guys vote republican… because we respect others and THEIR MONEY… the players are not entitled to their checks… if they were the “best in the world” then the avg career wouldnt be just about 3 years… you cant be the best if your constantly replaceable.

    People dont care about the players… we care about the teams! no one gets a P manning tattoo.. they get a COLTS tat

  34. veraky says: Mar 21, 2011 10:49 PM

    I gotta agree to some extent. Rising costs could lead to many issues including loss of regular jobs, potentially higher costs to the consumer, more games being featured on pay only channels, etc. This could also eventually lead to teams leaving to more profitable or economically viable regions. Also what would happen if the NFL suddenly get’s a large increase in income? Does that mean they suddenly have to rework players contracts and give everybody raises? Instead I would much rather see a reduction in prices to go to games because the prices have become way to high for the average fan (although I doubt that would ever happen). More realistically maybe they should have a set percentage go to a fund for stadium development (nothing worse for fans then seeing your team leave town because of a stadium issue).

    IMO they should set a base $ amount (based off of last years caps) that goes to the players that increases by a smaller percentage of the gross, this will keep the $ amount relatively stable but still able to grow with the success of the NFL.

  35. fbman says: Mar 21, 2011 10:51 PM

    threefold520 says:
    Mar 21, 2011 10:30 PM

    “Either this problem has been around for a long time, at least two CBAs, or the owners were fed misinformation about how much the players were making.”

    Or the owners’ other costs have risen as they’ve been investing more into their teams/facilities to try to grow total revenues, and now that % is too high to make reasonable profits. Something the players should be thankful for, since the total growth in revenues has given them higher salaries.

  36. descendency says: Mar 21, 2011 10:52 PM

    @saberstud75

    Average fans don’t contribute nearly as much as they’d like to think. TV contracts, exclusive deals, and other contracts are where the bulk of the revenue comes in from. It’s hard for most fans to swallow (because the prices are high) but there are plenty of fans willing to dish out that kind of money and not even think about it. And then dish out 20% more next year.

    It isn’t the NFL’s fault prices are rising for the fans. It’s the bastard next to you and the one about to buy your PSL from you.

    The NFL could never sell another jersey or sell a PSL and would continue to operate at insanely high revenue levels.

    With graphics technology where it is today, we could probably simulate the noise and feel of players playing in a real stadium with them playing in a large open field.

  37. rexisgay says: Mar 21, 2011 10:53 PM

    Thank You God for COLLEGE FOOTBALL !!!!!!

  38. elrushbo2 says: Mar 21, 2011 10:56 PM

    Ross is absolutely right. Expenses are going up across the board not just in the NFL but for every business. Paying the players (employees) 50% of gross revenues would not be in the best interest of any business not just the NFL….. if of course you want to in fact stay in business. (thus the reason the owners opted out of the CBA and the players want to maintain the status quo) The players had a sweetheart deal they know it and want to maintain it. If players get the % of gross revenues they want the fans will be the ones who ultimately pay for it not the owners.

  39. santolonius says: Mar 21, 2011 11:03 PM

    people who make comments like “hey let’s tell our bosses to open their books” don’t understand the concept of a union. a union is there to make bosses do things they wouldn’t otherwise do… like pay higher wages among other things. why? because if they don’t, the workers won’t work. you can try bringing in new workers, but that doesn’t always turn out so good. in the nfl it surely wouldn’t. fans want the best. so the players through their asterisk union have leverage. by the way, in the 20th century unions and the g.i. bill gave america a middle class. before unions and the g.i. bill we truly were a country of haves and have nots. unions aren’t all good. but they definitely aren’t all bad.

  40. georgeblanda says: Mar 21, 2011 11:06 PM

    Waldo has it right on target. Ross should just ask his “entertainer ownership group” how they are paid. He chose to get into the entertainment business. What an idiot. Of course virtually all entertainers (including athletes in all major sports) get paid a percentage of gross sales). Major recording artists regularly get as much as 85% of the gross sales from each concert they perform in. No fan goes to the game to see Stephen Ross or Jed York play football. We can barely stand to hear them talk about their football teams. We pay to see the best athletes play against each other. The owners then convince local politicians to pay for a significant cost of their stadiums and game day expenses. The value of NFL teams have risen over 500% over the past 15 years alone, mostly due to the way NFL owners benefit from public funding and antitrust exemption that the rest of us business owners do not get! Bob Lurie bought the SF Giants for $12 million and sold the team for over $112 million! NFL teams are now worth over $1 billion!

  41. MichaelEdits says: Mar 21, 2011 11:09 PM

    Let’s throw all the money into a pool and dole it out to the teams based on their win-loss percentage. How would that work for Stephen Ross?

  42. steven0524 says: Mar 21, 2011 11:10 PM

    Ross is a loon, but if you were given this scenario in an economics/business class, it would actually make perfect sense given a typical business model.

  43. stixzidinia says: Mar 21, 2011 11:15 PM

    I have an idea….let’s all go ask our employers to open up their books tomorrow because we don’t feel like they’re paying us enough.

    How do we think that will work out for us?
    ————————-

    Maybe one of these days certain fans will realize that comparing this to your average workplace scenario in the “real world” is apples and oranges at best. NFL players are not your average employees. They are the product and the star of the show. Without them there is nothing the owners have to offer you as fans. Joe Schmoe in his cubicle is easily replaceable. Elite NFL talent is not.

    Nobody out there is paying any money to see Joe Schmoe in his cubicle finish his TPS reports. In short, you have no leverage over your employer in this type of scenario. They’d just fire your ass and hire one of a thousand people in your area who could step right in and do your job just as well as you can. That is not the reality of the NFL or this dispute. The league found out in 1987 that the public won’t settle for scabs. So if the NFL owners want to have a business to run, they need the product on the field. No players = no NFL. The business would cease to exist without them. Can you say the same about you and the company you work for? Nope.

  44. phinfan says: Mar 21, 2011 11:17 PM

    For as rich as Stephen is, I wish he would pay someone to advise him.

    I’m already getting tired of his yapper.

  45. Packernet says: Mar 21, 2011 11:21 PM

    You just figured that out?

  46. handsatlanta says: Mar 21, 2011 11:39 PM

    Anybody who has been in business [knows] you don’t pay players the percentage of the gross

    And anyone who has been in business knows you don’t publicly embarass a high level manager by loudly interviewing his potential replacement.

    My Dolphins have no chance at success as long as Steven Ross is the owner.

  47. discostu570 says: Mar 21, 2011 11:41 PM

    I wonder what, in Stephen Ross’s mind, would constitute a ‘reasonable return’ for the owners? And I also wonder whether or not he’s realizing that return and how so. Maybe if he told me, I’d understand his comments more thoroughly.

    It’s funny how he talks about expenses having shot up. That isn’t why we’re at this juncture at all, it isn’t expenses that have jumped, it’s revenues. The only expense that will have really jumped in the last several years is player expenses, and that’s because it’s tied directly to revenues. There isn’t any reason any other expenses would become a larger share of revenues in the last several years, so there’s essentially no legitimate claim that player costs are putting the squeeze on owners.

    That’s what you guys at PFT aren’t getting. There isn’t any middle ground on the financial disclosure issue, because there can’t be any, because any honest financial disclosure would be devastating to the owners’ case. They’ll give up arguing and go away quietly before they’ll ever show their cards and admit they were lying to everybody the entire time.

  48. kazkal says: Mar 21, 2011 11:43 PM

    —have an idea….let’s all go ask our employers to open up their books tomorrow because we don’t feel like they’re paying us enough.

    How do we think that will work out for us?—

    Yup but Poor A.P is a million dollar slave,because he gets paid to play a game..your avg Joe doesn’t sacrifice his body towards his job.(Being Sarcastic)
    I hope the owners win in the end it’s how the world works players shouldn’t have it any different.

    Players=Charlie Sheen

  49. kazkal says: Mar 21, 2011 11:44 PM

    —Actually entertainers in the recording industry, authors, and even the top stars in the film industry are paid a percentage of the gross. That’s what royalties are.—

    Yes but look at Charlie Sheen for example of when you think your bigger then the people who are paying you.

  50. tehowdruid says: Mar 21, 2011 11:45 PM

    I’m disappointed you couldn’t fit “the owners think they’re paying the players too much money, and the owners think they can squeeze them into taking less.” in a few more times, it wasn’t in there enough…

  51. southmo says: Mar 21, 2011 11:47 PM

    Squeeze them into taking less money? You aren’t thinking in business terms. It’s not that simple. It’s only “less money” if the pie stays the same or shrinks. As long as the pie grows, any new CBA agreement that lowers the player’s percentage will simply slow the growth of their salaries.

    And business-wise, if expenses are going up because of expansion into new stadiums, etc… basing things on the gross revenues (which is before expenses) does tighten the profit margin.

    But for all the players, and people on here who think the owners shouldn’t build any new stadiums, fine. And the government shouldn’t build any new roads, or bridges either. If you don’t have enough money to expand and improve, you don’t have enough money to prosper long-term.

  52. owensdefense says: Mar 21, 2011 11:48 PM

    Hahaha, look at all these NFL plants creating accounts to take the owners’ side. Absolutely pathetic. You’re not fooling anyone.

    Nobody sympathizes with these sniveling, pretentious, rich jerks up in a press box eating caviar.

    NFL players make too much…oh, that’s rich. At least NFL players work their tails off for their salary, even if they’re overpaid. What have these owners done? They sat with their feet up at a desk while everyone “below them” did work for their company, that they employed sleazy tactics in order to make successful.

    Cry me a river. Player salaries are going up? Um, duh…it’s called inflation. LOSERS. Winning. Buh bye.

  53. ronworthdubbs says: Mar 21, 2011 11:49 PM

    Wow. How a few PR ploys can sway the minds of the sheep. All along the players have asked for the owners to open the books to see if the owners are taking too large of a hit to operate their respective franchises. The players need this league; it makes no sense for them to bleed the owners dry. Mr. Ross here just justified the opening of the books. If it’s so bad, just SHOW THEM. What exactly is there to hide? And enough about the “players are getting paid too much” argument. Who exactly is signing these individuals? No one is holding a gun to the owners heads and saying “pay Albert 100m”. They do it willingly. Supply and Demand. The players are getting what they’re worth to the owners when they sign these free agent contracts. That’s all that matters.

  54. jasncondit says: Mar 21, 2011 11:54 PM

    Quote: bchampeau says:
    Mar 21, 2011 9:55 PM
    I have an idea….let’s all go ask our employers to open up their books tomorrow because we don’t feel like they’re paying us enough.

    How do we think that will work out for us?

    Bchampeau — If we go to our employers it will turn out bad for one reason. We are the workers and not the product. The players however ARE the Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. So if the Mac and Cheese wants to walk it can in this instance and the owners know the customer can will not be eating Wal-Mart Mac and Cheese for long as a substitute (UFL players).

    So this is really apples to oranges…or apples to mac and cheese….

  55. tatum064 says: Mar 22, 2011 12:05 AM

    I have an idea….let’s all go ask our employers to open up their books tomorrow because we don’t feel like they’re paying us enough.

    How do we think that will work out for us?
    ================================
    I have an idea. lets not make STUPID comparisons of our jobs and Professional Athletes jobs because thats a dumb rationale. How about the risks the players take (paralysis; see Dennis Byrd), (suicide; see Andre Waters, Dave Duerson) I’d even include robbery (Sean Taylor). They have targets on them for coercion, bad investments, gambling and anything else. They want a slice of what they are risking their lives for, or they will strike. . Please stop with the uneven analogies.

    It isnt an issue you’d understand, since you arent risking paralysis working at Walmart or at the Insurance Company, etc.

  56. duffer58 says: Mar 22, 2011 12:13 AM

    The players are making too much money? Okay what about the owners? The value of their teams goes up and up not just the costs. The owners position is laughable.

  57. scytherius says: Mar 22, 2011 12:51 AM

    The Owners aren’t the game. The Players are. I hope the bury the Owners even if they have to shut the game down.

    The Public favors the Players by 2 to 1 because they know this is just like the rest of the American Oligarchy. It’s just another billionaire power grab.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20110311/SPORTS03/103110340/Poll-Fans-support-players-over-NFL-owners

    This will push even more fans in the Players corner.

  58. suite34 says: Mar 22, 2011 1:13 AM

    If Metallica plays a venue, they get a percentage of the house gross. A movie theater splits their gross revenues with the distributor of the film. This thing will go nowhere if the owners expect the players to give up dividing gross revenues.

  59. flr29 says: Mar 22, 2011 1:33 AM

    Ross is correct.

    Don’t cap the players with a percentage of the gross.

    Simply pay the players what the free market dictates; get rid of the cap and the floor.

    This thing would be over in 5 minutes if the owners had the guts to do that. Sadly, they won’t, because they want a system that protects them from themselves.

  60. nahcouldntbethat says: Mar 22, 2011 1:41 AM

    If you’re going to deny people the freedom to choose where they work you’re going to have to do other things, like collectively bargain for that right by giving them a percentage of the gross.

    The best thing that could come out of this is the abolishment of the draft, salary cap, percentage guarantees, franchise player, restricted free agency, etc.

    Let the free market decide how much the players are paid and let them choose where they play and for how much.

    That would end all the hypocrisy on both sides in a hurry.

  61. CKL says: Mar 22, 2011 1:41 AM

    bhindenemylines says: Mar 21, 2011 10:32 PM

    “Anybody who has been in business [knows] you don’t pay players the percentage of the gross,” Ross said.

    Well Mr. Ross, you agreed to it originally, so who’s fault is it?
    _____________________________________
    He’s a celebrity loving dope and one of the owners I respect the least in the NFL but he wasn’t the majority owner during the last CBA so technically he didn’t agree to it.

  62. poweredtoast says: Mar 22, 2011 1:54 AM

    The only reason the owners don’t want to keep paying a percentage to the players is they see the pot growing – a LOT – in the upcoming years and they want more of that pot, plain & simple. IE. GREED.

  63. hedleykow says: Mar 22, 2011 2:12 AM

    Did I just read in Ross’s comments that the owners don’t like paying the percentage, so instead of negotiating for something they do like, they chose to lie, cheat, and steal?

  64. realfann says: Mar 22, 2011 2:20 AM

    In most businesses that are not monopolies, pay is decided by market forces.

    Simple way to see if NFL players are overpaid is to abolish the draft and abolish all the nonsense with free agents.

    Let each player coming out of college be auctioned off to the highest bidder. So the team that bids the best contract get the player.

    So if Dan Snyder pays the best then he gets the best players. Unless Bob Kraft or Jerry Jones outbids him.

    Make all contracts guaranteed. Teams can only bid on players whose contract has expired.

    Want my guess?

    Salaries would go through the roof. Players would end up with a lot more than 50% of revenue as owners would try and buy themselves a Superbowl.

  65. realfann says: Mar 22, 2011 2:22 AM

    Oh yeah, and let anyone who wants to start a franchise to go ahead and do so.

    Larry Ellison really wants a team. Let him form one. Let him pay what he wants for players.

  66. realfann says: Mar 22, 2011 2:40 AM

    A few teams make most of the revenue. The Cowboys, Patriots, Steelers etc.

    Their owners see a huge untapped source of future revenue overseas because the NFL has only scratched the marketing surface abroad.

    The home market will also continue double digit growth as TV audiences get bigger and bigger every year. PFT helps by growing interest.

    These few owners don’t want to either share the combined explosive revenue growth with small market teams or with the players. Why should they?

    This is the first step: cap total player salaries and make sure it goes down as a percentage of total revenue over time.

    Second step will be reduced revenue sharing with small market teams.

    You all think the Panthers have a slim chance of winning a Superbowl.

    You ain’t seen nothing yet. Slim will wither to none real fast if Jurry & Bob have their way.

  67. vomitingliberals says: Mar 22, 2011 3:12 AM

    The players are the reason that you pay what you do for tickets, concessions, merchandise, and the NFL Network. You are supporting their ridiculously increasing salaries. They more owners are forced to shell out to the players, the more YOU are going to have to pay in order to support their paychecks. It’s Economics 101 people.

    If the players win this battle, your cost for all things NFL will continue to rise. Don’t be foolish, support the owners. These palyers will be retired within the next 5 to 10 years. It is the health of the NFL franchises that matter most! Besides, the players will be overpaid no matter what deal they eventually get. They’ll be fine, no worries.

  68. lostsok says: Mar 22, 2011 4:15 AM

    So was Ross making too much when he became a freakin’ BILLIONAIRE? This the pot telling the kettle, “I have my millions, and a lot of other people’s millions…now I want YOUR millions.”

    Do not forget this: we live in a society where the top of any profession is an elite that makes the most money. Either we are a capitalist society or we are not one. If we are, than the top brain surgeons, professors, scientists, artists, BUSINESSMEN, and, obviously, athletes and other entertainers…are going to make insane amounts of money.

    Charlie Sheen made 14 mil an episode. What do you think Stephen King makes a book or Jay-Z an album?

    Football is NOT a 9 billion dollar business because of Stephen Ross. No one has a Stephen Ross jersey. No one has EVER bought a Stephen Ross Fathead.

    Now watch for THIS the next few years: Ross is going to take the tax money from the average working people of Miami. He is going to refurbish “his” stadium, largely using YOUR money. At some point, he is going to sell the Miami Dolphins for a large profit.

    Who wants to bet me, here and now, when I say with utter conviction that when that day comes HE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT PAYING HIS TAXES, just like the last Dolphin owner did on the way out.

    These owners are ruthless, arrogant narcissists who are far, FAR more greedy than any player who merely wants to be set for life for being good enough to make it in one of the most competitive sports with among the shortest career-spans (that also generates among the most revenue) in world history.

  69. purpleman527 says: Mar 22, 2011 4:32 AM

    “the owners think they’re paying the players too much money, and the owners think they can squeeze them into taking less.”
    —————————————————
    You made this point several times.

    Has it ever occurred to you that expenses actually are going up, and we the fans can’t afford to go to the game(s) anymore?

    I guess not, since you likely go to the games for free for your PFT “job”. (Actually, any expense you do pay to “cover” the NFL for work is a business expense.) So, you likely never “pay” for the game you attend out of your personal cash, like the rest of us do.

    Must be nice.

  70. mrb1000 says: Mar 22, 2011 5:00 AM

    This is silly saying the player are paid to much. When was the last time anybody told their employer they made to much money!

    These player do not have the same contracts like Baseball players and Basketball players! Their contract are like night and day. They are playing one the most violent sport in the world. A running-back last on average three years. So please make replies by using your head and research to make an intelligent reply. My two cents and a wooden nickels! LOL

  71. phillyfinsfan says: Mar 22, 2011 6:03 AM

    Last year Stephen Ross said that Chad Henne would eventually become a greater quarterback than Dan Marino. I think he should just keep his mouth shut.

  72. broncofanfromaustria says: Mar 22, 2011 6:09 AM

    the owners should try to build a NEW UNION –
    a “owners friendly union” – based on the last offer they made to the old, “de-maurice-smith-union”.

    it only takes 475 million – to invite those players to the NEW UNION – and reward EVERY player who signs the offered CBA with a signing bonus of 250.000 dollars

    within one week we would have 1.900 football players,
    a new cba and a new season.

  73. h0c2000 says: Mar 22, 2011 6:30 AM

    If it was such a bad investment, why did he recently buy the team to begin with?

  74. sufferingbirdsfan says: Mar 22, 2011 6:41 AM

    Or you can stop building billion dollar stadiums with HDTVs the size of an aircraft hangar. That might cut costs too. I love all the players are making too much money BS. They are ENTERTAINERS. Oprah Winfrey makes 90 million a year and one is outraged by that. When was her last concussion? An NFL owner is not a small business man trying to get by. He is someone who is already richer than God whose is selected by the other owners for the ultimate ego stroke. Owning an NFL team. Give me a break.

  75. toe4 says: Mar 22, 2011 6:48 AM

    Dear owners,

    Listen up, here is your winning argument.

    “we want to take some money away from the players to give it to the coaches, the doctors, to buy better equipment.”

    Mr. Ross seems to be implying that it is player payroll which continues to increase… but we all knows that has remained at about 50%.

    My point: a little honesty goes a long way.

  76. sakatak says: Mar 22, 2011 7:08 AM

    This will never happen but if the players really want transparency they should open their books so the teams they play for can see where their money is going. Gambling, bling, extravagant parties, wheels, women, posse,etc., then the teams could could hire advisors to advise them. This would also alert the league to gambling and addiction problems. What percentage of the players fall in this category, my guess would be close to 50%. Does anyone know how much the players union dues are?

  77. angrycorgi says: Mar 22, 2011 7:12 AM

    I’ll tell you one thing — if the players win in court and the lockout is declared illegal, this is the beginning of the end of the NFL. Think about it. If the players burn thru their money faster than they expect (unexepcted rise in cost of lap-dances/escalades/gold-filling/etc.) and decide “hey we want mo’ money!”, then they can strike…anytime they want. They can use that as a tool to force the owners to concede. If the owners are not allowed to use a similar vehicle when player costs get out of control, then there is no balance in the system and the owners, surely not willing to allow their assets to be hijacked by the players on a whim, will withdraw their investment(s) and sell their franchises or let them go into a state of decay as they slowly migrate $$$ out of this investment and into something more logical. Any reasonable person can see the inequity created by the precedence of allowing a players’ strike but NOT allowing an owners’ lock-out.

  78. toe4 says: Mar 22, 2011 7:31 AM

    One thing I’m confused about is if costs keep increasing for the owners why do they think it would be easiest to cut back on player salaries?

    I’m thinking if a Broadway musical was getting out of hand they would cut costs in something like stage hands or pyrotechniques rather than from the actors that the people have come to see.

    It just seems to me that the least variable cost would be player salary.

    That sort of implies that money has less to do with it than both sides are implying.

  79. toe4 says: Mar 22, 2011 7:38 AM

    Reading through the comments there is a recurring lie.

    “The players are asking for more money” is a lie.

    The owners are asking for a pay cut is the truth.

    Now I think the players should agree to the pay cut. But there are a significant number of posters who are either lying or don’t have a base understanding of what is happening.

  80. paperlions says: Mar 22, 2011 8:00 AM

    We know how much the players make. Why are the owners so reticent to open their books so that we know how much they make? The only reason not to disclose this is because they likely are already making much more than anyone guesses, and certainly more than they are claiming. No one loses money owning an NFL team, each and every NFL ownership group has made more money off their team over the last decade than even the best NFL player will make in his entire career…and it isn’t close.
    .
    Salaries don’t drive prices, rather the market drives prices; owners will charge as much as they can and pocket as much as they can…it is called business. But the owners do almost nothing to contribute to the success of the league, it is the football (and marketing) people (coaches, players, etc.) that have created this cash cow….the owners are just along for the ride and are already the ones making the most off of this endeavor with exactly zero risk.
    .
    Players risk their long-term health playing this game, but should make less?

  81. bigbluefan1 says: Mar 22, 2011 8:05 AM

    The owner should be able to take a pay check 4 times higher then the highest paid player in the NFL
    Right now that is Brady so every owner should have the ability to take 80 Million a year for himself if the team is coowned then maybe each owner should get 2.5 times the number

    But the Cowboys and Giants and Jets just spent big $$$$ to build new Stadiums new pratice facilities with there money not paid for by the taxpayers.

    Did a player drop any money into that pot?
    No so that comes out of the gross

  82. vomitingliberals says: Mar 22, 2011 8:29 AM

    The owners can earn as much as they like, it is their business after all. Why should they ever have to justify themselves to any employee? Private ownership affords them this right. The players are lucky to earn what they earn for playing a game. The NFL will be destroyed in the long run by escalating player salaries and rampant cost increases.

  83. paperlions says: Mar 22, 2011 8:47 AM

    Are you really unfamiliar with the history of the treatment of employees when owners are allowed to do whatever they want?
    .
    The NFL is not an owner/employee situation. It is a partnership; any comparison that treats the players as employees only is faulty.
    .
    The owners do nothing to generate the revenue, they are making money on the efforts of the players (and other football people). The owners don’t spend any of their own money on stadiums or anything else…ALL of that money was generated by football players…not by owner activities.
    .
    I am constantly amazed by people that side with those that make profits off of the efforts of others, and am interested in the root cause of that bias.

  84. brutus9448 says: Mar 22, 2011 9:01 AM

    the players will lose. People watch the teams not the players. once the games are started with the replacement players the owners will get what they want.

  85. teeray3 says: Mar 22, 2011 9:16 AM

    bigbluefan1 – Actually the players did drop money into the pot, the $1 billion the owners get off the top. The current problem now is the owners want an additional $1 billion and don’t want the players pay to grow with increased revenue.

    I thought that was the perfect market system, players value grows along with that of the football team. The players don’t go back to Mr. Kraft and say that the Patriots value has grown 1000% since the 1990′s so my value should grow that much as well.

    paperlions –

    While I agree with your sentiment, Jones, Snyder, and a few other owners did privately fund their stadiums.

  86. PFTiswhatitis says: Mar 22, 2011 9:32 AM

    All I know is that I am paying too much, way too much and everyone else is getting rich. And now I may get to watch a less than stellar season (or none at all) because of this ridiculous feud.

    Both sides need to stop being so damn greedy or us fans are just gonna take our money and go home. Then arrogant owners and the imbolic players can enjoy their trips back to earth and live like the rest of us.

  87. rdssc says: Mar 22, 2011 9:38 AM

    Steven Ross has owned a team for like 2 minutes I don’t care what he thinks. The NFL is bigger than Steven Ross and his celebrity ownership group. Put this guy in the corner with a dunce hat for the rest of the meetings please. If it is so bad why did he invest so much freaking money to buy a team. These owners are a joke.

  88. edgy says: Mar 22, 2011 10:33 AM

    rculross7 says:

    Thank goodness someone recognizes I can’t keep paying more and more and more for my season tickets.

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

    Do you honestly think that the players are the reason why you pay so much for your ticket? AT BEST, the cost of transporting players figures in more than their salaries since TV money accounts for a greater percentage of what is used to pay the players then your season tickets. The players could take an even lower percentage of the revenue and guess what — your ticket prices will STILL go up and it would have nothing to do with them or any expenses that can be attributed to their care and feeding.

  89. edgy says: Mar 22, 2011 10:53 AM

    teeray3 says:

    paperlions –

    While I agree with your sentiment, Jones, Snyder, and a few other owners did privately fund their stadiums

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

    You’re kidding right? Snyder had NOTHING to do with FedEx field except to cash the checks for the naming rights. $475+ million of the money that paid for Jerry’s palace came from the city of Arlington and the NFL and the rest came from a PSL that was outrageous. Jones didn’t spend a thin dime of his money for that stadium. If you follow the cash, you’ll find that more than 60% of funding for stadiums come from public funds AND if you include the PSL and any G3 money (which the players gave up) as public funds, that becomes nearly all the funding for any stadium. Almost no ownership money has ever been used to find the stadiums.

  90. teeray3 says: Mar 22, 2011 11:21 AM

    Edgy:

    FedEx Field had $180 million dollars in private funding and $70.5 million financed by the state.

    For Cowboys Stadium you have a better argument since the city of Arlington provided $325 mil and increased taxes along with the NFL putting in $150 mil for the $1.15 billion stadium. But Mr. Jones did put in his fair share compared to others owners.

    And it sickens me to say this as I am a Redskins fan . . . of course Snyder’s management of the Redskins might sicken me more.

  91. toe4 says: Mar 22, 2011 11:29 AM

    Edgy,

    While I agree with your sentiment the truth is about 50% of the cost of the tickets (and everything else) goes to the players. and that is taking into account the billion off the top.

    50% of total revenue is 50% of EVERYTHING.

    Personally I think that 50% to the players is at the high end of appropriate. My personal belief is that the players ought to get in the neighborhood of 40-50 percent of every dollar.

  92. edgy says: Mar 22, 2011 11:36 AM

    BTW, Mike, how much did Kroenke ultimately pay for the Rams? I just need to update my info. :)

  93. sflcat says: Mar 22, 2011 11:56 AM

    Who to feel sorry for…the millionaires, or the billionaires? How about none of the above. Without the fans going to the stadiums, watching on the networks or buying PPP packages…the NFL would be the NO FOOTBALL LEAGUE…Owners and players, don’t forget where your bread is really buttered.

    Most average folks are already priced out of the league as far as going to an actual game at the stadium.

  94. edgy says: Mar 22, 2011 12:10 PM

    toe4 says:

    Edgy,

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

    Look, 50% of what the players get from the owners, comes from more than the tickets and you can quibble all you want but most of the money that pays for the players doesn’t come from ticket sales. For example, look at the Packers and what Forbes shows. Their 2009 statements show revenue of $232 million with “gate” revenue of $48 million. Their 2010 statements show revenue of $242 million with “gate” revenue of $48 million. Player expenses went up $26million BUT gate revenue either stayed flat or had an imperceptible increase. If there was a correlation between ticket prices and players salaries, it should have shown then. Even if we say that these figures are a year behind, I don’t think I’ve seen one GB fan here complaining about how their ticket prices went up 21.4% to cover the increased player costs.

    Do you think that YOU only get 40-50% of your company’s expenses? The number one expense for ANY business is labor (Unless you’re paying 3 cents an hour for them to make Nikes) and what people cost their companies is as much and in many cases, more than what the NFL players get. Plus, they’re the reason why people are watching the game. Hell, if these guys were such financial geniuses, why didn’t they make that kind of money with their AFL teams (even proportionately)? No one tunes in to see Jerry Jones squirm in his seat and no one ever will. Funny how a player can make $350,000 and he’s overpaid but a guy like Charlie Sheen pulls in $43 million and you guys don’t give one rat’s ass about that.

  95. edgy says: Mar 22, 2011 1:18 PM

    teeray3 says:

    Edgy:

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

    NONE of which had anything to do with Snyder. He got a team and a stadium that was already in place when he took over. All he did was get FedEx to pay the money to change the name from Jack Kent Cook Stadium to FedEx Field.

    Jones put in NOTHING. All the money that built the stadium came from the NFL, the city of Arlington AND the fans who bought his PSL. Not one penny of his money went into building that stadium.

    The Meadowlands is considered 100% privately funded but $300 million of that came from the G3 fund (players) and the rest came from a PSL. No need to cry a river for either team when it comes to having to pay all that “private” money when they didn’t do anything.

  96. realfootballfan says: Mar 22, 2011 2:55 PM

    the pro-owner people here must be on the NFL’s PR payroll or are just extremely simple.

    The fact that the owners moved the needle so far at the last minute tells you all you need to know and what they already know….they’re going to lose when this hits the court room.

    The problem is these new era owners, like Ross, who see owning a team as a cash cow.

    And for the millionth time, stop comparing what you do to these players you jealous nutjobs.

    You aren’t specifically gifted to produce the revenue that these guys, or any entertainer for that matter, do for their employer. It’s the best example of comparing apples to oranges that comes up here.

  97. realfootballfan says: Mar 22, 2011 3:10 PM

    descendency,

    Shhh!!!! You’re going to burst some of these morons bubbles who think they are paying the players salaries rather than the ad revenues that the NFL enjoys as the dominant television program in America doing so.

    They actually think that the exorbitant parking, concessions, and ticket prices fuel the league, rather than line the pockets of the owners who are gouging them for profits.

    . However, these dummies don’t realize that a team like the Raiders can easily compete with the other 31 teams despite only selling out 1 game this past year and regularly having attendance numbers in the 35,000 range due to the TV contract afforded by the ad revenue their ratings demand.

    Yet, they were one of the busiest teams before the lockout began. Gee, I wonder how they manage that?

    However, it seems to be hard for people blinded by deep seeded jealousy because some athlete stuffed them in a locker years ago or screwed their girlfriend to grasp that concept.

  98. teeray3 says: Mar 22, 2011 3:45 PM

    Edgy:

    I agree with your point on Snyder, but he is the current owner thus the use of his name. Cooke built it, but Snyder bought it so he has a privately funded stadium.

    Jones may not have spent his own money but he used his business prowess to limit the cost to the city. I don’t care how they pay, their own money or another person’s, as long as it isn’t a tax payer.

  99. edgy says: Mar 22, 2011 4:01 PM

    teeray3 says:

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

    Again, totally wrong about Jones. The city and NOT Jones limited the amount of money that they were liable for (The original deal was for 1/2 of the ESTIMATED $650 million, which Jerry quickly escalated over $1.2 billion). In return, he only pays $2 million per year in rent (That and any money that he spends on upkeep for the stadium are credited toward paying off the stadium at a price that’s around the same as what the city kicked in — 30 years from now) and $500k that goes to the city’s youth program. He’s also OFF the city’s tax rolls during that time (A MAJOR bone of contention among those in Arlington who opposed a lot of this sweetheart deal). You can say what you want but no matter how you or anyone tries to spin it, these owners are NOT on the hook for their own money to pay off these palaces and risk NOTHING for them. The players are being asked to shave off $1 billion to help build these palaces but aren’t being given a taste of the revenue that is being generated.

  100. ffootballontwitter says: Mar 22, 2011 10:26 PM

    The NFL, like any pro sport, has become as demanding as a Walt Disney amusement park. You go to the park, and you never see the contributions that thousands of people make in order to make the whole thing go. Likewise, each game has become even more complex.

    I would rather that the next labor agreement make accommodations for the thousands of workers caught in the cross-fire, NFL alumni, and the increasing economic risk associated with growing the sport. And, instead of focusing solely on giving players hard dollars, perhaps the league should give players the option of setting aside part of their salary to be reinvested in a league development fund, matched by league dollars. Say a player sets aside 5% of their salary, the league would match that 5%. Such a system would generate annuities from the league’s ongoing activities, and pay dividends long after a player’s pro career is over.

    The league should no more be compelled to open their books than KFC or Coca-Cola be compelled to disclose their secret formulas. At the same time, the players are deserving of incentives commensurate with their risk and their investment.

  101. realfootballfan says: Mar 23, 2011 2:21 AM

    ffootballontwitter,

    Sorry, but that’s an asinine suggestion. Without the players, those interchangable employees that are employed by the team have no job, just like the NFL doesn’t broker billion dollar contracts every five years to televise their game.

    What don’t you pro-owner people understand, the players are the sole reason the Super Bowl is the most popular television show every year and that the NFL is king in the ratings. People love to watch the best players play, without them, no one cares. If you don’t know that, check out who watches the UFL in the absence of the NFL or how many billion dollar TV contracts the AFL is negotiating.

    Furthermore, forcing the players to contribute to a “league development” fund is just as absurd since they literally give years on their life to this game. Take a look around…guys are dying young. Do you think that’s a coincidence?

    Yet, these men go out and put their bodies in harm’s way with these God given talents because 99% of them love to play the game.

    I’m sure most of them are athletic enough to have played less dangerous sports like basketball or baseball (and make more by the way), but they wreck their bodies to entertain people who love watching the sport. That’s the bottom line, I watch because I love to see Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Michael Vick, etc., not because of anything else.

    Therefore, they are entitled to share equally in the billions which the ad revenues allow the league to garner because I, like millions of others, make NFL football appointment television every fall and winter. That’s only fair, any other argument is moronic at best, or you’re just a shill on this site from the NFL or one of the teams.

    Stop comparing their situation to firefighters, teachers, engineers, McDonald’s workers and all this other nonsense because they are collectively the ad generator for the league.

    If the owners don’t believe that, just go into 2011 with replacement players for the entirety and let’s see how much interest there is for next year’s Super Bowl. I’m willing to bet it won’t break any records, unless we’re talking about biggest audience drop from one year to the next.

    It would be the equivalent of pre-season football…nice in the beginning because you’re seeing your team uniform and football’s been gone for 6 months; however, reality strikes and you realize that those players in the game after the first quarter suck.

    Now let’s think about watching that product (actually worse because these would be worse than the current fringe players) for 17 weeks and playoffs. The horror,

    the horror!!!

  102. ffootballontwitter says: Mar 23, 2011 9:42 AM

    realfootballfan,

    You seem like a reasonable person that is invested in the situation.

    I’m not for the owners. I, like you I’m sure, want the game back, with real players. I have never said I’m for scabs. I have never advocated “forcing” players to do anything – my suggestion was to find incentives that give players equity and ownership, and the option to opt-in. Does this make me a shill for the owners? If so, then I guess that makes people like William Rhoden shills as well, because those ideas are the same as those found in his book “Forty Million Dollar Slaves”, arguably one of the inspirations behind the players’ movement.

    We are in something that negotiation professionals call ‘violent agreement’ – participants don’t understand they are in agreement on most issues, and so they continue to argue.

  103. realfootballfan says: Mar 23, 2011 12:21 PM

    ffootballontwitter,

    I just think the owners are being disingenuous and that was evidenced by how far they suddenly moved on most proposals at the last minute.

    These franchises (and the NFL in general) are on autopilot generating more than enough money for everybody, but it’s these new owners like Ross and the like who’ve hijacked the game and who’s motive isn’t primarily the love of it.

    Take a look at the owners who were front and center in patronizing the players: Jerry Richardson, Jerry Jones, and now Ross, all “new” owners.

    You don’t hear the Rooneys, Al Davis, Mara, or any of the older school owners doing this nonsense, which points to a greater love for bottom lines among this new group than what they should be in the game for, the love of it.

    I’m sure Al davis probably sees less revenue than any owner in football since he plays in a very outdated stadium in an economically depressed area, yet he wasn’t one of those owners there complaining about “taking” back what’s theirs and all this other nonsense instead realizing that everybody was making more than enough money in the current or a similar arrangement.

    In turn, it’s led to the first work stoppage in 20+ years, while football was the one business that you could count on to continue growing through major financial meltdowns like the ’08 downturn, the 911 disaster, every major problem that real people are out here facing.

    Sorry, but that underlines a greed from one side, the “new” owners, which will destroy this game when it has continued to enjoy unprecedented growth for an extended period of time.

    I understand your sentiment of the league development fund, but I just don’t think that would be fair to ask the players to set aside some of their money, which many of them have a very limited time to earn and will face a myriad of problems that the money won’t carry them through. There is more than enough money through the TV contracts and for the various other revenue streams that the NFL owners shouldn’t be crying wolf.

    I mean, the Jets, Panthers, and cardinals are giving regular employees furlows when Al Davis, again probably the least profitable owner in one of the worse situations overall economically from what his team generates, is not doing so. That just points to the lack of character of some of the individuals that you’re dealing with and is very disingenuous.

  104. realfootballfan says: Mar 23, 2011 12:22 PM

    ffootballontwitter,

    I just think the owners are being disingenuous and that was evidenced by how far they suddenly moved on most proposals at the last minute.

    These franchises (and the NFL in general) are on autopilot generating more than enough money for everybody, but it’s these new owners like Ross and the like who’ve gotten into the game for more than the love of it.

    Take a look at the owners who were front and center in patronizing the players: Jerry Richardson, Jerry Jones, and now Ross, all “new” owners.

    You don’t hear the Rooneys, Al Davis, Mara, or any of the older school owners doing this nonsense, which points to a greater love for bottom lines among this new group than what they should be in the game for, the love of it.

    I’m sure Al davis probably sees less revenue than any owner in football since he plays in a very outdated stadium in an economically depressed area, yet he wasn’t one of those owners there complaining about “taking” back what’s theirs and all this other nonsense instead realizing that everybody was making more than enough money in the current or a similar arrangement.

    In turn, it’s led to the first work stoppage in 20+ years, while football was the one business that you could count on to continue growing through major financial meltdowns like the ’08 downturn, the 911 disaster, every major problem that real people are out here facing.

    Sorry, but that underlines a greed from one side, the “new” owners, which will destroy this game when it has continued to enjoy unprecedented growth for an extended period of time.

    I understand your sentiment of the league development fund, but I just don’t think that would be fair to ask the players to set aside some of their money, which many of them have a very limited time to earn and will face a myriad of problems that the money won’t carry them through. There is more than enough money through the TV contracts and for the various other revenue streams that the NFL owners shouldn’t be crying wolf.

    I mean, the Jets, Panthers, and cardinals are giving regular employees furlows when Al Davis, again probably the least profitable owner in one of the worse situations overall economically from what his team generates, is not doing so. That just points to the lack of character of some of the individuals that you’re dealing with and is very disingenuous. The Jets

  105. edgy says: Mar 23, 2011 12:35 PM

    ffootballontwitter says:

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

    In the first place, the players are already contributing $1 billion to a fund that the owners have used to build their palaces and guess what — NOT ONE PENNY of the outside money that the owners have been getting has gotten back to them. Jerry Jones not only made a mint with what he charged his customers BUT he also made a ton on several college football games, the NBA All-Star game, a boxing match and other events at the Palace Near Dallas and nothing has ever gotten back to the other owners or the players. Do you honestly believe that the owners want to let the players in on any revenue that they make? Hell, they’re trying NOW to limit what the players will get and you can bet that if they get their way that the players will get far less than 50% when it’s all said and done (and why the owners want an iron-clad 10-year CBA so they can screw them and keep screwing them for a long, uninterrupted time).

    In order to help the owners, the players have given them credits upon credits upon credits and the owners have kept coming back for more but without allowing them to share in the bounty (Hell, the players helped bankroll NFL Europe(a) but have you ever heard the owners tell the fans that — of course not).

    Oh and opening up the books and talking about the secret formula are two different things. If you’re going to claim that you’re bleeding money, you either prove it or you shut up. I find it funny that people complain about this aspect and YET, companies that do open up their books and show that they’re hurting have won concessions from their employees while those that don’t, don’t and yet, they seem to survive and give themselves big bonuses while saying that they can’t afford to give raises to their employees.

  106. mmandia says: Mar 23, 2011 2:17 PM

    The players need to quit crying. I don’t care if they’re putting their bodies at risk. That’s why they’re paid 6,7,or 8 figures. There are millions of people who put their bodies at risk for far less and with worse benefits. I agree you need to pay your laborers fairly, but c’mon. For everyone saying you can’t compare football to …..whatever, yes you can. I work for a union company. I work with the understanding that if my employer doesn’t make a good profit, he will either cut labor, or close his doors. That is my incentive to work hard and do a quality job. If they don’t pay me fairly, I can take my ass down the road. Players can either play or don’t. Someone WILL do it for what they currently make. The quality may drop off some, but I doubt fans will notice, or even care once new stars emerge. Im still gonna watch…..whatever. I love football, and I’m gonna enjoy it whether the players are scabs or not. Not one NFL crybaby has shed one tear for the college athletes who take the same risks for no money or future health care. I wouldn’t open my books either. If the NFL is so unfair, quit and test the open market with your real world skills.

  107. realfootballfan says: Mar 23, 2011 6:16 PM

    mmandia,

    You should be fine then regardless since I’m sure you enjoy UFL and Arena League football. The rest of us don’t want to see that garbage.

    Also, the college football debate is a different subject that’s wrong, too. However, that’s not the topic here.

Leave a Reply

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