Owners did NOT ask players to take a pay cut. In fact player salaries would not be reduced at all, they would still be increasing just not at the same rate at which they currently increase, which the owners contend is way too fast. The salary is not being reduced, the rate of growth is. that is a BIG difference from a pay cut.

1 – YES to 18-game schedule. It means more football, generates more revenue for the game, and will help competition.
2 – The teams should pay players what they and the game realistically can handle as a percentage of revenue; if they’re not going to get help on stadium upkeep etc. then it has to change.
3 – Players need to better handle their finances with regard to retirement. League and team pensions can only go so far.

You misrepresent what the players – actually DeMaurice Smith – want. They want to punish the owners; if they wanted a legitimate share of revenues they’d shut up, sign the new CBA, and get back to work, because the reality of sports economics dictates that they will get the legitimate share of revenue.

There simply is no logic to the union position anywhere – nowhere did players get gipped of any real money before (not in the TV loan “slush fund” that was never going to be used if a new CBA had been signed) and they were never going to lose money with a new CBA. The players tricked the owners into signing a bad CBA in 2006; Deb, DeMaurice Smith etc. can deny deny deny until they’re blue in the face and they will never win on facts.

What Judge Nelson has done is the same mistake Sotomayor made with baseball – Sotomayor “saved” the Yankees’ ability to spend and the union’s ability to inflate player wages while prolonging the game’s dysfunctional economic model by some seven years; the game itself was harmed, not helped, by her. What Nelson is doing is stopping a needed reform of an economic system that is proving to be dysfunctional.

Um … it’s Judge Nelson, not Judge Murphy

Where on earth did you get the idea that the players have sued the NFL because they’re not being paid enough? If you have absolutely not the first clue what’s been going on throughout this process, what an antitrust suit is, what a lockout is, what a CBA is, who was demanding more money (because it was the owners, not the players), please don’t post. Instead, spend some time reading Mike’s articles since March

The owner bias is an interesting amalgam of race and class. Owners are perceived as successful businessmen (white) who have earned their fortunes and therefore their economic and social power. This mirrors the treatment of franchises in the press (including this website), which never investigates (often barely mentions) the intense nepotism that reigns in most NFL organizations, for example. But more to the point, the amount of money each franchise takes in, their gross and net profits, are never reported. Even the salaries of coaches (who, again, are overwhelmingly white) are not reported. What is reported? The salaries of players. But the players’ salaries are misreported. The “news” of players’ salaries are the salaries of a tiny minority of players; and, as human are wont to do, this tiny minority comes to stand in for the majority of players. This tiny minority is, for most fans, infuriating. They make truly huge sums of money, especially compared to our salaries, and these sums appear to inconvenience us; they represent other players the team might have signed but couldn’t afford, jacked-up ticket and concession prices, etc. etc. etc. They represent how different the world of the player is from that of the fan; loyalty through thick and thin, year after year, is the definition of the virtuous fan. But loyalty, for most players, is a one-way street. Owners show none; not to their players, coaches, GMs, fans, stadia, and cities. Art Modell moved the Browns from Cleveland because his feelings were hurt that the team had to wait in line behind the MLB and NBA teams. Alex Spanos refuses to recognize the existence of Kellen Winslow because Winslow sued Spanos over an injury settlement. Malcolm Effing Floyd has worn Winslow’s number since he came into the league.

Moreover, NFL ownership lasts, for practical purposes, forever. Player careers last, on average slightly more than three years. This average is rather misleading: you have large group of players who play 1-2 years at most, a smaller group of players that get one shot at free agency, and a tiny minority that get more than one shot. Once players reach the NFL they have consciously chosen to forgo other career options (check out the degrees most D-I-A players chose) and focus on football. Indeed, we as fans feel entitled to demand this focus, and complain when players aren’t spending 80 hours a week working out or studying film. Does two years of work at $325,000 (if you make a team two years in a row) really compensate you for other foregone opportunities? For the long-term physical costs of having played a violent sport for 8-10 years (including HS and college)?

And even if you are fine with this, the real question is, who do you want to end up with the lion’s share of the money generated by that blood and sweat? All the players want is 50% of all revenues. The owners were and are willing to forgo an entire season for this. Are you?

Do you want an 18-game regular season, or should the regular season remain at 16 games?
Do you believe NFL teams should spend a minimum of 50.1% of their revenues on player salaries, or should they spend less?
Do you believe retired players should receive 10 years of medical insurance [or care, I don't know what the most accurate description is]?

Etc. You should poll on each of the substantive issues that have been raised in the negotiations (and I don’t think the NFLPA has seriously proposed the elimination of the draft and the salcap, despite what PFT and Roger Goodell have taken to implying). Then you’d get a better picture about what fans actually think about the structure of the sport.

The downside is no floor. Rookie minimum is what $310k? Tons of kickers and special team players with a few years on them making at least a half million.

No reason the league can’t open the rooster limits. And I bet if you offered a non-drafted rookie a $20k signing bonus and a $80k salary he would not turn it down. Then you can cut the vet making $500k.

Special teams, kickers, punters, long snappers, backups. Start signing cheap labor and then cut the guys you have. New guys won’t be that much of a drop off and you could sign several for each guy cut.

Read Mick’s comment above. He did a great job breaking it down for you.

That’s it. I want any new CBA to allow the Packers to get back to the financial situation they were in before 2006. Under the old setup, with the players taking 56.9 percent of every new revenue dollar, there was no way the Packers could work their way back.

I am curious about some things I’ve seen posted here over the past few weeks.

1. In March and April, there really isn’t football per se. So, why are some people so agitated about football this time of year? The posts,’give me back my damn football’, seem a little bit over the top. Yes, there is the draft, and a small to fair amount of free agency, but nothing that would normally occupy a lot of the typical fan’s time at this time of year.

2. A lot of the pro player posts are incredibly immature and boorish. I find it hard to believe that it is just support for 1800 or so players in this instance that creates this kind of fervor. After all, none of these 1800 or so guys is under any kind of financial hardship. We are’t talking about followers of Mother Theresa, so what gives? THe league minimum in the NFL is almost ten times the average pay in America, so given the country’s economic condition, the real financial hardship of millions of people in the country, why this uproar over the pay of very well paid football players?

Is the NFL player/owner thing a substitute for labor union frustration in the rest of society? Is the frustration with organized labor and its supporters at its catering position in American society being transferred to the NFL situation? I’m curious. There just seems to be an awful lot of vitriol coming from the pro player side. I can’t imagine why this vitriol would be produced simply from looking at the NFL players. It has to be the whole labor union collapse thing that drives it. For example, fewer than 7% of private industry’s work force is now unionized. Most union members are government employees, and as we’ve seen over the past few years, they are now coming over increasing scrutiny. Even in Massachussetts, the democrat state government has voted to curtail state unions.

3. I think there is also a racial element involved in a number of posts I’ve seen. Is it that the players are overwhelmingly black and the owners are all white driving a lot of anger on the part of some of the player posters here?

Maybe some of the pro player posters can comment. I would be curious to see their responses.

Second how can anyone support the owners ?? This country is sooooooo retarded. The players were happy two years ago to sign a deal that extended the former CBA. The owners are the greedy bastards who needed more of the pie for them selves. Had the owners approached this smartly they could have traded Beneifits for retired players for rookie pay scale and all would be well. But no. The owners wanted more. They wanted to shrink the players share under the guise of not having enough money ……. really …….. you mean a football team/ license to print money isn’t enough??? Not to mention the fact some of the lead cheerleaders on the owners side are also the richest owners …. Jerry Jones ring a bell ???

Lets all look at the facts and not our narrow view of how things work. I also support the COLORS but i rea;ize that players AND owners come and go. And in this situation the owners stopped football not the players.

As for the people who think the players “are attacking the draft and salary cap” this is all just politics you fools. The vet players want no part of having rookies to compete with in free agency, Now the salary cap thats a different story they may want to phase that out but lets be realistic about the cap, how many teams have won a superbowl while even coming close to that cap number ??? I haven’t done the research but i know the PAts and Steelers dont come close so is that a really big deal ???

Good info, thanks. I’ve never believed players want to restructure the NFL (no matter what Kessler wants). They simply want to end the lockout and force owners to negotiate in good faith–which they weren’t doing no matter what some fans choose to believe (although I agree with you that both sides need to compromise).

And those who keep woe-is-me’ing about the Armageddon scenario should stop wringing their hands and start demanding the owners give up this fight. That scenario only plays out if the owners stubbornly insist on continuing this litigation course. If they stop now and reach a new CBA, we can return to business as usual with the draft and antitrust exemptions intact. However, for those antiunion types, the antitrust exemptions will remain in effect only if the union recertifies. This time, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

When one side in a dispute is willing to put its cards on the table and the other side dissembles and plays games, it’s easy to see who is worthy of support.

If the players want to attack the NFL draft and salary cap, then the NFL should and will seek any remedy it can to preserve itself, including replacement players.

And at this moment, that is still a possibility.

It worked in ’87, and if need be, we’ll do it again. Our game comes first.

People who support the owners are really doing good at showing off how smart they are. Pathetic.
—————————————————–

People who support the players are really doing good at showing off how smart they are. Pathetic.

I still support the owners, however I think they’re making a bad situation worse by turning players away that come in to work out.

The easy(-ish) solution in my mind would be to start the league year, implement 2010 rules as starting point (the courts would have to agree there’s nothing wrong with starting there). If the players then want to fight the rules one-by-one (including RFAs, draft, etc) they can, but in the mean time players could be traded, cut and UFAs under 2010 rules would be able to sign.
_________________________________
Ryan Clark was on First Take this morning and he said that the players were willing to play under any rules the owners put out there. If that is true AND they would hold the owners harmless from anti-trust violations while that happened (I too think they should just use 2010 rules) I would throw more of my support behind the players (right now I think both sides have issues they are right and wrong on). Reason being that if the players would do that it would prove 100% that they DO “just want to play”. by their ACTIONS…not just their words.

Look at how Premeir League Football works with no draft. Same teams at the top, same teams keep falling to relegation. no chance to outspend the top teams.

NFL and NFLPA need to compromise and do what is right for football……Long term solutions.

Lawyer 1: “Sir, do you support the owners?”
Witness: “Yes”
Lawyer 1: “Sir, do you want the players to play football?”
Witness: “Yes”
Lawyer 1: “So, let me get this straight. You support the players?”
Witness: “I support the players…………play…….(the lawyer cuts off the witness)”
Lawyer 1: “That’s ll, sir”
Lawyer 2: “I object”
Lawyer 1: “let me rephrase the question”