The players will eventually become desperate. That 4 billion probably wont be touched until the NFL has exhausted every appeal that they can and that can take years. So, its not an immediate source of income for the players. Meanwhile, all of these guys have bills to take care of just like you and me. They’ve got kids to feed and some of them are covering their own health cost of football injuries. And any one who has ever been seriously hurt or ill can tell you medical expenses can become expensive fast.

Not all of them have a millions of dollars to sustain their lives without football paychecks coming in because not all of them make that type of money or were smart enough to save for the lockout. The owners have more money and many of them have other sources of income, they can survive the lockout alot longer than the players can just based on income alone. If this lockout drags into next year, many NFL players will filing bankruptcy or just flat out struggling to make ends meet. And the poorest NFL owner, the Rooney’s I believe, wont even be breaking a financial sweat.

Did you previously absolutely DETEST the NFLPA and its bought-and-paid-for “judges”, who are nothing more than prostitutes.

Susan Nelson and David Doty are as much union-sponsored sellouts as the 8th circuit is league-sponsored.

Actually, since the 8th circuit panel is 1/3 liberal, it has more union support than Nelson & Doty combined.

Sorry, you are correct (wish I could edit posts on here). I misread my source documentation… $3.4Mil figure was the average salary of all players in 2007 multiplied by the 3.5 year average career length.

For the reason I already mentioned above (the players who play only 3.5seasons do not make the average salary, but rather minimum salaries) it was a lame figure.

The average player salary for 2010 was between $1.8 and 2.1M (since 2010 was uncapped, some of the accounting rules were different so it’s hard to say what would have counted for which year if it was a standard season).

In either case, the minimum listed is also the average of minimum salaries (which varies by # of years experience) that an incoming rookie in 2010 would earn over their first 4 seasons.

And since that calculation was correct, and it would take a normal mere-mortal (ie: non-football player) 50 years of work to earn that same income… shouldn’t we expect retired football players to be banged up?

They’ve earned the income the rest of us will need to toil until we’re 68years old to accumulate… by that time we’ll be banged up too.

I have to point out that the average NFL salary is much lower than $3.4 million. I don’t have the exact number, but it is closer $2 million and I believe it is a little less than $2 million.

… A very small %-age of NFL players have multi-million dollar contracts.

————————————————-

I do not know what you consider a very small percentage. But just shy of 50% of NFL player contracts are multi-million dollar contracts. For the purpose of this, I defined a multi-million dollar contract as one that averages more $1mil per year over the life of the contract. The percentage would be even higher if I included a 4 year contract worth $3mil, which technically is a mutli-million dollar contract but since it averages less than a mil I left it out. Now if your point is that not all NFL contacts are multi-million dollar contracts, then you would be correct but to suggest that only a small percentage are is completely false unless you and have a different definition of “small”, I would define small percentage in the 10% range, not 40% range.

You said, ” very small %-age of NFL players have multi-million dollar contracts.”

That is false. The AVERAGE salary of an NFL player is $3.4MILLION. The MINIMUM annual salary is up to $435,000.

I’m sorry that I do not feel bad for those making $435k (also known as the evil rich folk by Obama).

Also, you said “And many of them will be hobbled for life after football with a piss poor post-career benefits plan”

The average NFL career is 3.5 years. The players who play 3.5years or less are the ones making the $435k minimum salaries, and they are NOT the players who are hobbled for life.

The players who are hobbled for life are 1) Players from past eras of football during which the game was much MUCH more physical, 2) players who lasted much longer in their careers and were making MUCH higher than minimum salaries, and 3) the retired players that the NFLPA is not trying to increase compensation for.

The OWNERS are the ones who have tried to divert revenue to the retired players, the PLAYERS are trying to divert revenue to themselves.

BTW, that 3.5 seasons the end-of-the-bench scrub makes at the league minimum salary is $1.5Million, or roughly 50 YEARS of the median salary for an American HOUSEHOLD.

Boo-freakin-hoo.

(just hoping some lawyer who cares about public relations reads this)

Like this page to get rid of Demaurice.

There were over 20 blacked out games last year and I am betting it will get worse before it gets better.

I mean, what? Since the average NFL salary is only 900 thousand a year, and only a “small percentage” make multi-million dollar salaries, is that supposed to make everyone understand and sympathize with the anti-trust suits that are positioned to destroy the economic balance and integrity of the NFL game?

This sport is an entertainment sport. That’s where the money comes from and like it or not… fans matter.

What you and the players need to realize is this: It may not be the fans “right” to watch NFL games, but without us, there would be any. We’re free to like whatever we want to like, and to gripe whenever we want to gripe because we paid for this product.

Using your own logic, it’s also not the players “right” to get paid even that small sum of 900 grand. They can always go to work in the real world if they want, or play for the UFL and complain about us fans all they want.

And the NFL’s “piss-poor post career benefits plan” was also something the owners offered to improve substantially in the “worst offer in sports history.” So quit whining about it, if you’re not willing to negotiate a better deal.

Get off the high horse before the 8th Circuit knocks it over.

I don’t disagree that the owners need a CBA but I dont think they need it any more or less than the players. Without the CBA there is no cap on how much a team can spend but there is also no minimum amount. So, if a team wants to spend 20 million dollars in player payroll for an entire season, they can. Having 32 teams spending the exact same minimum, benefits the players because it increases player salaries.

There is also the fact of the league minimum salary. Right now the minimum a player with a roster spot can make is like 250k, might be more. So, if you make your teams roster your going to make at least that. Without the minimum salary, that the CBA brings, the teams could pay players the federal minimum wage and be totally in the right.

No CBA would probably benefit the top 2% of players. But for the other 98% its horrible idea. Because it takes away so much. And I am not just talking about the money. Their health coverage, retirement pension, etc.

————————————————-

I understand your point, but it cuts to the whole reason i commented – the owners backed out of the CBA, so there isn’t one. Now, are the owners really going to use replacement players, or should they just offer to go back to the 2010 CBA’s terms? I think, as football fans, 2010 worked pretty well, and we’d all love to go back (to the future!)

Owners have now offered 2 proposals

Players have offered nothing but name calling and mud slinging

And these players want the fans to believe they are being the grown ups in the room. Laughable.

Fire the moron and swallow your pride. Killing the cash cow for a few steaks was a dumb idea anyway.

Corporate Media looking out for those with the deep pockets. Why am I not surprised.

Stop your lying Mike, you know who you’ve been backing from day one. Your jealousy of the athletes and their money has not gone unnoticed by this fan.

And the really funny thing is that once this is over you hypocrites will go right back to rooting for these players when they’re on the field. But guys like me will be right there to pop you in the mouth and remind you of all the anti-player nonsense you spewed. You people do not get to enjoy football wins anymore. Guys like me won’t let you. You’ve lost that privilege. And that’s all it ever was….a privilege. It was never your “right” to have pro football.

I’ve used this with several people since this all started who make the same DeMo (retarded) argument as you just did. Can you name me all of your week 1 starters from a year ago? If by some miracle you can that, try the previous year and so on and so on. The point is, players come and go, the teams, the league and the sport, well that lasts forever.

Imagine, you graduated college with honors, and you were dreaming of practicing law at a top firm in New York, but instead, a firm in Nashville “drafted” you because it was their “pick.”
==============================

If your dream from the time you were a child was to play in a league that has held a draft to disperse it players since long before you were born, do you have a reasonable expectation to NOT be subjected to that draft when your turn comes?

With certain professions, limited choices come with the territory. Is it unfair that to be a successful actor you have to live in NY or LA? Is it unfair that to be a congressman you have to live in DC?

I get your argument about anti-trust law and that the League absolutely needs a CBA to exist legally. But that doesn’t mean they have no leverage. They are still writing the checks.

Lastly, that lawyer you talk about who got drafted to Nashville, if the legal profession had a CBA similar to the NFL’s, he would be very highly compensated to live in a city with a very low cost of living compared to NY and after putting in 5 years there, if he is successful, he can leave and move to NY to fulfill his dream.

We should all be so put upon.

1. Owners make offer
2. Players Reject.
3. Owners make 2nd offer (just happened)
4. Players come back with proposal in between what they want and owners 2nd offer.
5. Oweners counter.
6. Players Agree.

Both parties meet somewhere in the middle (Closer to owners b.c oweners now have leverage). IF Players continue to wait in the hopes the judges lift the lockout (Which doesnt sound promising) then the owners will have ALL the leverage.

If the players think us Fans are in total agreement with them and the owners are locking them out, they better get real, b/c thats not the case. We just want FOOTBALL!!!

I just want football. It does not have to be CBA fotball to satisfy me, and if I was a player, I would not be forced into accepting a bad deal because of a lockout.

The game is not a game to the players or owners. It is a job and a buisiness. For fans it is a tv show or theater.

The NFLPA (DeSmith) hasn’t WANTED to do a deal prior to now. They had full faith that they would come out ahead via litigation. This goes back to prior to the lockout, prior to uncapped season, prior to the lockout insurance. This goes back to chosing DeSmith as the executive director.

DeSmith was hired to serve a single purpose, litigate the best-case scenario for the players. He wasn’t employed to negotiate an extension or a new CBA, he and the players decided to go to the courts before the owners pulled the plug.

Everything that has transpired since then has been a reaction to that fact.

Hopefully, now that the owners have basically won the lockout battle in court (and don’t be surprised if the owners appeal any ruling on the lockout insurance case to the same 8th circuit) it’s time for the NFLPA and DeSmith to realize that they have failed the litigation strategy.

They have no leverage. Yes, the leagues needs a CBA more than the players, but the players need a season more than the owners.

I’m as anti-union as one can be, so I’ve always sided with the owners, but as the owners are the ones who have continued to make concessions from their initial offer, and continued to make proposals, all while the players have turned a blind-eye, I’m confused how anyone can side with the money-grubbing players.

Whether they agree with the premise or not, the fact that the owners were willing to opt-out and walk away from the previous deal should be proof enough that they will not accept a new deal that is more lop-sided towards the players (which is all that the players have said they will accept). The players might as well have asked for 100% of the revenue, they’ve never negotiated with any good faith. It’s all been pointing to the litigation.

The well is dry, where are the players?