The primary issue is preserving and protecting the vitality of the game of professional football itself–of what has made and kept us fans of the NFL as well as what will continue to keep us fans of the NFL. The very life of any game is simple: Competition on an equal, level playing field. Such is exemplified by such things as the salary cap. Also, to potentially become competitive in the future, as exemplified by the draft, is another precious tool by which fans of a currently losing team can still have a hope which springs eternal. Thus, aside from the question of which side is right or wrong in whatever they seek to gain in terms of a new CBA, if in the process we lose such tools as the salary cap and the draft (if not also revenue sharing), which have made the NFL the greatest fan sport in America, then both the owners and the players will be guilty for having screwed up a good thing (ala Baseball), and will have lost the majority of the fans, including paying fans like myself. I hope both sides consider the common good of the game from which all benefit, lest they’re self-seeking ends turn out to be their own undoing along with everyone else’s, and the fans are so disenchanted that they’re even considering professional soccer as an alternative! Wise up!

c’mon, that’s like saying Jon Stewart is a Pro-Obama Plant……

ooh wait!

Dude, unions are 11% of the entire U.S. workforce, how can you act like they are eroding anything? Will you anti-union only be happy when every last union is busted? While I don’t think unions are the answer to every workplace, I also think they are good for others. The middle class is almost gone in this country, and that’s scary, because it is what made us great. As this country has shifted drastically to the right ever since Reagan was in office, unions have been obliterated and the gap between the rich and the poor grows wider every year. I’d say if anything big business running roughshod has way more to do with this than unions.

Sure. you just sort of outed yourself as completely ignorant to the basic issues with that statement as nobody is asking the players to take a pay cut. read mike’s article from earlier, it explains it.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/18/more-misplaced-rhetoric-from-de-smith/

That’s a poor job by PFT for not calling attention to that discrepancy in the article when touting the poll below.

Where are all the tin foil hat nut jobs now???.?.

It’s obvious to long time readers of the site because the number of votes for comments are out of whack compared to the usual news that goes on during the season. Too many votes for news stories in this off season when most NFL fans have tuned out and are just biding time until the lockout is off for good.

On every other poll around the web I’ve seen, fans either support the players or blame both. None except PFT polls do the owners come out on top. And here, it happens consistently.
____________________________________
Sorry to burst your bubble Mr. Junk, but just look at the comments and the like/dislike to this article. I see an overwhelming uptrend in support of owners. Sure when this ordeal started people were skeptical of the “corporate greed machine”, but the more the player are uncooperative in the mediation and the more they point fingers, the more spoiled they turn out to be. Now if I could just find my dang keys, so I could go pick up my check before the NFL offices close.

Sorry you obviously missed my point about the “undecideds”. A similar poll several weeks ago would have had more votes blaming the owners and less people who were unsure. With the players lack of cooperation in the mediations, their refrain from any sort of compromise, and them constantly playing the blame game, fans are realizing just how spoiled the players can be. I believe Feudalism is the best term to describe the players/owners treatment of the fans throughout this whole ordeal. The knights (players) want a bigger slice of the pie, while the monarchs (owners) are hesitant to relent, each side ignoring the peasants (us in their eyes). Sure there is greed on both sides of the aisle, but the greed of the owners is why the NFL exists, the greed of the players will cause the NFL to cease to exist. My point is that Demaurice Smith and Co. keep on talking like the fans should somehow relate to the lives and predicaments of the players, and yet the players behave in a way that is unfamiliar to all of us.

You make some good points. My conclusion is the same as yours, in that it’s ultimately about who gets more of the pie, and not ideology. Where we seem to disagree is on the standing of the players. I don’t believe they ought to share in the revenue growth to the same pro-rata extent as they have the past several years. While your point is well-taken regarding the likely profitability of an NFL franchise, there is risk, which isn’t shared by the employees. The level of risk is debatable, and if you want to bring the anti-trust exemption into it, I’m okay with that. As a fan, I’d like to see compromise from each side that prevents this from happening for quite some time, which is why my points reflected givebacks from both sides. In my view remedial action to correct an imbalance is required for that. If it means a 10 game season to get there, I’m for it. As for the inheritance factor(I think you mentioned it), I happen to agree with you, but understand that it’s a completely separate and societal issue, dealing with estate taxes and the wisdom of allowing a permanent overclass.

Gotta go watch my Mets now….til next time.

When you hear apologists for the players meekly make the case that “the players are happy with the current deal”, and the “players aren’t asking for anything more than they now have”, you know that the players are acutely aware they robbed the owners blind the last time. These phrases are the tell. The owners caved. But rather than look at that period as a windfall, they want the gravy train to keep on rollin’. For the most part, the owners are shrewd people, not accustomed to getting snookered twice. The players are employees, and unless they sign contracts that stipulate that they will accept lower compensation in the event of operating losses or a lower-than-expected return on invested capital, they have no business demanding an outsized share of what everyone knows will be giant revenue growth. Let the 2 sides:
-Agree to split the difference on % revenue sharing.
-Agree to a salary cap, indexed to the rate of revenue growth. This will keep the players wealthy beyond their dreams, and is needed to avoid the MLB disaster, where it’s the Yanks, Bosox, and a couple others as the Harlem Globetrotters and the rest of the teams play the role of the Washington Generals. This means isolating guys like Jerry Jones.
-Maintain a reasonable FA period, for reasons stated above.
-Fix a rookie cap, with the windfall proceeds going to proven vets and retired players.
Last but not least, football fans need to understand that the interests of the fans and players are not aligned-it’s pure myth.
__________________________
You know, judging by your recommendations, you’re actually making the players’ argument more or less. Let’s break them down.

1. Agree to split the difference on revenue sharing.
a. The owners worded it as more money off the top before revenue sharing, but it’s the same thing. The players did agree to allow for a larger pre-revenue split cut for the owners. It wasn’t all that the owners were asking for, but it was a nice chunk. They went on to say that if the owners opened their books (this is where that request came into play) that they might be willing to move even more on this issue. So, the players had already agreed to part of what the owners wanted, and were willing to negotiate further if they received what they viewed as necessary information.

2. Agree to salary cap, indexed to rate of revenue growth.
a. This is exactly what the players wanted. The problem was that the owners proposal wanted to link the salary cap not to actual revenue growth, but to overly conservative estimates of revenue growth. If the league did better than these estimates (and pretty much everyone figured the league would do MUCH better than those estimates), then the players would have been cut out of any additional revenue.

3. Maintain a reasonable FA period.
a. No one ever really attacked that. The only time this became an issue was in the uncapped year when the time it took to become an unrestricted free agent jumped from 4 years to 6 years. Many players don’t last 6 years in the league, and if they do, for many positions it’s believed that they have too much wear and tear to deserve a huge contract. The players want to be able to reach UFA status in a reasonable amount of time so that players who vastly outperform expectations at draft time can actually get a contract that pays them fair market wage for their skills. Is it fair for someone to forever be locked into a lower wage than their peers simply because some scouts underevaluated them at draft time? The current “attack” on the control of player movement is simply part of a general anti-trust issue aimed at giving the players more leverage in negotiations, not an actual attack on the system per se.

4. Fix a rookie cap, with the windfall proceeds going to veteran players and retired players.
a. Again, this is exactly what the players were willing to do. Two problems arose out of the negotiations of a rookie cap or scale, however. The first was that, while the owners were willing to redirect a portion of the savings to vets and retired players, they weren’t willing to indicate what percentage of the windfall would be reapportioned. The result was that the players were left with the idea that a large chunk of that windfall would simply be retained by the owners, which would make it simply another cut in the players’ share of the revenue. The other problem was that, while the current system puts way too much guaranteed money into the hands of unproven players, the owners proposal made dramatic cuts that would be applied to lengthy contracts that couldn’t be negotiated. If the owners want such dramatic cuts, then the contracts need to be shorter, so that the players who prove their value by their performance on the field actually have a chance to be paid like the elite players they are. Three years is plenty of time to prove if a player will be a boom or a bust. I have no problem with them being paid a reduced wage while they improve their skills and prove their worth on the field, but keeping them under such a restrictive contract for a period of time years longer than the average length a player’s career is just going too far.

Finally, I agree that it’s ludicrous to assume that the interests of the players and fans go hand in hand. The same is true about the owners and the fans, however. At the end of the day, there are no good guys and bad guys here…and certainly no marxists or fascists. There are simply two parties whose collective efforts generate billions of dollars in revenue every year and who are fighting over what percentage of that revenue each side will get.

Yep, just hit your “refresh” button on your computer’s toolbar and the vote again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, HAHAHAHAHA! Watch the numbers change before your very eyes!
===================================

tednancy says: May 18, 2011 11:34 AM

Totally untrue. And you know it. Amazing that you would plant this nonsense idea in the forum just to discredit a poll that has a different result than you want it to.

In one breath you accuse the NFL of paying people to vote on PFT polls (but only on PFT, not on other sites – yeah that makes sense) and in the next you plant false information about the poll to discredit it.

How freaking stupid and small of you.

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

bronco1st says:
It is true, did you try it or are YOU too “freaking stupid and small” to figure it out?

This poll is a win for the owners as well. Of 30% “undecided” many probably supported the players several weeks ago. As the mediations (hopefully) continue, more and more of those people will join the owners side. The reality here is that the players love to portray themselves as the common layperson. We aren’t dealing with luggage handlers at the airport. NFL players are making tons of money (many in the millions) for half a years work, not to mention all the perks that come with being a professional athlete. The story PFT ran yesterday about the player taking a loan at 23% (!) interest tells the story. Of course players are going broke, what do you expect when you make decisions like that?! The NFLPA expects us peasants to relate to their side, when in reality there are no similarities at all!
________________________________
No, you always have a sizable “undecided” group in these kinds of polls. They tend to represent your more middle of the road fans/voters who figure both sides are pretty much the same or share the blame pretty equally. As for us peasants, screw off. I’m no one’s peasant. Maybe that’s why I have a problem assuming that simply being an owner makes you brilliant or some great defender of the league. 11 out of 32 owners inherited their teams. You want to talk feudalism, then you’re talking the owners not the players. So, if I were going to relate to either side (not likely), at least with the players I could identify more with their beginnings.

Duane,

Sounds like you have a strong “unhealthy passion” for the owners in your own right. Yes the owners locked the players out. It is their company and they have that right. It is a privilage to play in the NFL, not a right. And these players have lost sight of that. The NFL has been successful for many decades. And many of these teams carry a rich history that dates back to before any current NFL player was a glimmer in his parents’ eyes. But the players aren’t interested in the history. They aren’t even interested in the pioneers who paved the way for these current players to make their marks as well as they excellent pay. The owners may be selfish to a point, but they are protecting their own investment. The players are simply out for themselves. And that is why people are siding with the owners on this site. And as far as I am concerned, the only poll that should matter is on here. A site where most, if not all major football fans visit.
_________________________
I’m sorry, but if I hear another comment about the owners protecting their investment, or the risk to their investment, I might have to start beating my head off a damn wall. There is zero risk to their investment. To begin with, over a third of current owners (11) never made an investment. They inherited the company. So, I guess you could say the invested wisely in the right womb to descend from. As for the other owners, name one who has ever lost money no matter how poorly they ran their front office? The fact that teams like the Lions (doing better now, but horrible decisions in the not-too-distant past), Raiders, and Bills have all made a profit is undeniable evidence that owning an NFL franchise is pretty much idiot proof. Additionally, quarterly profit is not the key determinant of a large company or corporation’s success. For a corporation it’s stock price. For an NFL franchise, it’s the value of the franchise itself. Look at it this way. If you bought $10,000 and the value of that gold rose to $15,000 would you say there was no return on your investment simply because you weren’t getting a monthly check? Of course not. The value of NFL franchises has risen to the point that the median value of a franchise is $1 billion or more. So, even the most poorly run team is making a profit and the value of that franchise has risen. So, again I ask, what’ the risk? Besides, if an owner did find it too risky, all they’d have to do is announce that they were willing to sell the team. They’d have at least 10 potential buyers/groups ready to make an offer in no time flat.

You don’t keep your financial books closed if you want to work out a deal with your employees.

If the Suffolk University poll you referenced asked whether you BLAME the owners or the players, why would you then ask in your own poll if you SUPPORT the owners or the players?

I’m sure a lot of people assumed that the two polls were asking the same question, when in fact they were asking the opposite question.

If the poll wasn’t unreliable from the jump then this back-asswards question surely pushed it over the edge.

Sounds like you have a strong “unhealthy passion” for the owners in your own right. Yes the owners locked the players out. It is their company and they have that right. It is a privilage to play in the NFL, not a right. And these players have lost sight of that. The NFL has been successful for many decades. And many of these teams carry a rich history that dates back to before any current NFL player was a glimmer in his parents’ eyes. But the players aren’t interested in the history. They aren’t even interested in the pioneers who paved the way for these current players to make their marks as well as they excellent pay. The owners may be selfish to a point, but they are protecting their own investment. The players are simply out for themselves. And that is why people are siding with the owners on this site. And as far as I am concerned, the only poll that should matter is on here. A site where most, if not all major football fans visit.

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

The owners are justified in asking for anything they want, they own the business. The players are equally justified in refusing to work for anything less than they want. The result will be something in the middle, frequently refered to as a compromise.

Gee wiz, to believe that asking for something you want during negotiations is unjustified is simply moronic.

Need some type of intelligence test to weed out the people like this. Opinions from both sides are great, it’d just be nice to keep these fools out.