Skip to content

Seven teams have promised they won’t touch coaching pay if lockout goes into season

Super Bowl XLV Getty Images

Many NFL coaching staffs have already taken pay cuts during the lockout, accepting punishment for the follies of their bosses.

Things will only get worse as the lockout drags on, especially if the work stoppage affects the regular season.  Greg A. Bedard of the Boston Globe reports that only seven teams have promised not to cut coaching staff pay if the lockout extends into the season: Seattle, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oakland, New York (Giants), Indianapolis, and Dallas.

Other teams, like the Patriots, haven’t made any staff pay cuts but they reserve the right to do so in the future if necessary.  Supposed “model” franchises like the Packers and Ravens have cut pay, even though they’ll refund the money if no games are missed.

Larry Kennan, director of the NFL Coaches Association, explains the difficult situation assistants are in.

“It’s not sitting well at all because what happens is there will be a staff meeting and management says to the coaches, ‘We are in this fight with the players.’ And coaches are saying, ‘OK, if we’re in this fight, how come we’re taking a pay cut? Are we with you or are we with the players?’” Kennan said.   “It’s crazy. Nobody’s losing money at this point. They will lose money if there are no games played, but they’re not losing money yet. Yet they’re docking money from the coaches and other people working the building, and that doesn’t seem right.”

In a labor war with shades of gray every where you look, this is a black and white issue.

The owners already cutting pay are wrong.

Permalink 34 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
34 Responses to “Seven teams have promised they won’t touch coaching pay if lockout goes into season”
  1. skoobyfl says: May 22, 2011 4:00 PM

    Cutting the coaching staff’s pay & then telling them that they are not allowed to talk to certain people seems like pure old fashion communism to me.

  2. airraid77 says: May 22, 2011 4:01 PM

    the owners are no more wrong than the players. they have every right to pursue the bottom much as do the players and coaches.

  3. moth25 says: May 22, 2011 4:07 PM

    From 3G Gregg in an earlier post: “While the majority of teams around the league struggle to sell tickets in this uncertain environment…”

    How could the majority of owners NOT be losing money (or more correctly, not making as much) if ticket sales are behind normal. Look, I hate to see anyone get their pay docked, but my pay has been frozen a couple of times over these past few years. There is no right or wrong in this case…it just sucks. You can step down from your high horse for a bit.

  4. fatfreddystubbs says: May 22, 2011 4:08 PM

    The fact that the Eagles are on this list is yet another example that their ownership isn’t “cheap”, yet 30% of the fanbase will still insist they are because Angelo Cataldi and Mike Missanelli say so.

  5. FinFan68 says: May 22, 2011 4:26 PM

    I understand the potential for expenses exceeding income if no season is played but the fight is between the owners and the players, not the owners and the staff. I think it would have been better to project lower signing bonuses to a few players rather than cut the pay of employees that have no real say in the larger impasse.

  6. whatsafairway says: May 22, 2011 4:30 PM

    Generally I side with the owners but this one I have a problem with.

    The coaches are there, not at home, they are working and because of the lock out they can’t exactly perform all the duties they typically would, but they are there, moving forward. If the owners want to lock out the coaches as well, I could see them not paying them but to expect them to show up and still cut their pay is egregious.

    Let’s just hope that list of seven, expands to thirty two.

  7. chuckcecil says: May 22, 2011 4:30 PM

    Can’t wait to watch the SPAMMERS spin this one.

    I know, I know, the players made them do it and yes, we should in fact still be shedding tears for the poor owners.

  8. sirfurproductions says: May 22, 2011 4:36 PM

    You gotta feel bad for coaches all the way around in this deal.

    Lets count the ways that “The Owners” are screwing their staff:

    1. Coaches must take a cut in pay
    2. Coaches are losing time to implement their systems
    3. Coaches can’t contact their players for any reason
    4. Coaches can’t develop their rookies
    5. Coaches can’t develop cohesion
    6. Coaches will still be expected to win

    Lift the lockout, adopt the 2010 rules, and workout the CBA during the season.

  9. whatsafairway says: May 22, 2011 4:51 PM

    PFT team,

    Can we dump the guy who’s posting this stupid cam newton vid in every thread?

  10. annnann says: May 22, 2011 5:03 PM

    I

  11. lostsok says: May 22, 2011 5:08 PM

    “Cutting the coaching staff’s pay & then telling them that they are not allowed to talk to certain people seems like pure old fashion communism to me.”

    What? How is it communism?

    Now, look, I’m TOTALLY against what the owners are doing. I lean strongly towards the players in this dispute. However, it is a horrible, incorrect and painfully distorted use of the word “communism” when discussing anything about this situation. Heck, in a communist system…there would BE no owners. If football were “communist,” the players and fans would essentially co-own everything equally…sans any kind of ownership.

    People need to take “communism” and “socialism” OUT of this conversation. It is just misusing a word to try to equate anything about this situation to either of those paradigms. This is a labor dispute between elite players and team owners…in a democratic society featuring a capitalist economic system…being mediated the way things are in a that configuration: the court system. The antitrust exemption makes it unique, so in that regard it’s not comparable to “regular” owner/worker relations…but it is NOT socialism or communism.

  12. bronco1st says: May 22, 2011 5:19 PM

    I guess it could be worse…If the owners completely had their way, the staff and coaches would all be child laborers.

  13. saints25 says: May 22, 2011 5:21 PM

    PFT…lets not forget the owners arent in this lockout by themselves.NFLPA has done nothing while waiting on the courts to end this crap either..

  14. pape27 says: May 22, 2011 5:34 PM

    This suprises anyone? Did anyone really expect anything different from this group of owners?

    They have known since 2008 that there would be a lockout. They planned on it. Each and everyone of them has saved for this day. Are you now telling me that they didnt budget for staff salaries? What a Joke.

    They see a chance to make a few extra dollars by cutting employess pay, so the majority will jump at it. Just like the greedy money grubbers that they are.

  15. commandercornpone says: May 22, 2011 5:40 PM

    i bet all pay would be restored if the regular season was played in full

  16. vikescry1 says: May 22, 2011 6:10 PM

    well it sounds pretty dumb to me if the coach is there trying to work they should get paid. then again if there aren’t any players? well i guess if they don’t like it they can go find an office job somewhere. it sucks but that’s the reality of it all.

  17. time2speakup says: May 22, 2011 6:37 PM

    whatsafairway says it well. Docking coaches pay would not be right. Each coach is signed to an agreed upon contract with team management. Coach and management knows, going in, its a week in week out job. Then this CBA mess happens. Why would owners feel its right to negate that agreement.

  18. qj1984 says: May 22, 2011 8:12 PM

    So, in other words you think the coaches should be paid for being on vacation? Prior to the draft, I am sure they had plenty to do but right now? How many times can they refine the playbook or game plan for the 13 incomplete teams that they are scheduled to play? This is a none story.

  19. harmcityhomer says: May 22, 2011 8:28 PM

    I thought coaches contracts were guaranteed. They can be fired, but they still have to be paid. This seems like another questionable legal manuver by the owners.

  20. Deb says: May 22, 2011 8:40 PM

    Pittsburgh isn’t touching coaches’ pay and Rooney is the least wealthy owner in the league. So it’s unlikely any of the owners must trim the salaries of their coaching staffs. Then again, Dan Rooney said months ago he wasn’t happy with the way the owners and the player reps were handling negotiations. This whole thing is being driven by a group of owners who have a self-serving agenda–and apparently enough numbers to keep it going.

  21. bucfandango says: May 22, 2011 8:44 PM

    I see this more as an investment on the Owners’ side. They invest in stadiums, apparel, branding and messaging. All things to sell their product. Coaches are just another investment, and you obviously want the Best of Best. If they need to save money, there are other avenues that should be explored. Your people are your number one asset. There may be other areas the Owners could explore to generate revenue during the Lockout/Litigation. Assistant Coaches are underpaid as it is (in proportion to overpaid players) and smart Owners should only cut their compensation as a last resort. Every smart businessman puts money away for a rainy day, and it has been pouring cats and dogs for the last 40 days and nights. This whole damn thing needs to come to a head real quick. Too many lower paid jobs have been put at risk because of the avarice of the men at the top, on both sides of the table. I have zero sympathy for either side and this fight has taken stupidity to a whole new level.

  22. gorilladunk says: May 22, 2011 10:23 PM

    Glad to know that Deb does the Rooney’s taxes and can thus speak with certainty about their financial status. If Dan Rooney were standing over a dead body with 20 stab wounds in it and he was holding a bloody knife, Deb would try to convince us all that the guy ran in to the blade 20 times. Sheesh!

  23. Deb says: May 22, 2011 10:42 PM

    @gorilladunk …

    PFT reported in March that Dan Rooney was the NFL’s poorest owner.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/10/at-13-5-billion-paul-allen-is-nfls-richest-owner/

    I don’t know what that has to do with Dan Rooney stabbing someone–or why me commenting on his wealth should be interpreted as me “defending” him no matter what.

    I agree: Sheesh! Get over yourself.

  24. straitalk says: May 22, 2011 10:55 PM

    So gorilladunk, you failed to address the point of the article, which was the inherent unfairness in cutting coaches salaries when not a dime has yet been lost by the owners. Maybe the owners are using the savings from cutting the coaches salaries to pay the den of attorneys.

    Btw, you have remarkably thin skin for a gorilla if Deb got under it that easy. I think howler monkey is more appropriate than gorilladunk, given your sensitive disposition.

  25. Patriot42 says: May 22, 2011 11:11 PM

    They should fire any coach that communicates with players

  26. axespray says: May 23, 2011 1:53 AM

    Supposed “model” franchises like the Packers and Ravens have cut pay, even though they’ll refund the money if no games are missed.

    ^ Supposed “reporters” don’t go on a blogging rampage on an Athlete over a 3 second youtube video without doing any research.

  27. airraid77 says: May 23, 2011 8:46 AM

    straitalk,
    it doesnt matter if its right or wrong…ITS THEIR MONEY.that is what so many of you communist thinkers dont understand. they can do with it as they please. They can fire every employee and run the entire show themselves if they so choose.

    Liberals, How many of you want somebody to tell you how to spend your money, and demand that you have to open your book fully to the public?

    Here is a hint: NOT ONE. you will be the first to kick and scream about how its not fair. You always are.

  28. Deb says: May 23, 2011 10:56 AM

    @airraid77 …

    Hon … this is about football, not politics. And you desperately need a primer on capitalism, communism, socialism, and liberalism because those terms are not interchangeable.

    Please stop misstating the facts. No one has asked the owners to open their books to the public. In fact, no one has asked them to open their books at all. The players presented them with a proposal months ago that would have taken their cut back to 2002 levels with no request to open the books. The owners turned it down.

    Professional football is not auto manufacturing. It is more akin to film production with the owners acting as producers and the players as actors. The owners take $1 billion off the gross to cover their expenses, then pay the players a negotiated percentage of the net. If film producers claim the net is less than it appears based on the revenues the film has generated, the actors will sue them and the courts will require them to open their books to confirm the numbers. We know this because it has happened.

    The actors–and the players–receive the high salaries they do because they are paid according to the revenues their presence on screen or on the field generates. That is how a free market works. Capitalism, my friend. If the owners are claiming their expenses have increased to the point that they need an additional $1 billion off the top, they should be prepared to provide the numbers to prove it. No business entity would simply take their word for it. Your argument is foolish, and it’s silly to keep calling people communists because they have some business horse sense. With all due respect, grow up.

  29. airraid77 says: May 23, 2011 11:09 AM

    Yes they are being asked to open their books to the public. The union would leak that info in a ny second as leverage. dont kid yourself.
    Socialist, communist, whatever other dictator led govt…..is all based on the premise that everybody gets their fair share. At the end of the day that is what is. Which is what most pro players are screaming for. equality. which is a load of crap.
    Once again, would you open your books, knowing full well that the other party would leak your personal finances to the public as leverage?
    Its called collective bargaining. except only one side wants to bargain…..and it aint the players.
    You dont know the definition of capitalism. Capitalism absent of govt interference. something you dont understand.

  30. Deb says: May 23, 2011 12:36 PM

    If the owners stopped insisting profits are down when revenues are up, the players’ reps would stop insisting they prove it. So they have only themselves to blame for any request involving opening their books.

    Fairness. My, what a scary concept. Again, you should check your facts. Most of our allies operate in socialist governments, including Britain during the entire tenure of Tony Blair–George W. Bush’s chief partner in the Middle Eastern conflict. Their leaders are democratically elected and are not dictators, and there are plenty of corporate fat cats in those countries.

    Since you refuse to discuss football without infusing politics, I might as well infuse my religious convictions. God has told us the love of money is the root of all evil, and history has proved it. Left to their own devices with no oversight, American business owners–by their own admission–put cars on the road they knew would explode on rear impact. They put women to work in a high-rise shirt factory with the fire exits sealed, condemning them to death when the building burned. They worked children in sweat shops, put household breadwinners to work in dangerous jobs and left their families to starve when they were killed or injured. Bankers paid off hospital employees for the names of cancer patients, then foreclosed on their homes. Without supervision, businesses pumped poison into community water supplies. For the love of money, Americans enslaved other human beings–and still do in blackmarket industries.

    Actually, yes, I fully understand capitalism absent government interference … though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the NFL labor impasse. But you are right: I do not advocate allowing businesses to operate without oversight. Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

  31. nineroutsider says: May 23, 2011 7:23 PM

    @AirRaid77

    Sense we are no longer discussing football…

    “Capitalism absent of govt interference” = Great Depression

    Liberals, like FDR, saved capitalism for what’s worth…

    Finally, it’s a sad comment on American society when you read how people are being conditioned to accept less given the immense wealth of our society. This shouldn’t be the case and its a real disappointment that those who have a lot use a downturn to take even more. So many companies, that didn’t need to lower wages, did anyway.I almost think that is why Wall Street cooks these things up.

  32. airraid77 says: May 23, 2011 7:43 PM

    the only thing that saved capitalism was the attack on pear harbor……..check the tax imposed by the socialist fdr.

  33. nineroutsider says: May 23, 2011 9:11 PM

    “the only thing that saved capitalism was the attack on pear harbor”

    Very true statement…the permanent government spending since WWII (and New Deal spending) has propped up the economy. The truth is pure capitalism doesn’t generate enough wealth to sustain a middle class society, so it has to be supplemented by government spending. Every western democracy employs some sort of socialist or blended economic system. Our system is the least socialist of these systems. No western democracies employ a communist economic system.

  34. airraid77 says: May 23, 2011 9:51 PM

    wrong again comrade,
    capitalism took off in the 80’s…..capitalism is what has promoted the wealthiest society in the history of the world….and it aint close.

Leave a Reply

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