Skip to content

It’s wrong for NFL teams to cut non-player pay

AP I MEX Mexico Money Found AP

When it comes to the labor dispute, we refuse to take a side.  We believe that the two sides should work aggressively and continuously toward establishing a fair, long-term labor deal that restores labor peace, but we don’t believe that one side is “right” or “wrong,” generally.  Instead, to the extent that they can’t figure out how to share their ten-billion-dollar embarrassment of riches, both sides are wrong — and both sides are jeopardizing the game we all love by refusing to act like adults and find a middle ground.

That said, when it comes to the issue of NFL teams responding to their meticulously-planned lockout by taking pay away from the men and women who work for the various franchises or the league office or NFL Films or NFL Network, I’m compelled to take a stand.  It’s wrong for teams to hide behind the lockout to justify furloughs or layoffs or pay cuts, especially when the teams were able in 2010 to save plenty of money that would have gone to players, thanks to the league-friendly realities of the uncapped year.

The Ravens, whether influenced by our comments or not (probably not), have done the right thing and rescinded a 25-percent pay cut, refunding money withheld from non-player employees.  Today’s PFT Live included a rant that was intended to be slightly more tactful and/or muted, but that perhaps will influence other franchises to do the right thing, too.

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
Permalink 82 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: PFT Live, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
82 Responses to “It’s wrong for NFL teams to cut non-player pay”
  1. firerogergoodell says: May 26, 2011 6:16 PM

    Just end the lockout and don’t cut anyones pay. Football is good for both sides.

  2. pooflingingmonkey says: May 26, 2011 6:18 PM

    I agree. But having said that, I have to disagree.

  3. geemoney713 says: May 26, 2011 6:19 PM

    The owners are acting like adults. The players are the ones acting like kids that are entitled to their parents’ hard earned money.

    Won’t those people at NFL Films, NFL network, etc., not have to work as much? Isn’t this the same as furloughed days for them? Everyone was affected by the recession when they likely were not.

  4. p4hbiz says: May 26, 2011 6:19 PM

    I’m so Glad it’s 31 teams and Owners, & then it’s The Oakland Raiders..

    The team that signed 80% of their freeagents before the lockout, the team that’s making it’s employees sale tickets instead of hurting their pockets and family livelihood.

    The team that’s out practicing while other teams players sit around n tweet all-day. The same team the sorry commish praised because of the way we have been handeling the lockout…

    GO RAIDERS GO!

  5. chatham10 says: May 26, 2011 6:20 PM

    Mike, they own a business and I know they did the lockout, but you never mention that the union or non union got up and walked out of the sessions and have not to date submitted a new proposal to the owners. It is sad that people are losing their jobs but I know that a lot more people are going to go without pay if a CBA does not get done, they are called players

  6. eaglebobby says: May 26, 2011 6:21 PM

    Please, they’re no better than the secretaries, security guards, janitors, etc. that have paid the price when it comes to working for big firms in this economy. And stop bleating about how “you refuse to take sides”–of 100 articles on the lockout, at least 75% took the side of the players–even though it was they that decided to walk out of negotiations and decertify.

  7. seabreezes51 says: May 26, 2011 6:24 PM

    and the vendors, parking folks, etc………

  8. dkeyser says: May 26, 2011 6:25 PM

    Its also wrong for companies to shut down american factories and rebuild them in mexico, but i dont hear anyone bitching about that

  9. 1liondriven says: May 26, 2011 6:27 PM

    These “non-player cuts”, employee furloughs or whatever you want to call them, smells like the league decided, well in advance, that teams should make some kind of ” gesture” to show the public the impact of the lockout is a hardship for all.

    Give me a break, the NFL still thinks the fans are too naive to see through this.

    The NFL is the naive party on this one.

  10. xtb3 says: May 26, 2011 6:30 PM

    How do you think the owners and the sons of owners got rich? By NOT giving it away to the peasents who do their chores!

  11. ThatGuy says: May 26, 2011 6:33 PM

    Those that say its smart business move cause they are losing revenue and everyone is hurting are wrong. It would be one thing if they are cutting because the economy, and revenues are dropping. But they are cutting salaries because of pure greed. There is a 10 billion dollar pie, and they just cant figure out how to divide it. Cutting the salaries of the non players is gutless and wrong. you think those in sales, marketing, etc aren’t working? Hell they are probably working harder trying to spin the lockout while making their pitches. Its just plain wrong for them to take it out on the middle class making 40-50 thousand a year, if that.

  12. smacklayer says: May 26, 2011 6:34 PM

    Maybe you can back up your heart-felt passionate statement with some research and facts. Can you offer any edivense that they have just as much money as or have saved money from previous years? In fact all indications are that they spent more last year in player salaries, ticket sales are down, and there may be a long term work stoppage cause by the players inability to negotiate and take a litigation first strategy.

    What about all the periferal businesses who count on the NFL being in business (food vendors, parking lot attendents, hotels, airlines, web site bloggers, etc.)? Should the owners have planned on those people losing income? Should they support them too?

    There a lot of lessons to be learned because of this labor dispute. The first of which for EVERYONE should nothing in life is guaranteed. Whether your an owner, player, secretary, coach, hot dog vendor, etc., you should be save fore a rainy day, because most likely a rainy day will come.

    Let’s not forget that Drew Brees’ salary last year alone could pay for 1400 employees who make 40k/year for the next 3 months (until games start).

  13. derekjetersmansion says: May 26, 2011 6:35 PM

    The owners walked out too, you dolts.

  14. skoobyfl says: May 26, 2011 6:36 PM

    Who quit their jobs here ?? Oh that’s right the players. Did the people that work for the owners quit their jobs ??

  15. xxxfixxxerxxx says: May 26, 2011 6:41 PM

    You may dislike it but you don’t have the authority to say it’s wrong or not.

  16. thetooloftools says: May 26, 2011 6:43 PM

    This whole mess is just a mess.

  17. nfl25 says: May 26, 2011 6:44 PM

    how bout the dsmith decides to let the players negotiate and we dont have to wrry about this. and how bout drew breese keep his mouth shut. i used to think breese was a good dude, now i cant stand him

    also serious question. all the people that back the players and used to say, how do u know the players arent negotiating. do you guys now see they have not made a counter offer? the players havent even seen the seocnd offer from the owners yet. dsmith obvioulsy doesnt want to negotiate

  18. nfl25 says: May 26, 2011 6:48 PM

    not that i agree that people should lose jobs but just to c the other side, if a gym lost every single member, would they still pay the workers and trainers every day to come to work? no they would wait till they got members back.

  19. mick730 says: May 26, 2011 6:51 PM

    425,000 people in this country filed first time unemployment claims in this last week alone. 28% of all home sales in the country are foreclosures. Unemployment is at least 9% and if all the people who have simply given up trying to get a decent job were included, the number would be much higher.

    Yet we have all this angst, wailing and horror at the thought of a few people taking furloughs or a temporary cut in pay. Why is that? If there are no OTAs, no ticket sales, no training camps, no football activity at all, why should any owner continue to pay his staff to sit around and do nothing indefinetly? And from what I have read, nobody has lost their jobs, they are either taking temporary minor pay cuts or a temporary furlough.

    The owners of this blog and the labor union shills are simply posting about this matter as a means to attack the NFL and to try and defend the actions of the indefensible labor union.

  20. willycents says: May 26, 2011 6:54 PM

    For the hundredth time on these “poor employees getting screwed by billionaire owners” posts by Mike. “end the lockout now for the little guy”

    What a bunch of rubbish by someone who has no clue about business.

    successful businessman = makes decisions necessary to insure the financial success of a business, both short and long term.

    employee(loose definition) = one who is renumerated for his efforts/time from the business.

    successful businessman = makes intelligent financial decisions based upon current/projected income

    no/lower income = cut costs wherever possible, regardless of the cause of said change in income to ensure financial survival of business.

    For example, see General Motors/Chrysler recent fiasco. Only cost we taxpayers somewhere around $100,000,000,000 to keep them solvent and employing their union employees,

    The big difference between the NFL and General Motors is that the govt will not bail out the NFL owners if they go tits up financially, they are on their own and gone.

    And, to those who will bring up the stadium issue and taxpayer funded(and partially owned by the taxpayer through govt appointed entities) facilities, please define what facilities we got for our $100,000,000,000 from GM and Chrysler

  21. hail2tharedskins says: May 26, 2011 6:58 PM

    I know it doesn’t seem right, but you are wrong. When any business is faced with the prospect of reduced revenues they start to look immediately for areas where they can cut costs. That is good, smart business. Businesses do not wait until they are losing money to cut costs, they cut costs ahead of time and try to prevent any losses – that is why as you mentioned on PFT today that profitable businesses cut costs when recession hits. You have mentioned before why players would not be successful running the league, you are now showing why you wouldn’t be successful running the league. Don’t get me wrong, its not fair and the owners could likely survive without these cuts, but it is good sound business strategy (and if the owners have independent business professionals making the decisions it is the only acceptable decision). Another area where this comes into play, if the teams are in a position (without TV money) where they need to take out a loan, banks will want to see huge reductions in costs if they are going to loan money to the league while no games are being played (at least if they are going to do so at low/reasonable interest rates).

  22. vahawker says: May 26, 2011 7:01 PM

    When it comes to the labor dispute, we refuse to take a side.
    ****************************************

    BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA!

  23. ravensfan4life52 says: May 26, 2011 7:02 PM

    the only time anyone should ever get their pay reduced is if they are stupid and/or incompetent. so Rosenthal deserves a pay reduction

  24. terrygca says: May 26, 2011 7:03 PM

    My guess is that the teams simply do not have enough work for these employees to perform, particularly those teams that are doing furloughs. One thing that is common to all business owners is that they do not like to see people they are paying sitting around and not being productive. In those cases, the teams should pay their employees and have them help out at some local charities during the day.

  25. stoutfiles says: May 26, 2011 7:06 PM

    “of 100 articles on the lockout, at least 75% took the side of the players–even though it was they that decided to walk out of negotiations and decertify.”

    PFT will always take the players side because the players are the only ones that bother to go on PFT Live.

  26. vahawker says: May 26, 2011 7:06 PM

    derekjetersmansion says: May 26, 2011 6:35 PM

    The owners walked out too, you dolts.
    ********************************************

    Explanation, please.

  27. commandercornpone says: May 26, 2011 7:12 PM

    mansionfool… the owners made an offer. the players declined to discuss it or make a counter offer.

    the owners have made offers. the union* thinks everyone else works for them.

  28. 1bigtex says: May 26, 2011 7:13 PM

    @ p4hbiz

    Come on dude, get real. Is Oakland the only team that has not cut pay to employees? Of course not, although they are the only ones asking employees to sell (not sale) season tickets. Now that could be because Oakland has horrible attendance figures and among the lowest season ticket sales in the league, but that’s a different story. Is Oakland the only team practicing? Of course not, however there are teams with better turnouts and also teams that aren’t working out on the opposite side of the country.
    Now as to the signing of the FAs; Oakland’s got some important ones still unsigned. Commiting over $30 million to Stanford Routt (yeah, that Stanford Routt) seems to be a questionable decision at best. There is some danger in setting the market for FAs as opposed to letting the market sort itself out, not that Al has ever overpaid FAs. (Javon Walker, Deangelo Hall, Terdell Sands……)

  29. grandpoopah says: May 26, 2011 7:16 PM

    I’ve read enough of the comments to the effect of: “if the players don’t like the money the owners are offering, then the players should go do something else.” OK, then. How about all the players band together and start a new professional football league? A lot of them have the type of money to make it happen. Which league would you watch? The “NFL” starring Jerry Jones, Roger Goodell, and a bunch of scabs? Or would you watch the new league featuring Brees, Brady, Manning, and all the other great players who actually drive all the revenue and attention that has fattened the pocketbooks of so many owners?

    PS: For all you Goodell interns out there, I’ll make this easy for you – you will want to click the “thumbs down” icon below. You’re welcome.

  30. tommyf15 says: May 26, 2011 7:16 PM

    skoobyfl says:
    Who quit their jobs here ?? Oh that’s right the players.

    I love it when a pro-owner schill is willing to LIE TO THEMSELVES to feel better about their stance.

  31. brianramos says: May 26, 2011 7:24 PM

    Players should NOT have the right to get 50% of every dollar and they don’t understand business at all if they beleive they should. The game might have grown in the 70s and 80s due to player skill advancement. In the past 10 years, it is growing from owners marketing, TV deals, internet exposure, Fantasy football and the push for big stadiums. All of these things cost the owners and marketing companies a ton of money to get going. The players still had the same job and that was to show up and play. The owners costs have gone up considerably, while the player’s has not. The owners are right to want a new deal that has a graduated increase for the players, not a continuing 50/50 split. You play football for a living, and get paid well…get back to work. Answer me this, what other company would the employees automatically get to split 50/50 all the growth of that company? NONE!

  32. vahawker says: May 26, 2011 7:27 PM

    tommyf15.. Is it a lie if you believe it to be true?
    Now, if you want to say some people will create their own reality, I’m on board with you. Maybe too much rhetoric and not even thought?

  33. p4hbiz says: May 26, 2011 7:29 PM

    1bigtex .. Dude stop Stalking me… And why you all on me Douche bag.

    Your team is the Sorry a$$ San Diego Chargers! That franchise is a complete disaster, when you WIN A SUPERBOWL then you can talk about the Raiders.

    We swept you clowns last year, so we have the last laugh.. Your team has no history, you should have kept Al Davis when he was with that other guy is SD.

    And get another stadium, I live in LA and it’s the worst and everytime we come to SD it’s a Raider Nation party in ur own stadium.

  34. eagleswin says: May 26, 2011 7:33 PM

    grandpoopah says:
    May 26, 2011 7:16 PM
    I’ve read enough of the comments to the effect of: “if the players don’t like the money the owners are offering, then the players should go do something else.” OK, then. How about all the players band together and start a new professional football league? A lot of them have the type of money to make it happen. Which league would you watch? The “NFL” starring Jerry Jones, Roger Goodell, and a bunch of scabs? Or would you watch the new league featuring Brees, Brady, Manning, and all the other great players who actually drive all the revenue and attention that has fattened the pocketbooks of so many owners?

    ——————————–

    Actually, none of the players have enough money to own an NFL franchise, UFL yes. If it was as easy as you make it sound don’t you think the players would’ve done it by now? The UFL couldn’t even afford to have a 6th team this year, nor a TV contract. Maybe the fact that the players haven’t done it, nor is it even being considered should tell you exactly how wrong you are.

  35. brianramos says: May 26, 2011 7:36 PM

    Hey grandpoopah, The players could put together a league if they tried. You think they could build even one stadium? You think Tom Brady is going to leave a 70 million dollar contract to spend all his money to buy jerseys and helmets on the sheer chance they are successful???? Ship me what your smoking, it good sheeot!

  36. pitch87mph says: May 26, 2011 7:38 PM

    Whether it is “wrong” or not is a matter of opinion. They’re not doing anything illegal (THAT may make it “wrong”) or immoral. They’re running a business as they see fit within the confines of the law. One may not think it’s “fair”, but who said life was fair? I have no issues with being critical of owners/teams for taking such a tact, but your OPINION that it is “wrong” is a bit over the top, imo. Unfair may be a better characterization. Wrong? Tell me the laws or ethics being breached here. Otherwise get off the high horse.

    Furthermore, it’s patently ridiculous to say you are “not taking sides” and then point out how owners should have prepared for this to be more “fair” to their employees. Players and owners are mutually responsible for the lockout. Yes, the owners instituted it. But if the shoe were on the other foot, the players would strike–and a refusal by the owners to negotiate during the strike would be analogous of the players efforts to NOT negotiate during the lockout. Right now, by all accounts, it’s the players who won’t negotiate. No response to the league’s offer and continued overuse of hyperbole to try and sway the public (which thankfully isn’t working). The BLAME for the current state of the NFL is mutually shared, but a greater percentage of it falls on the players, imo. Therefore, the players are as much at fault for these employees suffering paycuts as the owners.

    Personally, I think the owners should take the high road and not cut non-player salaries. But exactly what are these employees doing right now? With no offseason activities, the season in question, most of them are probably sitting around doing nothing. And in ANY business (other than government) when you sit around and do nothing, you generally get let go. And when business rebounds, you get rehired (or someone else gets hired to replace you). How much money was made in the past is irrelevant.

  37. rayala3 says: May 26, 2011 7:39 PM

    Spin it anyway u want Mike but you back the players 110%.

  38. rujax206 says: May 26, 2011 7:41 PM

    Gotta LOVE those owners, boy…negotiate a deal that makes them ALL rich, decide they want MORE money…lock out the players, try to screw their assests by having a “secret side deal” with the networks-lockout insurance (my ass)…

    …now they’re hitting the little guys. The loyal folks who are getting the shaft in this post St. Ronnie screw you economy.

    Like a few hundred thou is going to mess with a billionaire lifestyle?

    Stay classy owners.

  39. roarofthemasses says: May 26, 2011 7:50 PM

    @dkeyser
    You dont hear anyone complain about that? Do you ever turn on a television or radio? And by the way it’s not wrong it’s the system. Don’t like it don’t vote for it.

  40. kom2k10 says: May 26, 2011 7:56 PM

    “When it comes to the labor dispute, we refuse to take a side. We believe that the two sides should work aggressively and continuously toward establishing a fair, long-term labor deal that restores labor peace”
    —————————-

    It seems to me the owners keep talking about how they’d like to do exactly what you quoted, which is to get together, stop litigation, and start negotiating…

    The players are not willing to do so… They’d rather go through litigation. They have yet to make a counter off to either of the two offers the league has put forward.

    Based on those facts, SHOULDN’T YOU be putting blame on the players for not “working to get a fair deal done” and chosing the litigation route instead???

  41. tommyf15 says: May 26, 2011 7:57 PM

    brianramos says:
    Players should NOT have the right to get 50% of every dollar and they don’t understand business at all if they beleive they should.

    Brian, I agree with you and so does Drew Brees and the other players in the anti-trust suit. The owners should pay the players whatever they want. If Mike Brown wants a $5 M payroll and Jerry Jones wants a $700 M payroll, let ‘em do it.

    That way there’s no more bickering about a “fair” number, the opening of books, etc. Let the players and owners live under the same capitalistic system that the rest of us do.

  42. nineroutsider says: May 26, 2011 8:00 PM

    @vahawker

    Explanation = Lockout

    That was simple.
    —————————————————-
    If you don’t honestly believe that both sides are at fault here, and you won’t to harp on the players not accepting or countering the owners’ offers, you are lost and can’t be helped.

    Both sides are at fault here, but its the league that shut itself down, not the players.

    We fans have every right to be pissed off about it. We have every right to question who the owners are squeezing as they want us to consume their product. Just like we have every right to question the players’ leaders and their labor strategy.

    The NFL seems to think it is invincible, but I tend to think they are being a bit brazen in their actions. Why do they continue to press their foot so hard into the Golden Goose’s neck?

  43. philyeagles5 says: May 26, 2011 8:03 PM

    geemoney713 says:
    May 26, 2011 6:19 PM
    The owners are acting like adults. The players are the ones acting like kids that are entitled to their parents’ hard earned money.
    ————————–
    im pretty sure its the other way around. the players earn the owners money. the owners just sit on their high horse and just care about the $$$.

    whens the last time you heard of a kid earning their parents money?

  44. z0inks says: May 26, 2011 8:04 PM

    Nobody can blame a business for cutting costs in the face of decreasing revenues.

    That being said…..I’d be interested to see where the NFL’s current revenues stand in comparison to previous offseasons.

    Right now, these organizations are taking real money away from office workers who have little or nothing to do with football operations or the lockout situation….all because the team MIGHT lose money a few months from now if no labor deal is struck.

    The best part is, despite all the hyperbole being thrown around, few people expect the lockout to carry over into the season. The owners and the players understand that it’s very much in everyone’s best interests to come to an agreement……and I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to make that happen when they start losing out on real money.

    Assuming they avoid missing any preseason or regular season games, then their revenue streams will be very much intact. In the likelihood that this happens, do they have a plan in place to pay back the money they’re currently withholding from office personnel?

    Or does the team keep that money and tell the employees to just be thankful they have a job at all?

  45. ralphshere says: May 26, 2011 8:26 PM

    Sure seems as though the owners have a stable of paid bashers, posting here…and there, trying to spin public sentiment. They do seem to swarm.

    Hope all involved get to the table and thrash out a deal.

  46. grandpoopah says: May 26, 2011 8:29 PM

    If all the players in the NFL traded places with their counterparts in the UFL, guess which league people would watch. On the other hand, if all the NFL owners switched parts with their UFL counterparts, guess which league people would watch.

    In either case, the vast majority of people would watch the league with the better players, regardless of who owns it or what it’s called.

  47. grandpoopah says: May 26, 2011 8:30 PM

    And, by the way, there is no such thing as a “successful businessman” who can’t manage to squeeze a profit out of a business with a rapidly growing revenue base, taxpayer-financed infrastructure, and protected by a federal antitrust exemption.

  48. azbroncos says: May 26, 2011 8:43 PM

    @grandpoopah
    I’ve read enough of the comments to the effect of: “if the players don’t like the money the owners are offering, then the players should go do something else.” OK, then. How about all the players band together and start a new professional football league? A lot of them have the type of money to make it happen. Which league would you watch? The “NFL” starring Jerry Jones, Roger Goodell, and a bunch of scabs? Or would you watch the new league featuring Brees, Brady, Manning, and all the other great players who actually drive all the revenue and attention that has fattened the pocketbooks of so many owners?
    ___________________________________

    LOL Oh yes I am sure the players are working on a league right now. Working on zoning permits to build stadiums, naming rights etc. LOL

    Come on now at least be rational with your arguments!!
    Signed Roger Goodell

  49. PFTiswhatitis says: May 26, 2011 8:46 PM

    Good for you for taking the position and writing this one, Mike. It had to be said. This issue is NOT about the lockout. Regardless which side you support, ownership is just plain wrong to withhold pay from the non-football employees.

  50. 1bigtex says: May 26, 2011 8:47 PM

    @p4hbiz

    Actually, my team is the Cowboys (I would think that “1bigtex” might be a clue). They appear to be a couple of Super Bowls up on the Raiders since I guess that Super Bowl total is important to you. I’m an old rancher so I know what BS looks like and when I see it, I can identify it pretty quickly. Additionally, I don’t have a problem calling BS what it really is. Your posts are almost always just a bunch of “fanboy” BS (for a definative example, see your original post in this thread). I guess that’s why you chose to attack me personally instead of addressing any of the points I raised regarding your original post.

  51. hodag54501 says: May 26, 2011 8:57 PM

    Think there’s no coincidence that across the nation there’s a move afoot to take away public union rights and at the same time the NFL and soon the NBA owners are working to bust their unions?

  52. dkeyser says: May 26, 2011 9:17 PM

    @roarofthemasses..I didnt vote for it. I wasnt old enough to vote when nafta was proposed and passed. And it has nothing to do with the system. Its greed. Pure and simple greed. CEO’s dont want to pay a decent wage so they ship everything off to mexico or china and pay them cents on the dollar.

  53. tubal22 says: May 26, 2011 9:27 PM

    I agree with Mike. And I also think that there should be a rainbow in every sky and vanilla ice cream at every meal.

    Oh. And no more Rachel Nichols reports too.

    Then life would be perfect.

  54. anonymouslyanonymouscommentor says: May 26, 2011 9:32 PM

    xtb3 says: May 26, 2011 6:30 PM

    How do you think the owners and the sons of owners got rich? By NOT giving it away to the peasents who do their chores!

    —————-

    The fact that this comment has 37 thumbs up and only 15 thumbs down makes me wonder just what type of people visit this site.

  55. norfva says: May 26, 2011 9:43 PM

    And self destruct will comense in T-Minus 105 days.

  56. nygiantstones says: May 26, 2011 9:50 PM

    If they don’t want their pay cut, they should create a Union. Otherwise, the employees are working for private enterprises, whose owners are engaged in the enterprise of generating revenue. Cutting costs via wages is a commonplace activity in Corporate America. I agree with your sentiment but you might as well rail about all business enterprise while you’re at it.

  57. commandercornpone says: May 26, 2011 9:53 PM

    like i said before, and apparently stephen ross agrees, any pay cut non-playing employees have to take should be fixed like normal if no games are ultimately missed.

  58. ernestbynershands says: May 26, 2011 9:56 PM

    Unfortunately, the owners have the least to lose in this. None of them will take a cut in pay. Instead, they will take a loss on business operations. A loss can be carried forward or backward against earnings, thus reducing tax liability and keeping money in the pockets of the already wealthy.
    Aside from the owners, the only people not getting hung out to dry are the accountants and lawyers.
    It’s disgusting that the owners are able to screw everyone involved.
    Maybe fans ought to start investigating the business dealings and practices of ownership. That would expose them all as they are: greedy self-serving bastards.

    N.F.L. = No Fans Left.

  59. raider17 says: May 26, 2011 10:19 PM

    How could he not mention what the Raiders are doing in this article. The Raiders have not cut one salary rather asked the employees to sell tickets instead. It seems to me that if you’re going to write an article about how wrong it is for NFL teams to cut the pay of the non players; you mention a team that has not cut salaries. Al Davis is still light years ahead of these other owners, and this move by the Raiders illustrates it.

    Long Live Al Davis!!!

  60. rcali says: May 26, 2011 10:23 PM

    A lot of jaded employees are going to start giving us the inside scoop on what really goes on in these team’s offices. This site will be popping.

  61. 1bigtex says: May 26, 2011 10:29 PM

    First of all, we’re not talking about a true union as most of us understand the word. There’s too much disparity in members’ earnings to be a true union. This is more of a trade cooperative of independent contractors. The NBA owners are going to have to do something to reign in player costs because they are losing their collective shirts.

    As to the demands of the NFL players to be able to see the books, I say, if you want to see the books, buy a team. That’s the way business works in this country. You don’t see the books until there is a realistic offer to buy.

  62. 32bigg says: May 26, 2011 10:35 PM

    The Bengals are not reducing non-player’s salaries. They regarded the lockout eventuality as a reasonably foreseeable outcome and planned accordingly. Mike Brown is often described as an idiot, but a principled one. This is a rare example of both an intelligent and principled moment (also can’t forget he was only 1 of 2 to vote against last CBA) and perhaps ought to be afforded as much credit for this move as he is assigned blame for his poor moves.

  63. billinlouisiana says: May 26, 2011 10:43 PM

    Why do the players want to see the books? So they can dictate where else cuts could be made. Namely in from office staff and coaches salaries.
    The players are just trying to make sure there cash is is not reduced in order to support the increase to owners cost im Coasches, front office and scouting staff positions!

  64. goldsteel says: May 26, 2011 10:49 PM

    Mike, you and I are in complete agreement. Why should these people have to suffer? These people need a paycheck like the rest of us. The players union didn’t hire the team’s staff. From a Public Relations stand point, it shows where the owners hearts are. Some of the owners that is.

  65. micker716 says: May 26, 2011 10:59 PM

    Communist

  66. zaggs says: May 26, 2011 11:15 PM

    “derekjetersmansion says: May 26, 2011 6:35 PM

    The owners walked out too, you dolts.”

    Ah, no you dolt! The owners have made not 1, but 2 offers to the players that the players have not even bothered to respond to. Probably because its making Drew Brees’s head hurt to read all those words and he wants Desmith to draw him pictures instead.

  67. 49erman says: May 26, 2011 11:35 PM

    I could care less who is more at fault. The bottom line is they are both at fault, period. I still do not believe there will be a season this year as I do not honestly believe either side wants a deal.

    I love football, but if neither side is serious about getting a deal done, then let them sit out the whole season. It’ll free up my Sundays, that’s for sure!

  68. djaehne says: May 26, 2011 11:39 PM

    I wish this would all cause the NFL to shut down and blow off the upcoming season. I’d suffer the
    loss of watching games for a season to know that
    both labor sides suffer the maximum dollar loss
    possible.

  69. clownburger says: May 26, 2011 11:43 PM

    What a shame that the players just won’t….you know….negotiate.

    What a concept that would be huh?

  70. phonecops says: May 27, 2011 12:40 AM

    So if my company is making record profits, but the CEO thinks it’s not enough, it’s O.K. to cut my salary?
    Just because he can do it, doesn’t mean he should.
    Legality doesn’t matter in this case, wrong is wrong.
    Remember, this lockout is because owners think they are not making enough, not that they are losing money.

  71. vahawker says: May 27, 2011 1:03 AM

    nineroutsider says: May 26, 2011 8:00 PM

    @vahawker

    Explanation = Lockout

    That was simple.
    **************************************
    Both sides are at fault here, but its the league that shut itself down, not the players
    *******************************************
    Seriously?! The same owners who have made 2 offers and received no counters. The players decertified and ran into the courts, refused an extension of negotiations(oh well, they did make an ridiculous demand to continue), owners have been trying to get a new CBA, players have not. The decert essentially forced the owners hand, how can they collectively make rules for the league without opening themselves to anti-trust charges?

    Maybe you should have let Jeter answer, he might have a right answer. You didn’t.

    I don’t give a rats patoottee what the terms of a new CBA are, but there can be no new CBA because the players walked out, decerted, ran into the courts without making a counter offer. Brees admitted he didn’t read second offer, agents say the players haven’t seen the offer. Who isn’t trying to get a deal done again?

  72. chapnastier says: May 27, 2011 7:40 AM

    Typical liberal… you want everyone to get their money without there being a source of income. Kind of like unemployment benefits.

  73. supashug says: May 27, 2011 8:46 AM

    this show has no influence on an NFL team you pompous ass clown

  74. bobbyhoying says: May 27, 2011 9:19 AM

    Mike: This is still the United States of America, despite the best efforts of socialists to change that. The players, coaches and staff can go start their own league. They can negotiate a TV contract with someone who currently does not broadcast games. The can tell the owners to take a hike. Yet they do not. Are they just gutless kitty cats, or are the owners really losing money with this enterprise?

  75. moochzilla says: May 27, 2011 9:44 AM

    I love all the non-business-owning supporters of the owners who believe that workers need to do what’s best for the “boss” or “owner”.

    And yet they sit here posting during work hours. How does that square with their philosophy? Aren’t they stealing from their employers and wasting time?

    So, unless you own your own business, follow your own advice…

    1) Shut up
    2) Get back to work
    3) Stop wasting the time that should be dedicated to making your boss rich

    How about living by the ruled you’d place on others.

    Oh, remember to punch the clock on your way out ad wear an appropriate amount of flair.

  76. moochzilla says: May 27, 2011 9:45 AM

    Oh, and remember to protest against Medicare. Until you turn 60, then you can spend the rest of your life protesting in favor of it.

    A nation of children.

  77. vetdana says: May 27, 2011 10:00 AM

    Assuming they avoid missing any preseason or regular season games,

    Everything that has gone on in the last 3 months would point to a shortened or suspended regular season…To assume that both parties are going to suddenly “see the light ” and have a normal unaffected regular season, is an exercise in extreme optimisim!! [or a sweet dream] Dont hold your breath, as these people have let GREED control their every action !!

  78. giboxer5 says: May 27, 2011 10:20 AM

    Remember when business owners had rights in this country?? When you were able to shut down your own business if you chose to, let the market dictate a fair wage and your companies finances were the business of yourself and the IRS.. The entire attitude of this country has changed. It was founded by people who wanted to be in control of their own future, in a system that rewarded the exceptional. This entire situation, and many of the comments above, show how little we expect/hope for ourselves. A bunch of lazy idiots with your hands out for a piece of what hard work has earned others. The players have plenty of money to take their collective ball and go start their own league. Then they can be the owners you all hate for having a stronger work ethic than you could ever even dream of..

  79. moochzilla says: May 27, 2011 10:47 AM

    giboxer. Where to begin? The NFL doesn’t operate under the system you seem to think it does. They control wages and competition and player movement…the free market has little to do with any of it. They have an anti-trust exemption that requires a CBA. And that was the choice they made, ask any small market owner and they’ll die for the socialist principles that ensure that the league is competitive.

    The fear of most owners (aside from Jones and Snyder) is that the league actually will act on free market principles. If it did, it would become MLB on steroids (poor analogy). You’d have Dallas and DC and NY dominant and most small market teams fold in short order. Think Green Bay wants to share national TV revenue or rely on Green Bay / Milwaukee local deals? C’mon.

    Owners retain the right to sell. They don’t because the value of every team has skyrocketed. Once they get a taxpayer funded stadium (yeah, capitalism and free market!) it goes up even more.

    And, please, tell me about Jeff Lurie’s “work ethic”. Take as much time as you need.

  80. supashug says: May 27, 2011 3:37 PM

    I have contacted a friend who works for the Ravens and they never announced a 25% salary cut! Interesting its nowhere on the internet either.

  81. bturner032002 says: Jun 1, 2011 11:40 AM

    The owners walked away first when the players said 50/50 split.

    they then come back and offer two low-ball counter offers and then blame the players in the media for walking out so the players would sound greedy…

    and it seems to be working

  82. airraid77 says: Jun 1, 2011 11:48 AM

    The owners walked away first when the players said 50/50 split.

    they then come back and offer two low-ball counter offers and then blame the players in the media for walking out so the players would sound greedy…

    and it seems to be working
    ————————————————–
    show me the link where any proposal has been made by the players? ANY……

Leave a Reply

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