The Players take the “Physical Risk” …

Neither one of those should trump the other in my opinion. I am a small business owner and can not imagine paying hazard pay or anything close to that …

That said I completely understand the Financial Risk side of the argument …

If the 2006 formula allows for a forecasted operational cost … and the players travel, housing and training expenses are included within that equation then this thing should be close enough to get done!

To fight over the rest and put other jobs at risk is down right pathetic. For that I think the owners actions are appalling.

Let’s stick it to the man! Wait, if we do that and the man collapses, who would we work for? I have yet to meet a poor person who was responsible for paying anyone’s salary. As soon as you find the one that does, let me know and I’ll eat crow. Otherwise “tradeassociation” go back to your union allied with socialists and enjoy your life in mediocrity.

“The heart of the dispute is the owners insistence that the players take huge pay cuts in light of record increases in revenue. To suggest the problem is with the players is simply disingenuous.”

I thought I read somewhere, maybe here on PFT, I’m not sure, that said the money was going to be shaved off by creating a rookie wage scale? The veterans would not be affected, but there wasn’t going to be any more 50 million dollar deals permitted for players that have never played a snap.

If that’s the case, then the “players” you speak of would NOT be taking a “HUGE PAY CUT” would they? I could be wrong on this btw, I just thought I read that or saw that reported here on PFT or ESPN or something. Don’t get me wrong mightygiants, I’m not bashing your post or anything like that.

No one should EVER be asked to take a pay cut, unless it’s temporary to save a company from default IMO. So if a pay cut for the veterans is something the owners want, then the owners are dead wrong and the players should prevail. But if they owners want to restructure the rules for how they deal with these unproven college kids, then all for the owners. But something keeps telling me that the “truth” is somewhere in the middle and that the owners are not “evil” and the players are not “greedy”. I think each entity is doing what it thinks is best for their respective long-term survival, nothing more, nothing less.

2 reasons:

#1, the owners realize that they were screwed in the last deal and they won’t agree to the same deal again

and
#2, the players will make more money, even at a reduced %, than working anywhere else.

Like it or not the players are replaceable. don’t want to work for the NFL? FINE! Remember the USFL? they had some big name stars making nice salaries for a couple years… what happened to that league? IT FAILED.

——————————————————–

The owners agreed to the 2006 deal and were never forced to do so under any conditions; you’re also wrong about the players being replaceable because the quality of the NFL product would go way down while fans would turn away in droves…

The players have known since the 2008 opt out that the owners were coming to set things “their way again” and impose a lockout as a strategy to get the players to crumble when the NFL is making more money than ever before and for some reason people wholeheartedly agree with this…

However, when the players respond with decertification as their strategy, it’s suddenly their fault that this mess is happening and many PFT posters want the players to “be thankful just because they’re pro athletes” and just be happy with whatever the owners give them….

LMFAO at this reasoning when it’s the owners greed that started all of this in the first place, all because they were stupid enough to give up major concessions to a union and they didn’t realize the earning potential that the NFL was soon to have…

Which means if you’re an owner of a “bling making company”, you can expect a 10 billion dollar increase in revenue in the near future.

“Guys like spartyfi are so wrong about this, it’s incredible. To think of the players as “employees” is absurd. Employees make the products that companies sell for profit. In the NFL, the players ARE the product. Comparing the NFL to a production company that makes TV shows would be more accurate than anything else. When shows like “Friends” or “Three and a Half Men” make a ton of money, the stars get huge paychecks, and you don’t see any of them getting locked out by the producers (except for Mr. Adonis DNA). And you certainly don’t hear any jackoffs crying that they should shut down the show because the stars make too much money.”

The problem with your argument, and others like it is this, the player/product you mention are getting nowhere near 50 percent of the total revenue.

Not even Mr. Winning himself was making 50 percent of the total revenue generated by his show, and he is said to have (has been) the highest paid actor in television.

As for the other who posted the car dealer/salesmen scenario, yes, the salesmen do make a nice commission, but their commission approaches nowhere near 50 percent of the revenue the dealership makes.

Players are the interchangeable tires on the machine. The league and the owners are in for the long haul and need to protect their investment.

Good comment, brother.

A. oppose the NFL salary cap
B. oppose the draft
C. oppose revenue sharing
D. oppose the anti-trust exemption that makes A, B, and C possible

If you want them to act like employees, treat them like employees. Stop using the draft to limit where they can work, stop using the salary cap to limit how much they can make, and stop forcing good owners who know how to run their businesses and make money to share their hard-earned cash with Mike Brown and Bill Bidwill, so that guys like Brown and Bidwill would be forced to sell their teams to one of the MANY better businessmen out there who would field much better teams and generate much more revenue.

You guys can’t argue for free market economics on one hand and demand that the NFL maintain its socialist setup on the other. It makes you a bunch of hypocrites.

1. There is a salary cap
2. There is a rookie pay scale/salary cap

————————-

The first flaw with your logic is that there is not an employee (singular) asking for 50 cents of every dollar his company makes. Since there are more than 50 players per team it’s more like less than one cent of every dollar the company makes.

Thumbs down if question your sexuality.

Actually, how much money do you think the Bengals and Lions would make if there was no revenue sharing in the league? The fans going to the Lions game now are excited because they finally have good players on that team. Without revenue sharing, the Lions and Bengals would have folded many years ago. The players play a very important role in the marketability of any team.
================================
Not sure where I said anything about revenue sharing.

I correctly stated the TEAM is the product, NOT the players, and gave examples to support my claim. Not sure what that has to do with revenue sharing.

So 9 billion – 1 billion = 8 billion

Owners get 3.2 billion + 1 billion = 4.2 billion

Players get 4.8 billion

4.2 billion / 32 owner groups = 131,250,000 a year

4.8 billion / ~1700 players = 2,823,529 a year

The owners bitching because they are only making 128 million more dollars a year than the average player will be making
==============================
The owners also have a myriad of additional expenses that severely undercut their profit margin. Stadium overhead, travel expenses, including hotels, private planes, meals, etc, ALL the salaries of ALL the employees from ticket takers to security to concessions to groundskeepers to training staff, not to mention taxes, which alone is probably 25-30% of their income. Suddenly that number gets a lot smaller.

Most fans are bandwagon fans. They like the team, sure, but the most visible part is the players.

If your theory is right, Lebron James leaving Cleveland would have been met with indifference. Players sell jerseys and merchandise.
===================================
Oh, fans certainly care about the players, and my example doesn’t rule that out. We saw that with the whole Brett Fraud saga. Packers fans were livid when he went turncoat and put on purple. But in the end, Packers fans still cheered for and celebrated the Packers, which is my point. The fans didn’t leave just because Favre did. Some, a very small majority went on to root for Favre in purple, but the overwhelming majority remained Packers fans.

To use your example, Cleveland fans didn’t suddenly become Heat fans when Lebron took his talents and douchiness to South Beach. Cavs fans are, by and large, still Cavs fans.

While the players are a critical component of the team itself, no single one of them is bigger than the team. Players come and go, but fan loyalty does not. This is why the players are *not* the product, but are merely a cog in the wheel that makes up the product- the team itself.

Why would anyone come on here and defend this? How are these players being denied anything? Get real.

Evidently the NFL owners disagree with you, because they LOVE to hand out million dollar contracts every year to the highest marquee players. They love it so much they break their own self imposed tampering rules to be the first ones in line to hand out multi-million dollar contracts to the biggest name players on the first first minute of the first day of free agency. That’s how much they LOVE handing out multi-million dollar contracts to the biggest name players. They do so for a reason.

When Peyton Manning retires, watch how the RCA Dome just magically stops becoming an automatic sell out despite the fans being offered the same “product”.

You sound like the type of person habitually labels people as socialists and communists without knowing a damn thing about either one other than what your AM Talk radio huckster tells you.

Here’s a hint for you … since 90% of the American economy is service based, most companies pay over 50% in labor. If you don’t think that’s reasonable, you’ve obviously never had to staff in healthcare or IT.

From the fan of a team that hasn’t won a playoff game since Clinton was President. You guys got lucky in 08 on a cupcake schedule now you can’t even get back to .500. Your fair weather fans will stay away in droves in 12. Enjoy the blackouts.

From the fan of a team that hasn’t won a playoff game since Clinton was President. You guys got lucky in 08 on a cupcake schedule now you can’t even get back to .500. Your fair weathe rfans will stay away in droves in 12. Enjoy the blackouts.

So 9 billion – 1 billion = 8 billion

Owners get 3.2 billion + 1 billion = 4.2 billion

Players get 4.8 billion

4.2 billion / 32 owner groups = 131,250,000 a year

4.8 billion / ~1700 players = 2,823,529 a year

The owners bitching because they are only making 128 million more dollars a year than the average player will be making.
—————————————————– that 131,250,000 does not just go into the owners’ pockets. it is responsible for paying the salaries every single coach, front office staff, stadium employee and league employee, as well as all the operating expenses marketing efforts, charitable endeavors and every other component of the NFL. the players portion, on the other hand, is pure profit.

————————————————

Umm, if they are paid a PERCENTAGE and the revenues are down, then obviously the amount goes down even if the percentage doesn’t.

Also, the NFL continues to make record revenues even in a terrible economy, so let’s stop talking about the “risk” of the owners.