CBA discussions

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Tech savvy? I have you fooled. I am a dinasaur drowning in a swamp of sneering technocrats.

 

 

 

 

In other words the owners are basically saying I don't feel that the deal was fair to me (although my profit margins have exponentially gone up) because I am not satisfied with that level of profit growth. Or they are simply saying I owe you no explanation because it is what I say it is. Being stronger does have its advantages when pursuing one's insatiable desires.

 

 

 

You are describing a situation where the owners assumed the only risk and provided the resources that resulted in bountiful returns for all the parties. That is not the case. The owners are intoxicated with their own delusions of grandeur. The majority of stadiums, until recently, were publicly built. Even the Golden Palace built in Dallas had a significant portion payed by the local authorities. In NY, I meant Jersey, the stadium was payed for by the Giants and Jets with the help of tremendous amount of tax abatements from the state. New Jersey still has payments to make on the non-existent old stadium. In addition, all new stadiums have infrastructure requirements, which are very expensive and are payed for by the taxpayers.

 

My point is that their franchises' value and profit margin is exponentially increased by outside factors. They may act as the Captains of the Universe but there are a lot of foot soldiers who are propping them up.

 

 

 

You just described a level of insufferable arrogance that is breathless.

 

 

 

There is no doubt that eventually a deal is going to be struck. My prediction is that it is going to be a protracted process. Sometimes a side can win and yet in the end lose. The product is getting very expensive, too expensive for the average family. The result is that fans are not going to tolerate the premium costs and will stay home to watch the games on their big ticket plazma TVs.

 

If prices continue to go up there will come a point where the overfed hog will simply keel over and become a stinking carcass.

 

As I stated in a prior posting I appreciate your well reasoned responses. Sometimes differences are not as great as they may seem.

 

And I appreciate yours. I have no interest in insulting anyone, my general rule of thumb is to always consider that I may be wrong. Like most people, I assume I'm correct and very reasonable. I especially enjoyed your commentary on insufferable arrogance, I worked hard on that one. And I don't debate the arrongance of ownership or the union, it may well be arrogance driving both ships. Nonetheless, the option was there to proceed in that fashion.

 

Let's hope they meet in the middle.

 

Tim

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

You're not really getting the point behind the article -- it's not just that the NFL owners have more money. It's that they are making money and claiming they need more because their model isn't sustainable. Which, they refuse to prove.

 

As for the above, every NFL fan is screwed by every owner. Every game. We still go because we don't have a choice. But from PSLs, to 10 dollar beers, to outrageous parking costs etc -- everything they do is designed to make the most money from the fans as possible. And that's their right (and job) as owners. That's what they should be doing. And it's working. It's far and away the most profitable sector of the entertainment industry. Moreso than movies, tv, music etc. Yet they want more.

 

That's not good business. That's greed. They run a zero risk business (yes, the NFL is zero risk and has been for two decades). Most of them did nothing to build the league, rather they stood on the shoulders of the men like Ralph who DID take risks to make the NFL what it is today and lined their pockets.

 

Now they want to stop the game to make even more. The players won't suffer. The fans will. So yes, the owners are screwing the fans by locking the players out. To see it otherwise is just silly in my opinion.

 

No, I got the point of the article. I think it's schoolboy journalism from a guy who can do better.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't jump on board with you on the getting screwed by the owner's argument. We always have a choice, and I'm fine griping about it (Miami-Bills, opening day, in a moment of weakness bought seats in the JK section for me and my 11 year old, drove 500 miles round trip, tolls, parking, etc to watch a team try and win a game without an offense), but in this case you can't be screwed unless you lay down your precious cash. And, frankly, if I get to the point where I can see your point of view, I have to throw the players, and everyone else in on the conspiracy.

 

There is no such thing as a zero risk business. None. Zero.

Edited March 3, 2011 by timmo1805

[ExiledInIllinois]

Kraft to his credit didn't take any public money from what I read. Yet, I also read where he wroks the terms every 30 days... Is that really ture?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Hey Timmo. If you don't mind…

 

I wouldn't say the owners are out to "screw you out of money" so much as they are to maximize profits with absolutely no regard for the ticket paying customers on which the league was built.

 

The owners, motivated by the agreement that the home team keeps 60% of gate revenue for regular seating but 100% of gate revenue for preferred seating, has for decades transitioned to a stadium model which emphasizes preferred seating, which doesn't have to be shared with the other teams.

 

On top of creating inequities between NFL team revenues, this policy basically admits that the NFL is pursuing corporate customers and turning their backs on working class families. Because stadiums are apportioning a smaller percentage of seats for regular seating at a time when the popularity of the NFL is growing, the price of those seats has risen (at the same time that the middle class has shrunken). At a time when fewer people are holding more of the world's wealth than ever before and that more people percentage-wise are now poor, the NFL is catering to the corporations, rather than the paying public whose hard-earned money built the league (at a time when club seating and luxury boxes didn't even exist).

 

Then on top of this, you have ticket policies which include the still fairly new concept of Personal Seat Licenses which you need to purchase simply for the right to buy season tickets and you have a league which is utterly insensitive and uncaring for the average paying customer.

 

I do not begrudge the businessman the right to make profits and maximize those profits to a degree. But some businesses can reach the point where the only thing that matters is maximizing profits, to the utter disregard of every other factor. When it reaches that point, it goes too far, IMO.

 

When we talk about the concept of "screwing people out of money" it's really a discussion of greed. I don't think that there's any doubt whether the owners are greedy. The question is, "just how greedy are they?"

 

 

i can live with most of your thought process. as far as defining the owner's as "greedy"....what point does that serve? why not just acknowledge the players are greedy too? the players are greedy, the agents are greedy, and so on. everyone's greed contributes to the problem. last i checked, no one was volunteering their time. i meant to respond on the psl issue in tgreg's last note---and i concur it's a shameless money grab. personally, i'd surrender my tickets before i paid a fee to secure a place in line to pay for my tickets. and your point on corporate customers is very valid. then again, back to my point, if i don't pay it, i can't be screwed.

 

in your analysis, if you have decided to analyze the problem and leave the player's union out of the mix, i submit your approach is flawed.

Edited March 3, 2011 by timmo1805

[Orton's Arm]

Hey Timmo. If you don't mind…

 

I wouldn't say the owners are out to "screw you out of money" so much as they are to maximize profits with absolutely no regard for the ticket paying customers on which the league was built.

 

The owners, motivated by the agreement that the home team keeps 60% of gate revenue for regular seating but 100% of gate revenue for preferred seating, has for decades transitioned to a stadium model which emphasizes preferred seating, which doesn't have to be shared with the other teams.

 

On top of creating inequities between NFL team revenues, this policy basically admits that the NFL is pursuing corporate customers and turning their backs on working class families. Because stadiums are apportioning a smaller percentage of seats for regular seating at a time when the popularity of the NFL is growing, the price of those seats has risen (at the same time that the middle class has shrunken). At a time when fewer people are holding more of the world's wealth than ever before and that more people percentage-wise are now poor, the NFL is catering to the corporations, rather than the paying public whose hard-earned money built the league (at a time when club seating and luxury boxes didn't even exist).

 

Then on top of this, you have ticket policies which include the still fairly new concept of Personal Seat Licenses which you need to purchase simply for the right to buy season tickets and you have a league which is utterly insensitive and uncaring for the average paying customer.

 

I do not begrudge the businessman the right to make profits and maximize those profits to a degree. But some businesses can reach the point where the only thing that matters is maximizing profits, to the utter disregard of every other factor. When it reaches that point, it goes too far, IMO.

 

When we talk about the concept of "screwing people out of money" it's really a discussion of greed. I don't think that there's any doubt whether the owners are greedy. The question is, "just how greedy are they?"

I fully agree that the owners are greedier, more short-sighted, and less concerned about building a strong NFL over the long-term than people like Wellington Mara had been. As you've correctly pointed out, they're becoming increasingly focused on box suites and other luxury seating, PSLs, $10 beers, and other revenue-generating mechanisms not inline with the interests of middle class fans.

 

I regard the last collective bargaining agreement as an extension of that greed. The problem wasn't just that it was a 60/40 split of "revenues." It was that the word "revenue" was far too broadly defined. For example, suppose that Jerry Jones concocts new ways to generate still more revenue. PSLs, naming rights, corporate deals and sponsorships, increased concession sales, parking, etc. None of that revenue gets shared. And yet under the collective bargaining agreement struck a few years ago, a very significant percentage of that counts towards "revenue" under that 60/40 split. If (for example) someone pays the Cowboys $1 million a year to be their official dog food provider, the salary cap that Ralph and the Bills are faced with will increase, even though Ralph will never see a dime of that money.

 

The plan, as I understand it, was for the owners of larger market teams to earn a ton of unshared revenue through whatever means they could concoct. That would drive up the salary cap while increasing the profits of higher revenue teams. As the salary cap continued to increase both on an absolute basis and (particularly) in relation to fully shared revenues (such as TV revenue), smaller revenue teams such as the Bills would find it increasingly difficult to compete. The result of all this would be both less parity and higher profits for the higher revenue teams. Fortunately the plan seems to have failed due to the inability of high revenue team owners to gouge the fans as much as they'd planned. Now the owners are going to Plan B, which is to make money by reducing costs. Plan B is much better for us as fans than was their plan A!

 

One last thing before I end this post: I found the article's point about Paul Allen to be particularly unimpressive and, arguably, misleading. Paul Allen was one of the founding members of Microsoft; a fact which has caused his net worth to be in the billions. As of 2010 his net worth was $13.5 billion. An NFL team is worth about $1 billion, give or take. Even if the Seattle Seahawks had completely failed and gone bankrupt, Allen's net worth would still be $12.5 billion. That's plenty of money for him to use to buy whatever yacht he wants. More simply: Paul Allen's yacht was the result of money he would have had anyway, not money he made from the NFL.

[Beerball]

Manning, Brady & Brees agree to be lead plaintiffs if the players sue the league for antitrust violations

[CosmicBills]

There is no such thing as a zero risk business. None. Zero.

But there is. It's called the NFL. 50 years ago that certainly wasn't the case. The league wasn't what it is now. Hell, I'll even give you 30 years ago. But in the past few decades the league has exploded. It's by far the biggest earner in the entertainment business. Highest ratings by far of anything else that comes on the television. The TV contracts (all of which are long term deals) cover all your operating expenses including employee salaries. So your nut is covered without you having to do a thing and regardless to how you run your organization.

 

There's zero risk. None. You just need 1b in your bank account to get into the game. Which, very few people actually have.

 

Put it another way. You could replace every one of the owners tomorrow with anyone else in the world, regardless of their mental capacities or business acumen, and that team would STILL make money. That's not true of nearly every other business in the world. But guaranteed TV contracts in the billions make it the case.

 

The question isn't if NFL owners are making money. It's how much MORE money do the NFL owners want to make?

 

Me saying the owners are screwing the fans in terms of price gouging is more hyperbole than anything. However, make no mistake about it, the owners are the ones screwing the fans by imposing this lockout. They want MORE money on top of the record breaking profits they're already making. And they're willing to screw over the customers to get it. I know this is the american way, that's just business -- but have we learned nothing from the most recent economic crisis? Greed is not good.

[JohnC]

t

Edited March 3, 2011 by JohnC

[Doc]

Manning, Brady & Brees agree to be lead plaintiffs if the players sue the league for antitrust violations

Yeah, that'll be a great move.

[Mr. WEO]

I fully agree that the owners are greedier, more short-sighted, and less concerned about building a strong NFL over the long-term than people like Wellington Mara had been. As you've correctly pointed out, they're becoming increasingly focused on box suites and other luxury seating, PSLs, $10 beers, and other revenue-generating mechanisms not inline with the interests of middle class fans.

 

I regard the last collective bargaining agreement as an extension of that greed. The problem wasn't just that it was a 60/40 split of "revenues." It was that the word "revenue" was far too broadly defined. For example, suppose that Jerry Jones concocts new ways to generate still more revenue. PSLs, naming rights, corporate deals and sponsorships, increased concession sales, parking, etc. None of that revenue gets shared. And yet under the collective bargaining agreement struck a few years ago, a very significant percentage of that counts towards "revenue" under that 60/40 split. If (for example) someone pays the Cowboys $1 million a year to be their official dog food provider, the salary cap that Ralph and the Bills are faced with will increase, even though Ralph will never see a dime of that money.

 

The plan, as I understand it, was for the owners of larger market teams to earn a ton of unshared revenue through whatever means they could concoct. That would drive up the salary cap while increasing the profits of higher revenue teams. As the salary cap continued to increase both on an absolute basis and (particularly) in relation to fully shared revenues (such as TV revenue), smaller revenue teams such as the Bills would find it increasingly difficult to compete. The result of all this would be both less parity and higher profits for the higher revenue teams. Fortunately the plan seems to have failed due to the inability of high revenue team owners to gouge the fans as much as they'd planned. Now the owners are going to Plan B, which is to make money by reducing costs. Plan B is much better for us as fans than was their plan A!

 

One last thing before I end this post: I found the article's point about Paul Allen to be particularly unimpressive and, arguably, misleading. Paul Allen was one of the founding members of Microsoft; a fact which has caused his net worth to be in the billions. As of 2010 his net worth was $13.5 billion. An NFL team is worth about $1 billion, give or take. Even if the Seattle Seahawks had completely failed and gone bankrupt, Allen's net worth would still be $12.5 billion. That's plenty of money for him to use to buy whatever yacht he wants. More simply: Paul Allen's yacht was the result of money he would have had anyway, not money he made from the NFL.

The Arm is wise!

 

But I will quibble...

 

The plan for the owners is always to maximize revenue. There is absolutely nothing preventing Ralph from seeking and obtaining as many exclusive rights/deals/sponsorships as he can. Also, I would bet that when the Bills go on the road to, say, NE or NY (or Dallas?), his take of the shared gate (40%) is as much as the take at home (%60) due to the premium prices that other teams command. The last CBA explicitly included a 500% increase in supplimentary shared revenue to help low revenue teams should they fall below some income/profit threshold (which Ralph did not).

 

There is absolutely nothing about the CBA that has prevented Buffalo from competing (or from Mr. Wilson from making about $100 million).

 

As it turned out, despite the "bad" CBA, parity survived. And "small market" and lower revenue teams made a tidy profit. Ticket prices go up every year, as a whole. Always have. Average people are buying those tickets in every stadium in the League. They do so willingly because they think the tickets are worth what they cost. When they change their minds, the prices will have to come down. Look what happened to the Jets.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

But there is. It's called the NFL. 50 years ago that certainly wasn't the case. The league wasn't what it is now. Hell, I'll even give you 30 years ago. But in the past few decades the league has exploded. It's by far the biggest earner in the entertainment business. Highest ratings by far of anything else that comes on the television. The TV contracts (all of which are long term deals) cover all your operating expenses including employee salaries. So your nut is covered without you having to do a thing and regardless to how you run your organization.

 

There's zero risk. None. You just need 1b in your bank account to get into the game. Which, very few people actually have.

 

Put it another way. You could replace every one of the owners tomorrow with anyone else in the world, regardless of their mental capacities or business acumen, and that team would STILL make money. That's not true of nearly every other business in the world. But guaranteed TV contracts in the billions make it the case.

 

The question isn't if NFL owners are making money. It's how much MORE money do the NFL owners want to make?

 

Me saying the owners are screwing the fans in terms of price gouging is more hyperbole than anything. However, make no mistake about it, the owners are the ones screwing the fans by imposing this lockout. They want MORE money on top of the record breaking profits they're already making. And they're willing to screw over the customers to get it. I know this is the american way, that's just business -- but have we learned nothing from the most recent economic crisis? Greed is not good.

 

fair enough on hyperbole, but suggesting there's zero risk is naive. it's like calling a ship unsinkable. I assure you sir, this ship can sink. in fact, maybe you guys who feel this way are right---owner's greed is pushing you to the edge, closer to the tipping point....it doesn't take much, really,. a little congressional investigation, a little prie fixing scandal, a little change in the tax law...

 

But, I do not dispute it's a great deal for them now.

[CosmicBills]

fair enough on hyperbole, but suggesting there's zero risk is naive. it's like calling a ship unsinkable. I assure you sir, this ship can sink. in fact, maybe you guys who feel this way are right---owner's greed is pushing you to the edge, closer to the tipping point....it doesn't take much, really,. a little congressional investigation, a little prie fixing scandal, a little change in the tax law...

 

But, I do not dispute it's a great deal for them now.

Well sure. There's risk crossing the street. There's risk walking out the door every morning, or even staying in bed. There's risk in everything.

 

But come on, the NFL prints money. It has for a very long time and will continue to do so as long as the owners don't do something foolish and prolong the lockout. They think they're invincible. That's how they're acting by even flirting with the idea of a prolonged work stoppage. The NBA and MLB took a decade to recover from their bitter work stoppages (if they even have recovered). The NFL can certainly fall into that trap.

 

That's the risk. But it's a risk they're causing by their blind greed. They run a meat grinder. They don't guarantee contracts. A large chunk of their employees sacrifice their very lives to work for them (average lifespan of a 10 year NFL lineman is 55). They don't provide adequate (or any in some cases) health care or retirement plans for the employees who BUILT the league ... and now they're pushing the league towards a work stoppage for no good reason other than to make MORE money.

 

The players aren't asking for more -- at least not in this case. This one is on the owners.

[Beerball]

Yeah, that'll be a great move.

Actually I can't think of a better 'face of the league' than those 3

[KD in CA]

Actually I can't think of a better 'face of the league' than those 3

 

Sounds like a curious choice to me. 3 guys that make about $35MM a year combined as the face of a group looking for more money?

[Beerball]

Sounds like a curious choice to me. 3 guys that make about $35MM a year combined as the face of a group looking for more money?

Remember the strike? Stars started crossing the picket line? I realize that this will be different (assuming there is a lockout), but 3 of the top stars are strongly in the player's corner.

[CosmicBills]

Sounds like a curious choice to me. 3 guys that make about $35MM a year combined as the face of a group looking for more money?

Also let's remember, they AREN'T asking for more money. They are asking not to have their pay CUT. Big difference. If the owners wanted to keep the current CBA the players wouldn't mind.

[Orton's Arm]

The Arm is wise!

 

But I will quibble...

 

The plan for the owners is always to maximize revenue. There is absolutely nothing preventing Ralph from seeking and obtaining as many exclusive rights/deals/sponsorships as he can. Also, I would bet that when the Bills go on the road to, say, NE or NY (or Dallas?), his take of the shared gate (40%) is as much as the take at home (%60) due to the premium prices that other teams command. The last CBA explicitly included a 500% increase in supplimentary shared revenue to help low revenue teams should they fall below some income/profit threshold (which Ralph did not).

 

There is absolutely nothing about the CBA that has prevented Buffalo from competing (or from Mr. Wilson from making about $100 million).

 

As it turned out, despite the "bad" CBA, parity survived. And "small market" and lower revenue teams made a tidy profit. Ticket prices go up every year, as a whole. Always have. Average people are buying those tickets in every stadium in the League. They do so willingly because they think the tickets are worth what they cost. When they change their minds, the prices will have to come down. Look what happened to the Jets.

I think we're on the same page for the most part--especially when you wrote that "The Arm is wise!"

 

But that being said, I'd like to address what you've written in the bolded text. The previous collective bargaining agreement did a couple things:

a) Increased players' share of revenues to about 60%

b) Broadened the scope of "revenue." Under the current deal, most forms of unshared revenues count fully or partially toward the salary cap.

 

Together, those two things made it significantly more difficult for smaller revenue teams to compete.

 

Any given team has a lot of expenses to pay for with the 40% of revenues allocated to owners. All stadium improvements not paid for by government, interest on stadium debt, the salaries of the coaching staff and front office personnel, etc. Anyone you see who's Bills-related who isn't a player represents a salary Ralph has to pay out of that 40%. That's the guy you placed your ticket order with, people working concession stands, security guards, parking lot attendants, groundskeepers, secretaries, Chris Brown, website developers, etc. That's a lot of paychecks for Ralph to sign! Plus that 40% also has to pay for Bills-related advertising, whatever costs are associated with training camp, etc.

 

And it's not like Ralph is really getting that 40%! Not, at least, if he wants to spend up to the salary cap on player salaries. As I mentioned in my last post, the activities of other teams drive up the value of the salary cap by acquiring non-shared revenues. Sure, there's nothing to stop Ralph from acquiring non-shared revenue of his own, which is what the Toronto deal was all about. But there are fewer opportunities for such unshared revenue in a smallish Rust Belt city like Buffalo than there are in places like Washington DC or Dallas or NYC. If Ralph spent exactly up to the salary cap every year, he'd have considerably less than the aforementioned 40% left over with which to pay those aforementioned expenses.

 

Now suppose that some other NFL owner somewhere--let's call him Jerry--decides that what he really needs is a new stadium. That new stadium creates new costs, some of which are absorbed by the local government, and some of which are absorbed by Jerry. But Jerry has a plan to offset his share of those costs. His stadium will generate considerably more unshared revenue than the old one did through corporate sponsorships, PSLs, luxury suites, etc. Under the recent collective bargaining agreement, that additional unshared money Jerry is generating serves to increase the overall league salary cap. That drives Ralph's share of the gross revenues down considerably below 40%; and then out of that <40% he has to pay the salaries of guys like Gailey, Nix, scouts, coaches, and all other non-players. Plus a bunch of other expenses.

 

Meanwhile, let's look at things from the other side. Travis Henry had enough money to attract and impregnate ten or more women. Bryant McKinnie had that $100,000 bar tab. Players like Aaron Maybin and Mike Williams have received tens of millions of Ralph's money despite having contributed little more to the Bills' success than have countless college players never signed by NFL teams. There's nothing in me which says, "Travis Henry should have enough money to impregnate twenty women, McKinnie should have enough cash to spend $200,000 a pop on bar tabs, and Aaron Maybin and Mike Williams should be getting double their present salaries!"

 

If college players don't get more than just a scholarship, why are guys like Ko Simpson somehow worth millions?

 

You could very easily structure things in a way which gave considerably less money overall to players without taking any money at all away from someone who isn't being obscenely overpaid. For example, consider the following hypothetical deal:

• Players get 50% of shared revenues only. Unshared revenues no longer count towards the salary cap.
  
• The minimum wage for players is increased to $500,000 per year.
  
• Retired players receive an additional $30,000 a year in cash + benefits
  
• The creation of a set in stone payment system for rookies; with the salaries of earlier draft picks locked into place for several years. For example, if you're a first round pick, you get $600,000 in year 1 with the team that drafted you, $650,000 in year 2, and so on. Your team is allowed to negotiate a normal deal with you after year 4. In the absence of such a deal, you hit free agency in year 6.

 

If (for example) an undrafted player came into the league, played for three years, and then retired, he'd get $1.5 million under the above system; as compared to about $700,000 under the current system. So you're helping guys like that--which are exactly the kinds of players you should be helping! You're also helping retired players. Those who'd fare the worst under this new system are NFL draft busts, as well as those players who are currently the most highly paid. Those two categories of players are precisely the ones who are overpaid, and whose salaries should be reduced.

[Hplarrm]

Actually, they'll just lower prices. That's how the free market works.

Do you or anyone else think that the NFL is a free market?

 

If you do then you have a different understanding of what a free market is (and I think a different definition than reality.

 

One needs to acknowledge that while there are some free market principles which govern all negotiations using cash thay in the mid 80s lockout the owners cleaned the clocks of the traditional AFL-CIO style NFLPA by seizing the initiative with lockout and use of replacement players.

 

The old style union leadership in fact got their clocks cleaned so bad that the talented tenth of NFL players led by Gene Upshaw were able to understand and sell their more cattle like peer players the idea that the way to win was to in fact threaten to decertify the NFLPA.

 

The truth is actually that the NFL pre-lockout was not anything which could credibly called a free market as individual rights to negotiate and sell their skills to the highest bidder were almost completely abridged by cooperation between the NFL and NFLPA which agreed to the anti-free market step of the a draft of players and their assignment to negotiate only with that one buyer.

 

Decertification would have forced the team owners into an actual free market where they had to buy individual player services in a free market.

 

Rather than operate in a free market the owners ran kicking and screaming to negotiate the restraints on individual trade such as the draft and a flat out ban on adults being signed until their graduating class hit roughly 21 years of age.

 

This stands in sharp contrast with other sports leagues such as MLB and the NHL where teams have to spend their money to sign 16 year olds to speculative contracts and maintain minor league teams through direct ownership or contractual dealing (not to mention sharp contrast to individual sports like tennis or golf where individuals play as pros at very tender ages.

 

The old league was no where near being a free market and it moved more towards operating based on a social compact with the mid90s CBA.

 

In the current CBA which the owners re-opened but the NFLPA was quite satisfied with because in it the players moved from not only actually being more like partners with the team owners in the mid 80s CBA to actually arguably becoming the majority partner as Gene Upshaw publicly dictated before negotiation began that the new salary cap would be based on total revenues rather than a designated gross as under the previous deal (a deal which saw folks like Mr. Ralph get rid of thousands of seats which were shared revenue and instead install premium seats where he got to keep all the take. Upshaw dictated that the new players cap amount needed to start with a 6. and 60.5% was the final number.

 

The owners actually were gonna vore down this deal but Paul Tagliaboo-boo and the NYC lawyers who operated the league pointed out to Mr. Ralph and the old guard owners that even though they gave up the traditional control they had in the pretend free market the NFL had where George Halas through around nickels like they were manhole covers (a great Ditka line when he was a player), but they were going to make a lot more money in the social compact which is now the NFL than in their pretend free market.

 

66% of a lot of money is great, but 39.5 of tons more money is even better.

 

The NFL owners were forced to realize that the real money was with the TV networks and if stability and peace with the NFLPA cost them giving up the majority of the revenue, a minority of the gross revenue was actually a lot more than they made under the old system.

 

The NFL certainly has some aspects in common with a free market as that is the overall marketplace of the US dominated system it operates in.

 

However, anyone who analyzes and understands this would not make a claim that the NFL is a free market system as it simply produces more and consistent revenue in the more socialized system it operates under.

 

The sad fact is the reality that though George Halas and Wellington Mara were essential to founding of the league, they are dead and Mr. Ralph will soon be.

 

The NFLPA is really the majority partner in this operation. IMHO this is actually a better reflection of reality as I am willing to pay to watch the Bills player face the Oakland players, but I might watch once if Al Davis and Mr. Ralph had a knife fight, but overall I (and anyone else with half a brain know the owners have import as historical relics but the league is the players as far as this fan is concerned.

 

I would love it if every team followed a Green Bay Packers public ownership model as it is clear that a team can be operated profitably in this framework. However, the owners are really superfluous as far as I am concerned and it is unfortunate that their death throes are interfering with delivery of the product right now.

 

It was my hope that the talented tenth of NFL players (folks like Troy Vincent and TKO who spent their off seasons at Ivy League business schools) had a trick up their sleeves like the mid-80s decertification gambit. If the NFLPA uses lockout to do the smart thing for player salaries and establishes free market competition for the NFL much as what was done when the AFL pumped up Namath's salary and even the failed USFL pumped up Jimbo's salary it would be great if they simply used the owners reopening the CBA to essentially kick the team owners to the curb.

 

The team owners are simply historical sources of capital. In today's market the team owners are really redundant as there is simply far more capital in the TV networks.

 

Ironically Dody might have actually saved the team owners from themselves as he has created a path to where the NFLPA can stick to something like the current CBA with adjustments they want such as a rookie salary scale which gives more money to current players. My GUESS is that the talented tenth of players likely had some curveball such as the decertification gambit and antitrust suits which would have meant a risk for the NFLPA but likely spelled the end for the owners controlling the NFL.

 

As long as the NFL does fundamental things like force players to negotiate with one and only one team and actually virtually totally bars many adults from negotiating you cannot seriously call this a free market. The NFL enjoyed having taxpayers subsidize their training and development of players through paying taxes for a U. Nebraska or a Univeristy at Buffalo Division I team.

 

However, the NFL is now paying the price for riding this subsidy to have them negotiate with adult athletes leadership even if most of the NFLPA are babied sheeplike athletes.

 

Gailey can order them around like little kids but they can now be organized by the talented tenth of fellow athletes.

[Mr. WEO]

I think we're on the same page for the most part--especially when you wrote that "The Arm is wise!"

 

But that being said, I'd like to address what you've written in the bolded text. The previous collective bargaining agreement did a couple things:

a) Increased players' share of revenues to about 60%

b) Broadened the scope of "revenue." Under the current deal, most forms of unshared revenues count fully or partially toward the salary cap.

 

Together, those two things made it significantly more difficult for smaller revenue teams to compete.

 

Any given team has a lot of expenses to pay for with the 40% of revenues allocated to owners. All stadium improvements not paid for by government, interest on stadium debt, the salaries of the coaching staff and front office personnel, etc. Anyone you see who's Bills-related who isn't a player represents a salary Ralph has to pay out of that 40%. That's the guy you placed your ticket order with, people working concession stands, security guards, parking lot attendants, groundskeepers, secretaries, Chris Brown, website developers, etc. That's a lot of paychecks for Ralph to sign! Plus that 40% also has to pay for Bills-related advertising, whatever costs are associated with training camp, etc.

 

And it's not like Ralph is really getting that 40%! Not, at least, if he wants to spend up to the salary cap on player salaries. As I mentioned in my last post, the activities of other teams drive up the value of the salary cap by acquiring non-shared revenues. Sure, there's nothing to stop Ralph from acquiring non-shared revenue of his own, which is what the Toronto deal was all about. But there are fewer opportunities for such unshared revenue in a smallish Rust Belt city like Buffalo than there are in places like Washington DC or Dallas or NYC. If Ralph spent exactly up to the salary cap every year, he'd have considerably less than the aforementioned 40% left over with which to pay those aforementioned expenses.

 

Now suppose that some other NFL owner somewhere--let's call him Jerry--decides that what he really needs is a new stadium. That new stadium creates new costs, some of which are absorbed by the local government, and some of which are absorbed by Jerry. But Jerry has a plan to offset his share of those costs. His stadium will generate considerably more unshared revenue than the old one did through corporate sponsorships, PSLs, luxury suites, etc. Under the recent collective bargaining agreement, that additional unshared money Jerry is generating serves to increase the overall league salary cap. That drives Ralph's share of the gross revenues down considerably below 40%; and then out of that <40% he has to pay the salaries of guys like Gailey, Nix, scouts, coaches, and all other non-players. Plus a bunch of other expenses.

 

Meanwhile, let's look at things from the other side. Travis Henry had enough money to attract and impregnate ten or more women. Bryant McKinnie had that $100,000 bar tab. Players like Aaron Maybin and Mike Williams have received tens of millions of Ralph's money despite having contributed little more to the Bills' success than have countless college players never signed by NFL teams. There's nothing in me which says, "Travis Henry should have enough money to impregnate twenty women, McKinnie should have enough cash to spend $200,000 a pop on bar tabs, and Aaron Maybin and Mike Williams should be getting double their present salaries!"

 

If college players don't get more than just a scholarship, why are guys like Ko Simpson somehow worth millions?

 

You could very easily structure things in a way which gave considerably less money overall to players without taking any money at all away from someone who isn't being obscenely overpaid. For example, consider the following hypothetical deal:

• Players get 50% of shared revenues only. Unshared revenues no longer count towards the salary cap.
  
• The minimum wage for players is increased to $500,000 per year.
  
• Retired players receive an additional $30,000 a year in cash + benefits
  
• The creation of a set in stone payment system for rookies; with the salaries of earlier draft picks locked into place for several years. For example, if you're a first round pick, you get $600,000 in year 1 with the team that drafted you, $650,000 in year 2, and so on. Your team is allowed to negotiate a normal deal with you after year 4. In the absence of such a deal, you hit free agency in year 6.

 

If (for example) an undrafted player came into the league, played for three years, and then retired, he'd get $1.5 million under the above system; as compared to about $700,000 under the current system. So you're helping guys like that--which are exactly the kinds of players you should be helping! You're also helping retired players. Those who'd fare the worst under this new system are NFL draft busts, as well as those players who are currently the most highly paid. Those two categories of players are precisely the ones who are overpaid, and whose salaries should be reduced.

The 60% of revenues allocated to players never got to the vast majority of players, sinc emost were already under contract--the increase didn't being them any more money. Also, the increase is reflected only in a higher salary cap (which already was on schedule to increase every year as a result of increase in revenue). The difference in the cap increase before and after the CBA is maybe 5-7 points. The salary cap is a voluntary spending limit--no team has to spend to it. If teams don't spend to the cap, the 2006 CBA "pay increase" is moot. Raising the cap to infinity would not change much in this league--check out the spending for teams in 2009. Several high revenue teams were well under the cap.

 

The 40% of the gate Ralph gets from the JerryDome is likely as much as he gets from the Ralph--even without Jerry's skyboxes. Despite all of the checks Ralph has to write (which are an order of magnitude fewer than Jerry has to write), he still clears 10's of millions of dollars every year. The cap, increased or not, is not preventing any low revenue team from fielding a winner. Nor is crazy spending by the highest revenue teams leading to fielding winners either.

 

I agree with your suggestions, but the players won't take 50% of shared revenue. Let them have 50% of all--they're never going to see that money anyway, just like they didn't get it in 2006.

[K Gun Special]

The 60% of revenues allocated to players never got to the vast majority of players, sinc emost were already under contract--the increase didn't being them any more money. Also, the increase is reflected only in a higher salary cap (which already was on schedule to increase every year as a result of increase in revenue). The difference in the cap increase before and after the CBA is maybe 5-7 points. The salary cap is a voluntary spending limit--no team has to spend to it. If teams don't spend to the cap, the 2006 CBA "pay increase" is moot. Raising the cap to infinity would not change much in this league--check out the spending for teams in 2009. Several high revenue teams were well under the cap.

 

The 40% of the gate Ralph gets from the JerryDome is likely as much as he gets from the Ralph--even without Jerry's skyboxes. Despite all of the checks Ralph has to write (which are an order of magnitude fewer than Jerry has to write), he still clears 10's of millions of dollars every year. The cap, increased or not, is not preventing any low revenue team from fielding a winner. Nor is crazy spending by the highest revenue teams leading to fielding winners either.

 

I agree with your suggestions, but the players won't take 50% of shared revenue. Let them have 50% of all--they're never going to see that money anyway, just like they didn't get it in 2006.

 

 

They actually will see that money which is why they are fighting to keep it. Your point about the increase isnt right, since player who signed contracts after the CBA did benefit and did see that money.

 

If the whole thing was as you say, moot bc they will never see the money, there wouldnt be much of an argument would there?