Well-Thought-Out CBA Negotiation Article

[finknottle]

:

And the ridiculous statements made by the NFL after the decertification (that they agreed to meet all the NFLPA's numbers) is an outrageous, bold faced lie. The players are paid a percentage of revenue. Yet the owners are unwilling to show what that total revenue number ACTUALLY is. So, without showing what that number is, how can they agree to anything?

 

Opening the books is not the same thing as showing the television revenue. The TV revenue is straight-forward.

 

Opening the books means showing the individual finances of each team, from how much the ball boys make to how much they spend on catering. Suppose a bunch of teams are in the red, and a large part of the reason is because they have bloated non-player payrolls and high overhead. Will the union say "that's ok then," or will the next step see them telling those franchises how they should run their businesses so that the players can get what they think they deserve?

[rick in hartford]

My two cents:

 

Ownership is always in the drivers seat. Whatever they lose this year is a trade or business loss and offsets their other taxable income....so whatever they lose is net of tax.

 

The players on the other hand have overhead that needs readily available cash flow (see Travis Henry, Antonio Cromartie, Plexico Burress, etc). Once cash flow stops, pleasure builds and solitarity usually fades.

 

Public sentiment for unions; is on a down-swing. Where did all the protester in Madison go? Public opinion will only be 45/55-49/51 either way.

 

Opening books will never happen. If they want to see the book, buy a team otherwise piss-off. Do your employees ask to see your books when they come in for a raise? Did the mailman ask for your tax return becuase his tip didn't go up last year.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

I agree the article is lucid, well-written, and interesting. Even thought-provoking. It is not, however, balanced. It was written by a man who'd apparently been in line for being the head of the NFLPA; and who at times sounded a lot like a spokesman for the players.

 

The NFL players are employees. They typically arrive in the NFL with little or no money, are paid handsome salaries, and then retire. But to read Cornwell's article, you'd think the players were "investors" in the league. Consider the following sentence: "NFL players make a $596 million investment ($1 billion of current credits multiplied by 59.6%) in the business every year." Compare those words to the underlying reality that statement is intended to represent. The first $1 billion of annual revenues the NFL receives does not count towards the salary cap so that owners can pay for their non-player expenses. That is not an "investment" being made in the NFL by the players.

 

Suppose a restaurant owner has ten employees, each of whom makes $25,000 a year. His annual revenues from the restaurant are $350,000 a year. The gap between his annual revenues (of $350K) and his annual employee expenses (of $250K) does not represent a $100K a year "investment" in the business by those ten employees. That $100K a year is money that the owner can use to pay non-employee expenses, invest in the business (advertising, building renovations, etc.), or keep for his own personal use.

 

His argument that players are "partners" is similarly weak. He argues that NFL players are partners with the owners because of the NFL's strict off-field conduct policy. However, similar rules exist for other employees in other businesses, without those employees being designated partners. For example, winners of the Miss America pageant are asked to avoid embarrassing incidents, and are subjected to strict personal conduct rules. The existence of such rules does not make them "partners" with whoever it is that sponsors the Miss America pageant. If NFL cheerleaders were subjected to strict off-field conduct policies (which for all I know they are), no one could reasonably point to that as evidence they'd somehow become business partners with guys like Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft.

 

Cornwell uses his argument that NFL players are partners and "investors" in the NFL as a springboard for his next suggestion: stock options for NFL players. This, despite the fact that he points out the following: "Delayed revenues, i.e., revenues generated by today’s investment but not realized within 3.5 years (the average length of an NFL player’s career), are not shared with some the NFL players who actually make the investment."

 

Stock options are typically not given to employees who are only expected to be around 3.5 years. They make the most sense for young, quickly growing companies with a core of elite-level employees who could easily take their talents elsewhere. If a talented young programmer is deciding whether to work for Microsoft or a start-up, Microsoft may well be able to offer him a better salary. But the start-up's stock options will have the higher upside.

 

There is also the problem of dilution. If Microsoft offers stock options to its employees the dilution effect is likely to be minimal, because there's already so much Microsoft stock in existence anyway. If the start-up offers stock options to its most critical employees, the dilution effect will be stronger. But that will presumably be more than balanced out by the fact that those stock options allow it to attract and retain a more talented group of employees than it otherwise could have.

 

Cornwell's proposal would involve a considerable dilution effect. The NFL has a large number of players, and as he pointed out himself they come and go quickly. Think of the long-term effects of giving everyone like that stock options. Suppose you were to give all current players a 5% ownership share in the NFL. 5% ownership may not seem like much. But with the average player career being 3.5 years, that would mean that on average you'd have to give another 5% ownership share to the players every 3.5 years! That's a 28% share over the course of 20 years, and a 43% share over 30 years. Eventually, the NFL would be wholly owned by former players or their heirs. It is clearly not in NFL owners' long-term interests to do that. On the contrary: the NFL owners could cut the salary cap to 20% of shared revenues without the risk of losing very many players to other leagues. (Such as the CFL.) It's in the owners' interests to push as far as they can in that direction; rather than slowly giving away their ownership of the league to the players.

yes, this was my takeaway also...

 

well written, but way too biased and unrealistic.

 

as you say, early stage companies give stock options to the people they expect to retain for a number of years, not short term talent that goes where the money is.

 

also conspicuously absent was any mention of rookie wage scale

[BillsPhan]

Wonderful.

 

 

Of all the times Congressmen and Senators "threatened" the NFL to attack their anti trust exemption over the years over player safety, teams leaving cities, players getting too crazy off the field and various other times, how ironic that the NFL's biggest attack will be coming from their own players!

 

Shame on the players and the owners, to allow it to come down to a court room deciding how to divide up their billions. How pathetically greedy and selfish of all of them.

[vincec]

"The claim will be that now that the players are not represented by a union, and therefore are independent employees, any lockout attempts by the owners is ostensibly an organized boycott of workers by 32 businesses working in concert, a violation of antitrust law."

http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=784:unable-to-breach-gap-with-nflpa-dissolves-files-antitrust-lawsuit&catid=34:nfl-news&Itemid=53

 

What I don't understand is: How can the players force the owners to conduct business? If the league continued playing but barred players in the union from participating then I would understand, but If the league shuts down for a year then what is the players case? Can they force the owners to continue conducting business?

 

Also, the owners are certainly correct in their assertion that the union decertification is a sham and that the players are still acting in concert with each other. I don't know if this means anything legally though.

 

Anyway, just curious if anyone has an explanation for this.

Edited March 12, 2011 by vincec

[CosmicBills]

Can you stop your crusade? They're both at fault. Seriously, did all 32 NFL owners pee in your cheerios?

Actually they did. They pissed in every NFL fans' cheerios by forcing this work stoppage. The players want to play. The owners don't.

[truth on hold]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AgCsylawcZeCHJGG48ZClDg5nYcB?slug=ap-nfllabor

 

read that. if its accurate players got what they wanted. 16 game season. revenue split off the top with owners, rookie cap, receive audited financials ... seriously wtf more do they want?

 

I know it's easy to blame the owners, but after reading this I think players are being unreasonable

Edited March 12, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack

[CodeMonkey]

I see a lot of fan outrage in this and other threads.

So ... what are you outraged fans going to do about it?

The answer for the vast majority is ultimately nothing.

Most will whine, piss, and moan until some kind of deal happens then start kissing ass again.

The players and owners know this well and bank on it.

[CosmicBills]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AgCsylawcZeCHJGG48ZClDg5nYcB?slug=ap-nfllabor

 

read that. if its accurate players got what they wanted. 16 game season. revenue split off the top with owners, rookie cap, receive audited financials ... seriously wtf more do they want?

 

I know it's easy to blame the owners, but after reading this I think players are being unreasonable

PR spin control. The main issue is money. Always has been. Always will be. And the owners decided to create a system where they pay their employees a percentage of the total revenue. When they did that they created a partnership. But they expect the players to take their word on what that total number actually is. On trust alone. Now, there isn't a business in the world that would agree to sign a new deal based on this principle without seeing the books. The fact that the NFL is insisting that they met the players' finical demands is a bold faced lie since the desired number is a percentage of a number the owners refuse to acknlowdge.

 

If the owners didn't have anything to hide they would show the books. If the leave was really not making record profits and generating record revenues, they'd show their books because it would take whatever leverage the players have away.

 

The 18 game schedule and rookie cap are side shows. It's about the money.

[weehawk]

No problem. Now I dont have to watch 10 mins of the Bills only to turn it off and mow the lawn. Now I can just mow the lawn. Win/win for me.

[macaroni]

Decertifying then let's the players sue for anti-trust violations. The NFL would be in violation of anti-trust laws, but the players have collectively bargained that away....Now, that are decertifying, they are basically making a mess of the owners.

 

 

But exactly what would be the anti-trust law violations???

 

The NFL does not involve themselves in individual contract negotiations ... nor do they involve themself in contract length ... or arbitrarily decide who can go where. The individual teams have individual contracts with individual players, contract size, contract length, and contract provisions are between the player and team.

 

The league rules only dictate restrictions on the teams (such as roster size, drafting order, waiver wire order, and salary cap) to allow for a far playing field.

 

I really don't understand what the class action suit can be suing for.

[boyst]

But exactly what would be the anti-trust law violations???

 

The NFL does not involve themselves in individual contract negotiations ... nor do they involve themself in contract length ... or arbitrarily decide who can go where. The individual teams have individual contracts with individual players, contract size, contract length, and contract provisions are between the player and team.

 

The league rules only dictate restrictions on the teams (such as roster size, drafting order, waiver wire order, and salary cap) to allow for a far playing field.

 

I really don't understand what the class action suit can be suing for.

For being idiots. Plain and simple, idiots. They milked the cow for decades now, got the best deal they have ever had and now wonder why that cow is so thin. The league is not broke but I am sure it is not headquartered at a golden palace that rivals something in the UAE.

 

They are using it as a ploy to give the NFL a headache. Even if they do a new CBA the class action suit can continue...and likely will. How will it be in 3 or 4 years when the suit is still on the table and we're playing ball? As long as there are players who still want to become a part of this class action suit then it cannot be dropped. It is similar to those drug company lawsuits where lawyers look for "victims." Except, in this case the NFL is not breaking any anti-trust laws. The only reason they are in any violations is because the NFLPA doesn't want to negotiate the contract.

[CosmicBills]

But exactly what would be the anti-trust law violations???

 

The NFL does not involve themselves in individual contract negotiations ... nor do they involve themself in contract length ... or arbitrarily decide who can go where. The individual teams have individual contracts with individual players, contract size, contract length, and contract provisions are between the player and team.

 

The league rules only dictate restrictions on the teams (such as roster size, drafting order, waiver wire order, and salary cap) to allow for a far playing field.

 

I really don't understand what the class action suit can be suing for.

Unlike MLB, the NFL does NOT have a federal anti-trust exemption. They operate in the shadows -- Congress doesn't get involved because by and large the NFLPA and Owners have managed to co-exist rather peacefully. Especially in comparisons to other leagues. Most of that is because the NFLPA is the weakest of all the professional unions.

 

By filing anti-trust lawsuits, legit or not, it guarantees that the process will now be long and drawn out. Filing in Minnesota where the judge is pro-players and the owners filing counter suits in other states where the judges are more pro-owner will only make it MORE of a mess. For the owners, this is a clusterf*&k of epic proportions because now, no matter which side wins, federal judges will determine the structure of the NFL going forward.

 

The Owners have the ability to outlast the players, and they know it. But how they could ever let it go this far is beyond me. It's sheer arrogance that the NFL fans will put up with them not having a season (the owners think they will, and so do the players) -- both are going to end up losing. But no one loses as much as the fans.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

The way I see it:

NFL Owners:I need you to take a pay cut, work more days, and we're not going to employ any more help.

NFLPA: Why?

NFL Owners: Because we're poor (while having their Harem feed them grapes and fan them.)

Sounds like typical discussion between me and my boss. The CEO got a 30% raise a doubled bonus from last year, I got less and no raise

[CosmicBills]

For being idiots. Plain and simple, idiots. They milked the cow for decades now, got the best deal they have ever had and now wonder why that cow is so thin. The league is not broke but I am sure it is not headquartered at a golden palace that rivals something in the UAE.

 

They are using it as a ploy to give the NFL a headache. Even if they do a new CBA the class action suit can continue...and likely will. How will it be in 3 or 4 years when the suit is still on the table and we're playing ball? As long as there are players who still want to become a part of this class action suit then it cannot be dropped. It is similar to those drug company lawsuits where lawyers look for "victims." Except, in this case the NFL is not breaking any anti-trust laws. The only reason they are in any violations is because the NFLPA doesn't want to negotiate the contract.

That is totally ludicrous. How do you know how skinny the cow is when the owners won't tell anyone? They won't even show the cow in public. They'll show its hind legs. Maybe its udders. But not the whole cow. Why? If it really was that skinny, don't you think it would serve the owners' interests to parade that cow around town???

 

You're telling me that if your employer paid you a percentage of the revenue the company earns, you'd agree to take a pay cut (which is what they are asking) without asking to see how much revenue is actually being generated? No sane person would do that.

Edited March 12, 2011 by tgreg99

[boyst]

That is totally ludicrous. How do you know how skinny the cow is when the owners won't tell anyone? They won't even show the cow in public. They'll show its hind legs. Maybe its udders. But not the whole cow. Why? If it really was that skinny, don't you think it would serve the owners' interests to parade that cow around town???

 

You're telling me that if your employer paid you a percentage of the revenue the company earns, you'd agree to take a pay cut (which is what they are asking) without asking to see how much revenue is actually being generated? No sane person would do that.

My company does pay me a % of what it earns. You know how I know how much I earn compared to what is made by the company? I pay attention, I do some math, and I know what things cost. There is no way some half-retard NFL player knows what the NFL spends money on, and just because these kids go to college doesn't mean they're intelligent. Go read CJ Spillers twitter. The guy is illiterate and has no understanding of the english grammar, same with so many others, 'brah. What this boils down to is there are those that are acting as representatives that are believed to be acting in the best interest of those players when in reality I promise you they are self serving. It says nothing noble that Brady, Brees, or Manning is filing the suit. It is PR. What happens when you see a lawsuit from Stallworth, Hardy, and JaMarcuss Russell what are you going to think? Exactly. This is all a crapshoot and it's all a work.

 

How do I know the cow is thin? Well, lets see; we're in a recession, for one. Costs are going up, too. That the NFLPA got a sweet deal last time is great. This is the NFL's league at the end of the day and they should be entitled to do whatever they want.

 

Why would the NFL want anyone to know how much it makes? Why would Ralph Wilson want anyone to know how much his neice makes? Why would anyone in the NFL allow the world to see what they make to scrutinize over? They offered to give it to a 3rd party, and that's all that matters. What multibillion dollar industry do you know that would flat out open their books for the public?

Edited March 12, 2011 by jboyst62

[macaroni]

Unlike MLB, the NFL does NOT have a federal anti-trust exemption. They operate in the shadows -- Congress doesn't get involved because by and large the NFLPA and Owners have managed to co-exist rather peacefully. Especially in comparisons to other leagues. Most of that is because the NFLPA is the weakest of all the professional unions.

 

By filing anti-trust lawsuits, legit or not, it guarantees that the process will now be long and drawn out. Filing in Minnesota where the judge is pro-players and the owners filing counter suits in other states where the judges are more pro-owner will only make it MORE of a mess. For the owners, this is a clusterf*&k of epic proportions because now, no matter which side wins, federal judges will determine the structure of the NFL going forward.

 

The Owners have the ability to outlast the players, and they know it. But how they could ever let it go this far is beyond me. It's sheer arrogance that the NFL fans will put up with them not having a season (the owners think they will, and so do the players) -- both are going to end up losing. But no one loses as much as the fans.

 

 

Maybe I'm not asking my question clearly .... so I'll try again;

 

Drew Brees will be one of the names on the class action suit right?

Drew has a contract with the Saints (not the league)right?

Drews contract is based on dollars per year and NOT on a percentage of the Saints (or the leagues) profits right?

He can either honor the contract and get paid, or sit out and not get paid right?

 

Whats his beef? what fault does he need corrected?

 

I understood the ant-trust angle when the players were fighting for free angency ... but what does it have to do with "I want more money"?

 

(by the way I don't mean to be bashing Drew Brees .... I'm just using his name as an example)

[Saint Doug]

The players have no right to demand that the owners open their books - it's really none of their business since it's not their club. Why do the players think the owners have to prove that the owners need/deserve their own money? Lol.

 

Let's suppose one of us went to our company's CEO and said "gee Joe, you know I'm in need a big raise and I would like to go over the company's accounting books to see if you guys have any extra money for me." We would be laughed out of the office.

 

If the players think they deserve owner's money, they can become owners themselves and form their own league. Problem is, with the way they handle their money, they would run it into the ground in a few years of dumb financial decisions.

[CosmicBills]

My company does pay me a % of what it earns. You know how I know how much I earn compared to what is made by the company? I pay attention, I do some math, and I know what things cost. There is no way some half-retard NFL player knows what the NFL spends money on, and just because these kids go to college doesn't mean they're intelligent. Go read CJ Spillers twitter. The guy is illiterate and has no understanding of the english grammar, same with so many others, 'brah. What this boils down to is there are those that are acting as representatives that are believed to be acting in the best interest of those players when in reality I promise you they are self serving. It says nothing noble that Brady, Brees, or Manning is filing the suit. It is PR. What happens when you see a lawsuit from Stallworth, Hardy, and JaMarcuss Russell what are you going to think? Exactly. This is all a crapshoot and it's all a work.

 

How do I know the cow is thin? Well, lets see; we're in a recession, for one. Costs are going up, too. That the NFLPA got a sweet deal last time is great. This is the NFL's league at the end of the day and they should be entitled to do whatever they want.

Wow, you sound so hateful it's painful. And also very uninformed.

 

The players' intelligence has nothing to do with this. Nor does the owners. It's about what's right and fair. You can't just "pay attention" and expect to know how much your employer makes. You'll be guessing. That's all. It might be an educated guess, but are you willing to bet your livelyhood on a guess? Should you have to? Of course not.

 

You don't know the cow is thin. Because it's not. The NFL is the most popular form of entertainment in the country. Bigger than movies, TV or music. It KILLS in the ratings. Networks throw money at teams to get their product. As do fans. Despite the recession the NFL broke records in terms of profit, ratings and income.

 

Look at it another way. I work in a business that operates much the same way. The big bosses (studios and networks) are brilliant at hiding money in obscene budgets as a way NOT to pay the creators their fair share. It's a business filled with very very smart people. But not even those smart people can "pay attention" and know what the actual numbers are. It just doesn't work that way. If the recent economic downturn has shown us anything, it's that corporations are always out for themselves first and foremost. They will screw over their own employers to get a better bottom line. The NFL is a corporation. The union is needed to keep it in check.

 

Maybe I'm not asking my question clearly .... so I'll try again;

 

Drew Brees will be one of the names on the class action suit right?

Drew has a contract with the Saints (not the league)right?

Drews contract is based on dollars per year and NOT on a percentage of the Saints (or the leagues) profits right?

He can either honor the contract and get paid, or sit out and not get paid right?

 

Whats his beef? what fault does he need corrected?

 

I understood the ant-trust angle when the players were fighting for free angency ... but what does it have to do with "I want more money"?

 

(by the way I don't mean to be bashing Drew Brees .... I'm just using his name as an example)

It isn't "I want more money". It's "I don't want to take a pay CUT".

 

The players are NOT asking for more money. The Owners are trying to cut their pay by 1 billion dollars.

 

That's the difference.

 

The players have no right to demand that the owners open their books - it's really none of their business since it's not their club. Why do the players think the owners have to prove that the owners need/deserve their own money? Lol.

 

Let's suppose one of us went to our company's CEO and said "gee Joe, you know I'm in need a big raise and I would like to go over the company's accounting books to see if you guys have any extra money for me." We would be laughed out of the office.

 

If the players think they deserve owner's money, they can become owners themselves and form their own league. Problem is, with the way they handle their money, they would run it into the ground in a few years of dumb financial decisions.

You're missing the big picture. The players have EVERY right to ask for this since the Owners designed a system that pays the players based on a percentage of total revenue earned. How else can the players know they are getting paid according to the rules both parties agreed to if the owners refuse to show them how much revenue is actually generated?

 

That's like saying this ... I hire you and agree to pay you 50% of all the apples I sell. I come to you at the end of the year and hand you 100 dollars and say I only sold 200 dollars worth of apples. You're telling me you think you don't have a right to ask to see my books to prove that I only sold 200 dollars worth?

[boyst]

Wow, you sound so hateful it's painful. And also very uninformed.

 

The players' intelligence has nothing to do with this. Nor does the owners. It's about what's right and fair. You can't just "pay attention" and expect to know how much your employer makes. You'll be guessing. That's all. It might be an educated guess, but are you willing to bet your livelyhood on a guess? Should you have to? Of course not.

 

You don't know the cow is thin. Because it's not. The NFL is the most popular form of entertainment in the country. Bigger than movies, TV or music. It KILLS in the ratings. Networks throw money at teams to get their product. As do fans. Despite the recession the NFL broke records in terms of profit, ratings and income.

 

Look at it another way. I work in a business that operates much the same way. The big bosses (studios and networks) are brilliant at hiding money in obscene budgets as a way NOT to pay the creators their fair share. It's a business filled with very very smart people. But not even those smart people can "pay attention" and know what the actual numbers are. It just doesn't work that way. If the recent economic downturn has shown us anything, it's that corporations are always out for themselves first and foremost. They will screw over their own employers to get a better bottom line. The NFL is a corporation. The union is needed to keep it in check.

1- They all make more then the average person.

 

2- Darwin says if you're smart you'll survive, if not adapt. If the players want to make a lot of money leave the NFL and go make a money. Employment in this country is not something that is promised.

 

3- The recent economic downturn has caused many companies to have to rethink their spending. Something they haven't had to do for decades. Now that they are, can you blame them? Would you rather have them spend all of their capital the same way they had for the last 15 years until they are out of business and everyone is laid off?

 

4- I am hardly hateful, I am just annoyed. Roddy White complaining he has to pay $20k in cobra? Well, cobra is extremely expensive. Only a fool uses it. I do not know if he has any kids, or if he is married, or what...but trust me, there are people in worse position in this country right now then Mr. White. The thought that Manning cares that Corto has to struggle to make ends meet right now is laughable. If Corto struggles then it is his own fault.

 

5- Yup, the NFL makes more then most other businesses and it also spends more then most businesses. It advertises, and has to pay operating costs etc. The NFL is not a physical entity, though. It is a group of teams that fall under the umbrella. Many of those teams are pretty highly leveraged in debt, have high operating costs, and must employ a community of support staff.

 

6- This is a free country and like I have pointed out...If Brees does not think playing in the NFL is fair for him against what he has to go through, sit down, shut up and find another job. Because, believe me, someone will fill his shoes and if the NFL fails at giving a product that the fans like, they'll leave with Brees, too.

 

...blablabla...

 

Move to the USSR, Cuba, or something. Heck, move to China. Then come back and talk to us.