Well-Thought-Out CBA Negotiation Article

[Turbosrrgood]

I feel very little sympathy for the either side, but especially the players. The minimum annual salary these guys make in the NFL is more than 99% + Americans will ever make in 1 year. Most starters make several million dollars a year....Oh, and they only work 6 months a year and can get endorsement deals on the side based on the popularity the NFL provides them. Who pays their salaries? The Owners?...Really, the FANS.

 

Yeah the owners are greedy too, but they put the hundreds of millions of dollars down to own or start the team. They are the Bosses, whether people like it or not.

 

No one is forcing these players to play for their "measly" multi-million dollar salaries. Top QB's get well over 100 million dollars per contract now...Sorry if I don't feel sorry for them.

[USABuffaloFan]

An NFL franchise is a business usually owned by 1 business individual. It is setup to share TV revenue/ticket revenue with players. Owners make extra monies with stadiums and players make extra monies with advertisers. The better the talent of the player the more revenue he gets, the better market the owner is in or business man the owner is will increase his teams revenue. Free agency insures the player, if lucky to be in league after 4-5 years, the ability to maximize their potential earnings not based from draft position.

 

Guess what, the owners are setup so they have to spend a certain amount of money to look competitive. Last I checked it is the star players salaries and rookie compensation of first round picks against the average player that is underpaid. Do those average players risk anything less than the well paid stars. A first round pick in the top ten rounds averages 5 years for 25 million. Alot of these players never bring that revenue return to the owners or fans.

 

As far as I am concern the players are at fault because they aren't even fairly compensating themselves more equally with the money available, the rich get richer even for them. What a owner makes is up to the NFL franchising and the individual owners. The NFL League is a trust that makes sure it maximizes individual owners investments make money. Yes it uses human beings to do this just like any others business except the fact they pay really well for the most part. The NFL needs to make sure for the future of the game that there are owners who anti up their money to buy franchises. The going rate is 700- to 1 billion dollars. Now if the bigger chunk of money goes to the players than how do you convince a potential owner to cough up $800 million for our Bills. If the profits aren't there that will never happen.

 

The NFL is protecting the league and under the current business model the individual owners need to show substantial profits to sell their franchises later. Maybe this model needs to change because of the tax money these franchises get from their cities and states. I believe since I am a fan that the teams should be owned by the cities with fees paid to the states. Let Buffalo decide how good a team they want and how much they want to pay and how well they will compensate a player. Yes you need a governing body so The NFL League office stays to represent the teams as a whole and drive revenue from media sources as a whole. Current owners get compensated by stocks that are sold for each franchise. I would buy Bills stock, players can to if they wish to business in.

[MikeSpeed]

To put my confusion in its simplest form... If the owners all get together and decide only to pay certain size salaries it's considered collusion, but if the players all get together and decide they won't play unless they get a certain amount of money it's considered a union?

[CosmicBills]

Is there anything more ridiculous than unions for pro athletes and hollywood actors?

 

I think not. Get to work, you leeches. The players will soon find out that the owners will put something else on the field, much like the studios did creating the reality TV business when the writers decided they weren't rich enough.

Okay, I know this isn't the topic but ...

 

Let's say I write a pilot. It gets bought by a studio for $50,000. That studio then makes the pilot and shops it to the networks -- one of which buys the pilot and puts it on their fall schedule. I continue to work on the show, writing episode after episode with a staff of writers and that show becomes a hit. Both critically and in the ratings. It generates millions of dollars for the network and studio in advertising revenue, VOD, DVD, merchandising and syndication rights. The entire premise of the show was created by me -- you are saying that I am not entitled to a fair share of those revenues simply because I'm a writer?

 

You could argue that I'm not owed anything more simply because without the network, I'd have no outlet for my product. The network and studios could air anything they wish -- however my show generates far more revenue than anything else they have or could have had that year. Without my show the network and studio would still make money from advertising. Viewers would still watch -- just not as much. With my show, the network and studio would generate MORE money than without it. The show is a product (yes, creative material in all its forms is still a product like any other widget) and my product makes more money for the studios and networks than they could make without it. But I shouldn't be given my fair share? How is that right? How can you justify that? How does expecting to be fairly compensated for the work that I created constitute being a leech?

 

The problem with being a writer is that because everyone can speak and knows the alphabet, everyone assumes what we do it easy. It ain't. Writing material is hard work. It's a muscle you have to work to improve. But even then you have to have talent. Some people have it, some don't. Just like any other profession where you work hard and deliver, writers deserve to be fairly compensated. Fair in relation to the revenues generated. You may think 50,000 is a lot of money (and it is) but if my material generates 100 million, 50,000 isn't exactly fair compensation. It's easy to overlook the impact a writer has (or actor, director, producer, or even athlete) until you see (or read) a bad script/show/movie/play/game. We've all seen them. We all loathe them.

 

The NFL players are in a very similar boat. The NFL can exist without the current players as many on this board have pointed out time and time again. The 32 owners can go out to any field in the country and find 55 players to fill out their rosters. They won't be nearly as talented as the current players. The product they produce won't be nearly as good or compelling. But there will be games played. If the NFL continued to use replacement players (and no NFL players crossed the line -- hypothetical of course), some fans would watch. Some would leave. Ratings would drop. Revenue would fall. It certainly wouldn't bottom out and it might even still make a killing in revenues -- but clearly the NFL would not be the entertainment giant it currently is without the talents of its current players. Ask yourself, would you pay for season tickets or for the Sunday Ticket if you knew you were going to be watching replacement players? Certainly there are those that would. But not as many as there are now.

 

Now, if you were to replace all 32 owners and keep all the current NFL players, the product on the field would have a far better chance at remaining profitable and compelling. Because, after all, it's about the product on the field not how much money each owner generates. Sure, they're related, one can't exist without the other, but at the end of the day what draws fans to the game and what increases revenues is the quality of the product on the field. It's the same with entertainment, you could replace Warner Brothers with Farmer Brothers and not notice a drop off in the quality of the product if the talent stayed (the writers, actors, directors, producers and crew).

 

NFL Players, like writers, actors, directors create the product that generates the revenue. Everyone is replaceable of course, and you could find diamonds in the rough that have the talent and abilities to create compelling entertainment. But overall, the quality of the product would drop significantly without these people. Far more so than if you replaced the ones who write them the checks.

 

So I guess the question you have to ask yourself is what you as a fan really care about. Maybe you care more about watching the entertainment product produced by the men with the best fiscal bottom line, regardless of quality. Call me crazy, but I'd rather spend my entertainment dollars on the best possible product. Maybe that makes me a leech.

[Turbosrrgood]

Okay, I know this isn't the topic but ...

 

Let's say I write a pilot. It gets bought by a studio for $50,000. That studio then makes the pilot and shops it to the networks -- one of which buys the pilot and puts it on their fall schedule. I continue to work on the show, writing episode after episode with a staff of writers and that show becomes a hit. Both critically and in the ratings. It generates millions of dollars for the network and studio in advertising revenue, VOD, DVD, merchandising and syndication rights. The entire premise of the show was created by me -- you are saying that I am not entitled to a fair share of those revenues simply because I'm a writer?

 

You could argue that I'm not owed anything more simply because without the network, I'd have no outlet for my product. The network and studios could air anything they wish -- however my show generates far more revenue than anything else they have or could have had that year. Without my show the network and studio would still make money from advertising. Viewers would still watch -- just not as much. With my show, the network and studio would generate MORE money than without it. The show is a product (yes, creative material in all its forms is still a product like any other widget) and my product makes more money for the studios and networks than they could make without it. But I shouldn't be given my fair share? How is that right? How can you justify that? How does expecting to be fairly compensated for the work that I created constitute being a leech?

 

The problem with being a writer is that because everyone can speak and knows the alphabet, everyone assumes what we do it easy. It ain't. Writing material is hard work. It's a muscle you have to work to improve. But even then you have to have talent. Some people have it, some don't. Just like any other profession where you work hard and deliver, writers deserve to be fairly compensated. Fair in relation to the revenues generated. You may think 50,000 is a lot of money (and it is) but if my material generates 100 million, 50,000 isn't exactly fair compensation. It's easy to overlook the impact a writer has (or actor, director, producer, or even athlete) until you see (or read) a bad script/show/movie/play/game. We've all seen them. We all loathe them.

 

The NFL players are in a very similar boat. The NFL can exist without the current players as many on this board have pointed out time and time again. The 32 owners can go out to any field in the country and find 55 players to fill out their rosters. They won't be nearly as talented as the current players. The product they produce won't be nearly as good or compelling. But there will be games played. If the NFL continued to use replacement players (and no NFL players crossed the line -- hypothetical of course), some fans would watch. Some would leave. Ratings would drop. Revenue would fall. It certainly wouldn't bottom out and it might even still make a killing in revenues -- but clearly the NFL would not be the entertainment giant it currently is without the talents of its current players. Ask yourself, would you pay for season tickets or for the Sunday Ticket if you knew you were going to be watching replacement players? Certainly there are those that would. But not as many as there are now.

 

Now, if you were to replace all 32 owners and keep all the current NFL players, the product on the field would have a far better chance at remaining profitable and compelling. Because, after all, it's about the product on the field not how much money each owner generates. Sure, they're related, one can't exist without the other, but at the end of the day what draws fans to the game and what increases revenues is the quality of the product on the field. It's the same with entertainment, you could replace Warner Brothers with Farmer Brothers and not notice a drop off in the quality of the product if the talent stayed (the writers, actors, directors, producers and crew).

 

NFL Players, like writers, actors, directors create the product that generates the revenue. Everyone is replaceable of course, and you could find diamonds in the rough that have the talent and abilities to create compelling entertainment. But overall, the quality of the product would drop significantly without these people. Far more so than if you replaced the ones who write them the checks.

 

So I guess the question you have to ask yourself is what you as a fan really care about. Maybe you care more about watching the entertainment product produced by the men with the best fiscal bottom line, regardless of quality. Call me crazy, but I'd rather spend my entertainment dollars on the best possible product. Maybe that makes me a leech.

 

Whoa, an essay...

[Turbosrrgood]

Just think of how fat Rex Ryan will get if there is no football this year...

[CosmicBills]

Whoa, an essay...

Dynamite drop in, Marty.

[Hplarrm]

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.

Anti-trust exists when the individual teams operate in collusion with each other without the players agreeing to this collusion through a certified bargaining agent. The agent is this case was the NFLPA until it decertified itself.

 

The CBA and labor law gives the union the right to decertify itself as the bargaining agent for the players and all contracts which are specifically written to exist within the context of the CBA are rendered void by this decert is my understanding.

 

The individual teams to have the right to reach a legal agreement with any individual it wants to. However, the do not have the right to collude with each other in setting contracts.

 

The NFL teams cannot act like competitors on the field and then collude with each other in contract negotiations with individual players.

 

It is however settled law that American society will allow for the trust like collusion of the team owners IF the rights of the individual players are protected in a collective bargaining agreement.

 

The NFLPA has not ceased to exist as an entity. Hence the meetings and pronouncement it makes. Individual players choose to pay dues and the NFLPA takes legal and organizing action on behalf of players to meet that contractual agreement.

 

However, what the NFLPA has done is decert itself as a bargaining agent for the players as it is allowed to do under US Labor law and the CBA. It still exists and offers representation of its members perspectives. However, among these services offered is no longer is it a certified bargaining agent.

 

I think the clearest example of NFL trust activities is the draft.

 

The NFL is allowed a limited exemption of anti-trust laws as overtime it has become clear that in order for many sports entertainment businesses to operate they need an orderly method of allocating players known as the draft. America going back to Teddy Roosevelt and the GOP back when they were Republicans had busted trust and cartels of businesses because the trod on the rights of individual and were inefficient economic engines for society. Overtime it became settled law that team owners were actually colluding in a manner which undercut the free market abilities of the individual through collusions like the MLB reserve clause.

 

Though this was flat out unconstitutional, the draft did have utility for operating. The settled legal mandate became its OK to undercut individuals with things like the draft, but society allows it as long as their is a certified players union negotiating salaries and work rules generally.

 

Some posters try to translate what the NFLPA is doing to their jobs and relationship with employers. They are wrong to think of the NFL as a normal employer and the draft is an example why. Lets take three companies and call themIBM, Apple and Microsoft. These employers compete for talent in our system.

 

However, if these or other "normal" employers operated like the NFL does with its limited anti-trust exemption, these computer companies would hold a draft of talented programmers and then the individual programmer would be barred from taking a job with Apple or IBM if Microsoft drafted him.

 

The abtu0tust lawsuit is not the NFLPA suing the NFL its these players whose CBA contracts are now void who are suing the NFL.

 

I actually think it is the college athletes like Gabbert and Newton who really have a case to be made here. The individual teams are colliuding with each other through the draft to assign players to one sole team instead of allowing them to sale their wares to the highest bidder.

 

It un-American!

[JohnC]

Anti-trust exists when the individual teams operate in collusion with each other without the players agreeing to this collusion through a certified bargaining agent. The agent is this case was the NFLPA until it decertified itself.

 

The CBA and labor law gives the union the right to decertify itself as the bargaining agent for the players and all contracts which are specifically written to exist within the context of the CBA are rendered void by this decert is my understanding.

 

The individual teams to have the right to reach a legal agreement with any individual it wants to. However, the do not have the right to collude with each other in setting contracts.

 

The NFL teams cannot act like competitors on the field and then collude with each other in contract negotiations with individual players.

 

It is however settled law that American society will allow for the trust like collusion of the team owners IF the rights of the individual players are protected in a collective bargaining agreement.

 

The NFLPA has not ceased to exist as an entity. Hence the meetings and pronouncement it makes. Individual players choose to pay dues and the NFLPA takes legal and organizing action on behalf of players to meet that contractual agreement.

 

However, what the NFLPA has done is decert itself as a bargaining agent for the players as it is allowed to do under US Labor law and the CBA. It still exists and offers representation of its members perspectives. However, among these services offered is no longer is it a certified bargaining agent.

 

I think the clearest example of NFL trust activities is the draft.

 

The NFL is allowed a limited exemption of anti-trust laws as overtime it has become clear that in order for many sports entertainment businesses to operate they need an orderly method of allocating players known as the draft. America going back to Teddy Roosevelt and the GOP back when they were Republicans had busted trust and cartels of businesses because the trod on the rights of individual and were inefficient economic engines for society. Overtime it became settled law that team owners were actually colluding in a manner which undercut the free market abilities of the individual through collusions like the MLB reserve clause.

 

Though this was flat out unconstitutional, the draft did have utility for operating. The settled legal mandate became its OK to undercut individuals with things like the draft, but society allows it as long as their is a certified players union negotiating salaries and work rules generally.

 

Some posters try to translate what the NFLPA is doing to their jobs and relationship with employers. They are wrong to think of the NFL as a normal employer and the draft is an example why. Lets take three companies and call themIBM, Apple and Microsoft. These employers compete for talent in our system.

 

However, if these or other "normal" employers operated like the NFL does with its limited anti-trust exemption, these computer companies would hold a draft of talented programmers and then the individual programmer would be barred from taking a job with Apple or IBM if Microsoft drafted him.

 

The abtu0tust lawsuit is not the NFLPA suing the NFL its these players whose CBA contracts are now void who are suing the NFL.

 

I actually think it is the college athletes like Gabbert and Newton who really have a case to be made here. The individual teams are colliuding with each other through the draft to assign players to one sole team instead of allowing them to sale their wares to the highest bidder.

 

It un-American!

 

Isn't it remarkable that the existence of a CBA is what allows the owners to make an exceptional profit, yet so many argue that the players' side of the CBA is fundamentally unfair because the owners should control the balance in the CBA. The CBA is the "agreed" upon legal framework that allows all the parties to do well.

 

As you noted it is the CBA that gives some semblance of order and and "designed" structure to this very profitable business. The antipathy towards one side of the equation doesn't make much sense. The wrestling between the competing factions is part of the process when any labor deal is reopened and negotiated. Both sides are linked in the business---although that linkage is what bothers a lot of people.

[Hplarrm]

Isn't it remarkable that the existence of a CBA is what allows the owners to make an exceptional profit, yet so many argue that the players' side of the CBA is fundamentally unfair because the owners should control the balance in the CBA. The CBA is the "agreed" upon legal framework that allows all the parties to do well.

 

As you noted it is the CBA that gives some semblance of order and and "designed" structure to this very profitable business. The antipathy towards one side of the equation doesn't make much sense. The wrestling between the competing factions is part of the process when any labor deal is reopened and negotiated. Both sides are linked in the business---although that linkage is what bothers a lot of people.

Exactly! Some folks seem to prefer principle over reality. It gets particularly weird when these "principled" folks seem to make up their own version of reality to fit their principles.

 

As Cornwall admits in his piece his opinion on this issue are actually driven by his self-interest. It is folks in the owners camp who seen to consistently pretend that they are motivated by principles when it is really simply self interest which motivates their views and not some alleged principles,

 

The pathetic thing is that many of the most vocal shock troops mouthing the owners line are actually buying a bill of good which actually serves only the owners self-interests and cuts against the little guy.

 

Cornwall does get right though that the real dispute here that given that by written rule the players are not only a partner in the NFL but in fact the majority partner is at the basis of this dispute. The old guard in the NFL team owners simply find it impossible to accept the fact that they are not the main party in charge of the NFL.

[JohnC]

Cornwall does get right though that the real dispute here that given that by written rule the players are not only a partner in the NFL but in fact the majority partner is at the basis of this dispute. The old guard in the NFL team owners simply find it impossible to accept the fact that they are not the main party in charge of the NFL.

 

The autocrat is not so much upset at the question that is being asked as much as there is someone questioning him. Having money stuffed in your pocket isn't an adequate enough salve when your primacy has been poked at.

 

In my view there was no way that this CBA battle was going to be avoided. The owners were psychologically scarred at what they perceived to be a deal that favored the players. It doesn't matter that the deal worked exceptionally well for the owners also. They couldn't coherently articulate what the problem was from a revenue standpoint with the deal.

 

I have no doubt that if Judge Doty didn't make the ruling against the owners in the blatantly illegal TV deal that the owners would have been willing to shut the system down for a year in order to rebalance the power relationship betwee the owners and the players. If only Hosni Mubarak had the stones of the owners he would still be in power.

[Hplarrm]

The autocrat is not so much upset at the question that is being asked as much as there is someone questioning him. Having money stuffed in your pocket isn't an adequate enough salve when your primacy has been poked at.

 

In my view there was no way that this CBA battle was going to be avoided. The owners were psychologically scarred at what they perceived to be a deal that favored the players. It doesn't matter that the deal worked exceptionally well for the owners also. They couldn't coherently articulate what the problem was from a revenue standpoint with the deal.

 

I have no doubt that if Judge Doty didn't make the ruling against the owners in the blatantly illegal TV deal that the owners would have been willing to shut the system down for a year in order to rebalance the power relationship betwee the owners and the players. If only Hosni Mubarak had the stones of the owners he would still be in power.

The owners playing the Ghadafi (or Quadaffi, or Daffy Duck or however he newsmedia is spelling it today) is an interesting comparison.

 

Given how the owners caved when confronted with actually having to compete in a free market after the first decertification, and then given how they caved again when their own hired minion Tagliaboo-boo argued with them they would be stupid not to sign the current CBA, my sense is there are two immediate precedents for the owners caving when confronted with reality.

 

My sense is that despite the strong feelings expressed by some on this board that the owners have the NFLPA in a hammerlock, that again there are objective signs that the in reality the NFLPA is setting the owners up once again.

 

Specifically:

 

1. The players maneuvered nicely in putting together the lawsuit against the owners for anti-trust with Brady, Manning, and Brees being lead named plaintiffs. One of the interesting aspects of NFLPA tactics is that a number of African-Americans have been prominent in their leadership roles (Gene Upshaw, Troy Vincent and even TKO Spikes are prominent among what I call the talented tenth who have tended to spend their off-seasons getting classes at Ivy League business schools rather than blinging out like Pac-Man Jones, Sharkey or the 80% or so of NFL athletes or our genetic mutants reinforced with drugs). My sense is that the vast majority of NFL athletes tend to actually be happy to be led by AFL-CIO types who unfortunately tend to be a little plodding in their strategic efforts.

 

The talented tenth appear to be smart enough not only to understand an hire rich smart NY lawyers to develop and sell approaches like the late 80s decert jujitsu that won that CBA, but also capture NFL hired leadership like Tagliaboo-boo to help them seal the deal on the last CBA the owners are trying to renegotiate now.

 

They were also smart enough to work with prominent high profile white athletes like Brady, Manning and Brees as the name plaintiffs which goes quite aways in terms of stopping efforts by the owners to undercut solidarity among the players, Meanwhile folks like Kevin Mawae have been vocal leaders keeping up the legacy of Upshaw. This lawsuit, its organizing and timely filing are objective signs which lead me to believe the same level of planning which saw the lowering of the decert boom in the late 80s is still happening.

 

2. The active effort to reach out to the rookie draft prospects is also quite interesting. To some degree it shows less of the authoritative organizing used with the building around the elected team player reps and greater commitment to transparency evident under Maurice Smith NFLPA leadership. Their messaging could be stronger but the organizing looks very good. However, I think I see the recognition that the draftees actually have a better legal case charging anti-trust than the existing players (basically by running a draft without a certified player bargaining agent the NFL is forcing rookies to negotiate with one and only one team rather than selling their services to the highest bidder among allegedly competing teams- one could try to claim that the NFL is a single entity amidst numerous competing forms of sports entertainment, however, it seems to be virtual black letter law after the courts ruled against the MLB reserve clause that what the NFL is doing is restraining free trade for individuals by assigning them to one and only one team.

 

The relationship with the draftees is an interesting one for the NFLPA though as they also are quite willing to have a rookie cap if the money goes to the vets and escalators are in place to increase vet salaries,

 

Still the players are clearly anticipating potential points of vulnerability and POTENTIALLY may be setting up for a mega move that benefits them a lot by setting up the competition of a second league which does some same job as the failed USFL and WFL or the successful AFL of bidding up player contracts.

 

At least I know enough to be uncertain as to what is happening, but the most amusing posts on TSW comes from the legends in their own minds who seem to claim they know exactly how this must play out.

 

The team owners made the same mistake of underestimating the talented tenth of players when the NFLPA force the NFL to really take then on as partners in the early 90s, and then arguably the players became majority partners (at least in writing) with the most recent CBA.

 

Why did the owners push to renegotiate this deal when it clearly has delivered them more wealth than could have been imagined under the old pretend capitalist model?

 

I think the answer is that Capts of industry like Mr. Ralph are simply vexed by being forced to be partners with the players and that they are making a push right now to get the player cap share pushed below 50%.

 

The Cornwall piece seems to show that the players view this primarily as a battle to be recognized as partners rather than mere employees. This is the battle which was raging the streets of Cairo, which folks are getting killed over in Bengazi right now and actually has gone on since Robin Hood squarely off against Prince John at least/

 

It is unclear who will win, but the players won in a walkover the last two times and to see posters simply dismiss them says more about the posters than it does about the situation.

[Sisyphean Bills]

At least I know enough to be uncertain as to what is happening, but the most amusing posts on TSW comes from the legends in their own minds who seem to claim they know exactly how this must play out.

Link?

[Orton's Arm]

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.

Exactly.

 

The players want the owners to open their books to show why they need more money.

 

Maybe the owners should demand that the players open their books to prove why they "need" 60% of revenues. To present audited statements indicating the major purchases each player has made over the last five years.

 

That could lead to quite an interesting discussion. "Excuse me, player rep, but are you sure that player ____ needed to spend $30,000 on his bar tab? Times are hard for everyone in a down economy. Might he have considered spending only $20,000 on that visit to the bar?" Or, "I see player _______ spent $50,000 on 'bling.' I am not even sure what 'bling' is, but I question the necessity of spending $50,000 on it."

 

If the players aren't willing to put themselves through that, they shouldn't demand that the owners open up their books.

[CosmicBills]

Exactly.

 

The players want the owners to open their books to show why they need more money.

 

Maybe the owners should demand that the players open their books to prove why they "need" 60% of revenues. To present audited statements indicating the major purchases each player has made over the last five years.

 

That could lead to quite an interesting discussion. "Excuse me, player rep, but are you sure that player ____ needed to spend $30,000 on his bar tab? Times are hard for everyone in a down economy. Might he have considered spending only $20,000 on that visit to the bar?" Or, "I see player _______ spent $50,000 on 'bling.' I am not even sure what 'bling' is, but I question the necessity of spending $50,000 on it."

 

If the players aren't willing to put themselves through that, they shouldn't demand that the owners open up their books.

:huh:

 

This is one of the most ridiculous posts in the entire conversation. I didn't think it was possible.

Edited March 20, 2011 by tgreg99

[Hplarrm]

Exactly.

 

The players want the owners to open their books to show why they need more money.

 

Maybe the owners should demand that the players open their books to prove why they "need" 60% of revenues. To present audited statements indicating the major purchases each player has made over the last five years.

 

That could lead to quite an interesting discussion. "Excuse me, player rep, but are you sure that player ____ needed to spend $30,000 on his bar tab? Times are hard for everyone in a down economy. Might he have considered spending only $20,000 on that visit to the bar?" Or, "I see player _______ spent $50,000 on 'bling.' I am not even sure what 'bling' is, but I question the necessity of spending $50,000 on it."

 

If the players aren't willing to put themselves through that, they shouldn't demand that the owners open up their books.

Ironically, there may already be an answer to your request depending upon under which IRS regs the NFLPA is incorporated. My guess is that like many unions it is a not-for-profit 501 c3. While this would not give you the numbers on how much Ryan Fitzpatrick spent on chicken wings, the NFLPA is not asking for that level of detail about individual owner purchases or even team purchases (in fact those details might interest Oprah, but the NFLPA would reject that level of detail as a distraction from the more general numbers they want declaring the receipts and profits of NFL teams.

 

As a group governed by IRS code 501c3 (or subsections governing other not-for-profit associations, the NFLPA would have its top 5 salaries and what they compensated people for. In addition, above a certain size these books would be audited and the results of the audit in terms of unusual expenditures like large bar tabs made public (for example one of the GOP associations last election got a bunch of press over them running up some significant bar tabs for consultants in Vegas where they were apparently preaching the good quiet life.

 

In addition to these gross figures which the NFL as a profit making entity does not have to release and which the NFLPA does not care about and is not asking for the NFLPA actually does release publicly with the agreement of the NFL the general salaries paid to individual players and even some details of their contract. The parties agreed to this public release as a method of being able to check general salary cap compliance by each team and the MFL.

 

Again, if you are looking for accounting of expenditures and money management by individual players, the NFLPA is not asking for nor does it care about individual expenditures by individual owners. It likely would want some gross accounting of large expenditures by teams and will need these to the extent a team may show limited profits but it turns out that one of their expenses is for something that steers money to the owner and thus away from the cap(ex/ the Bills cannot deduct from their profits payments of several million for singers of the Bills fight song if that singer is Mr. Ralph singing the song in his shower each morning.

 

However. my guess is by law and certainly known by us there is already greater transparency about payments by the NFLPA and to the players as salary than what is required of, given by, or even wanted from the owners by the NFLPA.

 

What the players are saying is that they would be happy to honor and go with the agreement they and the owners made several years ago.

 

The owners through this season into disorder by instead demanding a renegotiation of the deal they agreed to. They then offered up to their agreement partners that they did this because of team owner fiscal losses. When their agreement partners then asked to see the books of their agreement partners, the team owners refused.

 

It looks pretty straight forward to me.

[Orton's Arm]

:huh:

 

This is one of the most ridiculous posts in the entire conversation. I didn't think it was possible.

No, it wasn't. The players are demanding that the owners make a case that they need more money. Why shouldn't the owners demand the same in return from the players?

[Ramius]

:huh:

 

This is one of the most ridiculous posts in the entire conversation. I didn't think it was possible.

 

Not really. The players are employees. If they don't like making a smaller raise (notice, they are still getting a yearly raise, just smaller than before), they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

[yungmack]

Whatever goodwill the Owners had left is now gone. Smith made a brilliant move by stating they'd take an extension if the owners were willing to submit 10 years of audited financial information along with the submission. The owners declined. That's on them. For the owners to let this thing go this far off track simply by being unwilling to open their books when they are partners with the players is totally absurd. What are they hiding?

 

This is going to be ugly. If I'm the owners, I'm terrified right now because this will once again change how the league is run. Just like how Free Agency was forced upon them. It's going to get ugly. And now Judges are going to decide how the league will be run in the future.

 

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?

Best assessment of the situation I've read around here.

[Mr. WEO]

The absurdity lies in claiming that the owners and the players are business "partners". They are not. The CBA is gone, and so is any previous type of profit sharing arrangement or agreement that may have existed. The players obviously want another such agreement but it's not being offered. No other major sport has such and arrangement either. The players are instead being offered massive increases in salary (caps and minimums).

 

Private companies cannot be compelled to divulge info to employees.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Mr. WEO