Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money

[Sisyphean Bills]

It is the players who if they win the lawsuit the game continues as it is for us fans.

This statement is absurd. The NFL game, as it is, does act like a trust and does violate anti-trust laws. That's why they lose every time they go to court. Forcing the NFL teams to act as 32 separate competing corporations through the courts, which is exactly what the NFLPA led lawsuit is directed at doing, would be the exact opposite result of keeping things just as they were.

[Jauronimo]

Who do you think is advocating a free market approach here and who do you think prefers a more socialist approach based on a compact of a group.

 

It is the players who if they win the lawsuit the game continues as it is for us fans.

 

If the owners instead prevail in the court case it means a truncated season if not a couple of years where the action is in the courts and not on the field.

 

You do understand this don't you?

 

As a by-product of the lockout, individual players in Brady et al have filed suit and demanded that the NFL team owners use a free market approach and sign individual personal services contracts.

 

One of the faults I find with the NFLPA is that they have colluded with the team owners to completely abridge the rights of individual players to live where they choose to live and instead they are forced by the NFL draft to negotiate with one and only one team.

 

For those who want to uphold individual rights over forced negotiations created by the team owners simply begging the NFLPA to come back after the last lockout if you are worried about individuals being told what to do then opposing the owners is where you should be.

I can honestly say that I haven't the slightest clue what you're getting at.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Yes, it is time for wealth redistribution. I have a series of 5 year plans designed to bring this country into the modern age. Everything old will be forbidden. Land owners are the enemy of the state, and their wealth will be shared among the working class. I'll hand out the little red books this weekend. Portraits of Hplarrm will be hung in every household.

 

Besides that, a union can and does drive up labor costs over a work-at-will independent contractor scenario. The notion that the owners didn't want the NFLPA to decertify because labor costs would skyrocket is laughable. Labor costs doubled in the last decade with the NFLPA. The owners want the union so that they can continue to conduct a profitable NFL entertainment business exactly as they have, with a draft, with stable franchises, with single point negotiations on TV contracts, official merchandising ventures, and so on.

[Mickey]

Very interesting read:

 

http://www.revengeof...give-back-money

 

 

In all the discussions about this topic I remember some posters saying the NFL needs to open the books and be more like the NBA. Well, in one sense, they've gotten their wish:

 

http://www.variety.c...le/VR1118032543

 

"National Basketball Players Assn. exec director Billy Hunter has said he's "99%" sure that a lockout will occur."

 

"We need a system that provides all 30 teams, regardless of market size, an opportunity to compete for a championship and be profitable," NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver says."

 

Kind of like the NFL has?

 

"According to Forbes, more than half the NBA's clubs (17 of 30) are losing money, with five teams facing deficits in the double-digit millions. Saying that the current system is completely broken, the league aims to cut player salaries by $700 million to $800 million annually -- a whopping reduction of 40% from what the players make now."

 

 

Sounds like the NBA will have an NFL-style lockout and that at the end of the day they need to structure themselves more like the NFL.

 

So much for opening the books. Shouldn't this mean the players will readily accept these salary reductions since they can look at the figures themselves?

 

We'll see.

Why would a look at the NBA's books tell the players anything about whether or not the NFL's claims that a new deal is mandated by economic conditions? The players aren't looking to turn the NFL in to the NBA. They league said that the old CBA wasn't working and the players just asked for them to prove it. When the league started making offers in negotiations, they told the players that they were good offers given economic realities and the players just asked them to prove it. The league has refused. Thus, the players have no way of knowing if they are getting a good deal or not.

 

I think maybe you are under the erroneous impression that this whole thing started because the players want to get rid of revenue sharing, the draft and the limitations on player movement. This thing started because the league said that they wanted a new deal and dumped the old CBA. The players long ago won a series of cases on free agency, enough so that the league finally cut them in for a piece of the revenues. The players traded their freedom, in the sense of selling their services to the highest bidder, in exchange for a piece of the action. The league now wants to change the size of the players "piece". That is why there is no football right now. The league brought on this crisis, they are the ones looking to change the status quo.

 

They may have perfectly valid reasons for doing so, such as, the economics of the old deal simply not working. If that is true, its simple math, open the books would show that to be true and then the players wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The fact that the league will not do that very simple thing makes me very suspicious that in fact, their claims of economic necessity are false.

 

What NFL teams are losing money??? The last Forbes story I looked at (2010 I think) had only two teams losing money, Detroit and Miami. It was the first time Miami has lost money in the 10 years they graphed out in the story. Detroit had a terrible team and the place is a ghost town. If there is a problem, the league should just prove it, get the players to shoulder their share of the fix and then get back to playing football.

 

 

[Orton's Arm]

Why would a look at the NBA's books tell the players anything about whether or not the NFL's claims that a new deal is mandated by economic conditions? The players aren't looking to turn the NFL in to the NBA. They league said that the old CBA wasn't working and the players just asked for them to prove it. When the league started making offers in negotiations, they told the players that they were good offers given economic realities and the players just asked them to prove it. The league has refused. Thus, the players have no way of knowing if they are getting a good deal or not.

 

I think maybe you are under the erroneous impression that this whole thing started because the players want to get rid of revenue sharing, the draft and the limitations on player movement. This thing started because the league said that they wanted a new deal and dumped the old CBA. The players long ago won a series of cases on free agency, enough so that the league finally cut them in for a piece of the revenues. The players traded their freedom, in the sense of selling their services to the highest bidder, in exchange for a piece of the action. The league now wants to change the size of the players "piece". That is why there is no football right now. The league brought on this crisis, they are the ones looking to change the status quo.

 

They may have perfectly valid reasons for doing so, such as, the economics of the old deal simply not working. If that is true, its simple math, open the books would show that to be true and then the players wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The fact that the league will not do that very simple thing makes me very suspicious that in fact, their claims of economic necessity are false.

 

What NFL teams are losing money??? The last Forbes story I looked at (2010 I think) had only two teams losing money, Detroit and Miami. It was the first time Miami has lost money in the 10 years they graphed out in the story. Detroit had a terrible team and the place is a ghost town. If there is a problem, the league should just prove it, get the players to shoulder their share of the fix and then get back to playing football.

I strongly disagree with the bolded sentence. The players' percentage of revenues has expanded, and has grown to about 60%. The definition of "revenues" has also expanded to include a large portion of unshared revenues. Even if the owners had zero expenses--even if coaches, front office personnel, security staff, administrative people, grounds crews, and so on all worked for free, that would still represent a very good deal for the players. A much better deal than almost any of them could possibly hope to attain in any other available employment opportunity. Conversely, if someone had a billion dollars to invest, there are any number of investments which would produce a much better rate of return than would buying an NFL franchise.

[Scrappy]

The league TV revenues are projected to double over the next 10 years, will the fixed costs double?? I think not, so let's all take that into consideration.

[syhuang]

Why would a look at the NBA's books tell the players anything about whether or not the NFL's claims that a new deal is mandated by economic conditions? The players aren't looking to turn the NFL in to the NBA. They league said that the old CBA wasn't working and the players just asked for them to prove it. When the league started making offers in negotiations, they told the players that they were good offers given economic realities and the players just asked them to prove it. The league has refused. Thus, the players have no way of knowing if they are getting a good deal or not.

 

I think maybe you are under the erroneous impression that this whole thing started because the players want to get rid of revenue sharing, the draft and the limitations on player movement. This thing started because the league said that they wanted a new deal and dumped the old CBA. The players long ago won a series of cases on free agency, enough so that the league finally cut them in for a piece of the revenues. The players traded their freedom, in the sense of selling their services to the highest bidder, in exchange for a piece of the action. The league now wants to change the size of the players "piece". That is why there is no football right now. The league brought on this crisis, they are the ones looking to change the status quo.

 

 

The whole thing actually began in last CBA negotiation when player threatened a strike. Owners avoided the crisis and accepted last CBA right before deadline in order to buy more time to prepare for this CBA negotiation. Players got what they wanted in revenue share percentage.

 

The last CBA had an opt out clause for both parties to end the agreement without cause or reason with notice. It means the original agreement is not working as one hoped, and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, "without cause" means owners do not need to provide anything or explain anything to players, including financial data. However, after owners optioned out, NFLPA still played media and wanted a proof of the cause, even though NFLPA agreed owners could option out "without cause" in last CBA,

 

Some people like to say owners dump the last CBA or owners break the last CBA. No, owners followed the agreement to option out last CBA.And both sides agreed either party could option out "without cause".

 

As for your conspiracy theory of owners not opening their books, it's fairly simple. While some teams, especially small market teams, are struggling, there are teams like Cowboys still earned a lot of money. If not all owners agree to open books, they can't do it. It's all or nothing.

[CosmicBills]

I don't buy that at all. If the players just wanted to play, they'd sign whatever CBA the owners already offered and go play.

Well then, friend, we must agree to disagree. The players would continue to play today under the old CBA, the one where owners made record breaking profits, if the owners hadn't opted to back out of the deal.

 

That's not an interpretation of the facts. That's just a fact.

 

Did the owners have a right to back out? Sure. But at the end of the day the reason why there is no football right now is because the owners are choosing not to play. That's not an opinion. That's not something you can agree with or disagree with. That's just how it is.

 

And why did the Owners take this path? Because no games = no game checks which = a weaker union and thus a better CBA for the Owners. It's not a mystery. It's all a negotiation.

 

Let me put it to you another way, even though the NFL is NOT a traditional employer/employee relationship (and never has been), let's hypothetically assume you were a member of a union. Then let's say your boss came to you and said, despite the fact you generated record breaking profits for your company with the work YOU did, he was going to ask you to take a pay cut so he could put more dollars into his own pocket (not the company's). Would you just accept that as the cost of doing business and go on your way happy to just have a job?

 

No !@#$ing way. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. If it were you, you'd reach out to your union and make a stink. If you didn't, you're not only naive but spineless. So how can you possibly expect the players to roll over and take it without putting up a fight when no one else on this board would do the same thing if you were in their position? Why shouldn't the players have a right to fight for what's fair?

 

Oh, right. Because they're athletes, the majority of whom are African American men in their 20s, who are paid to play a game. I forgot. Fug 'em. It's their fault.

 

 

The Superbowl Champion Packers made less than 10 million (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5379673). We can go back and forth that somehow, some way they are hiding money, but we can also discuss the moon landing being faked. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the information that is accepted and available has an NFL team valued at 1 billion dollars makes 10 million dollars a year. That's a problem regardless of how you feel about the owners and the three specific owners who caused this problem.

 

The reality is that the players and owners are in this reality and adjustments have to be made.

Sony studios still claims that Spider-man 2 lost money. Even though it made well over 1b world wide, they still claim it lost money. Why? Because too many people had deals that paid them back end points (profit sharing) and if they admit it made money, then they'd have to fork out more cash to those lousy actors, writers, producers and directors. And why should they get paid? They did nothing to make that film successful. It was the big faceless studio that did all the work, put up all the money -- why should they have to share it even if they're contractually obligated to do so?

[Red Squirrel]

The way I look at it: years ago, the two sides agreed to a deal that guaranteed a percentage of revenue to each side. The method for controlling the player's share is the salary cap. In order to determine the cap, the books had to be at least somewhat opened. If the revenue situation was so bad that the owners (as a group) were losing money, the cap...logically...would be reduced.

 

This never happened. The salary cap went up every year, which indicates overall league revenues went up. But then, the owners pulled the plug on the CBA. No more salary cap; no more partially open books. Why would they choose this M.O.? Clearly, something changed since that old CBA was enacted. One could argue that it was the economy; I see this as just a small factor. This league might not be completely recession proof...the fact that there were more blackouts this past season shows some effect from the recession...but the economy has nowhere near the impact on the NFL as it does on the other pro sports leagues. Plus, there's the TV money. And again: theoretically, loss of revenue from ticket sales could have been offset by reducing the cap. They chose not to even try to make this case, and the answer why seems quite obvious: revenues aren't down; expenses (for some specific teams) are up.

 

Stadiums! There were a couple of palatial stadiums built. These ownership groups (including the biggest swinging you-know-what and the largest media market) probably have lost some money on these facilities. Plus, other owners are jealous and want to build their own golden castles, but they all realize there is a limit to how much cost can be passed on to season ticket holders. So the money for funding these monstrosities comes from the players' slice of the pie.

 

In order to pick sides, there really is only one question you have to ask: are stadiums like Jerruh's palace in Dallas necessary? The answer is obviously no. There is no good reason to back the owners in this dispute. I fully understand why Joe D is pissed at union leadership; they treat the old timers like crap. But the owners don't care about retirees, either. So it has no bearing on this negotiation. I also agree with Joe about the union needing to agree to some cost containment for rookies...massive bonuses for unproven players are utterly ridiculous and are also unfair to the average player. But again, this has nothing to do with the owners wanting to increase their share of the pie. All this amounts to is the owners are asking the players (and the fans) to fund their extravagances.

[CosmicBills]

As for your conspiracy theory of owners not opening their books, it's fairly simple. While some teams, especially small market teams, are struggling, there are teams like Cowboys still earned a lot of money. If not all owners agree to open books, they can't do it. It's all or nothing.

It's not a conspiracy theory. The Owners don't want to open the books because they don't want the embarrassing truth about how they run their franchises to come out. It's really that simple. Whether it's above board or shady, there are deals that they don't want Joe Public to know about because it will paint them in a bad light. If you doubt that, just look at the fiasco with the Dodgers.

 

Frank McCourt's books were forced open in the divorce trial and what did we discover? Shocking abuse of power. Paying his kids 200k+ a year of DODGER payroll to do nothing. Funneling MILLIONS of dollars into a "think tank" designed to help the Dodgers when in reality it was all going into Frank's own tax-free slush fund.

 

While I'm not going to say every Owner in the NFL operates this way, you better believe that they do NOT want to be raked over the coals like Frank has been for their own shady deals. Look at any NFL teams breakdown of front office personnel. You will find, in almost every one, someone related to the Owner working in a mysterious position like "quality control supervisor". You won't see their salary though. And if you did, you'd cry.

 

Is it the owner's rights to do this? Sure, it's their business they can hire who they want. Hiring your retarded nephew and paying him 10x the amount in salary you would pay someone outside your gene pool is one thing. Being called out in public for doing so is another thing entirely. It would open the doors to all sorts of other legal problems that have nothing to do with the CBA but you better believe the NFLPA would use it against the owners in the court of public opinion.

 

That's the reason the NFL doesn't want to open its books. They want to avoid embarrassment. That's all.

 

The way I look at it: years ago, the two sides agreed to a deal that guaranteed a percentage of revenue to each side. The method for controlling the player's share is the salary cap. In order to determine the cap, the books had to be at least somewhat opened. If the revenue situation was so bad that the owners (as a group) were losing money, the cap...logically...would be reduced.

 

This never happened. The salary cap went up every year, which indicates overall league revenues went up. But then, the owners pulled the plug on the CBA. No more salary cap; no more partially open books. Why would they choose this M.O.? Clearly, something changed since that old CBA was enacted. One could argue that it was the economy; I see this as just a small factor. This league might not be completely recession proof...the fact that there were more blackouts this past season shows some effect from the recession...but the economy has nowhere near the impact on the NFL as it does on the other pro sports leagues. Plus, there's the TV money. And again: theoretically, loss of revenue from ticket sales could have been offset by reducing the cap. They chose not to even try to make this case, and the answer why seems quite obvious: revenues aren't down; expenses (for some specific teams) are up.

 

Stadiums! There were a couple of palatial stadiums built. These ownership groups (including the biggest swinging you-know-what and the largest media market) probably have lost some money on these facilities. Plus, other owners are jealous and want to build their own golden castles, but they all realize there is a limit to how much cost can be passed on to season ticket holders. So the money for funding these monstrosities comes from the players' slice of the pie.

 

In order to pick sides, there really is only one question you have to ask: are stadiums like Jerruh's palace in Dallas necessary? The answer is obviously no. There is no good reason to back the owners in this dispute. I fully understand why Joe D is pissed at union leadership; they treat the old timers like crap. But the owners don't care about retirees, either. So it has no bearing on this negotiation. I also agree with Joe about the union needing to agree to some cost containment for rookies...massive bonuses for unproven players are utterly ridiculous and are also unfair to the average player. But again, this has nothing to do with the owners wanting to increase their share of the pie. All this amounts to is the owners are asking the players (and the fans) to fund their extravagances.

Well said.

[Mickey]

 

Besides that, a union can and does drive up labor costs over a work-at-will independent contractor scenario. The notion that the owners didn't want the NFLPA to decertify because labor costs would skyrocket is laughable. Labor costs doubled in the last decade with the NFLPA. The owners want the union so that they can continue to conduct a profitable NFL entertainment business exactly as they have, with a draft, with stable franchises, with single point negotiations on TV contracts, official merchandising ventures, and so on.

 

The players didn't fare well with strikes. They did very well in court when they decertified so that they could bring anti-trust suits. The anti-trust exemption is extremely valuable to the league. Player costs would have gone up much higher had the players kept winning those suits and won total free agency. The money going to the players is a set percentage of revenue after costs and thus, it goes up as revenue goes up. You say labor costs doubled but revenue more than doubled right with it. The CBA stops the suits which keeps costs down and lets then perserve the draft and the current free agency system.

[Mickey]

The whole thing actually began in last CBA negotiation when player threatened a strike. Owners avoided the crisis and accepted last CBA right before deadline in order to buy more time to prepare for this CBA negotiation. Players got what they wanted in revenue share percentage.

 

The last CBA had an opt out clause for both parties to end the agreement without cause or reason with notice. It means the original agreement is not working as one hoped, and needs to be corrected. Furthermore, "without cause" means owners do not need to provide anything or explain anything to players, including financial data. However, after owners optioned out, NFLPA still played media and wanted a proof of the cause, even though NFLPA agreed owners could option out "without cause" in last CBA,

 

Some people like to say owners dump the last CBA or owners break the last CBA. No, owners followed the agreement to option out last CBA.And both sides agreed either party could option out "without cause".

 

As for your conspiracy theory of owners not opening their books, it's fairly simple. While some teams, especially small market teams, are struggling, there are teams like Cowboys still earned a lot of money. If not all owners agree to open books, they can't do it. It's all or nothing.

 

They could have extended it or not, they chose not to so as to get a new deal. With no CBA, the clock goes right back to the White and Mcneil cases circa 1993.

 

 

I alleged no conspiracy, I simply pointed out that the league hasn't opened the books. Why they don't hardly matters. The fact is that they are using economic necessity as the justification for ditching the old CBA, oh, excuse me, for opting out of the old CBA, yet, they haven't been willing to prove their argument is valid. Why they won't, doesn't really matter. They are the ones claiming that economics are the problem, assuming they know that to be the case, they must have something that they relied on in making that determination. Show that to the players.

 

What are you relying on for your conclusion that they can't open the books, ie, show the evidence upon which they relied when claiming the economics made the old CBA untenable if even one owner objects?

[Malazan]

Sony studios still claims that Spider-man 2 lost money. Even though it made well over 1b world wide, they still claim it lost money. Why? Because too many people had deals that paid them back end points (profit sharing) and if they admit it made money, then they'd have to fork out more cash to those lousy actors, writers, producers and directors. And why should they get paid? They did nothing to make that film successful. It was the big faceless studio that did all the work, put up all the money -- why should they have to share it even if they're contractually obligated to do so?

 

I was unaware that Sony had open books, but I'm glad we agree that the players being able to see the books would be meaningless.

[syhuang]

I alleged no conspiracy, I simply pointed out that the league hasn't opened the books. Why they don't hardly matters. The fact is that they are using economic necessity as the justification for ditching the old CBA, oh, excuse me, for opting out of the old CBA, yet, they haven't been willing to prove their argument is valid. Why they won't, doesn't really matter. They are the ones claiming that economics are the problem, assuming they know that to be the case, they must have something that they relied on in making that determination. Show that to the players.

 

What are you relying on for your conclusion that they can't open the books, ie, show the evidence upon which they relied when claiming the economics made the old CBA untenable if even one owner objects?

 

Excuse me, which part of "without cause" do you not understand? Owners don't need to prove anything. NFLPA agreed that either party could option out of last CBA without cause. But once owners did that, NFLPA didn't follow the agreement and started to ask for proof.

[syhuang]

It's not a conspiracy theory. The Owners don't want to open the books because they don't want the embarrassing truth about how they run their franchises to come out. It's really that simple. Whether it's above board or shady, there are deals that they don't want Joe Public to know about because it will paint them in a bad light. If you doubt that, just look at the fiasco with the Dodgers.

 

Frank McCourt's books were forced open in the divorce trial and what did we discover? Shocking abuse of power. Paying his kids 200k+ a year of DODGER payroll to do nothing. Funneling MILLIONS of dollars into a "think tank" designed to help the Dodgers when in reality it was all going into Frank's own tax-free slush fund.

 

While I'm not going to say every Owner in the NFL operates this way, you better believe that they do NOT want to be raked over the coals like Frank has been for their own shady deals. Look at any NFL teams breakdown of front office personnel. You will find, in almost every one, someone related to the Owner working in a mysterious position like "quality control supervisor". You won't see their salary though. And if you did, you'd cry.

 

Is it the owner's rights to do this? Sure, it's their business they can hire who they want. Hiring your retarded nephew and paying him 10x the amount in salary you would pay someone outside your gene pool is one thing. Being called out in public for doing so is another thing entirely. It would open the doors to all sorts of other legal problems that have nothing to do with the CBA but you better believe the NFLPA would use it against the owners in the court of public opinion.

 

That's the reason the NFL doesn't want to open its books. They want to avoid embarrassment. That's all.

 

 

Well said.

 

And you call it's not a conspiracy theory when you try to use one case to imply other franchises even though you said you didn't do that.

 

I really don't care why owners don't open their books, either it's not all owners agree to do so, or it is some other theories. Owners don't need to open their books based on the agreement in last CBA to option out from it.

[Orton's Arm]

They could have extended it or not, they chose not to so as to get a new deal. With no CBA, the clock goes right back to the White and Mcneil cases circa 1993.

 

 

I alleged no conspiracy, I simply pointed out that the league hasn't opened the books. Why they don't hardly matters. The fact is that they are using economic necessity as the justification for ditching the old CBA, oh, excuse me, for opting out of the old CBA, yet, they haven't been willing to prove their argument is valid. Why they won't, doesn't really matter. They are the ones claiming that economics are the problem, assuming they know that to be the case, they must have something that they relied on in making that determination. Show that to the players.

 

What are you relying on for your conclusion that they can't open the books, ie, show the evidence upon which they relied when claiming the economics made the old CBA untenable if even one owner objects?

During the last CBA negotiation, owners of small market teams wanted a moderate salary cap. The players union wanted a high salary cap. The owners of large market teams sided with the players union, and against the owners of small market teams, in favoring a high salary cap. The thinking was that a high salary cap would result in smaller market teams becoming less competitive than larger market teams, because it would be that much harder to spend up to the cap. Most owners of small market teams went along with this deal, thinking it was better to maintain labor peace than it was to endure a season without football.

 

The owners of large market teams have since realized they made a serious error. A high salary cap is bad for all owners, and for the league as a whole. One of the reasons for the decline of professional baseball is that a team like the Yankees can simply buy itself a championship without having to worry about a salary cap. The most recent CBA was certainly a step in that direction.

 

The owners of large market teams (probably) realize they messed up the last time around. But we're talking about some pretty big egos here. They don't seem to be in a hurry to admit to having been in error. Instead they've talked about "economic hardship," which may either be window dressing, or may be true for a few teams without being true for many others.

 

It's in fans' best interests for the NFL to adopt a low expense/low revenue business model. I can't think of anything the NFL could do to increase revenue which wouldn't hurt fans in some way. More ticket revenue = higher ticket prices. More ad revenue = still more ads for beer, pickup trucks, and SUVs. More concession revenue = making movie theater concessions look like a bargain by comparison.

 

In this case, the owners are trying to reduce an expense (player salaries). That's a good thing from the perspective of fans. If the owners reduce their expenses, and if the fans are more resistant to being taken advantage of in the future than in the past, the NFL will gradually move toward the (optimal) low revenue/low expense model.

[GaryPinC]

Why would a look at the NBA's books tell the players anything about whether or not the NFL's claims that a new deal is mandated by economic conditions? The players aren't looking to turn the NFL in to the NBA. They league said that the old CBA wasn't working and the players just asked for them to prove it. When the league started making offers in negotiations, they told the players that they were good offers given economic realities and the players just asked them to prove it. The league has refused. Thus, the players have no way of knowing if they are getting a good deal or not.

 

I think maybe you are under the erroneous impression that this whole thing started because the players want to get rid of revenue sharing, the draft and the limitations on player movement. This thing started because the league said that they wanted a new deal and dumped the old CBA. The players long ago won a series of cases on free agency, enough so that the league finally cut them in for a piece of the revenues. The players traded their freedom, in the sense of selling their services to the highest bidder, in exchange for a piece of the action. The league now wants to change the size of the players "piece". That is why there is no football right now. The league brought on this crisis, they are the ones looking to change the status quo.

 

They may have perfectly valid reasons for doing so, such as, the economics of the old deal simply not working. If that is true, its simple math, open the books would show that to be true and then the players wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The fact that the league will not do that very simple thing makes me very suspicious that in fact, their claims of economic necessity are false.

 

What NFL teams are losing money??? The last Forbes story I looked at (2010 I think) had only two teams losing money, Detroit and Miami. It was the first time Miami has lost money in the 10 years they graphed out in the story. Detroit had a terrible team and the place is a ghost town. If there is a problem, the league should just prove it, get the players to shoulder their share of the fix and then get back to playing football.

 

My referencing the NBA's situation is due to a few months ago when posters who favored the NFL player's rights were touting the NBA arrangement as what the NFL should do. Open the books, make the players full partners like in the NBA. At the time the NBA was optimistic they wouldn't have a lockout, because of this open relationship. Fast forward a few months and the landscape looks much different there now. Even though NBA players have full access and some posters like tgregg feel that because of this the NBAPA will accept a large salary reduction, I think that instead they will attempt to dictate to the owners how to change their spending decisions to funnel more money to the players.

 

Which is exactly why the NFL owners will not and should not "open the books" to the players. No matter how much info you give the players and their agents they will try and maximize their salaries alone, but it is the owner's team and it is their business and their league and their right to grow the league, not have the players shut that down in order to pad their wallets.

 

Look at Green Bay's situation (check out the link posted on page 2). Over the last 4 seasons they have watched their profit margins shrink considerably while player cost increases outpace revenue increases. That is a recipe for future business troubles, that seem to have started shortly after signing the last CBA. I have a feeling their situation is similar to the rest of the league and the owners feel they need to act now before most of the teams are losing money.

 

Why not open the books then? Maybe they've opened them enough but DeMaurice and the players aren't satisfied because they are making a pure power grab and want access to everything. Does anyone here honestly believe the NFL hasn't provided any justification for their demands? They say they have done this on multiple occasions but the players deem those efforts inadequate (go look at that Green Bay article for example). I support the players rights to be well paid but the owners have a right to make the decisions about their team and their league.

 

And no, I am not under the erroneous impressions you presume. I know exactly how this started and certainly appreciate what the players have given up to be in a CBA and also how the current setup provides for a reasonably fair distribution of talent across the league and how important that is to our Bills.

[thebandit27]

Well then, friend, we must agree to disagree. The players would continue to play today under the old CBA, the one where owners made record breaking profits, if the owners hadn't opted to back out of the deal.

 

That's not an interpretation of the facts. That's just a fact.

 

Did the owners have a right to back out? Sure. But at the end of the day the reason why there is no football right now is because the owners are choosing not to play. That's not an opinion. That's not something you can agree with or disagree with. That's just how it is.

 

And why did the Owners take this path? Because no games = no game checks which = a weaker union and thus a better CBA for the Owners. It's not a mystery. It's all a negotiation.

 

Let me put it to you another way, even though the NFL is NOT a traditional employer/employee relationship (and never has been), let's hypothetically assume you were a member of a union. Then let's say your boss came to you and said, despite the fact you generated record breaking profits for your company with the work YOU did, he was going to ask you to take a pay cut so he could put more dollars into his own pocket (not the company's). Would you just accept that as the cost of doing business and go on your way happy to just have a job?

 

No !@#$ing way. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. If it were you, you'd reach out to your union and make a stink. If you didn't, you're not only naive but spineless. So how can you possibly expect the players to roll over and take it without putting up a fight when no one else on this board would do the same thing if you were in their position? Why shouldn't the players have a right to fight for what's fair?

 

You're right, that would be unfair. Now that we've settled that, what does that have to do with the current labor diagreement, considering that not one single NFL player's salary would be reduced? Not one. Seriously. If you can name one NFL player that will have to take a pay cut resulting from the owners' proposal, then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're doing exactly what the players' union has done regarding the situation: misrepresenting the facts.

 

And as for their rights, I don't recall saying that they can't fight for what's fair. In fact, my exact statement was: "it's okay for the players to think that they shouldn't have to play 18 games or participate in a million offseason workouts"...it seems like you are also misrepresenting my argument. If you just want to be left alone to bang your drum without considering others' points, that's fine, just don't respond in the future.

 

Oh, right. Because they're athletes, the majority of whom are African American men in their 20s, who are paid to play a game. I forgot. Fug 'em. It's their fault.

 

That's 3 times you've brought race into the discussion in this very thread. I questioned it the first 2 times without a response from you...now I'm beginning to think it's a far more deeply rooted issue in your mind than the labor unrest. Let me cut to the chase: this isn't about race, it's about a labor dispute.

[Mr. WEO]

It's about necessary risks versus unnecessary risks. The NFL Owners are taking an unnecessary risk right now. They are in no financial jeopardy (as your yourself indicate), the league is more popular and making more money for everyone than ever before despite a horrific economy and a "bad" CBA. The future outlook for the league is brighter than it ever has been before. Yet, the Owners, ruled by greed and arrogance, are willing to risk all of that to put more money in their pockets.

 

Is it their right? Absolutely. Is it good business? Nope.

 

Best case scenario for the Owners is if the players crumble and sign a new CBA that gives the Owners an extra couple million. The worst case scenario is the 2011 season is lost, the federal court system takes control of the NFL's business model and forces them to change it causing irreparable damage to the league's financial future which could cost them billions of dollars in future revenues.

 

Does that sound like a good risk to you?

 

Of course not. It's a stupid risk to take by a bunch of greedy, white, uber-rich men -- the majority of whom did NOTHING to build the league and instead have jumped on the backs of the men who built the league and now are demanding more. That's all this is. You can celebrate it all you want as some sort of capitalistic vs socialist enterprise -- but that just shows how ignorant and senseless your opinions are on this matter because it's not that simple.

 

The NBA owners on the other hand have no choice in the matter. Their business is failing. It's failing in part because the owners overestimated their ability to expand the league. It's also failing because the league never recovered from the fan revolt it suffered when the players forced an unnecessary strike that resulted in a shortened NBA season. Both the players and owners dug their own graves in the NBA. The only way to fix it now is to not only re-do the CBA, but contract 2 to 4 teams.

 

The NFL Owners are risking the future of the league unnecessarily. The NBA Owners are doing what is necessary to survive.

 

There's a difference.

 

It is good business. It's called a hedge. Every stadium will need to be replaced at some time--and guys like you are always moaning about publicly funded stadiums. Well, if the future in these hard economic times is for private funding only for new stadium building, then wouldn't you, as an owner who may have to raise a ton of money to construct your teams next stadium, prefer NOT to be locked into a contract that gives your employees a fixed percent of your revenues? You would be booted out by your board of directors if you did not take this basic hedge.

 

The NBA owners are doing poorly because when times were flush they weren't careful with their agreements and never changed their relationship with their players' union. Now they are stuck.

 

Look, everyone (well, almost everyone) knows this will never end with "the federal court system takes control of the NFL's business model"--nobody wants this to happen--least of all the players! The players are perfectly happy to get back to work in a system that has a draft, free agency, a salary cap, veteran minimum salsries, etc. They have zero interest in a "free market" system.

 

And football may or may not have been the most popular professional sport in the late 80's, but the TV contracts were a small fraction of what they would become over the next 20 years. They went from less than 500 mil per year to over 3 billion a year in that time frame. That's a reflection of the exponential increase in the popularity of the league from the late 80's to 2006. That explosion in popularity had little to do with Hunt (a billionaire) and Wilson (a multi-millionaire son of a rich man). It was due to the increased national popularity of teams like the 49ers, the Cowboys, the Steelers, the Colts (new owner since 97) and the Patriots--teams with "new breed" owners, excepting the Steelers.

[K Gun Special]

They could have extended it or not, they chose not to so as to get a new deal. With no CBA, the clock goes right back to the White and Mcneil cases circa 1993.

 

 

I alleged no conspiracy, I simply pointed out that the league hasn't opened the books. Why they don't hardly matters. The fact is that they are using economic necessity as the justification for ditching the old CBA, oh, excuse me, for opting out of the old CBA, yet, they haven't been willing to prove their argument is valid. Why they won't, doesn't really matter. They are the ones claiming that economics are the problem, assuming they know that to be the case, they must have something that they relied on in making that determination. Show that to the players.

 

What are you relying on for your conclusion that they can't open the books, ie, show the evidence upon which they relied when claiming the economics made the old CBA untenable if even one owner objects?

 

 

Stated succinctly and correctly.