Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money

[CosmicBills]

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.

I am trying to understand what you're trying to say (especially in the first sentence) ... I think you're saying I'm double talking? But it's hard to read.

 

Still ... if you look at what I actually said, I used the McCourt case as an example of why the Owners don't want their books gone over with a fine tooth comb. I was NOT saying that every owner has the same level of shenanigans that McCourt did.

 

Even if the owners have nothing to hide, the McCourt case shows why they would be protective of their books. The last thing they want to do is have the NFLPA find any embarrassing financial information (from something as benign as over paying a relative to something as severe as diverting team funds into personal accounts) and have that splashed all over the papers in what has become a fairly hostile PR war between the union and owners.

 

In other words, I was backing you up. Saying that a "conspiracy theory" isn't needed to explain why the owners wouldn't want their books opened.

 

You rightly point out that the CBA does not require the owners to open their books. The owners don't have a legal obligation to do so. But then again, it makes it very difficult for the public, let alone the players, to believe them when they cry poor. After all, the recent track record of big corporations and their shady financials (that crippled the world economy) does not lend itself to taking these men "on their word".

 

So then the question becomes what's more important to these Owners? Proving their point that a change in the economy of the NFL is needed to keep the league afloat or protecting their own financial privacy from a potentially embarrassing PR battle? You would think that if the financial situation was as dire as you, WEO, Ramius and others seem to think it is, they would happily show the financials just to take away the Player's leverage.

 

Of course this is all moot. The Owners don't care about what the public thinks of them, they clearly don't care about the fans that support their teams, they also don't care about their partners. What they care about is making as much money as possible for themselves individually.

 

That's cool. That's their right. But it sure sucks for people who like to watch the game of football.

[syhuang]

You rightly point out that the CBA does not require the owners to open their books. The owners don't have a legal obligation to do so. But then again, it makes it very difficult for the public, let alone the players, to believe them when they cry poor. After all, the recent track record of big corporations and their shady financials (that crippled the world economy) does not lend itself to taking these men "on their word".

 

So then the question becomes what's more important to these Owners? Proving their point that a change in the economy of the NFL is needed to keep the league afloat or protecting their own financial privacy from a potentially embarrassing PR battle? You would think that if the financial situation was as dire as you, WEO, Ramius and others seem to think it is, they would happily show the financials just to take away the Player's leverage.

 

Of course this is all moot. The Owners don't care about what the public thinks of them, they clearly don't care about the fans that support their teams, they also don't care about their partners. What they care about is making as much money as possible for themselves individually.

 

That's cool. That's their right. But it sure sucks for people who like to watch the game of football.

 

Exactly, owners don't need to open their book for whatever reason, maybe it's that not all owners agree to do so, or for other reasons. The point is owners don't have to justify why they option out last CBA since both sides agreed that either party could option out without cause.

 

As for public perception, both sides lost a lot of it already. Opening books or not isn't going to change it. The bottom line is that the last CBA is fulfilled and they are negotiating a new CBA. Owners are prepared for lockout now much better than 2006 when players threatened a strike during last CBA negotiation.

Edited June 10, 2011 by syhuang

[CosmicBills]

There's a big difference between getting a smaller raise next contract and taking an actual pay cut. The only one lying to themselves is you.

You guys are hung up on "pay cut". Fine. Let's call it a cut. Take pay out of it.

 

Explain to me how taking away an extra billion dollars from the NFLPA is not a cut? That impacts: health care, retirement and pension plans, the future value of contracts, and numerous other programs the union provides for its members.

 

You guys have it twisted. You're focused on individual players. That's NOT what this is about. It never has been. It's about the group. To think that taking an extra billion (or 300 million) away from the union and its members is anything other than a massive cut is like trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth. You can make a compelling argument sure, but at the end of the day you're just wrong.

 

Exactly, owners don't need to open their book for whatever reason, maybe it's that not all owners agree to do so, or for other reasons. The point is owners don't have to justify why they option out last CBA since both sides agreed that either party could option out without cause.

 

As for public perception, both sides lost a lot of it already. Opening books or not isn't going to change it. The bottom line is that the last CBA is fulfilled and they are negotiating a new CBA. Owners are prepared for lockout now much better than 2006 when players threatened a strike during last CBA negotiation.

That's fine. No one is arguing that point (that I've noticed). No one is saying that the Owners are doing anything illegal. They didn't breach any contracts. They aren't refusing to honor some court order.

 

What people are saying (well, at least what I'm saying) is that the Owners are making claims in the negotiations that the cuts are necessary to the long term future of the league but they refuse to show any proof to support this claim. Instead, they are taking the position that it's their league they can do what they want. That is true. But it doesn't make their argument compelling. Instead it does the opposite. It makes everyone suspicious. And you would think if they COULD prove it, they would because that would mean a quick end to this whole situation ... but since they won't prove it, it makes you wonder if they can.

 

That's all.

[syhuang]

Explain to me how taking away an extra billion dollars from the NFLPA is not a cut? That impacts: health care, retirement and pension plans, the future value of contracts, and numerous other programs the union provides for its members.

 

Actually owners beef'd health care, retirement, and so on in their offers right before lockout but was rejected.

 

 

You guys have it twisted. You're focused on individual players. That's NOT what this is about. It never has been. It's about the group. To think that taking an extra billion (or 300 million) away from the union and its members is anything other than a massive cut is like trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth. You can make a compelling argument sure, but at the end of the day you're just wrong.

 

In fact, it affects star players much more than medium and average players. Since last CBA, salary cap increases by ~50% but median player salary only increases by 9.7%. It's a simple math to understand that when median grows much slower than total growth, the upper half of players get most benefit. This is percentage, not amount, so don't say it's normal because star players get bigger contracts. Again, this is percentage of salary growth.

 

If NFLPA actually cares about medium and average players, they should ask for higher minimum salary and more guarantee money in small contracts. But no, they are fighting for revenue share, which benefits star players much more than medium and average players. And who suffers more during lockout? It's the medium and average players. But they are sacrificed to fight for revenue share benefited most to star players.

 

And you would think if they COULD prove it, they would because that would mean a quick end to this whole situation ... but since they won't prove it, it makes you wonder if they can.

 

The above is not as simple as you think. Your argument is that they don't open the books because they can't prove it if they open their books. However, there may be other reasons preventing owners from doing so. For example, maybe small market owners want to, but big market owners don't. Of course, we don't know what exactly the reason is. But it is not correct to assume the only reason is that they can't prove it if they open books.

[CosmicBills]

In fact, it affects star players much more than medium and average players. Since last CBA, salary cap increases by ~50% but median player salary only increases by 9.7%. It's a simple math to understand that when median grows much slower than total growth, the upper half of players get most benefit. This is percentage, not amount, so don't say it's normal because star players get bigger contracts. Again, this is percentage of salary growth.

 

If NFLPA actually cares about medium and average players, they should ask for higher minimum salary and more guarantee money in small contracts. But no, they are fighting for revenue share, which benefits star players much more than medium and average players. And who suffers more during lockout? It's the medium and average players. But they are sacrificed to fight for revenue share benefited most to star players.

You're shifting the argument now. I am NOT, in any way shape or form, defending the NFLPA and how it operates. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, especially the second paragraph.

 

The point in question is whether or not the Owners taking an extra one billion off the top represents a cut to the NFLPA and its members.

 

 

The above is not as simple as you think. Your argument is that they don't open the books because they can't prove it if they open their books. However, there may be other reasons preventing owners from doing so. For example, maybe small market owners want to, but big market owners don't. Of course, we don't know what exactly the reason is. But it is not correct to assume the only reason is that they can't prove it if they open books.

I've never made the argument that the only reason the Owners won't open their books is because they can't prove it. The whole point of bringing up the McCourt case was to prove that there's MORE than one reason as to why the Owners won't open their books.

 

All I've said is that by NOT opening their books it causes the players and the public to question whether or not the Owners CAN prove it. And rightly so. That's all.

[syhuang]

You're shifting the argument now. I am NOT, in any way shape or form, defending the NFLPA and how it operates. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, especially the second paragraph.

 

The point in question is whether or not the Owners taking an extra one billion off the top represents a cut to the NFLPA and its members.

 

I was replying to your statement of NFLA fighting for all members for revenue share, when it's not that simple.

 

For your question, I think others' point is that revenue is expected to grow with TV contracts being back-loaded. Thus, even the percentage of what players get is lower, the amount is still higher than before. Basically when the pie is bigger, even though you get a smaller percentage, you still get a bigger piece of pie than before.

[thebandit27]

You keep linking articles that undercut your point. It's kind of funny.

 

I find the real humor in this discussion to be 3-fold:

 

1) you seem to want to boil my argument down to "owners good, players bad", which isn't even remotely the case.

 

2) you keep insinuating that the players have to take a pay cut under the owners proposal, they absolutely do not. the simple fact is that their salaries will continue to grow, just not as astronomically as they have in the past 5 years.

 

3) you won't respond to my question about why you've brought race into the discussion 3 times...

 

It's not a lie. The Owners currently take 1 billion off the top before revenue sharing. Their initial offer proposed taking an addition 1 billion off the top before revenue sharing. That number was reduced in the last second negotiations -- but it's still a cut.

 

Is it reflected in any current contracts? No. Is it reflected in future contracts? You bet'cha. Does it have a long term impact on future players in the league? Absolutely.

 

A union's job is to protect its members. All members. Past (something they do poorly), present AND future. Taking an extra 1 billion or even 340 million off the top of the shared pie without offering any lick of proof that it's a needed step to protect the long term interest of the league is a pay CUT. Plain and simple. It impacts all three segments of the NFLPA's membership in different degrees (future and past take the hardest hits).

 

So yeah. It's a cut. To think otherwise is ... well, just lying to yourself.

 

Again, point to 1 player that will receive a pay cut resulting from the owners proposal...

 

We'll wait patiently...

 

There's a big difference between getting a smaller raise next contract and taking an actual pay cut. The only one lying to themselves is you.

 

I have to compliment your very even-minded take on the situation. You are better at seeing both sides of the argument than I am, despite my best efforts to do so.

Edited June 10, 2011 by thebandit27

[Mr. WEO]

You guys are hung up on "pay cut". Fine. Let's call it a cut. Take pay out of it.

 

Explain to me how taking away an extra billion dollars from the NFLPA is not a cut? That impacts: health care, retirement and pension plans, the future value of contracts, and numerous other programs the union provides for its members.

 

You guys have it twisted. You're focused on individual players. That's NOT what this is about. It never has been. It's about the group. To think that taking an extra billion (or 300 million) away from the union and its members is anything other than a massive cut is like trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth. You can make a compelling argument sure, but at the end of the day you're just wrong.

 

 

That's fine. No one is arguing that point (that I've noticed). No one is saying that the Owners are doing anything illegal. They didn't breach any contracts. They aren't refusing to honor some court order.

 

What people are saying (well, at least what I'm saying) is that the Owners are making claims in the negotiations that the cuts are necessary to the long term future of the league but they refuse to show any proof to support this claim. Instead, they are taking the position that it's their league they can do what they want. That is true. But it doesn't make their argument compelling. Instead it does the opposite. It makes everyone suspicious. And you would think if they COULD prove it, they would because that would mean a quick end to this whole situation ... but since they won't prove it, it makes you wonder if they can.

 

That's all.

 

Actually, you were the one who was "focusing on the invidual" with your boss coming to the union employee demanding a pay cut analogy. Why did you use that analogy?

 

A pay cut is when your boss pays you less than you are actually making now, not how much you could possibly make in the future--if he chose to pay you that much.

 

The players likely wouldn't have gotten that extra billion anyway under the last CBA. Owners cannot be forced to spend to the cap-they can chose to pay the minimum, or soemwhere in between. Hence, they were never bound to spend 59.5% of all revenue (minus a billion) even under the old CBA. But you knew that, right?

 

Also, the owners last offer included increasing caps every year--allowing more for players in dollars than they ever made under the old CBA--that's not a "pay cut".

 

Also, as the above poster pointed out, the last offer by the owners did not negatively impact the heath benefits, pensions or retirement plans of players--to the contrary, they were the most generous in league history---and turned down by the union.

 

Also, if all the league wants is an extra billion and everyone agrees that the NFL will continue to break its own annual revenue records, that still leaves an ever incrasing number of billions left over for the players to split up. If the revenue in 2012 is up to 12 billion and the NFL gets 2 billion back (instead of the 1 billion they previously got), that still leaves 2 billion more for players than they had in their best year under the old CBA.

 

Once players do this math and realize they are in court to satisfy the ego of their union leader, they will make a deal with the owners. It's going to happen in the next few weeks.

[thebandit27]

You guys are hung up on "pay cut". Fine. Let's call it a cut. Take pay out of it.

 

Explain to me how taking away an extra billion dollars from the NFLPA is not a cut? That impacts: health care, retirement and pension plans, the future value of contracts, and numerous other programs the union provides for its members.

 

You guys have it twisted. You're focused on individual players. That's NOT what this is about. It never has been. It's about the group. To think that taking an extra billion (or 300 million) away from the union and its members is anything other than a massive cut is like trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth. You can make a compelling argument sure, but at the end of the day you're just wrong.

 

 

That's fine. No one is arguing that point (that I've noticed). No one is saying that the Owners are doing anything illegal. They didn't breach any contracts. They aren't refusing to honor some court order.

 

What people are saying (well, at least what I'm saying) is that the Owners are making claims in the negotiations that the cuts are necessary to the long term future of the league but they refuse to show any proof to support this claim. Instead, they are taking the position that it's their league they can do what they want. That is true. But it doesn't make their argument compelling. Instead it does the opposite. It makes everyone suspicious. And you would think if they COULD prove it, they would because that would mean a quick end to this whole situation ... but since they won't prove it, it makes you wonder if they can.

 

That's all.

 

You're completey ignoring two facts here: (1) the owners' offer would have increased the amount of health care, retirement and pension plans provided to current, former, and future players, while decreasing the amount of work they're required to put in (cutting minicamps etc.). If you insist on calling it a "cut", then it would be prudent to acknowledge that they'll be doing less work.

 

Also, I would call volunteering financial information as being willing to produce proof. The fact that the players wouldn't even look at it to see if it was sufficient doesn't preclude that the owners offered 5 years of financials for 3rd party review. It's completely incorrect for you to keep banging the "they won't prove it" drum; they've offered evidence; the players took the hard line and decertified.

[Ramius]

Explain to me how taking away an extra billion dollars from the NFLPA is not a cut? That impacts: health care, retirement and pension plans, the future value of contracts, and numerous other programs the union provides for its members.

 

You guys have it twisted. You're focused on individual players. That's NOT what this is about. It never has been. It's about the group. To think that taking an extra billion (or 300 million) away from the union and its members is anything other than a massive cut is like trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth. You can make a compelling argument sure, but at the end of the day you're just wrong.

 

As others have said, the owners presented an offer that increased the amount of benefits and retirement dollars paid out to players as well as decresing the required amount of work time. But feel free to justify how that is a "cut" in benefits.

 

As for the "pay cut," let me explain this simply: If you make $100 for a job, and your boss tells you that next time you do the job, you're only going to make $95, that is a pay cut. You are receiving less money for the job you are doing. Nothing like this is happening nor will it happen in the new CBA. Whats happening is that you are receiving less of an increase on your pay next time. You will make more than $100 dollars. Notice: this is no way shape or form a pay cut, as you are making MORE money. But, instead of your pay increasing to $105, its increasing to $103. That's not a pay cut. Its simply you presenting lies and disinformation in an effort to bolster your argument.

 

The salary cap is going up. It will still go up every year. The floor will still increase every year. The cap simply won't rise as fast as the players want it to. The NFL offered more money and benefits to former players. They offered to cut work time. Yet you try to pass these facts off as a "cut" in monies received.

 

Furthermore, the NFL is different from a regular business in that there are a fixed amount of employees (players) to be paid. So if the total money keeps increasing (which it most likely will), each player has the opportunity to earn more money. Its not as if the owners are hiring more players. So even with the smaller slice of the pie, players are still getting more money.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Ramius

[Jeffery Lester]

I think Warner is wrong. What do the team owners bring or add to the pro football product?

 

It used to be that businessmen like Mr. Ralph were the only ones with either capital or the cajones to risk there money. They proved their point and were richly compensated for their original risk, In fact the last few years after the players forced the owners to essentially accept them as partners with the CBA forced upon the owners after the last lockout has brought them even more money.

 

Warner us right that the players got a great deal in the last negotiation, they essentially not only were recognized as partners but arguably the majority partners as the deal gave them a majority of the total receipts.

 

The owners caved rather than compete against each other in a free market.

 

By locking out the players and being sued by Brady et al. the owners have allowed a lawsuit by individuals asserting that they be allowed to compete in the free market for personal service contracts. In general, I support free market approaches like this rather than the social compact of the team owners. I think by holding the free market line the players can force a reconfiguration of pro football which essentially cuts out the economic inefficiency and drag of the owners. Not only are their ample sources of capital from the networks, other rich investors (even lowly Buffalo has three options with the assets Pegula, Golisano, or the Jacobs family), municipal areas following the Packers model, perhaps the players themselves pooling assets or something else I have not thought of.

 

The Packers model also demonstrates that the management of the team needed and provided by the Halas's, Mara's and Rooneys can also be replaced.

 

I think the situation is clear, if the players were to win their lawsuit there is pro football again. If the owners win their lawsuit there is a lockout and labor struggle. How can any fan be against there being football beside some weird doctrinal beliefs which trumps their desire for the game.

 

I think the players are moving slowly as they rather would not kill the teams writing them big checks. However, the team owners need to be replaced as they are not the product the players are the game.

First I would like to compliment you on how well your article was written. Then I would like to say I completely disagree with you. The teams and the owners are the absolute back bone and foundation of the league. Players are transient members of the league. Teams and owners remain. If franchises are not healthy then the league is not successful. I personaly stand firmly with the owners on this. In my opinion the players are completely disillusioned to think they can continue to make the lions share of the money. It is not a business model that will last for very long. Just like most of there careers.

[Ramius]

 

Of course this is all moot. The Owners don't care about what the public thinks of them, they clearly don't care about the fans that support their teams, they also don't care about their partners. What they care about is making as much money as possible for themselves individually.

 

That's cool. That's their right. But it sure sucks for people who like to watch the game of football.

 

Why is it ok for the players to want to make as much money as possible for themselves, yet it isn't ok for owners to do the same thing?

 

And remember, we wouldn't be in this situation if the players hadn't decertified. They fired the first shot.

[Malazan]

tgreg, I have to admit that I am confused. The owners have to open their books, but they will just manipulate the books to favor themselves? Isn't this a catch 22?

Edited June 10, 2011 by jeremy2020

[T master]

The players are going to have face reality that while the owners are making profits, there are TEAMS making less profit in a year than some players. Outside of that absurdity, a team worth a billion dollars that only make 15 million a year is a tough sale when there's very few who have the assets to buy a team without a loan. Banks aren't exactly lining up to loan a billion dollars when a team would need to devote every bit of profit to pay them back in 30-40 years especially when there is such volatility.

 

Add into that the rising cost of stadiums with less government money and it has to come from somewhere. It's only a matter of time until the players give in.

 

Well if these jack ass owners wouldn't go out & spend 1.3 billion on a new stadium they would have more profit . Every body thinks Ralph is cheap it's just Ralph isn't a dumb ass & blowing a billion on a stadium because he can see the forest for the trees .

 

He's one if not the only owner that his team is PAID FOR & it's a good thing or the Bills would have been gone a long time ago with western NY economy the way it is !!

 

NFL owners along with the rest of the country need to get out of this living beyond my means & mortgaging the future of everything mentality & maybe some people & companies such as different NFL franchise would be able to operate with a larger profit margin .

 

UM - This may be a page taken right from the current administration but what's the note for an NFL franchise that spends 1.3 billion to build a stadium (in today's economy) & for how many years will they pay until it's paid for ??

[Mickey]

Why is it ok for the players to want to make as much money as possible for themselves, yet it isn't ok for owners to do the same thing?

 

And remember, we wouldn't be in this situation if the players hadn't decertified. They fired the first shot.

 

The first shot was opting out of the CBA. The players had to decertify by a certain date for the decertification to be of any use this year so that they could try to prevent the lockout from happening this year. They negotiated right up to that deadline which was the expiration of the old CBA. The deadline, in fact, was extended several times to allow more time to negotiate so that the union didn't have to worry about that deadline. Just how long they would have to wait between decertifying and being able to get an injunction was not known then and in fact, still isn't. It is one of the points that was argued last Friday. One theory is that they would have to wait 6 months which is what was set out in the old CBA. By decertifying on March 11th, the potential 6 month deadline would expire on September 11th. Just enough time to rescue most of the season. The longer they waited, the worse off they were in terms of getting an injunction to stop the lockout.

 

On the owner's side, they could negotiate until the start of the season and then start the lockout. They had no deadlines to worry about. And the lockout, though not yet enacted, was going to happen if the owner's didn't get the deal they wanted. They prepared for it well in advance.

 

I think the story remains a simple one. The league has prospered and grown for decades under the CBA. But the owners claim it no longer will, that a new CBA with less $ going to players is an economic necessity so they opted out of the CBA. At the same time, they prepared for a lockout and to make it as painless as possible for themselves. The players asked to see the books so as to determine if the claims of financial trouble for the league were true. The league refused but instead made a series of offers which the players would not accept, in part because they couldn't be sure if there really was financial trouble. The league could negotiate for a very long time without penalty. The players start losing money on opening day. To have any chance at saving themselves from that position, the players had to decertify, and soon. In fact, they probably shouldn't have waited as long as they did. Had they decertified in January, they would be over the 6 month hurdle in just a few weeks and two months before anyone would miss a game check.  As for making money, I don't have anything against either side for trying to better their balance sheets.  All I want is football.  And right now, we have an owner imposed lockout. And that means no football.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Mickey

[Doc]

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.

The league's popularity derived primarily from the salary cap and revenue sharing (thanks to Wellington Mara, as old guard as you can get) and the feeling that the playing field was level, with no team being able to outspend another, as had been the case beforehand. The explosion in TV money was due to that popularity and Fox entering the picture, which created a scarcity for the NFL product, which led to bidding wars in subsequent contract negotiations, which led to the league selling itself to the networks. This was set in motion mostly by the old guard of owners.

 

The teams/owners responsible for making the league popular were secondary, but if we are to talk about them, the early 90's Bills teams were immensely popular and had a large hand in the league's popularity, far more than you fancy the Patriots did in the mid-90's (by the time the Pats started winning SB's in the 2000's, the league had long-since been established as the premier pro sports league). The 49'ers were basically only good under Eddie DeBartolo, an old guard owner. And Jim Irsay essentially inherited the team from his billionaire dad, which makes him more old guard than new. The only true new guard owner whose team helped make the league popular (talking about the formative years) was Jones.

[Mr. WEO]

I understood that the union had to decertify before the CBA expired (and the lockout) so that the suit would remain in Doty's court.

 

Here's a simple question: the players agreed to a CBA that allowed them a maximum of 59.5% of league gross revenues (minus the exemption), yet for the entire term of the 2006 CBA, they never asked to "look at the books", i.e., to confirm they were getting their 59.5%. Why is it now that they need to "see the books"? They trusted the owners weren't shorting them, but now they are convinced they are?

 

Anyway, I don't believe that the players really care what's in the books. They know the owners aren't losing money, nor are the owners claiming they are. The demand to see the books was the excuse for them not to bother with any serious counter offer to the leagues several deals offered in negotiations. In other words, the union was not negotiating in good faith--they weren't actually negotiating at all. They decided to go all in with an anti-trust suit well before the CBA expired--that was Smith's plan all along and the players are stuck with it. They have to turn down all offers by the league by Smith's decree.

[syhuang]

I think the story remains a simple one. The league has prospered and grown for decades under the CBA. But the owners claim it no longer will, that a new CBA with less $ going to players is an economic necessity so they opted out of the CBA. At the same time, they prepared for a lockout and to make it as painless as possible for themselves. The players asked to see the books so as to determine if the claims of financial trouble for the league were true. The league refused but instead made a series of offers which the players would not accept, in part because they couldn't be sure if there really was financial trouble.

 

Owners don't need to provide whatever data players asked during negotiation. In fact, even owners don't need to comply players' request, owners offered 5 year financial data to an independent 3rd party but it was rejected by players.

 

Also, it's no secret that owners have been prepared for lockout for some time. They were unprepared in 2006 during last CBA negotiation when players threatened a strike. Players got what they want in revenue share percentage and this time owners are prepared to get some of them back. Both sides want as much money as possible, but unlike last time, owners have the upper hand this time.

 

The sooner players realize last CBA is fulfilled and they are now negotiating a new deal, the better chance a deal can be reached. Players want the same share like last CBA and owners don't want to give them this time. This is a new negotiation, owners don't need to explain why they reject any proposal.

[Malazan]

Well if these jack ass owners wouldn't go out & spend 1.3 billion on a new stadium they would have more profit . Every body thinks Ralph is cheap it's just Ralph isn't a dumb ass & blowing a billion on a stadium because he can see the forest for the trees .

 

As I mentioned, three owners have driven the 'valuation' of their teams sky high and now the other teams are in a bad place. The Cowboys, Patriots, and Redskins don't face the same hurdles as the other teams.

 

The rest of the owners are at fault for letting this happen and the players should have been watching as well. The players tend to be more interested int he very short term. If they had negotiated a more nuanced CBA that forced greater revenue sharing then they might not find themselves in their current predicament. They took a short term money grab and the owners all followed the pied piper trio which has led them all to a bad place.

[Orton's Arm]

In fact, it affects star players much more than medium and average players. Since last CBA, salary cap increases by ~50% but median player salary only increases by 9.7%. It's a simple math to understand that when median grows much slower than total growth, the upper half of players get most benefit. This is percentage, not amount, so don't say it's normal because star players get bigger contracts. Again, this is percentage of salary growth.

 

If NFLPA actually cares about medium and average players, they should ask for higher minimum salary and more guarantee money in small contracts. But no, they are fighting for revenue share, which benefits star players much more than medium and average players. And who suffers more during lockout? It's the medium and average players. But they are sacrificed to fight for revenue share benefited most to star players.

 

You're shifting the argument now. I am NOT, in any way shape or form, defending the NFLPA and how it operates. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, especially the second paragraph.

 

The point in question is whether or not the Owners taking an extra one billion off the top represents a cut to the NFLPA and its members.

Tgreg, I think that you, syhuang, and I are in agreement on the points syhuang made in the above quoted text. If I was an NFL player making minimum salary, I would conclude that the NFLPA was much more strongly focused on representing the interests of highly paid stars like Drew Brees and Tom Brady than it was on representing my interests!

 

Our main point of difference is that you seem to want players' share of the overall pie to stay the same or increase, whereas I think it's clear that their share needs to be reduced.

 

Let's take a step back and look at the big picture. The NFL extracts money from the fans through various means. Ticket sales, luxury suites, $10 popcorn, high parking fees, an infinite number of television ads for beer, SUVs, and pickup trucks, etc. Some of that revenue generation is reasonable, and some is over the top. I'd have no objection to owners charging a fair price for tickets, concessions, parking, and so forth, and to subjecting fans to a moderate amount of television advertising. (Especially not if at least some effort was made to keep the ads interesting, instead of showing people the same boring SUV or beer ad over and over again.) Clearly the NFL has gone above and beyond what is reasonable, and is taking advantage of the fans. The NFL's revenues are too high, and its methods of revenue generation are damaging to its relationship with the fans.

 

The salary cap is set at 60% of league revenues, and the salary floor is set at 56%. This means that most of the above-described revenue is going to the players. Meanwhile, the owners can use their 40 - 44% share to pay the salaries of coaches, front office personnel, administrative people, grounds crews, stadium-related costs, debt service, etc. This past season the Green Bay Packers had an operating profit of $10 million. Assuming the Packers franchise is worth $1 billion, that $10 million operating profit represents a rate of return of just 1%. I would not be very happy with an investment that yielded a 1% rate of return, and I can't imagine too many NFL owners are jumping for joy either. Jamarcus Russell's contract provided him with $32 million in guaranteed money, and he was with the Raiders for three years before getting cut. During those three years, Russell was generating an annual salary, in guaranteed money alone, equivalent to the operating profit of the entire Packers franchise from this past season!

 

In 2009, the most highly compensated CEO was Lawrence Culp, the CEO of Danaher. He made $141 million that year, which includes about $1 million in base salary, $84 million on exercising vested stock options, and $56 million on vested stock awards. Danaher made $1.1 billion in 2009, which means that Culp's compensation was about 13% of profits. A player receiving Jamarcus Russell-like compensation from the Packers would receive over 100% of profits! If 13% of profits is too much for a CEO to have, then why is it somehow "fair" for a Jamarcus Russell to earn 100% or more of profits? Even granting the possibility that the Raiders may have been more profitable than the Packers, Russell was almost certainly much more richly compensated, on a percentage of profits basis, than the most highly paid CEO of 2009.

 

One difference between Russell and Culp is that Culp almost certainly worked 80+ hours a week to allow Danaher to achieve such high profits; and certainly played a major role in that firm's success. It's . . . less than clear that Russell worked particularly hard for the Raiders, or that he materially contributed to that team's long-term financial well-being.

 

"Danaher Corporation designs, manufactures and markets professional, medical, industrial and consumer products," which means its money comes from doing something useful. Jamarcus Russell's money came from $10 popcorn, PSLs, high ticket prices, and other instances of gouging the fans. Available information suggests Russell squandered the vast sums paid to him, and that he's now in dire financial straits. Nor is he alone in this. A lot of players use their vast paychecks to live flashy lifestyles. In some cases (Travis Henry, Willis McGahee), one of the objectives of the flashy lifestyle seems to be to impregnate as many women as possible. I'll grant that a lot of other players aren't like that. Fred Jackson, for example, seems to have much better character than a lot of former Bills' RBs I could name.

 

As a fan, I feel no sense of cosmic fulfillment when I'm subjected to a million different attempts to fleece me of cash, all so that the owners can pay outrageous sums to players living flashy lifestyles. Fans should have to pay less, should have to see fewer ads, and the salaries of the most highly paid players should be reduced.