Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money

[Orton's Arm]

This has been talked about ad nauseum. You dont know the profits of all the NFL teams so how can you make that comparison? Apparently its being made by using a $10 million dollar player against the not for profit Packers, who are not out to make a profit, unlike the CEOs mentioned in this thread. The top paid CEO btw had a pretty low base salary, and nearly all of his compensation was bonus related, which is not allowed in the NFL generally. Again, please stop using this comparison it doesnt hold any water.

Further, as I've said several times, professional sports are afforded special protections under the law. Law schools teach years worth of classes designed specifically on professional sports. Here is an article by ross tucker explaining how the NFL isnt like your beloved fortune 500 companies. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/05/05/business/index.html

 

The NFL also isnt like other businesses in that they arent capitalist, they share revenues, expenses profits etc. Indeed, in what other business do the owners ask for guaranteed profits? esp where their employees are the product?

Most of the team owners are independently wealthy - their sole purpose of owning a franchise isnt to earn mega profits like in the private sector. They want to win. See Mark Cuban, Pegula. Yea no one wants to lose money, no one is either, but its still not like a mega corporation in that regard.

 

The whole out of the country talent thing you discuss is off point. Adding more talent would have no positive effect but actually a negative effect?

 

You are actually trying to say that if there was more talent, less people would watch football? Lets see in soccer they have something called the champions league, full of the best teams, and it does pretty well.

 

The playoffs, arguably have the most talented teams, charge higher ticket prices and have better TV ratings.

 

So no, more talent would not be a bad thing.

It's true that more is known about Green Bay's financials than those of other small market teams. In some ways, Green Bay's financials are worse than other small market teams, because they donate 60% of their concessions revenues to charity. In other ways their financial situation is better, because they have little or no debt, because they sell out every game, and because so many people volunteer to do tasks that other teams would need to pay money for. My best guess is that Green Bay's financials are roughly comparable to other small market teams which choose to spend up to the cap.

 

You pointed out that, "The top paid CEO btw had a pretty low base salary, and nearly all of his compensation was bonus related, which is not allowed in the NFL generally." 99% of Culp's compensation for 2009 came in the form of stock options or other incentives dependent on his company's stock price. Had Danaher's stock done poorly, Culp's compensation for the year would have been only 1% of what it was. Put another way, Culp's 13% of profits represented an absolute best case scenario for a Fortune-500 CEO, based on the volatility of the stock market and corporate performance all going exactly Culp's way. No other CEO was compensated as much in 2009 as Culp was. Jamarcus Russell's >100% of profits (of a Packers-like team) was purely in the form of guaranteed money--money which Russell did precisely nothing to earn. A "guaranteed no matter how badly you mess up" contract, like the one Russell was given, is better than a "this is the most you can possibly earn if everything goes exactly right," contract like Culp's. The guaranteed nature of Russell's contract was in addition to the fact that Russell's compensation was eight times higher than Culp's, on a percentage of profits basis.

 

"Here is an article by ross tucker explaining how the NFL isnt like your beloved fortune 500 companies." Ross Tucker is one of my favorite sports writers, and the article was a good read. Toward the end, he sums up the piece by describing the NFL as "the last bastion of pure, unadulterated, testosterone-laden barbarism." He's right, but that doesn't answer my question as to why Jamarcus Russell-type athletes should receive eight times more compensation (as a percentage of profits) than the most highly paid CEO in all of 2009.

 

You wrote, "The NFL also isnt like other businesses in that they arent capitalist, they share revenues, expenses profits etc." If a restaurant chain opened 32 locations, I assume there would be at least some sharing of revenues, expenses, and profits between the 32 individual restaurant franchises.

 

"Most of the team owners are independently wealthy - their sole purpose of owning a franchise isnt to earn mega profits like in the private sector. They want to win." Agreed. However, if all 32 NFL owners decided to spend and do whatever it took to win the Super Bowl, there would still only be one Super Bowl winner per year. No matter how focused the NFL owners are on winning, the average team will always have a .500 record. Never more, never less. If all 32 owners became more focused on winning, the result would be a simple wealth transfer from the owners to the players. It's clear such a transfer has already happened, which is why players' salaries are exorbitantly high.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[Doc]

It is precisely because the new contracts were freshly minted that the owners didn't want to stop playing at that time. That a judge would find the lockout insurance no good in the future has no bearing on whether you take out the insurance. Another judge (or judges in this case) will as likely find in your favor on appeal. But we will never know because,a s predicted, this all will be settled well before the courts hear all arguments.

 

You are free to continue to believe that the economic conditions in 2008 played no part in the ultimate decision to opt out.

Obtaining the "lockout insurance" was another mistake on their part. They left money on the table in return for it. And ultimately a judge ruled against it.

 

The economics of 2008 had nothing to do with opting-out. Again, the owners were talking about opting-out at the earliest possible time just months after they signed the thing. And again, no single owner blamed the economy for opting out. The economy just made things worse.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

It's all relative and not all players are created equal. So some of them will have to be better than others, and those are the "stars." But as we've seen, you remove one star and usually another takes his place.

That may be. On the other hand, there are 351 billionaires in the United States.

 

Some posters have argued that "the game (not the players) is the product." I'm not completely buying this.

 

I would argue (and I realize we've been debating this in some form or another for the last few months here) that without the players, there is no game/product.

 

I certainly see the players as more essential to the success of the sport than I do the owners.

 

Probably we'll not see eye to eye on this. I still respect your views.

 

Almost all the players in the NFL were born (or at least raised) in the USA. But America only has about 5% or less of the world's population. Suppose there was an easy way to identify NFL-level talent among the world's other 95%. This hypothetical talent evaluation method would allow the NFL to potentially increase its talent level by a factor of twenty.

 

What effect, if any, would that dramatic increase in player talent have on the NFL's revenues? Of the people you know who don't currently watch football games, how many would start watching them as a result of this dramatic increase in player talent? I suspect that this increase in talent wouldn't cause any increase in Americans' football viewing, and might actually cause a decrease. Part of the appeal of the NFL is when some local talent does well for himself. Most of that local talent would be driven out of the league by players from other countries.

 

At least to me, expanding the league's available talent by a factor of 20 would be a lot like printing more money. Doing so makes the talent/money you already have seem a lot less valuable than it once did. If dramatically increasing the league's level of talent would fail to make it much better, would a noticeable decrease in its level of talent make it significantly worse?

 

On another matter, one or two people have said that professional sports is "different" from other business endeavors. What aspect, specifically, about professional sports makes it necessary for individual athletes to earn over eight times as much (on a percentage of profits basis) as the most highly paid CEO?

I don't buy the first part of your argument that internationalizing the player pool would have a negative effect on the NFL's profitability.

 

People watching the NBA playoffs have been very interested in the Dirk Nowitzki story. Ditto with the Sedin twins in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. These stories add interest to these sports, not reduce it, IMO.

 

I also don't agree with the statement above which I've bolded… either the first part or the second part. While I think that there are some indiscriminating fans who wouldn't notice a hypothetical drop-off in the quality of the play I think many fans would notice… especially with the quarterback play. The thing that made the USFL so riveting for me was the fact that Jim Kelly played for the Houston Generals.

 

Finally as for your ongoing questioning of player compensation relative to CEO pay… I think it's really irrelevant.

 

The basic paradigm for the economic structure in sports has been established. It is not likely to change by more than a few degrees over time. It has evolved over numerous CBAs over the course of decades. The nature of business is that there are a huge multitude of different industries and comparing them is apples and oranges, IMO.

 

I think it would be more instructive to compare the NFL to the other North American sports leagues and also to professional sports in other countries. Was not David Beckham the highest paid athlete in the world several years running? How does the NFL compare to professional cycling? Tennis? Rugby?

 

With all due respect EA, IMO the CEO issue is not relevant.

Edited June 15, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Orton's Arm]

That may be. On the other hand, there are 351 billionaires in the United States.

 

Some posters have argued that "the game (not the players) is the product." I'm not completely buying this.

 

I would argue (and I realize we've been debating this in some form or another for the last few months here) that without the players, there is no game/product.

 

I certainly see the players as more essential to the success of the sport than I do the owners.

 

Probably we'll not see eye to eye on this. I still respect your views.

 

 

I don't buy the first part of your argument that internationalizing the player pool would have a negative effect on the NFL's profitability.

 

People watching the NBA playoffs have been very interested in the Dirk Nowitzki story. Ditto with the Sedin twins in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. These stories add interest to these sports, not reduce it, IMO.

 

I also don't agree with the statement above which I've bolded… either the first part or the second part. While I think that there are some indiscriminating fans who wouldn't notice a hypothetical drop-off in the quality of the play I think many fans would notice… especially with the quarterback play. The thing that made the USFL so riveting for me was the fact that Jim Kelly played for the Houston Generals.

 

Finally as for your ongoing questioning of player compensation relative to CEO pay… I think it's really irrelevant.

 

The basic paradigm for the economic structure in sports has been established. It is not likely to change by more than a few degrees over time. It has evolved over numerous CBAs over the course of decades. The nature of business is that there are a huge multitude of different industries and comparing them is apples and oranges, IMO.

 

I think it would be more instructive to compare the NFL to the other North American sports leagues and also to professional sports in other countries. Was not David Beckham the highest paid athlete in the world several years running? How does the NFL compare to professional cycling? Tennis? Rugby?

 

With all due respect EA, IMO the CEO issue is not relevant.

I disagree. If NFL players (and for that matter, professional sports players) are grossly overpaid by the standards of Fortune 500 CEOs, then they are grossly overpaid by any reasonable standard! If your argument is that professional athletes tend (on a percentage of profits basis) to make more money than CEOs, then all that says to me is that professional athletes' compensation has gotten even more out of hand--by a factor of eight or more--than has CEO compensation. Add to that the fact that a good CEO is much more valuable to a company than any star athlete is to any sports franchise, and it's clear that NFL players' compensation needs to be reined in.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I disagree. If NFL players (and for that matter, professional sports players) are grossly overpaid by the standards of Fortune 500 CEOs, then they are grossly overpaid by any reasonable standard! If your argument is that professional athletes tend (on a percentage of profits basis) to make more money than CEOs, then all that says to me is that professional athletes' compensation has gotten even more out of hand--by a factor of eight or more--than has CEO compensation. Add to that the fact that a good CEO is much more valuable to a company than any star athlete is to any sports franchise, and it's clear that NFL players' compensation needs to be reined in.

I could start into the class struggle thing, or the executive compensation issue with all its attendant sub-issues like skyrocketing executive compensation, golden parachutes, etc. but I won't.

 

The compensation for professional athletes didn't just drop out of the sky. It has reached a state of relative equilibrium as a result of decades of collective bargaining. It has slowly moved to this point.

 

After the smoke clears on the NFL lockout and the upcoming NBA lockout, I think we'll see that there will not be a "sea change" or "new world order" established. The amount of "market adjustment" is bound to be relatively small. These CBAs tend to change slowly over time, not all at once.

 

In a sense, these things take on a life of their own. If player salaries are not sustainable, then they will eventually erode. Prospective owners will become disenchanted (like the Rich family was with MLB), fans might become disaffected, etc. Maybe the sport will someday contract instead of expand and then what?

 

The reason players are so highly-compensated is because they've been able to effectively leverage the popularity of the sport to increase their earnings. (And NFL players aren't even the top of the food chain. Their life expectancy is somewhere in the 50-year range, they are the only North American pro sports league without fully-guaranteed contracts, they suffer a high rate of chronic debilitating medical conditions…) Longtime MLBPA boss Marvin Miller has been very critical of the NFLPA leadership over the decades chiding them for a lack of unity and the fact that they've lagged behind leagues like the NBA and MLB.

 

If the owners had the upper hand, you can bet they'd have their boots on the players' throats right now… that's the nature of these things.

 

It's possible that you feel more strongly about this than some of the owners do. This is ultimately business and not really a place for emotions (unless you're Jerry Richardson). The owners are all for the most part, smart, wealthy guys who knew what they were getting into. I doubt they moved towards a work stoppage thinking that there was "a new Sheriff in town" and that "things are gonna be different from now on." The owners are not fighting to fundamentally change the way business is done.

 

Both sides are arguing over a few percentage points which translates into hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

So that CEO/Player dynamic that you feel so strongly about is highly unlikely to change.

 

More likely it'll swing back and forth in a narrow range.

 

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Obtaining the "lockout insurance" was another mistake on their part. They left money on the table in return for it. And ultimately a judge ruled against it.

 

The economics of 2008 had nothing to do with opting-out. Again, the owners were talking about opting-out at the earliest possible time just months after they signed the thing. And again, no single owner blamed the economy for opting out. The economy just made things worse.

Well, yes--insurance costs money. But how much it cost, no one will ever know. Certainly D. Smith didn't suspect anything fishy about the renewed contracts. He was falling over himself praising the owners for doing such a greeat job with them. How come a smart guy like him couldn't figure out there was so much omney left on the table?

 

 

One judge ruled against it (players still have no money form this ruling). If the NFL's appeal ever ran it's course, the next group of judges may agree with the special master, who thought there was nothing "illegal" about the insurance.

 

I'm sure the econonomy was weighing heavily on the minds of the owners with construction projects on the drafting tables. Anyway, everyone knew this CBA would not likely see its full term--even Upshaw knew this.

 

The owners will get back some from the players in the next CBA and everything will have worked out fine for them--and the players.

[JohnC]

Well, yes--insurance costs money. But how much it cost, no one will ever know. Certainly D. Smith didn't suspect anything fishy about the renewed contracts. He was falling over himself praising the owners for doing such a greeat job with them. How come a smart guy like him couldn't figure out there was so much omney left on the table?

 

Initially, Smith did not know that money was left on the table by the owners in order to finance the owners' so-called insurance scam. When he found out how they rigged the TV deal against the players' interests he howled like a stuck pig. That led to the union's legal action against the deal. Ultimately, the special master (Doty) ruled in Smith's and the union's favor that it was a inappropriate deal.

 

 

One judge ruled against it (players still have no money form this ruling). If the NFL's appeal ever ran it's course, the next group of judges may agree with the special master, who thought there was nothing "illegal" about the insurance.

 

You have the story line a little garbled. There was a preliminary ruling in the owners' favor that the TV deal was legitimate. But when it went to the republican judge (Doty) who is the special master he ruled against the owners.

 

Doty delayed making a decision on how to determine the damagages from his ruling because he didn't want to overly influence the on-going labor negotiations.

 

The owners will get back some from the players in the next CBA and everything will have worked out fine for them--and the players.

 

The owners wanted to steamroll the players and breakup the CBA partnershp arrangement. Their strategy was sabatoged by the Doty TV money ruling. Now it has come down to basic hard nosed bargaining that will mutually benefit both sides in this labor dispute. When the deal is concluded the owners will not have gotten what they originally had hoped for (re-alignment of power)-they will have gotten the best deal they could get.

Edited June 15, 2011 by JohnC

[Hplarrm]

 

 

So that CEO/Player dynamic that you feel so strongly about is highly unlikely to change.

 

More likely it'll swing back and forth in a narrow range.

I think one would be foolish not to look back at the last time the results of the CEO/Player dynamic changed which was after the mid-80s lockout (note that I did not say the dynamic which is less mutably based on human nature but the results changed a lot as they are based upon the rules which human nature produces).

 

The results produced by the human nature changed in a big way because the NFL owners scored a huge tactical victory over the traditional AFL-CIO NFLPA led by traditional AFL-CIO type Ed Garvey. From the owners perspective no good deed goes unpunished as they won so effectively with the replacement player gambit that it made the decert strategy ultimately pursued by the NFLPA a viable possibility.

 

The sea change differences were:

 

1. The team owners ran kicking and screaming from actually working a free market to wanting the union to comeback and collude with them to force adults to be directed where to live and forced them to negotiate with only one entity.

 

2. A sea change occurred in that the pretense that the players were "merely" employees like workers at a normal business was obviously incorrect. The players in essence became partners with the owners in producing the NFL product. One could begin to see the impact of this change in the NFLPA began to stop reflexively supporting players against any disciplinary action and instead began the process of educating the untalented 90% of players that they needed to at least pretend to act like adults or they risked killing the whole thing. Players like Troy Vincent and TKO Spikes began taking Ivy League business courses during the off season and it became clear who the talented tenth of leaders were (folks like Brees are stepping up to be leaders and in the lawsuit after decert its Brady, et al. and high profile players like Manning who are the name plaintiffs)

 

3. The tsunami continued to grow with the last renegotiation of the CBA where Upshaw publicly dictated that the new CBA would be applied to the total gross receipts rather than designated portions but also that the player share needed to start with a 6. Not only did he state this but on paper he won with 60.5% being the agreed upon assessment of the NFLPA share.

 

4. This result was a sea change in that is that even if reality is below 60.5% the players now clearly get well above a majority of the total gross receipts and arguably they are not only a partner but the majority partner in this enterprise.

 

You are right that the $ amount under dispute are really relatively small % (which still means large absolute dollar amounts in the multi-billion NFL where the TV networks are by far the true cash cow diminishing the import of gate receipts.

 

Though human nature and thus the CEO/player dynamic remains the same (and really is an irrelevant item for comparison sake and as a driver of change) the thing which as changed is the market. Marginal differences between small markets and big markets still remain. However, the true market where the vast majority of the money comes from is from eyeballs all over America and if the NFL wants more money all over the world which really determines actions.

 

This actually is great for Buffalo as its value is actually determined not by local market size but by its place as an original AFL team. In the future if/when we see a new stadium for Buffalo it likely will be smaller as the rabid fans make for good story telling to the true market rather than a couple of more marginal dollars from selling 15,000 tickets.

[Mr. WEO]

Initially, Smith did not know that money was left on the table by the owners in order to finance the owners' so-called insurance scam. When he found out how they rigged the TV deal against the players' interests he howled like a stuck pig. That led to the union's legal action against the deal. Ultimately, the special master (Doty) ruled in Smith's and the union's favor that it was a inappropriate deal.

 

You are resatign my point. Except it is very strange that Smith could be so excited about amount of the renwed contract, yet claim to be shocked later that there was "lockout insurance" in the contract. I wouldn't be surprised if Smith knew the owners would seek a deal like that from the networks. He knows how the game is played. It's just like his decertification move, which may yet be found to be "illegal" by NLRB or in court, if it gets that far.

 

 

 

 

You have the story line a little garbled. There was a preliminary ruling in the owners' favor that the TV deal was legitimate. But when it went to the republican judge (Doty) who is the special master he ruled against the owners.

 

Doty delayed making a decision on how to determine the damagages from his ruling because he didn't want to overly influence the on-going labor negotiations.

Not garbled. Stephen Burbank is the NFL special master who ruled that the deal with the networks was OK. He was federally appointed to that role in 2002. David Doty is a U.S. District Court (Minnesota) Judge who has heard several cases between the NFL and the NFLPA over the past 20 years. He is a judge, not a special master.

 

 

 

The owners wanted to steamroll the players and breakup the CBA partnershp arrangement. Their strategy was sabatoged by the Doty TV money ruling. Now it has come down to basic hard nosed bargaining that will mutually benefit both sides in this labor dispute. When the deal is concluded the owners will not have gotten what they originally had hoped for (re-alignment of power)-they will have gotten the best deal they could get.

 

Actually, the owner's last offer before the union walked a way and decertified was pretty solid and included items never offered before. It was hardly a "steamroll", or a "realignment of power". No matter the % of revenue shared, you shouldn't be confused as to who has the "power" in this realtionship. Any notion of player power ended when the owners put the padlocks on the facility doors.

[Doc]

Well, yes--insurance costs money. But how much it cost, no one will ever know. Certainly D. Smith didn't suspect anything fishy about the renewed contracts. He was falling over himself praising the owners for doing such a greeat job with them. How come a smart guy like him couldn't figure out there was so much omney left on the table?

Smith didn't know the NFL left money on the table in lieu of the "lockout insurance." Likely he was satisfied that the owners were able to get the same deal as before in an extension, seeing as how "the [economic] situation changed" since the 2006 contracts were signed.

One judge ruled against it (players still have no money form this ruling). If the NFL's appeal ever ran it's course, the next group of judges may agree with the special master, who thought there was nothing "illegal" about the insurance.

They "may" have agreed. But more likely they agree with the other judge.

I'm sure the econonomy was weighing heavily on the minds of the owners with construction projects on the drafting tables. Anyway, everyone knew this CBA would not likely see its full term--even Upshaw knew this.

I have yet to read a quote by ANY owner that says they opted-out of it because of the economy, much less that the 2006 CBA was a good deal at any time. And remember, I'm not the one who needs to hear people say things out loud.

The owners will get back some from the players in the next CBA and everything will have worked out fine for them--and the players.

Yep, they'll likely get something back and the lockout will end in short order. Just like what would have happened in 2006 if the owners didn't cave. Except they wouldn't have given the players hundreds of millions more in the interim.

[Mr. WEO]

Smith didn't know the NFL left money on the table in lieu of the "lockout insurance." Likely he was satisfied that the owners were able to get the same deal as before in an extension, seeing as how "the [economic] situation changed" since the 2006 contracts were signed.

 

They "may" have agreed. But more likely they agree with the other judge.

 

I have yet to read a quote by ANY owner that says they opted-out of it because of the economy, much less that the 2006 CBA was a good deal at any time. And remember, I'm not the one who needs to hear people say things out loud.

 

Yep, they'll likely get something back and the lockout will end in short order. Just like what would have happened in 2006 if the owners didn't cave. Except they wouldn't have given the players hundreds of millions more in the interim.

You're confused--you are the one who doesn't believe the quotes even when the pricinpals are quoted.

 

If judges were "more likely to agree with the other judge", there would be no lockout right now.

 

 

How much would a renewed TV contract be valued at during a lockout? You pretend to forget that the union again and again laid down the same offer--59.5% of all revenue--whereas the NFL was offering 56%. At an impasse, the union walked out and refused to negotiate further--preferring to let the CBA expire and looking forward to what Upshaw promised would be the first of many uncapped years. For the league, it was either give them the 3.5% (which the owners, in the aggregate, never actually paid) or lock them out after the next season. Upshaw was a much tougher negotiator than this clown Smith and everyone knew exactly how tough. He gave them 3 more days to think it over--again. The sticking point wasn't the extra 3.5%, it was the revenue sharing amongst the owners, doc. Upshaw was a strong proponent of this.

 

The overwhelming majority of the owners knew how important it was to keep the games going at that time. And if it cost them a few hundred million (the CBA was only in effect for 3 years), they made a few extra billion by avoiding a work stoppage. That's not a bad return on the investment, right doc?

[Orton's Arm]

I could start into the class struggle thing, or the executive compensation issue with all its attendant sub-issues like skyrocketing executive compensation, golden parachutes, etc. but I won't.

 

The compensation for professional athletes didn't just drop out of the sky. It has reached a state of relative equilibrium as a result of decades of collective bargaining. It has slowly moved to this point.

 

After the smoke clears on the NFL lockout and the upcoming NBA lockout, I think we'll see that there will not be a "sea change" or "new world order" established. The amount of "market adjustment" is bound to be relatively small. These CBAs tend to change slowly over time, not all at once.

 

In a sense, these things take on a life of their own. If player salaries are not sustainable, then they will eventually erode. Prospective owners will become disenchanted (like the Rich family was with MLB), fans might become disaffected, etc. Maybe the sport will someday contract instead of expand and then what?

 

The reason players are so highly-compensated is because they've been able to effectively leverage the popularity of the sport to increase their earnings. (And NFL players aren't even the top of the food chain. Their life expectancy is somewhere in the 50-year range, they are the only North American pro sports league without fully-guaranteed contracts, they suffer a high rate of chronic debilitating medical conditions…) Longtime MLBPA boss Marvin Miller has been very critical of the NFLPA leadership over the decades chiding them for a lack of unity and the fact that they've lagged behind leagues like the NBA and MLB.

 

If the owners had the upper hand, you can bet they'd have their boots on the players' throats right now… that's the nature of these things.

 

It's possible that you feel more strongly about this than some of the owners do. This is ultimately business and not really a place for emotions (unless you're Jerry Richardson). The owners are all for the most part, smart, wealthy guys who knew what they were getting into. I doubt they moved towards a work stoppage thinking that there was "a new Sheriff in town" and that "things are gonna be different from now on." The owners are not fighting to fundamentally change the way business is done.

 

Both sides are arguing over a few percentage points which translates into hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

So that CEO/Player dynamic that you feel so strongly about is highly unlikely to change.

 

More likely it'll swing back and forth in a narrow range.

You make a number of valid points in your post, and it's hard to find very much with which to disagree. I agree that players' compensation is unlikely to change by more than a few percentage points of revenue, regardless of how radically the compensation of the most highly paid players should change.

 

You mentioned CEOs' golden parachutes. A golden parachute is money a CEO will be paid even if he messes up very badly. That's a lot like the $32 million in guaranteed money Jamarcus Russell was paid. I doubt very many CEOs have received equally large golden parachutes.

 

You mentioned that player salaries were considerably higher in MLB and the NBA, even in relative terms, than they are in the NFL. I agree, and I strongly feel that out-of-control salaries in both professional baseball and professional basketball have caused extremely serious problems for both sports. The decline of MLB is due in large part to problems created directly or indirectly by too much player compensation. As others have pointed out, the NBA's recent woes would not have occurred had player salaries not been allowed to skyrocket.

 

As far as the low life expectancy of NFL players--I agree there's a correlation, but that does not prove causation. Whenever you see that A is correlated with B, you should consider four possibilities. 1) A causes B. 2) B causes A. 3) C causes A and B. 4) Coincidence.

 

Consider players like Mike Williams for example. How much will he weigh once he's done with football? How much does Jamarcus Russell weigh? How will those weights affect their life expectancy?

 

Or consider that several former players have been shot and killed when visiting the ghettos where they grew up. Football didn't do that to them. Football gave them the money they needed to escape the ghettos forever.

 

Then there are former players who experience drug additions or alcoholism. One imagines those have a life-shortening effect. Maybe football is partially to blame, in the sense that former players miss the adrenaline of game day, and are searching for a chemical substitute. Former players need to learn to stay away from drugs, and (depending on a player's personality) perhaps alcohol as well.

 

I acknowledge that people who engage in dangerous occupations, such as digging tunnels under cities, or fishing off the coast of Alaska, earn higher-than-normal wages to compensate them for the potential loss of life. But this is not what the NFLPA's demands for a progressively greater share of revenues are about. If the NFLPA's objective was to compensate players for potentially life-shortening effects of football, their primary objective should be a higher minimum salary for NFL players. That objective has been purely secondary or tertiary to the NFLPA's thinking. Instead their primary objective has been to steadily increase the salary cap--an objective which creates large benefits for the Tom Bradys and Drew Breeses of the league, and does precisely nothing for players making the NFL minimum. I would also argue that the NFLPA should be interested in reducing brain trauma via equipment modifications and changes to how practices (and possibly games) are conducted. My understanding is that the NFLPA has taken little or no interest in this issue, except insofar as it can be used to argue for increases in the salary cap.

[JohnC]

You are resatign my point. Except it is very strange that Smith could be so excited about amount of the renwed contract, yet claim to be shocked later that there was "lockout insurance" in the contract.

 

The lockout insurance is only one part of the TV deal he disagreed with. When he get a fuller picture of the contrived deal that resulted in less than could have been garnered he took it to court and ultimately won. It should be obvious to you that you don't challenge a deal by going to court when you are happy with how the deal was made and what was in the deal.

 

Not garbled. Stephen Burbank is the NFL special master who ruled that the deal with the networks was OK. He was federally appointed to that role in 2002. David Doty is a U.S. District Court (Minnesota) Judge who has heard several cases between the NFL and the NFLPA over the past 20 years. He is a judge, not a special master.

 

Judge Doty has the responsibility to oversee that the terms of the prior CBA are met by both sides. His decisions trump Mr. Burbank's opinion on the enforcement of terms of the prior CBA. Could Doty's decision be appealed? Of course. Everything can be appealed up to the Supreme Court. As it stands the owners do not have access to this year's TV money.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/01/judge-doty-sides-with-players-in-lockout-insurance-cas/

 

 

 

 

Actually, the owner's last offer before the union walked a way and decertified was pretty solid and included items never offered before. It was hardly a "steamroll", or a "realignment of power". No matter the % of revenue shared, you shouldn't be confused as to who has the "power" in this realtionship. Any notion of player power ended when the owners put the padlocks on the facility doors.

 

When the owners locked out the players they also dried up their various sources of revenue. The irony is that the owners lost revenue sooner than the players did in this irresponsible game of chicken. There is also pressure on them to settle as there is for the players.

[Doc]

You're confused--you are the one who doesn't believe the quotes even when the pricinpals are quoted.

Depends on who says what and what is said. Have you found even a single quote by any owner where he/she states the 2006 CBA was a good deal and/or the economy was the reason they opted-out?

If judges were "more likely to agree with the other judge", there would be no lockout right now.

What, the lockout would have magically disappeared? No, the owners thought that they could get away with the "lockout insurance" and locked-out the players, much like they thought they had a slam-dunk in the ANI case. A judge however ruled against it. Other judges likely would have sided with that judge. And the owners lost (roughly) a couple billion in the process.

How much would a renewed TV contract be valued at during a lockout? You pretend to forget that the union again and again laid down the same offer--59.5% of all revenue--whereas the NFL was offering 56%. At an impasse, the union walked out and refused to negotiate further--preferring to let the CBA expire and looking forward to what Upshaw promised would be the first of many uncapped years. For the league, it was either give them the 3.5% (which the owners, in the aggregate, never actually paid) or lock them out after the next season. Upshaw was a much tougher negotiator than this clown Smith and everyone knew exactly how tough. He gave them 3 more days to think it over--again. The sticking point wasn't the extra 3.5%, it was the revenue sharing amongst the owners, doc. Upshaw was a strong proponent of this.

 

The overwhelming majority of the owners knew how important it was to keep the games going at that time. And if it cost them a few hundred million (the CBA was only in effect for 3 years), they made a few extra billion by avoiding a work stoppage. That's not a bad return on the investment, right doc?

Work stoppage? What work stoppage? There was never going to be a work stoppage and this latest CBA "fight" is proof-positive of that. Why do you think there would have been one back then, and there won't be one now? And even if there had been one, at best it lasts a year, which leaves another 3 years before the next round of TV contract talks.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Doc

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Thanks for replying, EA. Like you and others, I like the idea of a more fair and just compensation system.

 

The things I would wish to see out of the new CBA (besides it being very long so we don't have to worry about another work stoppage) would be a strict rookie wage scale using a slotting system. If you were drafted 127th overall… you get exactly what the 127th pick always gets with a small allowance for inflation perhaps. If you get picked 1st overall, you get what the 1st pick always gets.

 

I think the travesty in the NFL's compensation system is that a player who's never played a down in the NFL can get a $30-50 million guaranteed signing bonus.

 

Then you see guys who are damn good players and damn good people… guys who are totally committed to their careers and exemplify professionalism... being underpaid.

 

Fred Jackson worked his way up from Division 3 Coe College, played indoor football with Sioux City, and NFL Europe with the Rhein Fire but because he was an undrafted free agent and because of the somewhat restrictive rules for free agency, Jackson is underpaid for what he is… a better than average, starting running back in the NFL.

 

Besides a strict rookie wage scale based on slotting, I'd also like to see a higher veteran minimum salary but also a structure where the difference between a 2nd year veteran and an 8th year veteran is minimal so that there are fewer personnel decisions based on age (actually salary) discrimination. Basically I'd like to see the minimum salary increased.

 

Both of these suggestions would make NFL player compensation more fair, IMO.

[Ramius]

Thanks for replying, EA. Like you and others, I like the idea of a more fair and just compensation system.

 

The things I would wish to see out of the new CBA (besides it being very long so we don't have to worry about another work stoppage) would be a strict rookie wage scale using a slotting system. If you were drafted 127th overall… you get exactly what the 127th pick always gets with a small allowance for inflation perhaps. If you get picked 1st overall, you get what the 1st pick always gets.

 

I think the travesty in the NFL's compensation system is that a player who's never played a down in the NFL can get a $30-50 million guaranteed signing bonus.

 

Then you see guys who are damn good players and damn good people… guys who are totally committed to their careers and exemplify professionalism... being underpaid.

 

Fred Jackson worked his way up from Division 3 Coe College, played indoor football with Sioux City, and NFL Europe with the Rhein Fire but because he was an undrafted free agent and because of the somewhat restrictive rules for free agency, Jackson is underpaid for what he is… a better than average, starting running back in the NFL.

 

Besides a strict rookie wage scale based on slotting, I'd also like to see a higher veteran minimum salary but also a structure where the difference between a 2nd year veteran and an 8th year veteran is minimal so that there are fewer personnel decisions based on age (actually salary) discrimination. Basically I'd like to see the minimum salary increased.

 

Both of these suggestions would make NFL player compensation more fair, IMO.

 

Agreed. My biggest need for the new CBA is a hard rookie cap. Let's pay Dareus 3-4 million over the first 3 years in the NFL, and then if he's beating ass (like all expect and hope), then we can pay him his $50 million guaranteed. NOT right off the bat.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Ramius

[Mr. WEO]

The lockout insurance is only one part of the TV deal he disagreed with. When he get a fuller picture of the contrived deal that resulted in less than could have been garnered he took it to court and ultimately won. It should be obvious to you that you don't challenge a deal by going to court when you are happy with how the deal was made and what was in the deal.

 

 

 

Judge Doty has the responsibility to oversee that the terms of the prior CBA are met by both sides. His decisions trump Mr. Burbank's opinion on the enforcement of terms of the prior CBA. Could Doty's decision be appealed? Of course. Everything can be appealed up to the Supreme Court. As it stands the owners do not have access to this year's TV money.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/01/judge-doty-sides-with-players-in-lockout-insurance-cas/

 

When the owners locked out the players they also dried up their various sources of revenue. The irony is that the owners lost revenue sooner than the players did in this irresponsible game of chicken. There is also pressure on them to settle as there is for the players.

You said Doty was the Special Master. He isn't. Yes, a Federal Judge's decision trumps a Special Master's. True the owners don;t get the money, but for them it is more important that the players don't get it either--and they haven't. The owners havve lost little money so far, if any. Every player with an off-season workout bonus has lost them completely.

 

Depends on who says what and what is said. Have you found even a single quote by any owner where he/she states the 2006 CBA was a good deal and/or the economy was the reason they opted-out?

 

What, the lockout would have magically disappeared? No, the owners thought that they could get away with the "lockout insurance" and locked-out the players, much like they thought they had a slam-dunk in the ANI case. A judge however ruled against it. Other judges likely would have sided with that judge. And the owners lost (roughly) a couple billion in the process.

 

Work stoppage? What work stoppage? There was never going to be a work stoppage and this latest CBA "fight" is proof-positive of that. Why do you think there would have been one back then, and there won't be one now? And even if there had been one, at best it lasts a year, which leaves another 3 years before the next round of TV contract talks.

One judge stayed the lockout. 2 of the next 3 judges allowed the lockout to continue, so had they agreed with the first judge, the lockout would have ended--not magically, but by court order. You really misunderstand the ANI case. The case was brought agaisnt the NFL. They supported a SC review and decision because they had little to lose (billions?? to a knit cap company??) and much to gain. Had they won, it would have been the most monumental event is sports labor history. There would never be a need for them to enter into a CBA. The union would have been irrelevant.

 

Yes a work stoppage. What do you think would have happened if the owners turned down the union's offer? There was no other offer coming from the union. They would have done exactly as they did this year--decert and lockout. There would have been a work stoppage after an uncapped year. A year after that the network contracts would have started negotiations. If you are a TV exec, do you throw the same money at a league with that going on?

 

Re: work stoppages: how do I "know there won't be one now"? Ah....there is one now.

[Doc]

You said Doty was the Special Master. He isn't. Yes, a Federal Judge's decision trumps a Special Master's. True the owners don;t get the money, but for them it is more important that the players don't get it either--and they haven't. The owners havve lost little money so far, if any. Every player with an off-season workout bonus has lost them completely.

Sure they lost money! Tons of it. They paid the players hundreds of millions more from 2006-2010, and they didn't demand hundreds of millions more from the networks to extend the 2006-2011 contracts those extra 3 years. This is undeniable. The players who lost workout bonuses (the big money players, who have the most say in the NFLPA) don't need the chump change anyway and should get it back once they report.

One judge stayed the lockout. 2 of the next 3 judges allowed the lockout to continue, so had they agreed with the first judge, the lockout would have ended--not magically, but by court order. You really misunderstand the ANI case. The case was brought agaisnt the NFL. They supported a SC review and decision because they had little to lose (billions?? to a knit cap company??) and much to gain. Had they won, it would have been the most monumental event is sports labor history. There would never be a need for them to enter into a CBA. The union would have been irrelevant.

The ANI case was essentially dead in the water until the NFL agreed to let the SC hear it, because they thought they would win. You even thought they'd win. They didn't.

 

As for what happened with staying/allowing the lockout, what the judges ruled there has/had no bearing on what the judges may have ruled regarding the lockout insurance. And as I said above, since the NFL did trade-away higher-revenue TV contracts for the lockout insurance, it was a long shot that the judges would have sided with the owners.

Yes a work stoppage. What do you think would have happened if the owners turned down the union's offer? There was no other offer coming from the union. They would have done exactly as they did this year--decert and lockout. There would have been a work stoppage after an uncapped year. A year after that the network contracts would have started negotiations. If you are a TV exec, do you throw the same money at a league with that going on?

What would have been "going on," doc? No games figure to be lost this season since it will be a brief "work stoppage," and that's ALL the networks care about. Why would it have been any different in 2008? Not to mention if there were any games missed in 2008, there was still the 2009 and 2010 seasons before starting to talk about new contracts, and surely you are saying the work stoppage would have lasted for years.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Doc

[Orton's Arm]

Thanks for replying, EA. Like you and others, I like the idea of a more fair and just compensation system.

 

The things I would wish to see out of the new CBA (besides it being very long so we don't have to worry about another work stoppage) would be a strict rookie wage scale using a slotting system. If you were drafted 127th overall… you get exactly what the 127th pick always gets with a small allowance for inflation perhaps. If you get picked 1st overall, you get what the 1st pick always gets.

 

I think the travesty in the NFL's compensation system is that a player who's never played a down in the NFL can get a $30-50 million guaranteed signing bonus.

 

Then you see guys who are damn good players and damn good people… guys who are totally committed to their careers and exemplify professionalism... being underpaid.

 

Fred Jackson worked his way up from Division 3 Coe College, played indoor football with Sioux City, and NFL Europe with the Rhein Fire but because he was an undrafted free agent and because of the somewhat restrictive rules for free agency, Jackson is underpaid for what he is… a better than average, starting running back in the NFL.

 

Besides a strict rookie wage scale based on slotting, I'd also like to see a higher veteran minimum salary but also a structure where the difference between a 2nd year veteran and an 8th year veteran is minimal so that there are fewer personnel decisions based on age (actually salary) discrimination. Basically I'd like to see the minimum salary increased.

 

Both of these suggestions would make NFL player compensation more fair, IMO.

I agree with your post. A strict rookie wage scale is clearly necessary to prevent future Jamarcus Russell contracts. A higher minimum wage for NFL players would help the little guy (little being strictly figurative in this case). I'd like to see the minimum wage the same for all players, regardless of veteran status, so that you don't see older veterans pushed into retirement just because some rookie will do the same job for less.

 

When thinking of players who are underpaid, Fred Jackson is one of the first guys who comes to mind. He does a lot of things well, doesn't attract negative attention to himself, and gives the game all he has. The fact the Bills didn't have to use a draft pick on him is an added plus. I wish this team had lots more Fred Jacksons.

[maryland-bills-fan]

The union can not have it both ways. If they are being paid to do a job, then they should be paid the same for the same job. All starting QB's should get the same pay and should share any football related extra income. Also, there is nothing to stop a NFL player from carrying out his football profession in some other league. There is nothing preventing a NFL player from changing his job to earn a living.