Pyrite Gal Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Who cares which one was profitable? The POINT is that the owners OWN THE LEAGUE. The longer the NFLPA stubbornly refuses to budge from 60% DGR the more money their players are losing, like the NHL players did. Deal with it. And using your oil industry reference, you think oil workers are going to demand a pay raise after the oil industry posted their BEST-EVER quarter recently? According to you, they should. 616952[/snapback] Again folks need to understand that while certainly the owners own the individual teams, the league is really composed of a partnership between the owners and the players. Yhe owners know that they cannot produce or even probably survive if the individuals owners lived in an NFL dictated by the fre market. The big chsnge happened due to the mid-80s lockout when the owners kicked the NFLPA butt so badly that the NFLPA threatened to decertify itself as a bargaining agent for the players. Rather than operate in a free market where the individual owners bid against each other for individual player services, they rather quickly (considering the level of rancor during the lockout) agreed to a CBA which provided the players with as much as 70% of the designated gross. Yhe NFLPA has already won a huge concession from the owners in that they have already agreed to switch to a system of total revemues as the base for considering player salaries rather than the DGR sustem. The owners have agreed that the total will result in an increase in the NFLPA take from hhe pie and the level will range from a low of 56% for the players to Upshaw's demand that the final number must start with a 6. No matter, it is a fair argu,emt to say that with any take over 50% of the total gross that it is really the NFLPA which will be the majority owner in this partnership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 THe owners are owners for a reason, they take on the most risk plain and simple. Actually, it is not at all that simple. I don't know where this idea is that "holders of capital" in a business take much more risk than "holders of labor" in a business, but it just plain isn't true. Let's face it, if the value of an NFL franchise were, by some act of God, to go south - the owner of that franchise would in all likelihood still be living comfortably. They would have other assets, or other employment opportunities with which to put some very fine bread on the table for their families. Of course, the value of NFL franchises are in fact skyrockets.... to name just one example, Robert Kraft purchased the New England Patriots at the start of the salary cap era around 1994, and since then, the value of the Patriots has *quintupled*!!! The players, on the other hand, are bearing enormous risk. These men are investing countless hours of their life during their prime high school and college years, to train their bodies for a shot at landing a job in an industry where the average career is only about 3 or 4 years, and the maximum career is only about 20 years. All those hours devoted to practice are hours where these men aren't doing science projects, or reading books, or participating in "Junior Achievment", or engaging in other activities that wil develop their skills for another career. For 5-6 months out of the year, this job involves lots of travel away from home. Players can be fired without notice, and if they underperform, they'lll endure public mockery on message boards and radio shows. Most careers will involve several uprootings of the family to different cities in pursuit of a job. All told, they're making huge investments in hopes of a career that might result in a payday, but is far more likely to leave them out on the street, without much in the way of assets, and without the other job skills that people who didn't spend all those hours on football have. So sorry, but the distribution of revenues in the NFL has nothing to do with risk. If it was about risk, then the owners would get about 5% of revenues and the players would get about 95% of revenues (o.k., maybe the owners could get 10% of revenues if they built their own stadiums.) Instead, the distribution of revenues has everything to do with a collusive monopoly whereby the NFL owners decide exactly how many franchises there will be, and how many jobs, but where the players are stuck with far more applicants than player slots. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatPatPatSack Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 So, the players should just take whatever amount of money the NFL Owners want to give them - no matter how rich those owners are getting???? JDG 616622[/snapback] Yep. If they was smart. But they ain't. Smart is when you have your cake. And you eat it. Greed is when you have your cake and don't eat it, cause the other guy has more cake than you. Greed isn't good. It's usually stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Actually, it is not at all that simple. I don't know where this idea is that "holders of capital" in a business take much more risk than "holders of labor" in a business, but it just plain isn't true. Let's face it, if the value of an NFL franchise were, by some act of God, to go south - the owner of that franchise would in all likelihood still be living comfortably. They would have other assets, or other employment opportunities with which to put some very fine bread on the table for their families. Of course, the value of NFL franchises are in fact skyrockets.... to name just one example, Robert Kraft purchased the New England Patriots at the start of the salary cap era around 1994, and since then, the value of the Patriots has *quintupled*!!! The players, on the other hand, are bearing enormous risk. These men are investing countless hours of their life during their prime high school and college years, to train their bodies for a shot at landing a job in an industry where the average career is only about 3 or 4 years, and the maximum career is only about 20 years. All those hours devoted to practice are hours where these men aren't doing science projects, or reading books, or participating in "Junior Achievment", or engaging in other activities that wil develop their skills for another career. For 5-6 months out of the year, this job involves lots of travel away from home. Players can be fired without notice, and if they underperform, they'lll endure public mockery on message boards and radio shows. Most careers will involve several uprootings of the family to different cities in pursuit of a job. All told, they're making huge investments in hopes of a career that might result in a payday, but is far more likely to leave them out on the street, without much in the way of assets, and without the other job skills that people who didn't spend all those hours on football have. So sorry, but the distribution of revenues in the NFL has nothing to do with risk. If it was about risk, then the owners would get about 5% of revenues and the players would get about 95% of revenues (o.k., maybe the owners could get 10% of revenues if they built their own stadiums.) Instead, the distribution of revenues has everything to do with a collusive monopoly whereby the NFL owners decide exactly how many franchises there will be, and how many jobs, but where the players are stuck with far more applicants than player slots. JDG 617219[/snapback] Exactly! Some folks seem to want confuse their own views and goals from football as a fan with the views and perspectives of team owners and players of pro football. What may make perfect sense to me based on my desires/goals as a fan or based on my sense of ideology is very different from the desires of an owner or player of the game. In addition my own ideological sense of what is right and wrong and the owner/players sense what is possible in reality are two different things. This dichotomy is true for all fans but some posters just don't seem to get it. The financial risks of being an NFL owner are so low because they have built up a relationship with their customers over time. In addition, when they kicked the NFLPAs butts so bad during the lockout that they threatened to decertify, a partnership was thrust upon the owners where the investment has become even more low risk. Folks seem to think that there is some sort of blood battle here between the owners and players with which they can pick sides. Actually, the owners and the players are merely involved in a negotiation over how to divide your and my money. There are three sides to this equation and the other two must cooperate to get your money. The major issue of who gets the majority of your money has been settled (the NFLPA) they are merely locked into negotiations over whether the split will be 60/40 or 56/44. It will almost certainly end up around 58/42 or both sides will get much less if there is a work stoppage in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The funny thing also is that the 56-60% number we keep hearing about represents the CAP. That is the maximum that the players would get from any given team. Every year there are teams that spend nowhere near what the cap allows. Under the existing CBA, the players are guaranteed 56% of the DGR as a minimum, while the cap is set at 64.5%. A more interesting measure, then, would be to see what the minimum % would be. We keep hearing the 56-60% number thrown out, but I have yet to hear what the low-end % would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTW_BillsFan Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Actually, it is not at all that simple. I don't know where this idea is that "holders of capital" in a business take much more risk than "holders of labor" in a business, but it just plain isn't true. Let's face it, if the value of an NFL franchise were, by some act of God, to go south - the owner of that franchise would in all likelihood still be living comfortably. They would have other assets, or other employment opportunities with which to put some very fine bread on the table for their families. Of course, the value of NFL franchises are in fact skyrockets.... to name just one example, Robert Kraft purchased the New England Patriots at the start of the salary cap era around 1994, and since then, the value of the Patriots has *quintupled*!!! The players, on the other hand, are bearing enormous risk. These men are investing countless hours of their life during their prime high school and college years, to train their bodies for a shot at landing a job in an industry where the average career is only about 3 or 4 years, and the maximum career is only about 20 years. All those hours devoted to practice are hours where these men aren't doing science projects, or reading books, or participating in "Junior Achievment", or engaging in other activities that wil develop their skills for another career. For 5-6 months out of the year, this job involves lots of travel away from home. Players can be fired without notice, and if they underperform, they'lll endure public mockery on message boards and radio shows. Most careers will involve several uprootings of the family to different cities in pursuit of a job. All told, they're making huge investments in hopes of a career that might result in a payday, but is far more likely to leave them out on the street, without much in the way of assets, and without the other job skills that people who didn't spend all those hours on football have. So sorry, but the distribution of revenues in the NFL has nothing to do with risk. If it was about risk, then the owners would get about 5% of revenues and the players would get about 95% of revenues (o.k., maybe the owners could get 10% of revenues if they built their own stadiums.) Instead, the distribution of revenues has everything to do with a collusive monopoly whereby the NFL owners decide exactly how many franchises there will be, and how many jobs, but where the players are stuck with far more applicants than player slots. JDG 617219[/snapback] JDG, It sounds like you have a little experience on the athlete side of the equation. Although, it might be a little unfeeling of me to say, but if a player makes the NFL they are making a minimum of 300k per year. Right? It takes me a LONG time to make that much... so I have no pity for a person that cannot manage their money, even if it is the league minimum. The amount of money they earn is not where near what a normal person makes, so if they choose to sqander it that is their problem. Yes, they do invest alot of time and energy into being a player, but that's the part of being an athlete. Just like anyone else invested in their degree in college or the time they invest at work to move up the corporate ladder. How about the owner that spends 15 hour days keeping his company going? Everyone has an investment and the owners have 'earned' the right of not having such a risky investment because they monetarily invested the most into the NFL. This has been an interesting debate. Even with the huge deals the NFL has with TV, radio, stadium naming rights, etc... if a holdout or lockout takes place, after the 2007 season, then all bets are off because there is always another contract to negotiate down the line. And not just with the players, but with TV, radio, etc.... and if you have any work stoppage, it will damage the sport and ultimately the bottom line. I don't know about everyone else, but I really start to resent leagues when they have holdouts. I used to be a BIG NBA fan, but when they had the strike back in the 90's I stopped watching. I still don't watch except towards the end of the playoffs (and that took me a long time to start doing that). IMO, this is why college football is so popular. You don't have all the union strife and having to worry about work stoppages. If the NFLPA is smart, they will get what they can at this stage of the game and move on. Labor peace is good for all involved for the NFL to keep the cap going up and up. Finally, what would you rather have? 1) 56% of 10 Billion or... 2) 62% of 5 Billion ? (After a labor strike and total revenues go down?) Don't think that could happen? Look at the NHL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts