Now I am beginning to side with the owners. It IS a business, players have no right to see 'the books' on how they run their business just as we have no right to see the books on the company we work for. If we don't like it, if we don't think we are being paid enough, we can always leave or find another job. The only thing I can even remotely see is health care after you retire, but even at that you or I probably would not get that from our everyday jobs, we too would have to purchase our own insurances. If the owners are whining about paying too much to the players, then don't offer them that much. If Matt Stafford or Sam Bradford hold out because 50 mill isn't enough, then I guess they don't play, let alone make a team. I honestly don't know how there ISN'T big issues in the locker rooms when one guy makes 20 mill a year and another one makes $700,000 a year blocking for him, or whatever the league minimum is today.
I agree with your analysis. It is a business just like any other. Players are getting way to greedy. It's only a GAME afterall.....
I don't think the comparison is quite so simple. Players and owners are negotiating a revenue split and the owners have claimed that their expenses justify a larger portion of the pie. Seems reasonable for the players to demand proof to back those claims, since the information will certainly impact pay on both sides.
I think part of the owner's argument is that the "shelf life" of stadiums keeps shrinking, as does the availability of public money and/or cheap credit to build them; so the cost of the stadiums has risen dramatically.
I have difficulty feeling any empathy for either side. The players are millionaires who could never earn as much in the real world doing something else. The owners are billionaires who have a cash cow and want to keep even more of the ever-larger pie for themselves. I enjoy football more than any other team sport. If they lockout, it is due to the extreme greed of both sides. Hockey has not recovered from their last lockout, football will be a decade or more to return to the value of the league as a whole if neither side caves. BTW, if it does come to a lockout, the owners will "win". Many players will be broke, or at least feel that way, within six months. They have a shelf life, an owner of a team does not.
we have jerry jones to thank for that. the first step towards the lockout was taken today, the union decertified, now the ball's in the owner's court.
Hello, not knowing Jerry Jone's financials it seems to me that he risked everything he had to build a franchise while the players risk life and limb to play a game that compensates them richly far more than they ever could without a ball in their hands. Im sure even Jerry Jones is leveraged to the hilt where it would hurt. Its the cities and communities that are in jeapordy if a lock out goes into effect, not to mention the peanut and hot dog vendors. its beyond comprehension that with 9 billion dollars at stake they cant come to an aggreement.
Sure it is. The owners don't have to tell them or give them squat. Just as if you or I went to our bosses or company ownership demanding this or that, they can most happily tell us to go pound sand elsewhere. What would you do if YOU had employees demanding 'more'? Especially ones not making minimum wage? But nobody is holding a gun to anyones' head demanding they play football, or any other sport. How many of you played high school sports, and stopped there? Why did you stop? SURELY you could have found a school to continue playing at, maybe not USC, but somewhere. What are these players suing for? More money? Better insurance? Better retirement? Get real, get a real job, if you don't like it, somebody else would LOVE to take your place. I used to side with the players, but not anymore. If the game is too tough, then don't play it. We'll miss you, for about 4 games, after that we won't care. ie Barry Sanders.
Hello not argueing with you as I think the owners should control there own franchises and not allow the Unions to see the books. I have great respect for someone like Jerry Jones, yet I do see that the older injured players who made the league what it is today, should get a better deal. For example Otto the center for the Raiders can barely walk not long after leaving the game or Dave Duerson for the Chicago Bears who donated his brain for research after shooting himself who though lost his money through bad investments. . Oh and I do miss Barry Sanders he could have been the best at his postion but at least hes healthy today. Some where I read that the average lifespan of a NFL player is around 55 years. Still they play the game for the love of it, as I did when I played through college and semi pro for six years even though never making any money at it, LOL. If I could Id play for what they (NFL) make today, but I got old and slow. Thanks http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/average-lifespan-football-player-52
An interesting debate....... As much as the players are "simple employees" who have no rights to see the owners books, I can sympathize with their position - The owners want to arbitrarily remove ~10% (a *billion* $!) of the pie without giving any justification...... Given that any CBA is, at it's core, about how the revenue gets divided I think they have a point - If the owners could justify the additional take, I think players would accept it - They're not just simple employees after all - It should be a partnership and it seems to me the owners are getting greedy - If you've got nothing to hide, why not share the relevant data? I understand that by decertifying they become "individual contractors", but so what? Peyton & Tom etc can sue the league, but to what end? Cheers, Ian
Put me in the group of feeling little or no emotion on this, as it's two sides unable to agree on how to share a cash cow. I also agree, for the most part, that at the end of the day the owners are the owners, and players are employees. You need to be able to make adjustments during down economic times, and for years the salary structures have been upside-down by over-paying unproven rookies. Yes, the players are the product that attract viewers. But that product refreshes itself on an annual basis. So, ultimately I tip in favor of the owners.
the best way i can explain this statement is by this: the rams' lease with the city of st louis includes a stipulation for the city to maintain the stadium in the top tier of nfl stadiums. sure, when it first opened in the mid 90's, it was definitely one of the top stadiums, but with the new stadiums in cities like dallas and indianapolis, it can't compete. owners like jerry jones have driven the nfl right to where they want it to be, the premier league of the 4 major leagues in america (mlb, nhl and nba being the other 3) and in the process, screwed the mid-market teams like st louis, cincinatti, and seattle. no matter where you go, the use of public funds for a "billionaire's playground" is going to be an extremely hot topic. on one hand, the revenues the league brings in are more than enough to cover the building of new stadiums, but on the other hand, it should be solely whoever's name is on the deed to the stadium's responsibility. if something in your home breaks, do you call your mortgage company and ask them to fix it for you? nope. it shouldn't be different here. but on that note - does somebody want to loan me 700,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 so i can buy a franchise?
Indeed - Seems to me the owners made a rod for their own back with that one - Now they want to complain about their own spending?...... I'm pretty sure they've already agreed (not announced) on a rookie salary cap, which should help the poor darlings out some....... As for the economy being "down", I don't think (many of) the owners are hurting, they just want more of the pie without justifying it. From this weeks SI; I'll dispute the last part by adding "in the US", but TV *loves* the NFL - as can be seen by the TV fees - ESPN pays 1.1 billion per year for 18 games for example....... Cheers, Ian
That sounds way too high, whats that 61 million per game. Espn get that much revenue to cover that expense, Wow!
Yep! Here's the others; - Directv - 8 games + NFL Sunday ticket; 1 billion per. - NBC - 18 games - 650M per. - CBS - 102, 622.5M - Fox - 102, 712.5M Nike also paid 1.1billion for the apparel sponsorship. [Dunno how long for though.] *That's* a whole other debate...... Cheers, Ian
Indeed. The only guys that win now are the attorneys My reading suggests the judge is "leaning" towards the players, and the owners are nervous.....? Cheers, Ian
Ian did a great job of explaining a perspective that I agree with. I really don't have a strong opinion in favor of either side right now. Both sides are going to grab as much of the pie as possible and I wouldn't expect anything less. I just hope they figure something out before screwing up the next season.
First, by who's definition of 'top tier'? I am sure there is a loophole there somewhere for age vis a vis longevity, I guess the Rams can always go elsewhere. I am also totally against public spending on any pro athletic teams or facilities EXCEPT FOR promotion of a tournament. I don't disagree they should do something to help the old timers, but how do you justify a player today making 25-30 mill a season such as a Peyton or Eli, players making 5 million, players making $800,000 a season? It seems to me these guys can buy an annuity to at least partially set themselves up for later, and add to that annuity every year. It also seems to me some insurance company could set up an 'NFL Plan' that covers a player for life, but just as you or I have to pay for our own insurance, the players have to pay for their own insurance post-career as well. They just need to fund it DURING their careers. It seems to me the owners want to limit or cut how much they pay the players, and the players want to limit or cut how much the owners can make.
