Ben Volin lays out how the NFLPA got jobbed in the last CBA deal

[Rob0729]

Ben Volin does a pretty good job laying out how DeMaurice Smith got jobbed in his negotiations with the league two years ago and although he won some big wins for players' safety and pensions, it doesn't offset how rookies and veterans got a raw deal as far as contracts go.

NFL owners destroyed the players in CBA negotiations - Sports - The Boston Globe

 

[Joker]

so THIS is where MoLewisRocks went...

 

[Deus Irae]

Several of us were pointing out how bad the deal was from the beginning, and getting killed for saying it, so it's going to be interesting to see just how bad Smith ends up looking by the end of it all. Players were fighting over all the wrong things, and they'd started off on the losing end from the beginning by allowing the argument to be about "how much less will the players take?" rather than "will the players take more/less/same?". It's sad that this era of ridiculously large amounts of money has not been enough to get the owners (and players) to stop looking for destructive wins and start looking for the sorts of agreements that can keep both sides happy as winners.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Ben Volin does a pretty good job laying out how DeMaurice Smith got jobbed in his negotiations with the league two years ago and although he won some big wins for players' safety and pensions, it doesn't offset how rookies and veterans got a raw deal as far as contracts go.

NFL owners destroyed the players in CBA negotiations - Sports - The Boston Globe

I do agree that a lot of it was bad, but I don't agree that most rookies got jobbed: (1) only the top-15 or so picks in each draft got significant reductions in rookie deals, and (2) how many players got renegotiated contracts after their sophomore season to begin with? As far as the Patriots go, I can think of only three in 13 years: GRONK, Hern-idiot, and TFB.

 

[Off The Grid]

How very bizarre ~ I won't say "surprising" ~ that this Analysis completely ignores both:

1 ~ The ridiculously bloated Share that the Players had, going into this Negotiation.

2 ~ The Economic LandScape of that Day, which was at best Uncertain and at worst Terrifying.

...Which is not to imply that it's greatly improved, since, this elaborate Dead Cat Bounce notwithstanding.

1 ~ Frankly, I was rather disgusted that the Players didn't give up far more.

2 ~ But of course not surprised: The Players've long since embraced False Idealism rather'n Economic Reality.

3 ~ No way in Hell would I'ave accepted Smith's Job in that Economic LandScape, much less bid on it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

1 ~ Frankly, I was rather disgusted that the Players didn't give up far more.

Grid: Here's the one place I really can't agree with you: I would argue that the ratio of average financial compensation to personal harm in the NFL is much lower than any of the other major sports.

So, if I were in their shoes, I would only have given up revenue sharing percentages if it meant things like higher pensions, better post-career healthcare, long-term care insurance, etc.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Am I the only one annoyed by Volin CONSTANTLY talking about the Dolphins on Twitter???

 

[Brady2Moss]

Maybe the players can get it right in 2020..

 

[Oswlek]

The quotes make it obvious, but even without them it would be clear that the source for this is a player's agent. A couple nuggets of interest:

To be fair, the players have better post-retirement benefits — medical care, pensions, transition programs, and more — under the new CBA

As any financial professional knows, medical care is the biggest stumbling block most retirees will face. It already has the potential to devastate a sizable net worth and is actually growing at a rate higher than CPI inflation. This is an enormous expense that Volin just glances right over, even more so for players ground down by thousands of impacts

“Yeah, players got better post-retirement stuff, but I’d rather have an extra million in my bank account today than a few extra grand in my pension in 40 years,” he said. “The owners used the bad economy to cry poor, and then they took everything.”

Of course you would! Because you don't get paid on pension income.

But to put numbers on it, a $20,000 annual pension for a 65 year old paid out until 85 (or any age, assuming it is immediately commencing and lasting 20 years) has a present value of ~$250,000, or more if there is a survivor's benefit. I don't know when NFL players' benefits commence or how much they usually earn, but I doubt it is much less than that. Probably more, for even the most modest of wage earner. It isn't as if players have the greatest reputation for maintaining sudden wealth, either.

I'd need to look at the financial statements to know how much of these costs are present in GB's figures, but they both are major expenses that wouldn't have much impact on the current year's bottom line, other than outlays deposited for future use.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

Am I the only one annoyed by Volin CONSTANTLY talking about the Dolphins on Twitter???

No, that bothers me too. James Walker, the AFCE blogger, also talks 95% Bills and Phins. He almost avoids Pats and Jets all together.

 

[Oinko]

That article is crap. This deal makes a lot more sense, as it more efficiently allocates salary to the most valuable players.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Bottom line is it looks as if owner profitability has risen if the GB #s are representative. We know that the salary cap hasn't risen so it's a relative loss for the players. Amazingly the owners tooled Smith and put in place an increasing cash cow for themselves. I tend to take sides against union largesse but here is a clear case of management exploiting the clueless to the detriment of working stiffs putting their lifetime well being on the line.

That said I wholeheartedly agree with Os that it's written from an agent's short sighted viewpoint. The pension #s he cites are significant, especially to fringe players and sadly to many other once wealthy players who urinate away their money early on and have little to fall back on.

I am very glad that for whatever publicity or future self serving litigation reasons, the owners signed off on the CBA greatly improving on the situation for older retired players. Damn the NFLPA for ignoring those guys.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Bottom line is it looks as if owner profitability has risen if the GB #s are representative. We know that the salary cap hasn't risen so it's a relative loss for the players. Amazingly the owners tooled Smith and put in place an increasing cash cow for themselves. I tend to take sides against union largesse but here is a clear case of management exploiting the clueless to the detriment of working stiffs putting their lifetime well being on the line.

To be fair, this is why I'm against excessive largesse on either side of union-management disputes.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Of course you would! Because you don't get paid on pension income.

They don't get paid much, period, on NFL contracts: the CBA limits agent compensation to 3% of most deals, and 2% of tender deals.

 

[AzPatsFan]

This is crap. In an era when income was effectively capped and not rising any agreement would look bad. Especially one that remedied vast inequities like the Jamarcus Russel deal. Some of the disproportionate most highly paid vets are losing out as well, to market realities.

Boo Hoo. The pensions and treatment of older retired vets are also repairing inequities. When revenues are about maxed out, it is to be expected that some of the exceptions wiil be reduced back to to the norm. Pity the poor agents, no more easy inflated salaries, and they will actually have to work to produce reasonable deals for their clients.

GB had just completed a major program to renovate/expand Lambeau and I'm sure that caused earlier and lesser bottom line earnings reports.

I never understood why the players chose De Maurice, who was neither a former player, nor experienced with the financial aspects of the sport.

 

[Oswlek]

They don't get paid much, period, on NFL contracts: the CBA limits agent compensation to 3% of most deals, and 2% of tender deals.

True, but 2-3% of something is a whole lot better than 2-3% of nothing. Hell, the fact that they don't get paid a high amount would actually intensify their displeasure at non-comp client income, not diminish it.

I just think that this article overlooks just how much those deferred benefits are actually worth. For instance, in every other industry in the US, pensions are being slowly (and not so slowly) phased out. Even employers where pensions are omnipresent, like municipalities, have made significant changes to their pension plans in the last decade. In MA, new hires pay nearly twice as much towards state retirement benefits as those who were brought in pre-2000 did.

And where is their next big cut is going to be? You guessed it, health care. In fact, any state employee on line can confirm that process is already under way.

The only employer who hasn't amended either of these in the last decade that I am aware of is the US military, and savvy forum members can probably figure out why that is the case.

Anyway, all this may be moot if it turns out that GB had a 26% profit increase in spite of elevated trust deposits. I'm just not fully buying the word of a player's agent and a sports reporter that it is, especially when the reporter barely even touches upon either.