This issue is nothing more than a red herring. It is a classic PR move. Demand something you know you will never get and then blame the other side for not giving it to you.
The players don't really want to see if the numbers back the owners claims. They were offerred them repeatedly. (1)The owners were willing to give the audited financials to a thrid party agreed to by the players who would review them and summarize them for the players. They would know whether the owners claims were true or not.
(2)The NFLPA has the Green Bay Packers audited financials which show exactly what the owners claimed. They declared it irrelevant. (3)The NBA gave the NBAPA all of its financials showing the league is in bad shape. It hasn't gotten them any closer to an agreement. The players looked at it and said it wasn't their problem. That league is going to have a labor blowup in July that makes the NFL looks like a lovefest.
(4)D Smith can't give back anything of substance unless he is forced to. It was always about settlement through litigation for him unless the owners cracked and gave him status quo. Everyone forgets that he sent players a memo in December telling them the time for a negotiated settlement had passed and to prepare for decertification and litigation.
(5)Both sides are to blame here. From the NFLPA's perspective, this is right where they always wanted it to be, where it had to be from the moment Smith was elected to succeed Upshaw. The owners - they always wanted a lockout until they couldn't access the TV money and then and only then did they decide maybe negotiation would be a good idea.
1) I do not understand the fear in showing their financials. Someone explain to me the fear. I look at them all the time in my profession and audit them. Their is nothing secretive about them. They're just financial statements. Why employ a middle man? Now, we're including yet another party who will see the financial statements. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of not letting their financials be seen by other parties? Or is it that they don't want the NFLPA specifically to see them? It still makes no sense why they won't let them be known. It is a simple concept called "Truth in Negotiations." Without it, one party is blind, which is the NFLPA. It means that one party has to place a whole lot of faith in what others are saying instead of interpreting the facts for themselves.
2) That's because it is one of 32 teams (representing about 3% of the league) and in a poor market. The way everyone's interpreting Greenbay is this: the players' salaries as a percentage of team revenues grew from one year to the next, which means that other teams are driving the increase in revenues throughout the league. Teams in the prime markets like New England, Dallas, and New York, for example, are the problem. The conclusion everyone came to after the Green Bay financials were released was that there is significant disparity in the league. And let's not forget that the year before, Green Bay did very well (the other owners were none too happy about that).
3)That really is a shame if that's the case (and if it will lead to the premature demise of basketball (I won't shed a tear)). But we get back to the original question which is whether or not the #1 sport in America is really having financial trouble, especially when players in the NFL get the short end of the stick when in comes to contracts (when compared to lesser sports like baseball and basketball). That's why the burden of proof is on the owners to submit to the NFLPA their evidence.
4) I think this was the case because it's like this: Let's say you're selling a house and you're asking price is $400k, which is above an amount that you figure you'll actually get for it. But you start out higher so that when you come to the middle, it'll be reasonable to you. You expect the other person to come in lower than you (that's natural), but what if they come in at $250k. In that case, you don't even bother negotiating any further. And this is the case in the NFL labor dispute. They are sooo far off that an agreement is unrealistic. Maybe it's a defeatist attitude to go into negotiations with, but it's realism on their part. So in the end, the NFLPA Director, Smith, (probably a sharp guy) knew that this was the reality from preliminary talks. Plus, let's remember that the NFL had all the leverage for a long time (the guaranteed revenues with the TV networks). So the players had an uphill battle in terms of leverage and had to "create" leverage where it was possible. That's why back in December they were talking about de-certification. And let's not forget, guys like Peter King who reported a long time ago how far apart they were. Many reporters said a whole year ago that a lockout was
guaranteed. So to think that Smith remarking upon a de-certification was premature is to forget that this was anticipated on a much longer timeline than just the last few months.
5) Amen. But I do place more blame on the owners. Some of the owners (like out in Denver) are willing to reveal their financials. It seems that some of the owners are more willing to push for an accord (also because they're probably having a tougher time financially out there). Maybe this could gather some momentum. In the end, they don't need a mediator; they need an arbitrator. And it's a real shame.
