Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Triumph, Apr 26, 2011.
Roger Goodell: Football's Future If the Players Win - WSJ.com
What he is projecting is a league in which the player's enumerated issues in the lawsuit all go the players' way. I don't see how this gets settled purely in the courts with only a partial antitrust solution. So if the players do continue to win on appeal the owners will face the possibility of loss of the antitrust exemption, total player free agency from college thru career, and the destruction of the 32 team league as less wealthy owners and markets implode. Facing this, the owners will have to negotiate and hope that the NFLPA* agrees to something close to the 2010 status quo with only minor modifications.
There goes his argument that the decertification is a sham.
Too bad the owners pushed it to this, they should never have opted out.
Nice. Rich-kid-handed-a-big-job-by-daddy-Goddell writing a puff piece for the WSJ. Maybe I should start a thread with a link to The Daily Worker's opinion on all of this.
The situation ends Football as we know it.
NOTE: THE OWNERS WILL STILL MAKE MONEY. MORE THAN THE PLAYERS.
When the TV contracts are gone, than it will be over. It would be a good job by the Union of taking a giant cr*p where the players eat and calling it victory.
It's a worst case projection of Kessler running the players union over the owners. It's unlikely to happen. My take is that this summah after a few more boring court rulings and lots of acrimony, the parties agree to new terms.
I'm really angry right now. I've watched these unions destroy every sport they touch, I've stopped watching every sport except football because of this BS. Football is all I watch now, and that will end if there isn't a deal that gives stability in player movement.
I remember playing UPUFF baseball for a couple years, I never watched a single game doing it. NOT ONE. Players have become laundry everywhere except football. I want stability and strong rules that bind a player enough for me to follow that players career. Otherwise , I'm out.
In the final analysis the players could legally win and yet ruin themselves. The people who pay the bills are the owners and they are saying they can't continue as the present CBA was drawn.
Players monies are at or near the maximum they will ever be. Sooner of later Fan interest will shift elsewhere, and with it TV revenues. Imagine the problems when the pie shrinks, and most players are told their present contracts must be negotiated downward.
The Lawyers will exercise the rules for Antitrust law, which never considered the needs of sports leagues and are legally indefensible. DeMaurice the lawyer wants to prove his is a tough guy, and Hubris will enable him to win a legal, but Pyhrric victory. The players union will sue and sue for constraint and win, every one of the victories, which makes the league less reasonable or interesting to the fans.
When wiser heads prevailed, MLB obtained an antitrust provision to accommodate the reasonable needs of a sports league. No one else has such a deal. Yes, the player's lawyers could win every legal battle, and ruin it for the present stars, present players, the marginal youthful ones, and tomorrows players too.
Although the Owners sign the checks, the Fans ultimately provide the funds, through TV watching or buying tickets. Without a competitive environment football is much more prone to contraction with the limited season providing fewer opportunities for revenues.
But in the short term, the Owners write the paychecks and they are no longer willing to write those paychecks. So the players lose.
Rosters will likely shrink down to 36 players or so, as they used to be, players will be expected to go back to two-way players, shortening their careers. Pensions and health plans will be terminated; and everyone will be out for themselves, in their personal services contracts.
Within a few years the small-city franchises will die, or create a series of minor/major leagues with graduation to the higher league for winners; and losers falling into the lesser leagues as soccer does, now.
Some successful businessmen like Kraft will say no thanks, and sell out. Other like Snyder will find no one to write about them, and leave too.
Eventually things will settle out, with a dozen teams; and each with a relative handful of players each, most of whom last only 2 or 3 years so the stars are limited to QBs and RBs.
This makes no sense, it was the owners who opted out of the CBA and there is little to no doubt that the players would happily agree to return to the one the owners opted out of. that's hardly the position of players looking to kill the league.
I have no idea where you come up with this, TV ratings and contracts for the NFL are exploding and the issue was capping the players revenues when the owners realize huge new deals. If the issue was shrinking revenues the owners would be more than happy to go with a steady % of revenues, it is because they foresee huge money down the road they locked the players out because they don't want them sharing that.
Or---the owners will realize they can't win in court and will sit down and create a deal that works for all of them with most if not all of the current structure intact.
The scenario you are predicting is extreme at a minimum and completely implausible as neither side is willing to completely kill the game that makes them all rich.
Ultimately cooler heads prevail, a deal gets done, and we see football for a long long time. that, imo, is how it will end and should end.
The owners don't have to negotiate. What you described in the nuclear option. And, I wouldn't be surprised if some owners said to hell with the players. Every team that folds is a minimum of 61 union players gone. And it's strength that the players lose.
There is nothing that says that the owners have to continue to run the football franchises. Most owners own their stadiums and have other revenue streams that the stadiums produce. It wouldn't be hard for them to replace NFL Football with events that don't require nearly as much over-head.
It makes perfect sense.
The owners opted out of the CBA because it was no longer economically sound for them. Contrary to DeMaurice Smith, even the NFL has to deal with the reality of the economy. At some point it was going to start hitting the NFL. This idea that they have propogated that the NFL owners have endless pockets and are nothing but money grubbing billionaires who are out to stick it to the players is the most absurd thing ever. Yet, people like yourself, eat it up and sing it as the gospel.
Facts are that the cost of many items and services has gone up since the previous CBA. this includes food items where many companies are putting less product in their containers but leaving the cost the same or increasing it.
The players want to reap the rewards but don't want any of the burdens. The players want the owners to fork out all the money for better pensions and such. They want the owners to fork out the money for better health care and all the increased costs of that better health care.
The idea that the players shouldn't have to carry some of that burden is laughable.
The other idea that is laughable is that the owners should be forced to turn over their books to the players. It's none of the players damn business. Well, that is, unless the players are going to open up their accounts for owners to see as well.
The only way for it to end that way is if the players stop thinking that they have no burden to bear in this.
BTW, for you to think that the owners aren't willing to "kill the game", it's already been done by the players. They had the choice to continue to negotiate. They made unreasonable demands (10 years of audited books) as a stipulation to THINK about an extension. Clearly they didn't want one. Yet, people like yourself only put the blame at the feet of the owners.
The ad hominem attacks, extreme doomsday scenarios, overemotional reactions, intentional misunderstanding of others' points, and general immaturity in this and the other several simulate threads are characteristic of classic groupthink. Sometimes I think the owners and players have succumbed to it as well. Here's hoping the owners, players, agents, employees, fans, and all the other stakeholders in this clusterbleep take a step back from the edge and negotiate an arrangement they can all live with. Because let's face it, there are definitely other entertainment options.
The points Goodell communicates are, in fact, the implications of total free agency advocated by the trade association lawyers. I think the article would have been far more powerful if it was presented more objectively as: here are the implications of the football environment demanded by the players advocates. With his doomsday opening, the piece appears slanted.
The commentary appears designed to speak not to the fans, but to the players themselves. Interesting platform choice, though. All the negative points are related to player risks. He doesn't spend as much time wondering about the impact on the small market teams - would Jacksonville and Buffalo fold? Would the owners lose their investment?
It would be very interesting to play a season or two under that system. In the short term, owners could easily make such a system work. You'd probably get a system like baseball, although there are rookie-six year minimum salaries in baseball. But you'd likely see a couple NYY/Boston big salary teams and a couple FLA Marlins payrolls. The fringe starter/career special teamer would make a LOT less money.
Sam Aiken, Dan Connolly, Rob Ninkovich, Eric Alexander, Marquise Murrell, Brandon McGowan -- all signed $700K or more deals. That class would probably pay a significant price. While their Pro Bowl brethren could potentially double their salaries.
At that point, no one would be claiming that dissolving the union was a sham. The players group would look nothing like a union.
They opted out because they did not want to continue that deal.
Even the last NFLPA* offer was better for the owners than the previous deal.
I think losing a preliminary injunction hearing is a long way from proving opting out was a bad idea.
The decertification sham argument is not settled yet. This was not the resolution of the case, it was an injunction hearing. There are many arguments left to be made.
How do you figure? The players have made more than the owners, a lot more, for a long time. They get half the revenue. The owners get half the revenue, and then pay all of the expenses from their half. It is essentially impossible for the owners to make more than the players.
The thought that TV revenues would continue at present levels league-wide in an environment when half the games were non-competitive is laughable. The entire financial structure of the league will implode if Rozelle's system making competitive balance possible is eliminated as some trade association lawyers propose. While some have called Goodell's article a doomsday scenario, it could actually be much worse.
While some have called Goodell's article a doomsday scenario, it could actually be much worse.
Doctor: You have terminal pancreatic cancer...
Patient: Wait a minute! I want a second opinion...
Doctor: OK..you have bubonic plague also...
Separate names with a comma.