Memo to the NFL owners....

[Rob0729]

The players liked the deal and both sides were getting very rich off of it, and if you guys are going to continually make the argument that the owners needed relief then at some point you need to support it with something.


Had the players gone on strike i would be blaming them for creating the situation, especially in the absence of any proof that they needed to go on strike.

Both sides have been making huge money off their working agreements and while the "recession" argument works for most of the country it doesn't for the NFL, as they were getting record ratings, record TV deals, and making more money than ever before.



This entire episode is a big game of chicken. The owners believed they could stall and get the players to come apart and dictate the terms of a new CBA, and spent 2 years preparing for just that. They never believed the players would decertify and the players decided to do just that when they realized that they had no other choices left to them.

First, I never made the argument the owners need relief, but everyone admits that the system as it goes may not be substainable with small market teams struggling with real dollars to pay out huge eight figure bonuses. I said the system was skewed in the players' favor and that is why they wanted to keep it.

Second, if the deal was skewed in the owners favor and the players went on strike, I would probably blame both sides like I do now. Neither side made a real effort to make this work and they wanted to litigate over negotiate.

Third, the owners knew the players always intended on decertified. They took voted to decertify last summer long before this thing came to a head. They weren't given any other option. This was an option that they were working to all along just like the owners were working towards a lockout. Both sides wanted this to go to court because both sides felt they would win. If the players wanted to seriously negotiate, they would have gone with another NFLPA president than a litigation lawyer with no labor nor NFL experience. You look at DeMaurice Smith's bio and there is really nothing that qualifies him to be NFLPA president. He is a litigation lawyer with a background in government and corporate law.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

I'm not impressed by your politics. It's like this thing can't be discussed without politics. Ridiculous.

Everything having to do with Federal Courts is politics, like it or not. Why do you think the Players filed in Minnesota? Brady does not live or play there? You would think that New York, home of the NFL offices would be a correct venue? Everything in the federal court system is predicated on "judge shopping" which is exactly what the players did. Unfortunatley for them, this judge sits in the 8th circuit, so their "victory" might be shorted lived.

Do you honestly believe that a Judge appointed by Obama would not rule for a union*?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Given that the players were more than willing to continue the status quo it is safe to say the owners created this situation.

The players were more than willing to continue a status quo achieved at gunpoint in March 2006...one they knew was problematic for ownership to the extent it took opt out language to get them to agree to it in the interim. The owners only mistake was in caving under pressure from knee jerk fans who as usual wanted nothing but their football at any cost...and overestimating the implications of an uncapped season, which turned out to be such a dud for the players they have a collusion claim pending as a result.

 

[townes]

The players were more than willing to continue a status quo achieved at gunpoint in March 2006...one they knew was problematic for ownership to the extent it took opt out language to get them to agree to it in the interim. The owners only mistake was in caving under pressure from knee jerk fans who as usual wanted nothing but their football at any cost...and overestimating the implications of an uncapped season, which turned out to be such a dud for the players they have a collusion claim pending as a result.

This is simply your opinion, and to date not a one of you has demonstrated in any factual way why the NFL needed to opt out. You guys keep suggesting the owners were getting screwed but the reality is record ratings, record TV deals, and record levels of interest in everything NFL, and they are really good at capitalizing off of all of it.



Interesting as this topic is to me i have to put it aside as today is draft day and i don't want to devote any energy to the lockout and court case.

 

[DW Toys]

The players have been winning this whole time, though. Judge Doty on the lockout insurance, and now Judge Nelson's ruling. If the 8th court has the same decision, then it's pretty much a knockout against the owner's.

The only knock out is they have to open the doors and proceed with some rules that they come up with for the 2011 season.
Nelson was duped. The Lawyers knew this would happen from a liberal judge. But she inadvertently left a big loop hole and gave the owners legal instructions to set up rules. You don't think the very smart Lawyers were praying for that mistake do you?
There is no CBA court ordered or other and now the players have put themselves in a tougher position as independent contractors. No rights no contract no percentage share. The Owners can do what they want as far as schedule, benefits if at all, Team size or CAP.
I see a few rounds won but the fight is not over and now it appears the bimbo judge was the unintended corner man fixing up the Owners very nice thank you.
DW Toys

 

[E Belichick Unum]

The players liked the deal and both sides were getting very rich off of it, and if you guys are going to continually make the argument that the owners needed relief then at some point you need to support it with something.

There is no need to prove anything anymore. The players are without union protection, the owners once again hold all of the cards, if they want to use them. There are owners out there who don't want to screw the players, Kraft might be one of them. Then there are owners who would like nothing more than to make the players pay through the nose for this mess. It will be interesting to see which faction wins out. If the 8th rule against the owners, then I tend to think that the vindictive faction with Gerry Richardson, Brown, Wilson, maybe Irsay will win the day. The draft would take a hiatus until the players were suitably punished and the small market teams get their books back into the black.

The owners will have to be smart though, they will have to make sure that they stay on the positive side of anti-trust laws. Somebody on this board wrote that the limited anti-trust exemption took care of TV contracts, so that part of the money is safe short term. Player rules and benefits will have to be developed team by team, with the rich teams probably have a better package then the Bills or Bengles or Jags. The annual league meetings would have to be structured to make sure that any questionable behavior by the owners would be stopped before it took root. My guess is that the typical benefit package will be:

Team medical for the players under contract, family plan would cost the players.
No more pension plan, but a 401K would probably be offered.
No more free meals at the stadium, a pay caf would be available.
No more DUI taxi service
No more increases in retiree benefits
No more arbitration for failing a drug test, each team would make their own rules
Not quite sure that the players could be fined, but they probably could be fired

And some of the little things, like taking taxes out of paychecks for the respective states that the players play in. Set hours of operation on the off season.

In other words, the players wanted freedom, the owners will give it to them.

 

[patfanken]

Given that the players were more than willing to continue the status quo it is safe to say the owners created this situation.

Wait a minute, townsie, even you don't believe that if parties enter into a one sided business deal, that the losing party should be COMPELLED to continue the deal after it has expired. Do You?

The "union" and I use the term VERY LOOSELY, has known for 2 years that the gravy train was coming to an end. They could have chosen to either negotiate a less advantageous deal that might have brought them better working conditions, better health coverage, more money for the REAL pioneers of the league and more jobs, OR they could attempt to keep the bad deal in place by running to the courts for cover.

The owners implemented the lockout but ONLY after there was NO ONE to negotiate with. To ignore the "union's" culpability in the matter is beneath you You are a lot smarter and pragmatic than that.

 

[patfanken]

.......but the reality is record ratings, record TV deals, and record levels of interest in everything NFL, and they are really good at capitalizing off of all of it.

Townsie, you make the best point FOR the owners case. In the BEST environment in NFL history with all the record ratings, revenues, TV deals, and levels of interest, the real levels of profitability for teams have shrunk as a percentage of revenues, at the same time operational costs rise l. Teams might be marginally profitable now, but what about in a few years when costs outstrip profits, and levels of interest decline. there is no guarantee that interest/revenues will continue to increase. Even on the best run teams, revenue sources are being maxed out.

Its not like the owners had walked out on the deal. When it was determined that it wasn't economically viable, the NFL got out of it when it was legally able.

After the draft, when you are in the right mood, I'll be interested in your response to my 2 posts

 

[townes]

Ken, i always enjoy talking with you and will respond to your posts on this in a day or two, today i'm going to focus on the draft as it is always one of my favorite events of the year.

Hopefully this whole thing is going to get wrapped up much sooner than later, and i'm happy to see league business starting again Monday, it's a really good sign imo.

 

[Rob0729]

This is simply your opinion, and to date not a one of you has demonstrated in any factual way why the NFL needed to opt out. You guys keep suggesting the owners were getting screwed but the reality is record ratings, record TV deals, and record levels of interest in everything NFL, and they are really good at capitalizing off of all of it.



Interesting as this topic is to me i have to put it aside as today is draft day and i don't want to devote any energy to the lockout and court case.

So if when you get married you don't have a dime to your name when you do, but you become a CEO of a company and amass a fortune of $100 million in money and assets. Then you get a divorce and the judge gives your spouse say 80% of all the assets. Would you be happy? Hey, you still have $20 million which is far more than you had when you got married. That is basically the argument you are making.

Just because the revenues keep on going up for the NFL doesn't mean the system isn't unfair for them. Just because they are getting record ratings and revenues doesn't mean the cost of maintaining and growing interests in other markets and countries to maintain that growth aren't going up tooe.

The reality is as the cap continues to increase, the signing bonuses are escalating. This is where small market teams have already started to struggle to compete. With marque players getting 8 figure bonuses and growing at a significant rate, small market teams won't have the cash nor be able to borrow to compete. There is a difference between cap dollars and real dollars.

When the players fought for a share of all revenue not just most of the revenue the last time, no one was arguing they were losing money. They just felt (and at the time rightfully so) that they deserved a bigger piece of the pie.

No one is arguing the owners are losing money. Not even the owners. They are arguing their profits are decreasing while costs are going up. The NFL wants to expand to LA and internationally and several stadiums need significant upgrades or replacements. All this costs money. We do know that the Packers' profits are way down over the last four years.

I think the CBA needs to be revised, but not as much as the owners want and more than the players are willing to give. The goal is the long term future of the league not just a snapshot of what is right now.

 

[Don Kipines]

Wait a minute, townsie, even you don't believe that if parties enter into a one sided business deal, that the losing party should be COMPELLED to continue the deal after it has expired. Do You?

The "union" and I use the term VERY LOOSELY, has known for 2 years that the gravy train was coming to an end. They could have chosen to either negotiate a less advantageous deal that might have brought them better working conditions, better health coverage, more money for the REAL pioneers of the league and more jobs, OR they could attempt to keep the bad deal in place by running to the courts for cover.

The owners implemented the lockout but ONLY after there was NO ONE to negotiate with. To ignore the "union's" culpability in the matter is beneath you You are a lot smarter and pragmatic than that.

I find the number of people fawning over the owners and their position completely bizarre. Yes, the players negotiated a good deal for themselves in 2006, but it's not like this deal was hurting the game. On the contrary, revenues were soaring. Everybody was winning. The players were making more money every year, but that's only because overall revenues were going up every year. I don't see how anyone could argue that the players don't deserve the money. They work for it, honestly, and they do an outstanding job of putting out a great product that attracts fan revenue. If these guys were rock musicians, nobody would argue that they shouldnt get a huge share of the gate.

The owners, on the other hand, were not happy with the 2006 deal and opted out, which is their right. They may feel they deserve a larger share of the money, and the lockout was their attempt to get it, which is fine. There's no reason for anyone to blame either side for wanting as much money as they can get. The only thing that was dishonest about the whole thing was the owners' excuse for the lockout -- this notion that they needed the extra money to make up for overhwhelming new expenses, which is ridiculous. There's plenty of money to go around and the problem is that the smaller clubs aren't making as much as the larger clubs, and moreover there are huge new revenue streams coming (ie digital platforms and so on), and so the owners thought this was a good time to fight for a bigger piece of the pie. Which, again, is their right. They took their shot, and they're going to lose, and that's that.

But the idea that all of this is somehow the players' fault is crazy. One previous poster asked how reasonable we would think it was if our boss asked is to continue working under minimum wage. This is a silly and inaccurate analogy, as the owners are not anywhere near minimum wage; they're all part of a quasi-socialistic enterprise that guarantees that even the worst teams make great money and are basically indemnified against failure. They're doing fine. They wanted more, which is fine. But they weren't hurting and there's no evidence the previous deal was hurting the league. The owners just weren't as rich as they wanted to be.

The more accurate analogy is if you're working in a revenue-sharing corporation, and management comes to you in a time of rising revenues and profits and asks you to take a 10% or 20% pay cut so that they can have a bigger share. Would any of you say yes to that deal? Sure, the fact that the players said no to that proposal was part of what caused the lockout, but it's not exactly surprising that they said no, and the fact that they said no doesn't mean they were/are greedy. They're as self-interested as any of us would be.

This is two parties fighting over a pile of money. There's no right or wrong in it. The only thing that's even remotely obnoxious is the owners lying about why they need the extra money. If they'd just come out and admitted that they simply wanted more money for the sake of, well, having more money, this whole thing would be easier to swallow. But to be fair, they needed a pretext to opt out of the lockout, so I suppose it's not surprising that they made one up.

 

[patfanken]

I find the number of people fawning over the owners and their position completely bizarre. Yes, the players negotiated a good deal for themselves in 2006, but it's not like this deal was hurting the game. On the contrary, revenues were soaring. Everybody was winning.

Well thought out and reasonably expressed post, Don.....BUT.... I think you might have missed this post which came after.

you make the best point FOR the owners case. In the BEST environment in NFL history with all the record ratings, revenues, TV deals, and levels of interest, the real levels of profitability for teams have shrunk as a percentage of revenues, at the same time operational costs rise l. Teams might be marginally profitable now, but what about in a few years when costs outstrip profits, and levels of interest decline. there is no guarantee that interest/revenues will continue to increase. Even on the best run teams, revenue sources are being maxed out.

Are the owners required to stay in a bad deal until they actually have to suffer massive losses before they get to change the deal. If profits are shrinking while revenues are growing and costs escalating, isn't it prudent to change the deal BEFORE there is lasting harm. The Packers (whose books are open) made about $4MM on revenues of over $350MM, (BTW I'm probably off in these figures, but I'm in the ballpark). This is a small market team, but a big market national following. If THEY are just marginally profitable, what is going on in Cinci, Jax, and Nashville
=

 

[Deus Irae]

Townsie, you make the best point FOR the owners case. In the BEST environment in NFL history with all the record ratings, revenues, TV deals, and levels of interest, the real levels of profitability for teams have shrunk as a percentage of revenues, at the same time operational costs rise l. Teams might be marginally profitable now, but what about in a few years when costs outstrip profits, and levels of interest decline. there is no guarantee that interest/revenues will continue to increase. Even on the best run teams, revenue sources are being maxed out.

Its not like the owners had walked out on the deal. When it was determined that it wasn't economically viable, the NFL got out of it when it was legally able.

After the draft, when you are in the right mood, I'll be interested in your response to my 2 posts

Please provide the proof that the owners, as a group, are losing profitability, and that such loss is because of the players portion of the pie. Obviously, that proof will need to include a list breaking down all revenues, as well as a list breaking down all expenses.

 

[Why?PJ]

What?.......Sean I completely disagree. When the negotiations started there is evidence and proof the Li'Mo the Pimpster had made up his mind to not negotiate. What are you talking about?

Many legal minds stated that the last deal on the table for the Players was pretty good. It was tweakable.

The owners had the right to opt out of the CBA. What is everyone thinking that they will just say...."well, O.K. we'll go by last years CBA". That is crazy talk. The lats CBA deal for them was not a good one.

What you fail to realize is that the only thing the players have won is the fact that a liberal judge has said the NFL must open the doors and have a 2011 season which was expected. She inadvertently left the door wide open for the Owners now with no CBA in place or Union to dictate the rules as they wish, to who now are completely independent contractors who are not eligible for any benefits or might have to pay for their own tickets on the Team plane.
They have no agreement in place for a percentage of League profits.

They have no voice protecting them and can no longer strike because they are not a Union.

They have to file W9 forms and pay their own taxes.

The League can change the schedule to 18 games as they so wish.

The League can make up their own roster limits and CAP laws to prevent smaller market Teams from an unfair advantage over big spenders. This could cut rosters by 25% just to spite the NFPLA that is NOT in anti-trust. That alone is a fatal mistake to the NFLPA. It cost their members jobs. To fit the new CAP elite players will have to take the place of Special Teamers. How is that going to fly between the haves and havenots. Ouch!

Now the NFLPA has just shut the door on hundreds of players by not negotiating and this was all set in motion by a numbskull judge who thought she was sticking it to the Owners? The NFL Lawyers knew this was going to happen and set a trap IMO.

The only thing the Owners lost is they have to open the doors to the players and get ready for the 2011 season.....with no set rules. So the Owners lost a pawn to get a Queen? And they got her.
DW Toys

The only knock out is they have to open the doors and proceed with some rules that they come up with for the 2011 season.
Nelson was duped. The Lawyers knew this would happen from a liberal judge. But she inadvertently left a big loop hole and gave the owners legal instructions to set up rules. You don't think the very smart Lawyers were praying for that mistake do you?
There is no CBA court ordered or other and now the players have put themselves in a tougher position as independent contractors. No rights no contract no percentage share. The Owners can do what they want as far as schedule, benefits if at all, Team size or CAP.
I see a few rounds won but the fight is not over and now it appears the bimbo judge was the unintended corner man fixing up the Owners very nice thank you.
DW Toys

And i think the owners have to push the letter and spirit of both the laws and the ruling as hard as possible. They need to find every nook and cranny and push it to as near as breaking as possible, to show the players what would happen if the NFL real were a true free market system. I mean is redoing contracts really out of the question?

The one thing i disagree with you is reducing the number of roster spots. They need to do away with the limit completely. Allow the rich teams to higher as many players as possible, to keep them away from other teams. Allow real free market destroy the enemy each team for itself and itself alone to happen. Show the players how quickly their income would drop in that situation.

I find the number of people fawning over the owners and their position completely bizarre. Yes, the players negotiated a good deal for themselves in 2006, but it's not like this deal was hurting the game. On the contrary, revenues were soaring. Everybody was winning. The players were making more money every year, but that's only because overall revenues were going up every year. I don't see how anyone could argue that the players don't deserve the money. They work for it, honestly, and they do an outstanding job of putting out a great product that attracts fan revenue. If these guys were rock musicians, nobody would argue that they shouldnt get a huge share of the gate.

The owners, on the other hand, were not happy with the 2006 deal and opted out, which is their right. They may feel they deserve a larger share of the money, and the lockout was their attempt to get it, which is fine. There's no reason for anyone to blame either side for wanting as much money as they can get. The only thing that was dishonest about the whole thing was the owners' excuse for the lockout -- this notion that they needed the extra money to make up for overhwhelming new expenses, which is ridiculous. There's plenty of money to go around and the problem is that the smaller clubs aren't making as much as the larger clubs, and moreover there are huge new revenue streams coming (ie digital platforms and so on), and so the owners thought this was a good time to fight for a bigger piece of the pie. Which, again, is their right. They took their shot, and they're going to lose, and that's that.

But the idea that all of this is somehow the players' fault is crazy. One previous poster asked how reasonable we would think it was if our boss asked is to continue working under minimum wage. This is a silly and inaccurate analogy, as the owners are not anywhere near minimum wage; they're all part of a quasi-socialistic enterprise that guarantees that even the worst teams make great money and are basically indemnified against failure. They're doing fine. They wanted more, which is fine. But they weren't hurting and there's no evidence the previous deal was hurting the league. The owners just weren't as rich as they wanted to be.

The more accurate analogy is if you're working in a revenue-sharing corporation, and management comes to you in a time of rising revenues and profits and asks you to take a 10% or 20% pay cut so that they can have a bigger share. Would any of you say yes to that deal? Sure, the fact that the players said no to that proposal was part of what caused the lockout, but it's not exactly surprising that they said no, and the fact that they said no doesn't mean they were/are greedy. They're as self-interested as any of us would be.

This is two parties fighting over a pile of money. There's no right or wrong in it. The only thing that's even remotely obnoxious is the owners lying about why they need the extra money. If they'd just come out and admitted that they simply wanted more money for the sake of, well, having more money, this whole thing would be easier to swallow. But to be fair, they needed a pretext to opt out of the lockout, so I suppose it's not surprising that they made one up.

I can easily argue that no one deserves what the players are earning. They put up zero financial risk, they have no part in planning the business strategy for the league or for any team. The players show up and play, and walk away. And then hold out their hands and demand money.

you cannot compare them to rockstars, for bands and singers take all the risks themselves, they write all the music, put up the all the money for everything, and then reap the rewards or lose money.

The only real comparison i can think of is to compare them to actors. And look at that. The number of actors that earn millions can be counted on maybe two hands. The rest of them earn next to nothing.

No one deserves to get payed what the players get paid. To be paid for showing up and not need to worry about any of the business aspects must be nice.

They certainly don't deserve to be paid any percentage of revenue. I mean you have players that literally do nothing, they play 3 or 4 plays a game at most, and yet get paid for that more than most people will see in a few years of real work.

Any of the agreements the owners have given them have been a complete gift. The only real way players should be paid is by performance. Every contract should be 100% incentive based, with players who don't play getting paid minimum wage.

No NFL player should earn millions a year. They assume zero financial risk in any real money earning venture of the business. If their pull is really as great as they claim, let them earn all their money on endorsements.

Please provide the proof that the owners, as a group, are losing profitability, and that such loss is because of the players portion of the pie. Obviously, that proof will need to include a list breaking down all revenues, as well as a list breaking down all expenses.

No. It is none of your business, it is none of the players business. It doesn't need to be proven.

The players get paid too much money. They don't deserve it. The owners take all the financial risks, the NFL comes up with all the ideas to create revenue, the players do nothing but perform. They are overpaid entertainers, nothing more.

The only thing you can claim is the players fill the stadiums on game day. Okay, so give each player that plays $1 for each fan that shows up to a stadium. That is it. The players would still earn more money in one game than most people earn in a year.

 

[malenurse2010]

As a fan of football I'm glad the owners got taken to task for wanting higher profit margins at the expense of wages, essentially what every big company tries to slash first to raise profits. As a Patriots fan I'm pissed that the owners didn't get their way. Having to assign value to players and having a smaller cap benefits the Pats. Their dominance has waned not in most part because of the new pass happy rules, but because of the higher margin for salary cap error the new CBA in 2006 gave teams in how much it grew each year. No longer were good teams forced to have real cap casualties because poor cap management. Bonus' and salaries can always be rolled over essentially or be absorbed by the cap going up 6-8 million every year.

 

[Don Kipines]

Well thought out and reasonably expressed post, Don.....BUT.... I think you might have missed this post which came after.



Are the owners required to stay in a bad deal until they actually have to suffer massive losses before they get to change the deal. If profits are shrinking while revenues are growing and costs escalating, isn't it prudent to change the deal BEFORE there is lasting harm. The Packers (whose books are open) made about $4MM on revenues of over $350MM, (BTW I'm probably off in these figures, but I'm in the ballpark). This is a small market team, but a big market national following. If THEY are just marginally profitable, what is going on in Cinci, Jax, and Nashville
=

But that's ridiculous. To argue that the players should take a pay cut now, during a period of current escalating revenues, in anticipation of possible future losses, is preposterous. The players' compensation is tied directly to revenue. Non-player costs would have to skyrocket suddenly and massively in order to result in serious losses. There's no evidence this is going to happen; in fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite, that revenues are going to double or triple in the next few years. But that's not the point; the point is that saying "it's unreasonable to expect the owners to stay in a bad deal until they actually suffer massive losses" is like saying the police ought to arrest this or that person because it's unreasonable to wait until he actually commits a crime.

The Green Bay numbers are not terribly relevant because they're a non-profit
and not representative. As for the rest of the teams, there's simply no
evidence that costs are escalating at a faster rate than revenues. From a
collective bargaining standpoint this is simply not knowable until the teams
open their books, because "profits" can be disappeared quite easily in inflated no-show salaries for relatives and top executives and CIA other accounting tricks. It's as easy as over-deducting your tax return, even easier, because you don't even need to show your math.

Right now, revenues are going up. Right now, everyone is making money. When losses start happening, I'm sure the owners won't be shy about revealing them, and they'll be free to ask the players back to the bargaining table. But thats not what's going on; what's going on is that the smaller teams aren't making as much as the bigger teams and those little guys want to try to take a bite out of the players first before going after the owners' collective revenue pool. The big guys were fine with that plan, and they tried the lockout, which failed, and so here we are. None of this has anything to do with the players. The players are taking a predictable, fixed percentage of money out of the overall nut, a percentage that is nowhere near a danger to league profitability. The owners summoned the collective balls to ask the players to give some of that money back, the players said no, and so here we are. It's not really a moral issue on either side.

I think some of the frustration out there comes from the idea that the players are somehow benefiting from the protection of an intrusive, activist judicial system -- that without the courts the league could lockout the players and get a much better deal. What this view leaves out is that the NFL itself, and the owners collectively, would not be able to enjoy their nearly failure-proof revenue model if the government had not given them permission to behave anticompetitively and negotiate as a cartel. The players are getting labor protection from the courts, true, but the owners are also getting the government's protection; the league is freely allowed to engage in all sorts of anticompetitive practices and restrictive labor practices that would be obviously illegal in any other industry. This is fine, because it seems to work for everyone. But it's important to remember that these are two groups of actors who both enjoy extensive government protection. So it's not like the government is out of line telling the owners how to operate -- especially since the owners are still effectively on government probation after being caught committing numerous antitrust violations.

 

[Deus Irae]

No. It is none of your business, it is none of the players business. It doesn't need to be proven.

The players get paid too much money. They don't deserve it. The owners take all the financial risks, the NFL comes up with all the ideas to create revenue, the players do nothing but perform. They are overpaid entertainers, nothing more.

The only thing you can claim is the players fill the stadiums on game day. Okay, so give each player that plays $1 for each fan that shows up to a stadium. That is it. The players would still earn more money in one game than most people earn in a year.

PFK made a claim. I asked him to back it up. Your rantings are irrelevant to that.

 

[PatsFanNM]

Pursuant to what Don Kipines said, it would be great if people could just subtract out all the emotion. Two groups did what they thought would be in their best interest, and neither group did anything impermissible -- the owners canceled the CBA and locked the players out, and the players ended their union and asked the court to cancel the lockout.

Lockouts of non-union contracted employees aren't legal under US law, so the players sued to end the lockout. They also sued for a bunch of other things related to non-competitive practices that the league gets to do when they're in an agreement with a union but don't get to do when they're not. The judge agreed. On to the 8th Circuit.

Many anti-player commentators here seem to think that the owners get to collude with respect to the draft, with respect to restricting free agents, with respect to agreed-upon salary caps and all the rest, in the absence of a union. They don't -- it's simple. Furthermore, the various courts have already ruled on the same issues several times before. In general, courts don't like having to make the same ruling, with the same facts, over and over.

What's strange to me is the way the owners went about their negotiations prior to the collapse of negotiations. They didn't show up at meetings, many owners were absent, they didn't show up on time, and they only came up with what might be considered a reasonable offer -- and additional $300 million instead of $1 billion -- until the very last minute. In addition, they (according to reports) treated the player representatives disrespectfully.

It's as if they were daring the players to dissolve the union and go to court. But court is where the existing law and all the past decisions are on the side of the players. Surely it can't be that the owners were just counting on the courts to disallow the players voted-on dissolution of the union -- there are too many reasons, as spelled out in Judge Nelson's decision, to just accept that the players no longer have a union, since they aren't claiming any of the benefits that go along with having a union. (At least, I haven't heard anyone say that they are claiming any such benefits.)

That smacks of irrationality. The owners depend on the players being in a union for their cartel to be legal. Why would they negotiate in a way that pushes the players toward dissolving their union?

In any case, there's no big moral issue here. They're fighting over $300 million -- or, if you believe some reports, $150 million, because the players might have been willing to consider a $150 million add-on to the $1 billion that was already excluded from the 50-50 split contained in the last CBA.

That's a lot of money, plenty to pay each side's lawyers to fight this thing, but divided up amongst 32 teams, it's a little under $5 million each. Assuming they're going to spend it on what they said they were going to spend it on, rather than just putting it in their pockets, it's probably not enough to make a big difference to any of the teams. And, divided by the roughly 2000 players who might be affected by this deal, it's only $75k per player. Not game-changing money.

I'll be surprised if the 8th Circuit does anything on this case quickly. Probably the teams will have to run their season pretty much as they did last year, though they'll have missed a month or six weeks of preparation. In no event do I see any huge disaster -- the end of football as we know it -- just because a judge ordered an injunction prohibiting a lockout. The two sides have too much to lose for them to ruin the game.

 

[JMarr]

Pursuant to what Don Kipines said, it would be great if people could just subtract out all the emotion. Two groups did what they thought would be in their best interest, and neither group did anything impermissible -- the owners canceled the CBA and locked the players out, and the players ended their union and asked the court to cancel the lockout.

Lockouts of non-union contracted employees aren't legal under US law, so the players sued to end the lockout. They also sued for a bunch of other things related to non-competitive practices that the league gets to do when they're in an agreement with a union but don't get to do when they're not. The judge agreed. On to the 8th Circuit.

Many anti-player commentators here seem to think that the owners get to collude with respect to the draft, with respect to restricting free agents, with respect to agreed-upon salary caps and all the rest, in the absence of a union. They don't -- it's simple. Furthermore, the various courts have already ruled on the same issues several times before. In general, courts don't like having to make the same ruling, with the same facts, over and over.

What's strange to me is the way the owners went about their negotiations prior to the collapse of negotiations. They didn't show up at meetings, many owners were absent, they didn't show up on time, and they only came up with what might be considered a reasonable offer -- and additional $300 million instead of $1 billion -- until the very last minute. In addition, they (according to reports) treated the player representatives disrespectfully.

It's as if they were daring the players to dissolve the union and go to court. But court is where the existing law and all the past decisions are on the side of the players. Surely it can't be that the owners were just counting on the courts to disallow the players voted-on dissolution of the union -- there are too many reasons, as spelled out in Judge Nelson's decision, to just accept that the players no longer have a union, since they aren't claiming any of the benefits that go along with having a union. (At least, I haven't heard anyone say that they are claiming any such benefits.)

That smacks of irrationality. The owners depend on the players being in a union for their cartel to be legal. Why would they negotiate in a way that pushes the players toward dissolving their union?

In any case, there's no big moral issue here. They're fighting over $300 million -- or, if you believe some reports, $150 million, because the players might have been willing to consider a $150 million add-on to the $1 billion that was already excluded from the 50-50 split contained in the last CBA.

That's a lot of money, plenty to pay each side's lawyers to fight this thing, but divided up amongst 32 teams, it's a little under $5 million each. Assuming they're going to spend it on what they said they were going to spend it on, rather than just putting it in their pockets, it's probably not enough to make a big difference to any of the teams. And, divided by the roughly 2000 players who might be affected by this deal, it's only $75k per player. Not game-changing money.

I'll be surprised if the 8th Circuit does anything on this case quickly. Probably the teams will have to run their season pretty much as they did last year, though they'll have missed a month or six weeks of preparation. In no event do I see any huge disaster -- the end of football as we know it -- just because a judge ordered an injunction prohibiting a lockout. The two sides have too much to lose for them to ruin the game.

You should post here more often.

 

[DaBruinz]

Given that the players were more than willing to continue the status quo it is safe to say the owners created this situation.

The status quo was the problem. That is what you are failing to understand. That's why the owners opted out. OF COURSE the players were happy with it. They didn't have to take on any of the burden of the league. they could ignore the retired vets and reap all the rewards..