Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[DaBruinz]

a very well written and level headed post... i just want football next year. I want the players to be taken care of after they retire and for their wages to increase at a respectable rate as without them there is no game. I want a rookie wage scale and the money saved form the 1st round to go to vets. I also want the owners to be recognised for what they do, run the best and most profitable league in the world.

in the end i just want to see football next year cause the pats are loaded now

What is a respectable rate when most people aren't even getting Cost of Living increases. Yet the players are expecting about a 6.5% increase a year in the salary cap and many 2nd contracts increase in significantly?

Why do the owners have to take care of the players after they retire? What happened to personal responsibility? The owners shell out tons of money to provide all sorts of services to the players already. If the players are too stupid to use them, how is that the owner's fault?

A 3 year, league minimum deal will GROSS 1.185 million. That's more money than most people in the US make in a 15 year stretch. Why can't these people be expected to put money aside for after football? Especially when the average career is only 3.2 years?

If/when the league starts playing games without a CBA, I really hope that the owners force the players to pay for their own health insurance and force contributions to the player pensions and such. A dose of humility for some of the guys could do wonders.

 

[DaBruinz]

Here is a direct quote from the email that the league sent out to people.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

Lines up with the the OP mentioned..

 

[jsull87]

What is a respectable rate when most people aren't even getting Cost of Living increases. Yet the players are expecting about a 6.5% increase a year in the salary cap and many 2nd contracts increase in significantly?

Why do the owners have to take care of the players after they retire? What happened to personal responsibility? The owners shell out tons of money to provide all sorts of services to the players already. If the players are too stupid to use them, how is that the owner's fault?

A 3 year, league minimum deal will GROSS 1.185 million. That's more money than most people in the US make in a 15 year stretch. Why can't these people be expected to put money aside for after football? Especially when the average career is only 3.2 years?

If/when the league starts playing games without a CBA, I really hope that the owners force the players to pay for their own health insurance and force contributions to the player pensions and such. A dose of humility for some of the guys could do wonders.

I think you could argue that if the nfl is growing it shouldn't matter what other industries increases are they should be rewarded for their industries growth just like any other industry would. 6.5%... thats not for me to decide and usually the number is more around 4%.

I also think you could argue that the league has a responsability to take care of players after they retire because for one this is a contact sport where players litterally put their body on the line every day they go to work. What other job can you go to and 1st minute of work you get a concussion (e.g mike wright) and can no longer work for the rest of the year... maybe your life. In an industry with that much risk and where the life expectancy is dropped signifigantly from the general population i think it isn't unreasonable to argue that the owners have a duty of care to look after their employees health after they retire from the game. Yes they do provide alot of hat care now so it seems the owners agree that they have this duty of care to the players, the point of the negotiations was to once again visit this topic and discuss how both parties could do a better job.

Hey i agree that the players get a lot, but them being rich isn't an excuse to not let them bargain for a fair deal like everyone else is allowed to. (now in my opinion i don't think they have negotiated in good faith because they seem pretty happy with the deal they have now)

 

[Fencer]

#1 and #2 on the NFL's list read as if they were heavily spun. The rest, as a group, read more credibly.

Not coincidentally, for all the BS about the major revenue splits, the NFL and players have actually cooperated pretty well over time in less costly areas such as player safety (even though it's a bit problem), player behavior (despite the arguments over drug suspensions), the subsidy for vet-minimum vets, or the bonus for high-snap-count young players.

 

[fair catch fryar]

It could easily be argued that the leadership of unions are exactly what you just described that you hate.

No disagreement there. Unfortunately, I fear that both sides, NFLPA and NFL ownership, have a little of their own.

 

[Miguel]

It wasnt hidden. They negotiated a payment in the event of a lockout, which clearly earne them less in the other years.
I dont know that this isnt maximizing revenues. If in fact there is a lockout, it would result in maximizing revenues.
I am not under the impression that the league is required to negotiate its contracts based upon what is best for the NFLPA, I think they are free to do what they feel is best. I also am under the impression that the issue was not that there is payment in the event of a lockout, but that the judge ruled that they may not have access to those funds DURING the lockout, because they would be shared funds at whatever point there is a new CBA.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure thats the unadultered version.

From the ruling
http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Lockout Insurance Case Decision.pdf

"However, the SSA requires the NFL to use best efforts to maximize total revenues for the 2009-2010 seasons when it enters into widespread and lucrative contract renegotiations."

 

[convertedpatsfan]

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive Behold! The NFL’s last offer to the union, according to the NFLPA

This is apparently directly from DeMaurice Smith.

If true, it shows the $161M cap figure in 2014 is a bit inflated as it also includes benefits. I'm not suggesting benefits don't count, just that some were comparing the 2009 cap figure to the 2014 cap+benefits figure. It still works out to a nice 5 to 6% raise per season, though the players could anticipate an 8% cut to start the deal compared to 2009.

Also bear in mind that this was the last offer to the union after concessions on both sides. The starting points were probably much different. The first 3 years of the deal also almost match up identically with 2007 to 2009 in terms of cap numbers. So I guess it comes down to whether they want to give up their salary increases over the last 3 years.

Nothing is obviously final, but if there is football in 2011, I don't think the cap will be over $120M or the $135M some were projecting.

 

[everlong]

Not sure if this has been posted yet and this is as good of a place as any. I'm sure many of you received this email from being on the NFL mailing list.

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.



Yours,
Roger Goodell

 

[Miguel]

Here are my comments:

1) The Players go from a cap of $128 million last year (2009/2010) to $161 (2014/2015) That's a $33 million increase over 4 years (excluding the non-capped year).

An apples to oranges comparison because the $161 million figure includes money spent on benefits while the $128 million does not. From 2006 through 2009 the NFL spent an average of $22.775 million per team on benefits. If the $161 million does not include benefits, the average NFL team would be spending over $180 million on its players. If the NFL could afford to do that, why did they opt out in the 1st place.

 

[Miguel]

5) Sure sounds to me like the owners backed off the 18 game schedule since they basically said that the players will be the ones to decide if it happens

Given how the dates for next 2 Super Bowls are already set this just reflects the reality of how difficult it would be to implement an 18-game schedule in 2011 and in 2012.

 

[Urgent]

In terms of money, they can stop right here:

1.We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

The cap is all that matters for financials.
All this "but I heard that one owner paid his nephew a really high salary" is totally irrelevant.
If the players decertified in the face of a $161mm cap, I question their intent.

The 2009 cap was $127mm. That's a 27% increase. Wow.

I understand that the players want more benefits. If a 27% compensation increase was not adequate in this environment, then they are looking for something else entirely.

 

[skinnydog]

I'm having a hard time understanding the support for the owners here. Ya, the players make a lot. So what? We watch games to see the players not the owners. My understanding is that the players were just fine with the current contract, that is the status quo. And that status quo was pretty damn good for both sides. Franchise values have increased dramatically the last 5 or 6 years. It was the owners who wanted to take hundreds of millions back from the share of what goes to the players. The owners claimed they weren't really doing alight great despite the billions in revenue pouring in. The players had a fundamental request. Prove it. Prove it by opening your books and that means the real books that means showing us whether your expenses include things like no show jobs for family members paying hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't blame the players at all for wanting to see concrete proof that there is a genuine need to change the financial status quo.

 

[Miguel]

In terms of money, they can stop right here:


The cap is all that matters for financials.
All this "but I heard that one owner paid his nephew a really high salary" is totally irrelevant.
If the players decertified in the face of a $161mm cap, I question their intent.

The 2009 cap was $127mm. That's a 27% increase. Wow.

I understand that the players want more benefits. If a 27% compensation increase was not adequate in this environment, then they are looking for something else entirely.

An apples to oranges comparison because the $161 million figure includes money spent on benefits while the $128 million does not. From 2006 through 2009 the NFL spent an average of $22.775 million per team on benefits. If the $161 million does not include benefits, the average NFL team would be spending over $180 million on its players. If the NFL could afford to do that, why did they opt out in the 1st place

 

[upstater1]

It wasnt hidden. They negotiated a payment in the event of a lockout, which clearly earne them less in the other years.
I dont know that this isnt maximizing revenues. If in fact there is a lockout, it would result in maximizing revenues.
I am not under the impression that the league is required to negotiate its contracts based upon what is best for the NFLPA, I think they are free to do what they feel is best. I also am under the impression that the issue was not that there is payment in the event of a lockout, but that the judge ruled that they may not have access to those funds DURING the lockout, because they would be shared funds at whatever point there is a new CBA.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure thats the unadultered version.

Maximizing revenues implies shared revenues, and the $4 billion was not to be shared. The payment was to be made to the owners during a lockout, and the proceeds would not be shared.

 

[upstater1]

Its a different means to the same ends. Coca Cola is making their decisions based on maximizing profit, even if they take a longer view, its still the same motivation.

I'm not on the same page on the 18 game schedule. I dont see the huge players safety difference in changing 2 preseason games to regular season. If playing football is unsafe its unsafe 16 times or 18 times too. I think tying player safety to the 18 game schedule is more negotiating ploy that anything else.

I would argue against the idea that it's a means to the same ends. There are value companies out there that grow within themselves and last many years. There are go-go stories that try to inflate the value of assets for the quick selloff and inevitable tanking. Every company has a different institutional philosophy. The latter tends not to care about the distant future as long as they can get a sucker to pay for their assets now. This is the problem with current ownership. Under current credit conditions, they have lost many billions compared to where the were several years ago. Banks aren't going to be anxious to lend a guy worth a couple hundred million almost a billion more to buy a team.

 

[upstater1]

Its a different means to the same ends. Coca Cola is making their decisions based on maximizing profit, even if they take a longer view, its still the same motivation.

I'm not on the same page on the 18 game schedule. I dont see the huge players safety difference in changing 2 preseason games to regular season. If playing football is unsafe its unsafe 16 times or 18 times too. I think tying player safety to the 18 game schedule is more negotiating ploy that anything else.

We also totally disagree about the 18 game thing. The NFL dismisses the idea that fans care just as much about the players as they do about the laundry. They think we'll still be totally excited to watch NFL games when half the team that trots out there is filled with backups. The Cassel season was great as a novelty, but if that happens several times again and again, people lose interest. I do think that 16 games is an absolute breaking point. There's only so much these guys can take, and the breaking point is probably more like 14 games, not 16.

2 Preseason = 2 Regular? I would say no. Not at all.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

An apples to oranges comparison because the $161 million figure includes money spent on benefits while the $128 million does not. From 2006 through 2009 the NFL spent an average of $22.775 million per team on benefits. If the $161 million does not include benefits, the average NFL team would be spending over $180 million on its players. If the NFL could afford to do that, why did they opt out in the 1st place

Because a $9B+ entity rapidly approaching in excess of $10B (heck, the 18 game season alone would add another half a billion to the pie) can afford a $180M cap 4 years out if it can continue to reinvest in growing the pie. The issue remains the % split or lack of appreciation on one side for everything else the other is being asked to foot the bills for on their end beyond salaries. Owners aren't saying they can afford to pay that under the existing division, they are saying they can to it if the players had met them half way. If the player cost (salary and benefits) is taking up 60% of an $11B+ pie come 2014 even after a $1.4B offset (the compromise down from $2B) there's your $5.75B to cover it. If the other side doesn't get it's additional $3-400M to invest as per the owners last proposal, then absent reinvestment the damn pie isn't going continue to grow to the point it can.

The difference between the owners and the players is the owners know it takes money to make money (investment capital to grow and market the product) while all the players know is they want every of nickel of money they can get now and they'll worry about later when 78% of them are in financial distress or filing bankrupcy or an increasing # of them are getting their diapers changed in an assisted living facility because as usual they chose to proceed through this negotiation as well as their football careers and ultimately life leading with their helmets...

 

[primetime]

An apples to oranges comparison because the $161 million figure includes money spent on benefits while the $128 million does not. From 2006 through 2009 the NFL spent an average of $22.775 million per team on benefits. If the $161 million does not include benefits, the average NFL team would be spending over $180 million on its players. If the NFL could afford to do that, why did they opt out in the 1st place

So in reality it's only a raise of about $10M total (salary+benefits), which percentage-wise would be a small rise compared to the last decade or so.

 

[upstater1]

i don't know you could say they are being stubborn asking for more money as their argument is that costs to generate that revenue have gone up unproportionally to the cut they are getting as costs have gone up.

If they have gone up they have a point and thats what negotiating is about, if the costs haven't gone up then they are lieing and the NFLPA would say so. From what i have seen i think the NFl has negotiated in good faith and met the Union half way plus on alot of issues and the union has not... in saying that i am not in there and don't have all the facts thats just my opinion after what i have read

You're taking the owners at face value.

Two things have happened.

One, the financial crisis has cratered the values of the owners' assets.

Two, the enmity among owners over the last CBA is still unresolved because Jerry Jones and the like were totally upset about the league's Supplemental Revenue Plan which called for rich owners to spread $100 million around to small-market teams. The giveback being requested from the players largely seeks to cover the costs of this Supplemental Revenue Plan.

I'm not saying that what the NFL is asking for is unfair. After all, this money is "supposedly" meant to go to the players (even though in practice this may not be the case--in practice the small market owners may not be maximizing revenues nor paying to the cap). Given that, the players should pay for the Supplemental Revs AND even double that amount given the future growth of the cap.

 

[primetime]

It's also worth noting that this is essentially big owners versus the players. The smaller owners will see a much smaller benefit. Indeed, one wonders if owners are loathe to open the books in part because they're already cooking them to game the revenue sharing system.