Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[skinnydog]

You (and the NFLPA) are making the assumption here that the NFLPA is an equal business partner to the owners. While opinions may vary, I don't believe that to be the case. The players are the employees in this case, not equal business partners.

Once you negotiate a salary cap and a revenue sharing plan, you are pretty close to being equal business partners.

 

[upstater1]

You (and the NFLPA) are making the assumption here that the NFLPA is an equal business partner to the owners. While opinions may vary, I don't believe that to be the case. The players are the employees in this case, not equal business partners.

You can't make a statement like this without looking at the CBA. In many industries in the USA, employees are given incentives that make them equitable partners in the company, and many times those incentives are based on revenues and/or profits. Once you make such an agreement, you've invited your employees into the inner sanctum. It's no different than making someone a junior partner in your lawfirm. The sense of hierarchy still exists, you still have all sorts of levers you can pull against them, but ultimately, you are also beholden to sharing profits with them outside their salaries. Let's not pretend that these sort of relationships don't exist in the business world. They do. Sports agents, advertising companies, hell even real estate agencies, have agreements with their top employees that let the employee into the boss's business.

 

[bucky]

Well of course it's partially sarcastic. BUT ... they are closer to a business partner relationship than an owner/employee relationship IMO. If it were nothing but an owner/employee relationship the owners could have come out and given whatever pay cut they wanted.

Exactly, thus they have a union, just like say the United Auto Workers. The big difference between the NFLPA and the UAW is that the NFL players are the best in the world at what they do, while the auto workers are all replaceable with zero impact to the business (less the learning curve). The owners could replace all the players and put out an inferior product. Everyone would make less money all across the board.

Nevertheless, the owners are the ones carrying the financial risk. If revenues go down and the league stops being profitable, it's the owners who lose money and are still responsible for paying salaries, stadium payments, etc. And those who carry the risk typically enjoy the rewards. That's just how it is in business.

Having said all that, I'm certainly not on the owners' side here. They're a bunch of greedy billionaires who want more billions for themselves. The NFLPA is a bunch of greedy millionaires who want more millions for themselves. Hard to feel bad for either side. Given that there are a lot of smart business men involved, I'm sure it'll all get straightened out before everyone's bottom line starts being affected.

 

[patchick]

If I understand this right, we're trying to determine which side is the "stubborn one" based on the evidence of a highly financed blitz of press releases, grandstanding, and selective bits of out-of-context info issued in the hopes of trying the case in the court of public opinion?

Thanks, but I'll stick to my old standbys of reading tea leaves and sheep entrails. Much more reliable.

 

[bucky]

You can't make a statement like this without looking at the CBA. In many industries in the USA, employees are given incentives that make them equitable partners in the company, and many times those incentives are based on revenues and/or profits. Once you make such an agreement, you've invited your employees into the inner sanctum. It's no different than making someone a junior partner in your lawfirm. The sense of hierarchy still exists, you still have all sorts of levers you can pull against them, but ultimately, you are also beholden to sharing profits with them outside their salaries. Let's not pretend that these sort of relationships don't exist in the business world. They do. Sports agents, advertising companies, hell even real estate agencies, have agreements with their top employees that let the employee into the boss's business.

I'm just pointing out that they're not equal business partners. Therefore, the assumption that they are on equal footing is not quite accurate.

 

[McCourty Island]

Nevertheless, the owners are the ones carrying the financial risk. If revenues go down and the league stops being profitable, it's the owners who lose money and are still responsible for paying salaries, stadium payments, etc. And those who carry the risk typically enjoy the rewards. That's just how it is in business.

Having said all that, I'm certainly not on the owners' side here. They're a bunch of greedy billionaires who want more billions for themselves. The NFLPA is a bunch of greedy millionaires who want more millions for themselves. Hard to feel bad for either side. Given that there are a lot of smart business men involved, I'm sure it'll all get straightened out before everyone's bottom line starts being affected.

If the revenue drops for the NFL so does the salary cap since its tied to a percentage of revenue so the owners risk is being overstated here in my opinion.

And to clarify, the players are not trying to get more millions, they are trying to limit the amount of millions that they have to give up.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

If I understand this right, we're trying to determine which side is the "stubborn one" based on the evidence of a highly financed blitz of press releases, grandstanding, and selective bits of out-of-context info issued in the hopes of trying the case in the court of public opinion?

Thanks, but I'll stick to my old standbys of reading tea leaves and sheep entrails. Much more reliable.

Exactly we're going to hear a lot of rhetoric over the next few weeks with each side trying to gain favor with the public.
If what Ian put in his article is genuine they are asking the players to make a small paycut next year, although it could be argued that the rookie salary cap will allow for veterans to make up for the cut with the money that would go to rookies.
My question is what if the players dont give any money back to the owners to grow the game, will the salary cap go down in this current economic environment? If the answer is yes then the players should have taken the deal. Hard to answer that question but thats the key for me. Without knowing that I cant pick a side.

 

[bucky]

And to clarify, the players are not trying to get more millions, they are trying to limit the amount of millions that they have to give up.

It's semantics. If you consider there are 32 owners and 1800 players, over the 5 year period of the CBA, the $1 Billion/yr that they're haggling over ends up being either $150 mil in the pocket of each owner, or $2.8 mil in the pocket of each player. That's a lot of money. I would haggle too and try to get as much of it as I possibly could!

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Heres a good article explaining what went down.

An NFL labor impasse primer - ESPN

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Some hard numbers from the Times

•The owners had previously dropped their demand from an additional $1 billion to $640 million. On Friday, they dropped this to an additional $320 million per year.
•The players countered with a proposal of $137 per year for four years, and withdrew their demand for financial verification.

Left unsaid was this - if the owners wanted more that the $137 million from the players, they had to agree to financial disclosure. Which the owners were unwilling to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/sports/football/12nfl.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=sports

 

[bucky]

Left unsaid was this - if the owners wanted more that the $137 million from the players, they had to agree to financial disclosure. Which the owners were unwilling to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/sports/football/12nfl.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=sports

Interesting nugget from the article - the lawsuit will formally be called "Brady vs. NFL".

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Interesting nugget from the article - the lawsuit will formally be called "Brady vs. NFL".

I think thats based on alphabetical order, but yes interesting nonetheless.

 

[Ring 6]

Everyone, please do not accept what AndyJohnson or MLR or I or anyone says about the ruling.

Please read the actual ruling and make your own conclusions.

Absolutely do not accept what I say, as I have made it abundantly clear that I am not an expert have not paid close attention to it and am only speaking on my impression. I have gone out of my way to qualify my statements with that.

 

[Ring 6]

Well of course it's partially sarcastic. BUT ... they are closer to a business partner relationship than an owner/employee relationship IMO. If it were nothing but an owner/employee relationship the owners could have come out and given whatever pay cut they wanted.

Being unionized does not make them closer to partners than employees.
Partnership involves decision making and above all risk of loss. There is no risk of losing money to the players.

 

[upstater1]

Some hard numbers from the Times

•The owners had previously dropped their demand from an additional $1 billion to $640 million. On Friday, they dropped this to an additional $320 million per year.
•The players countered with a proposal of $137 per year for four years, and withdrew their demand for financial verification.

Left unsaid was this - if the owners wanted more that the $137 million from the players, they had to agree to financial disclosure. Which the owners were unwilling to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/sports/football/12nfl.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=sports

Hahahaha!!!

Now I'm totally against both these groups.

$10 billion industry going forward and they are fighting over $200 million. Split the difference.

My GOD!

But then again, the owners fought amongst each other over $100 million last time.

Given the Supplemental Revenue Plan in the amount of $100 million which spreads funds to small-market teams, I think the players should agree to $200-$230 million if they can get assurances that Ralph Wilson will maximize revenue and use the amount other owners give them on players.

In MLB, the Yankees and Sox complain that the money they give to Kansas city is never spent. If the NFL could assure that Buffalo will spend within say an average of 10-15% of the cap over a 5 year period, then the players should give up more and end this circus.

I'm stunned that the two sides were so close.

 

[upstater1]

Being unionized does not make them closer to partners than employees.
Partnership involves decision making and above all risk of loss. There is no risk of losing money to the players.

In many businesses, you are made partner. They only ask that you continue to bring in business as you share the firm's wealth. You have risked nothing--other than losing your job. Think of a lawfirm. Lawyers don't pay into the profit structure, they simply agree to a cut of revs (often predetermined).

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Interesting nugget from the article - the lawsuit will formally be called "Brady vs. NFL".

Those who recall 1987 will remember that the premier QB of his era, Joe Montana, crossed the picket line and worked with the replacement players in 1987.

By getting Brady and Manning on the lawsuit, the union is saying that won't happen again.

 

[Ring 6]

In many businesses, you are made partner. They only ask that you continue to bring in business as you share the firm's wealth. You have risked nothing--other than losing your job. Think of a lawfirm. Lawyers don't pay into the profit structure, they simply agree to a cut of revs (often predetermined).

If you are truly a partner you are at risk. If the company is sued, loses money, etc, you share liability. If the 'partner' you describe does not share that risk, the partner is only euphamistically used. Using a term improperly would not be proof its definition is wrong.

 

[skinnydog]

Being unionized does not make them closer to partners than employees.
Partnership involves decision making and above all risk of loss. There is no risk of losing money to the players.

The fact that the players are unionized of course does not make them partners, but there are other circumstance here. The fact that there is a salary cap and revenue sharing pretty much makes them partners. The players actually would lose money, if the shared revenue went down. Actually with a 60 percent share of revenue they would absorb 60 percent of the loss. Oh,and unlike in most businesses, the owners want the players unionized so they can agree to allowvthe owners to violate certain anti-trust laws.

 

[Ring 6]

The fact that the players are unionized of course does not make them partners, but there are other circumstance here. The fact that there is a salary cap and revenue sharing pretty much makes them partners. The players actually would lose money, if the shared revenue went down. Actually with a 60 percent share of revenue they would absorb 60 percent of the loss. Oh,and unlike in most businesses, the owners want the players unionized so they can agree to allowvthe owners to violate certain anti-trust laws.

No, that is not correct. The players would have their pay reduced if revenues went down. That is not the same as a business operating at a loss. A business operating at a loss, loses the owners personal assets in operation.
In other words.
100 mill in revenue 90 mill in expense. Players at 60% are paid 60 mill, owners make 10 mill.
90 mill in revenue 100 mill in expense. Players paid 54 mill, owners loses 10 mill of thier own money that they had to use to pay the expenses, out of their bank account. Players had 54 mill income, owners had negative 10 mill.

Many business pay employees based on revenue, its called commission. In essense the players are commission employees.

The anti-trust law issue isnt something the owners want to violate. It is something that is necessary to have a competitive sports league.
And they do not VIOLATE it they have an EXEMPTION. That is because without it the NFL would be like Walmart competing against Target. You would end up with one rich owner buying all the players. The main component that the anti-trust law makes possible is the draft. The purpose of the antitrust exemption isnt for the owners to do harm to the union or anyone else, it is to allow them to exist as a league. Without it there is no league just independent 'football companies' which would end competitive sports as we know it.
At least thats how I understand it.