Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[skinnydog]

I'm pretty sure you can't be in violation of a law you have an exemption from.
Opening the books to your adversary in a contentious negotiation would be idiotic.

Uh, you might want to check that. The NFL, was found to be in violation of antiitrust laws in the 90s. Remember plan B free agency? Anti-trust violation. The NFL, has a limited anti-trust exemption that allows it to negotiate TV contracts and black out rules as a league instead of 32 individual teams. It does NOT have a blanket anti-trust exemption. If the NFL tried to impose a salary cap it would be a clear anti-trust violation. The only reason it's not is because it collectively bargained with the NFLPA, a union. Collective bargaining can take precedence over anti-trust laws. In a sense that's an exemption, but if so it derives from the existence of the Union. Again, that's why the NFL wants a Union to negotiate with.

Only baseball had a broad based anti-trust exemption and even that's scaled back.

 

[Sfpat]

I'm having a hard time understanding the support for the owners here.

I think the support for the owners come from those of us who work in private industry and constantly deal with these issues. No one forces the players to play, they choose to play. If they don't like the conditions under which they are employed, do something different (or better yet, invest their own money and create a competitor to the NFL). These are the choices most of us face.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm confused about the "dramatic pay cut". The salary cap was to increase to $161 MM which is substantially higher than the current cap. Where is the pay cut?

The cap for 2011 and 2012 reportedly would have gone down from 2009.
Players would not actually be taking paycuts, because they are under contract. Its to be seen how much of the decrease is directly tied to the new rookie pay structure. If its 1 for 1 then there would be no pay cut, only a reduction in future player pay as rookies.
I believe part of the compromise is also that owners would be contributing more to other areas such as pension, health benefits and so forth. I am not sure if that bridges the gap, but I would find it hard to call it a pay cut if the cap goes down but other player related expenses go up commensurately. That would be a choice of distribution not a pay cut.
Frankly, no one truly knows all the facts so its all really speculation tempered by righteousness at this point.

 

[Sfpat]

Business Partner 1: I need $1 Billion.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: OK, I need $800 Million.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: OK, I need $600 Million.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: You're being ridiculous.

They players are employees, not business partners. They have nothing at risk other than salary.

 

[Ring 6]

They're not law partners but they are in the same class of employees who have a financial stake legalized contractually in the success of the business. I named several examples of this earlier. Not all of them are liable to losses. There are plenty who aren't. In fact, there are some on Wall Street who are paid solely according to the business's profits, and yes they often sue when they are not recompensed according to the language of their contract. They are in essence "locked out." In fact, this is very common, it has even happened to some of my family members.

I recognize that MANY employees in MANY companies are paid based upon results, I myself am.
The analogy is not to a partner who has ownership in the company but to a commissioned employee.
The fact that people have sued over whether they were compensated correctly has nothing to with whether they partners.

The pertinent question is if company X loses 1,000,000 this year, who's money pays that.
If I own a company and it loses money, that means its expenses exceed its income. To pay the bills, I must dip into my personal assets. I am paying for the right to run the business, and have negative income. If the company fails and has contracts to be paid, I am personally liable (yes I know there are corporate protections but we are talking about a partnership which wouldn't have them and would require a personal guarantee of indebtness anyway) and my personal assets are at stake.

Having your income based on performance and having the risk of ownership are not even in the same ballpark.

 

[townes]

I think the support for the owners come from those of us who work in private industry and constantly deal with these issues. No one forces the players to play, they choose to play. If they don't like the conditions under which they are employed, do something different (or better yet, invest their own money and create a competitor to the NFL). These are the choices most of us face.

You ask your employees to take a share of your revenues?

 

[Ring 6]

Then the owners should abandon revenue sharing and offer the players a lump sum. I would be much more sympathetic to the owners case if they weren't trying to have it both ways, they want the players to share in the risk related to yearly revenues, but don't want to let them see what those revenues are. If they offered the players a yearly sum not related to revenue the players would have no right to ask for transparency they cvould simply take it or leave it, but when they offer percentages then the players have a right to know what the whole pie is.

I don't see how anyone advising the players could in good conscience tell them to simply trust the owners given that the owners have already violated the current deal by their dealings with Direct TV.

The NFLPA already sees what the revenues are. You need to get that concept because it is critical. No union would ever sign and agreement where they get a percentage of revenues without an ironclad system to verify them.
They arent asking for that, they are asking for 10 years of PROFIT AND LOSS. What profit the teams make is irrelevant to the CBA.

In a way you are 100% correct, because they have to have transparency of revenue.
But you are also 100% incorrect, because they have that already and are now asking for transparency of what the teams do with their cut of the revenue which has absolutely zero impact on the CBA, or any plan of pay negotiated to date.

Giving a lumpsum would solve little. Its just using a different calculation for the same number but estimating its viability.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, in your previous post you said that you haven't seen anyone suggest revenues weren't being reported properly yet in this post you are saying that the players are trying to find out if the revenues were being reported properly. Which is it?

BTW-The Direct TV deal is a clear violation of the CBA and evidence revenues were being screwed with. Given that deal the players are absolutely right to want to know what else has been going on.

No. I have said all along they are being reported properly. In this post I said IF they were not, they would have a point, but they are being reported properly. I think you missed the IF.

I disagree with your assessment of the Directv deal, and also the fact that is was done without transparency. I also do not consider 2 rulings one in favor of the owners and another in favor of the players to be CLEAR evidence that a violation occurred.
I am not epxert on the Directv issue, but obviously you are not either so we should probably table that part of the discussion.

 

[skinnydog]

I think the support for the owners come from those of us who work in private industry and constantly deal with these issues. No one forces the players to play, they choose to play. If they don't like the conditions under which they are employed, do something different (or better yet, invest their own money and create a competitor to the NFL). These are the choices most of us face.

Well, I work in private industry and always have. I almost never support unions. Remember this isn't a pure market system and the owners don't want one. How about no draft and the teams just go out and recruit whoever they want?? This about a revenue sharing system negotiated between the NFL owners as a group and the player's union. The agreement has produce amazing revenues for both sides. The owners say, many of them are not making enough and want the percentage changed. They say our costs have gone up a lot along with the increased revenues. They say here are our total costs. The players look at that total cost and say we won't accept your number at face value because you've lid in the past, so show us the books

 

[upstater1]

I think the support for the owners come from those of us who work in private industry and constantly deal with these issues. No one forces the players to play, they choose to play. If they don't like the conditions under which they are employed, do something different (or better yet, invest their own money and create a competitor to the NFL). These are the choices most of us face.

You assume too much

The Players DO like the conditions they've been playing under.

The owners don't like paying the players what they have been paying them. The owners thus should get rid of the players and fine new ones. See how that works for them.

 

[upstater1]

They players are employees, not business partners. They have nothing at risk other than salary.

The same goes in any number of professions where revenues are shared. Workers have no stake. But they receive a % of revenues.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

You ask your employees to take a share of your revenues?

People, like me that work in commission jobs do.

 

[townes]

The NFLPA already sees what the revenues are. You need to get that concept because it is critical. No union would ever sign and agreement where they get a percentage of revenues without an ironclad system to verify them.
They arent asking for that, they are asking for 10 years of PROFIT AND LOSS. What profit the teams make is irrelevant to the CBA.

In a way you are 100% correct, because they have to have transparency of revenue.
But you are also 100% incorrect, because they have that already and are now asking for transparency of what the teams do with their cut of the revenue which has absolutely zero impact on the CBA, or any plan of pay negotiated to date.

Giving a lumpsum would solve little. Its just using a different calculation for the same number but estimating its viability.

The players are asking to see where the increased expenses and losses are because that is the justification the owners are using to ask for a great deal of money back in the next agreement. If the expenses are tied to making the product stronger, e.g.. new stadiums, infrastructure, improved facilities etc... then those numbers would bolster their case for a different financial agreement, however if they are being used to pad salaries for family members or funnel money to other enterprises then the numbers would show that the problem is how owners are using their cut and not expenses incurred by reinvestment in their product. As an example it is hard to see how Mike Brown can argue about the costs associated with reinvesting in the Bengals when in truth he doesn't, and hasn't even built them an indoor practice facility, he takes his cut from the owners pie and sticks it in his pocket, so a claim by him that he needs more falls on deaf ears imo.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Originally Posted by Sfpat
I'm confused about the "dramatic pay cut". The salary cap was to increase to $161 MM which is substantially higher than the current cap. Where is the pay cut?

The cap for 2011 and 2012 reportedly would have gone down from 2009.
Players would not actually be taking paycuts, because they are under contract. Its to be seen how much of the decrease is directly tied to the new rookie pay structure. If its 1 for 1 then there would be no pay cut, only a reduction in future player pay as rookies.
I believe part of the compromise is also that owners would be contributing more to other areas such as pension, health benefits and so forth. I am not sure if that bridges the gap, but I would find it hard to call it a pay cut if the cap goes down but other player related expenses go up commensurately. That would be a choice of distribution not a pay cut.
Frankly, no one truly knows all the facts so its all really speculation tempered by righteousness at this point.

Only 2011 would be lower than 2009, from then it would go up. I posted an article a few pages back, I think it was Ian's article that had the numbers.
It could be argued that since teams will be paying rookies less and that money would go to the veterans that the only ones seeing a reduction in pay would be the rookies, which everyone agrees on.

 

[townes]

People, like me that work in commission jobs do.

Commission is based upon what you sell not the companies overall profits, and I doubt you are restricted from going and working for other companies if you choose. How would you respond if your company owner said you not only had to take a significant pay cut or he won't let you work but that he had discussed it with his 31 other competitors and agreed you couldn't go work for them either?

 

[lamafist]

They players are employees, not business partners. They have nothing at risk other than salary.

Having your income based on performance and having the risk of ownership are not even in the same ballpark.

Nothing to risk?

The players assume a lot of risk in the NFL, just mostly not financial. They risk the use of their extremities on every special teams play. They risk long-term neurological damage and crippling osteoarthritis on every down of every game.

I think that confirms upon the players a critical amount of 'sweat equity.'

 

[bucky]

The players are asking to see where the increased expenses and losses are be cause that is the justification the owners are suing to ask for a great deal of money back in the next agreement. If the expenses are tied to making the product stronger, e.g.. new stadiums, infrastructure, improved facilities etc... then those numbers would bolster their case for a different financial agreement, however if they are being used to pad salaries for family members or funnel money to other enterprises then the numbers would show that the problem is how owners are using their cut and not expenses incurred by reinvestment in their product. As an example it is hard to see how Mike Brown can argue about the costs associated with reinvesting in the Bengals when in truth he doesn't, and hasn't even built them an indoor practice facility, he takes his cut from the owners pie and sticks it in his pocket, so a claim by him that he needs more falls on deaf ears imo.

It's all a valid point. Then there's the other end of the spectrum where the owners might now want the public to find out the details of their expenditures (and you know the public will find out if the NFLPA gets their hands on it). So there has to be some middle layer where a neutral 3rd party audits the expenses of every team, determines which ones might be deemed excessive for the purposes of pulling them from the players' share, and makes some sort of statement regarding the owners' claims. It's not an exact solution, but I'm sure something can be worked out. And the NFL even said they suggested something like that, but were turned down.

 

[Ring 6]

The players have said they will rework the deal and take less if the books show that is needed, the owners refuse to back up their own case with the proof of their claim

"The books" are not black and white, they are subject to interpretation.
The books will give no information that they don't already have other than how profitably the owners are able to operate on their 40%.

The union is asking to be allowed to define what level of profit should be acceptable to the owners. Do you really think they will say anything more than their worst year is OK?

The profit margin of the franchises are not part of the CBA. And the players have a lot to do with revenue but nothing to do with how much profit results from that revenue. What exactly are they looking for.

As it is when you pay $100 for a ticket, $60 of it goes to player payroll.
$40 go to ownership who then have to pay all other expenses from it.
The only reason to look at the financials is to determine how much of that $40 is left after running the franchise.
Do you really feel it is reasonable for the union to tell ownership with $5,$10 or $15 of that $100 is fair profit?
THAT is the issue at hand.

 

[Ring 6]

Uh, you might want to check that. The NFL, was found to be in violation of antiitrust laws in the 90s. Remember plan B free agency? Anti-trust violation. The NFL, has a limited anti-trust exemption that allows it to negotiate TV contracts and black out rules as a league instead of 32 individual teams. It does NOT have a blanket anti-trust exemption. If the NFL tried to impose a salary cap it would be a clear anti-trust violation. The only reason it's not is because it collectively bargained with the NFLPA, a union. Collective bargaining can take precedence over anti-trust laws. In a sense that's an exemption, but if so it derives from the existence of the Union. Again, that's why the NFL wants a Union to negotiate with.

Only baseball had a broad based anti-trust exemption and even that's scaled back.

I will accept your points here as you seem to know what you are talking about and I will say for the 1100th time I am stating my opinions which are far from expert, and I have not studied these matters nearly enough to be close to an expert.

 

[vyrago]

Just so it's fresh in my mind, remind me, who opted out of the CBA and started this whole mess to begin with?