ESPN Just released

[detlef]

How about a 50/50 share?

Of course, "the players" are about 50 people and "the owners" are basically one or maybe a few (with the exception of the Packers of course).

 

So, it's really like a 50/1 share.

[Ursa Majoris]

They are paid what they are worth to the person paying them. Just like we all are.

Bingo. For a market devotee like Grits to come out and claim these guys get overpaid reeks of nothing but envy. This is capitalism 101.

[Big Country]

Are players "overpaid"? Hell yes, but no more so than the owners are.

 

Are you overpaid?

 

If your restaurant business skyrockets, and you are full every hour you are open, every day, with fast turnover tables, do you make more money?

 

Do your employees get paid more because of the increase in revenue? Not talking tips to wait staff which you take a portion of, but is your dishwasher's pay related to total sales, or does he have an agreed upon hourly wage that he is paid?

 

Do your employees get a piece of the pie in addition to their regular wages even though they did not put any equity into starting the company? I mean, after all, they are creating the food you serve, the atmosphere the customer gets, etc.

 

By your reasoning, producing a succesful business model, hiring competent employees at wages that they agreed to, etc. should not result in higher income for the owner of said business if it flourishes.

 

 

And to Seahawks, the players are not the product. The game is. Without the game, there is no television, no fans, no revenue, nothing. The players are a piece of the game, a major piece, and they are compensated an agreed upon wage to perform their part in the game. Without the stadiums, television/radio contracts, owners paying them salaries, front office personnel, league structure, etc. there would be no game, no fans and no money for playing the game. The players are a part of the game, they are definitely not bigger than the game.

[Jrick35]

The issue here is not whether the owners or players think that they are or are not making enough money, obviously both sides are making a ton.

 

The issue here is, how can the owners get more than their current share of 40%, or at least keep their share at 40% and reach said desired conclusion without a work stoppage?

 

Once the current CBA ends both parties are going to try and improve their positions, that's how these things work. If they don't opt out now nobody starts talking for another 2 years, then all of a sudden they are looking at less than a year to get a new deal done. By optiing out now the owners have just set a 3 year timetable to get this thing done. I think it was the best move possible for both sides.

 

The owners memories are long enough to remember what work stoppages did to the NHL, MLB & their own league to allow much opportunity for another one to occur during their leagues most profitable times ever.

 

This is all a bunch of to do over nothing.

[Chief]

NO NO NO NO. THe players HIRE somebody to think for them, rather than the thinking people hiring the players to make all the money for them.

 

 

 

 

Lets simplify this...

who should get the biggest piece of the pie?? Owners or players?? When you shrink the players piece, the owners get a bigger one, which IMO is way messed up.

 

Don't compare players to any other job. Other jobs make and sell products. The players, in this case, ARE the product. THey are not employees, they are the actual product. Without the players, the NFL will fail. The owners will have no product at all. The players hold all of the power, and don't even know it.

 

IF they started their own league....does anyone have the balls to say that it would fail?? Would Manning and Brady not get ratings?? Would the stadiums not let them rent dates for games?? Could they not hire people to do the books for them??

 

There would only be one single difference......there would not be a white guy getting rich off of all these players. Thats it. Thats all. The league would not all of a sudden not be able to make money. They need the owners for NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. What does Tom Brady and Bill Belichick need an owner for?? They can't play the game without one?? People wouldn't watch if there was no owner???

 

The only reasons this hasn't happened yet is because the players are too afraid that it would fail and then they would be blacklisted, which is exactly what happened to baseball. If they had enough unity, they could push the owners right out of the money. If all of the players agreed to start a new league, and they signed contracts for tv, there is absolutely no way that it would fail. Not with how popular professional football is in this country. Don't get me wrong, it would take some balls, but the owners do so little in this league other than take all of the money, that the players could survive and play to put the money in their own pockets, rather than that of their owner.

 

 

Lets simplify this? Don't compare to any other job? Son, you need to realize how this works, and exactly how I can make a comparison between them and me, my job. Randy Moss, T.O., Fitzgerald, just to name a few recievers make quite a bit more money than the majority of the recievers in the league. Why is this? Something to do with talent, production, correct? Now in my job, I don't advertise in every phone book, no 2 page ads, none of that stuff. I've gotten work by people seeing my work, quality of alone, let alone by references of doing an excellent job, going the extra mile, and being fair in the pricing. Do I charge what some other companies are? Not by a long shot. Does that make my product as you put it, less? Not by a long shot. If my pricing even helps me get some of these jobs, so be it, However, it's something I can live with, and the customers I guess we're both ok with the situation. Would I like to make alot more? Sure, but I'm betting I'd lose a few customers, and lose out on some bids as well.

SO what is it exactly worth, try to make alot more, with less customers, or keep hoping to grow by great performance on my part along with good rates? 1000's of guys/companies do what I do, and I'd put my work up against anyones for any price. Somjething tells me I'd be a fool to charge the most based on that reasoning.

I think the players are getting to the point that the owners are going to quit paying that price. Now lets look at another factor, do you really think the players could pull this off in such a short time? No way in hell. NO ONE is going to just step right up and offer Brady and all the other players billions of dollars for a unproven product. The NFL is a proven product. It's made it's way through the AFL merger, CFL, USFL, arena leagues, and that X whatever thing they tried. Let's say they try it, by the time they get anyhting even near off the ground, Brady, Manning, and maybe even all the current rookies, will have not played for quite a long time, most would be out off a career, and it would all be in vain, except perhaps for the players 4-5 years down the road from being drafted. Would there even be a draft? What current player would say, sure, lets have a draft so you can replace me. You're talking like this is for the good of the players, but it's far more self-serving for the players, who are going to be totally self-serving to themselves, not what's best for all or the product. Keep that in mind while you're so all fired up sure the players deserve everything, and the only reason the NFL exists, and is successful. To me, you're quite a few bricks short of a small load.

Alot of owners in the beginning made this league what it is, and yes, the players helped with that. Guys like Waltor Payton, Butkis, Bart Starr, and whoever else you want to name. They made far less than what these punks do today, especially the ones who are millionares who have yet to see a NFL down. You're complaining? Give me a break. If the players truly cared about the players, and not whats just in it for them, all these old guys would be well taken care of. The NFL ran by players would fail, and quickly, would be far more interest in being richer than they already are, than making sure the product as a whole is getting better. Just my opinion.

I have a feeling you'll never understand anyhting I'm saying, but keep this is mind, quite a few of us are our own product because our name/performance is whats seperating me(and other comapanies) from getting some of the customers/contracts/bids. So yes, I sell myself in what I do, through my performance. Your problem is that from what you say, all players deserve the whole pie. Problem is, who gets what piece. 2000 guys are going to decide this fairly, amongst themselves, and everyone is going to come away all happy. Even Cinderella didn't have that happy of an ending. Last but not least, why does it seem your agrument is more about one white guy getting rich? Racism? What if they were all black,green or yellow? Theres 32 owners,not just 1 and they all know they need to make money to survive, and to reinvest in the NFL to keep where it is, on top off the sports world. If either the players or owners decide to be totally self serving, and above the game, there will be no game. No current player will, or can afford that risk, even for 1 year or 2 years time. Me however, will still watch whoever takes their place, just a different name or number. I don't watch the NFL just because of Tom Brady, Randy Moss, T.O., LT, or whoever. I watch the product, some players make it more enjoyable. Any player that wants to be above the game, make rediculous demands, be bigger than the game, I say, good riddance, now who's taking his place so I know who to watch. Especially where fantasy football is concerned.

[Chief]

The issue here is not whether the owners or players think that they are or are not making enough money, obviously both sides are making a ton.

 

The issue here is, how can the owners get more than their current share of 40%, or at least keep their share at 40% and reach said desired conclusion without a work stoppage?

 

Once the current CBA ends both parties are going to try and improve their positions, that's how these things work. If they don't opt out now nobody starts talking for another 2 years, then all of a sudden they are looking at less than a year to get a new deal done. By optiing out now the owners have just set a 3 year timetable to get this thing done. I think it was the best move possible for both sides.

 

The owners memories are long enough to remember what work stoppages did to the NHL, MLB & their own league to allow much opportunity for another one to occur during their leagues most profitable times ever.

 

This is all a bunch of to do over nothing.

 

I agree to an extent, but I can't say all the owners are making a ton, or there wouldn't be a problem. The last sentence, bunch ado over nothing, I'm not so sure. I think the owners can afford a year, but can the players, especially the ones looking for that last big payday,and are near the end of their careers in age. We all seen what players look like who missed a year, twice as hard to get back where you were. Will the cash cow be milked as should, be productive, get milked completely dry, or is it going to get pinched off and no milk? Your guess is good as mine but I think there will be alot more than much ado over nothing.

[Seahawks21]

Look at music. Don't the artists that are good enough to sell their music regardless of their label usually end up starting their own label so they get the big cut before the man gets his greasy hands on it? Are you saying that these artists don't have a chance to make it on their own and are committing career suicide by leaving the comfort of their owners?? Not at all. They are making the right business move.

 

This could not happen overnight and it won't be somebody's spur of the moment idea, but with a unified front, the players would have no problem at all selling their product without the owners taking the big cut first. If the players union decided to leave the NFL and creat their own league, there is absolutely no way that it would fail. None. We would all watch Peyton Manning on sunday afternoons regardless, we would all buy our home team spamshirts and we would become die-hard fans. Literally the only thing missing is the guy taking the big cut.

 

You see former Microsoft guys all the time getting filthy rich off their new companies they started. Defecting from your ownership isn't categorically a bad business move if you have a quality product or service.

 

One of my first jobs was painting houses during the summers. We got so good that my partner and I could knock out a house in two days flat. Meanwhile, my owner never worked a day. I would get about $150 per job and my owner would make about $2000. Every two days. He did nothing but go to the horse track and collect checks. My only wish was that I could save enough money to buy my own equipment, so I could have my own business name on the side of the van, and I could be the guy getting the $2000. Well, the players have all the equipment and skills, it is about time they put their name on the side of the van and be the guys getting the $2000.

[Bronco Billy]

How about a 50/50 share?

 

So you're suggesting that the players take a 10% pay cut?

[Bronco Billy]

Do you have figures BB? Because I can't imagine a franchise having operating expenses beyond players salaries exceeding even 20% of the salary cap.

 

Be prepared to imagine.

 

We have a unique ability to get some insight into NFL team finaces because of the Packers, which is a publicly traded commodity and therefore has to make its financials public every year. Here is some data:

 

link

 

Total operating revenues were up approximately 4 1/2 percent, from $208.4 million to $218.1 million, while operating expenses dropped from $187.5 million to $183.8. That helped allow for a $10 million addition to the Packers Franchise Preservation Fund (PFPF), boosting that to $125.5 million.

 

Player costs rose again, as expected under the league's collective bargaining agreement with the players' union, from $102.9 million to $110.7 million.

 

So the operating expenses not connected to player salaries = $183.8M - $110.7M = $73.1M, which is 66% of the player's salary numbers.

 

Let's also not forget that the Packers are not run as a typical NFL franchise, and it would be reasonable to assume that the operating expenses of other teams would be somewhat higher because of that.

 

That should allow some of you geniuses who are convinced that the palyers are being screwed over and that the owners are getting filthy rich on the sweat off the player's backs to make some pretty basic ROI calculations, too. Let me know how that turns out...

Edited May 21, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

Are you overpaid?

 

If your restaurant business skyrockets, and you are full every hour you are open, every day, with fast turnover tables, do you make more money?

 

Do your employees get paid more because of the increase in revenue? Not talking tips to wait staff which you take a portion of, but is your dishwasher's pay related to total sales, or does he have an agreed upon hourly wage that he is paid?

 

Do your employees get a piece of the pie in addition to their regular wages even though they did not put any equity into starting the company? I mean, after all, they are creating the food you serve, the atmosphere the customer gets, etc.

 

By your reasoning, producing a succesful business model, hiring competent employees at wages that they agreed to, etc. should not result in higher income for the owner of said business if it flourishes.

 

You can't quote the first part without quoting the second. Verrrry bad form. Cherry picking like that basically says you don't have a strong enough argument to fight honorably. I'll be happy to back up what I said, just not what you're pretending I said.

 

My only argument is with those who think the players are overpaid and coddled but the owners are just honest, hard working boot-straps kind of guys who've earned everything they've got.

 

I think there's a ton of room for improvement in terms of how that money gets doled out but think it has much more to do with which players get paid mad jack (ie: proven vets as opposed to rookies), not that the evil players are taking too much of the poor downtrodden owners.

 

None the less, here again is the complete statement that you didn't have enough game to respond to in it's entirety. Now play nice.

 

Are players "overpaid"? Hell yes, but no more so than the owners are.

 

Of course, this is America and you get paid what you can. If you own a franchise in something as profitable as the NFL, god bless, milk that for what you can. Of course, if you're 6'5" 250 and can run a 4.4 40yd dash, same goes for you.

[Bronco Billy]

Just to add a little persepctive here, the difference between the Packers' operating revenue and operating expenses in 2007 was $34.3M for the franchise (and again, because of the way they are run, that is probably a bit high compared to most teams). Matt Ryan just signed a contract before he has even played a down in the league and recieved $34.75M in guaranteed money.

[Grits and Shins]

From your first paragraph I can deduce that you were never a student athlete and you have no idea what it's like to be one. You're also making assumptions that no athletes study hard... Your entire first paragraph is absolutely asinine in that sense. Once again, a student athlete has to take all of the courses, THEN spend 40+ hours in the weight room, watching film, so on and so forth.

 

Comparing basket weaving 101 taken by all the athletes to the CORE classes taken by academic students doesn't fly. "Student athletes" take classes only because they are a necessary evil that allows them to participate in their sport.

 

So what players puts asses in seats? Are you kidding? Full seats=full pockets. If your stadium is empty, you're not making money. Ryan Leaf was a guess that went horribly wrong, but that's the risk you take WITH A ROOKIE, which I said was a different subject, as these are Vets that have the problem. I'm also very aware that without owner's Manning wouldn't be playing... That has nothing to do with it. I never said an owner doesn't deserve anything. I simply said that a player is worth whatever you're willing to pay them. They wouldn't be willing to pay them unless they thought it was a wise investment.

 

Sounds like we agree. The owners take all the risks attempting to identify the players that will be stars and "put butts in seats". When the roll the dice it is to the tunes of millioins of dollars. Some times they come up snake eyes (Leaf) and they lose their money ... sometimes the hit it big and they reap the rewards. As to vets ... the problem with them is that they want to be paid in the future for last year's performance. Unless of course last year's performance was a down year then they want to be paid for what they percieve their future performance to be.

 

 

Your last point is nice in theory I guess, but it doesn't translate to the NFL... They are employee's of the NFL, but you lose traction in the sense that in the "real world" employees can be replaced. You cannot replace Tomlinson, Manning, Brady, Moss or Urlacher. This isn't the real world. Those rules don't apply.

 

Yes those players can be replaced. You may not get a product that is at a high a level as it once was but any player can be replaced. Hell most players only play a handful of years anyway. But that wasn't the point now was it. The point was as employees of the NFL their product is owned by the NFL. If they don't like it then they have to quit the NFL and start their own business.

[detlef]

Just to add a little persepctive here, the difference between the Packers' operating revenue and operating expenses in 2007 was $34.3M for the franchise (and again, because of the way they are run, that is probably a bit high compared to most teams). Matt Ryan just signed a contract before he has even played a down in the league and recieved $34.75M in guaranteed money.

Great, so rookies salaries are out of whack. Are you so hard up to win an argument that you're going to say something that pretty much all of us agree with?

 

Of course, just because the rookies are getting too much doesn't mean players in general are getting too big a slice. Why do we champion the free market when talking about the rights of the owners to charge as much as they can get away with and make as big a piece as they can but expect the players not to go after the same brass ring?

[Bronco Billy]

Great, so rookies salaries are out of whack. Are you so hard up to win an argument that you're going to say something that pretty much all of us agree with?

 

Hard up to win the argument? The facts posted above speak for themselves, as opposed to your "feelings" about how players are getting ripped off. Did you come up with that ROI number yet?

[detlef]

Some times they come up snake eyes (Leaf) and they lose their money ...

Are we sure that the Ryan Leaf debacle actually cost the Chargers serious coin in their bottom line? Much of their revenue is assured because of shared TV deals. So, he may have cost them some butts in the seats but the train just kept on rolling. So, the game is only bigger than the players when it suits your argument?

 

I mean, you guys are trying to make these guys sound like a small businessman like me who opens his doors and hopes for the best with absolutely no assurances that the market is going to want or support my product. The ROI on an NFL franchise is as low as it is for two reasons. #1, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. #2, it's a really neat toy that also happens to spit out several million bucks each year. Let's not pretend it's anything else.

 

If you've got the scratch, buying an NFL team is not much of a risk.

[detlef]

Hard up to win the argument? The facts posted above speak for themselves, as opposed to your "feelings" about how players are getting ripped off. Did you come up with that ROI number yet?

Well, no but I do know that it's insanely low. Of course, nobody's holding a gun to their head and making them buy a team now are they? If a guy who's figured out a way to make that much scratch decides it's worth buying, who am I to tell him otherwise?

 

Oh, and read my above post...

 

And BTW, feel free to go look up where I say the players are getting ripped off. That's leg two of the "Argue like a bitch triple crown"

 

Part one: Toss out softballs that everyone can agree with

Part two: Pretend people are saying things that they're not

Edited May 21, 2008 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

The ROI on an NFL franchise is as low as it is for two reasons. #1, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. #2, it's a really neat toy that also happens to spit out several million bucks each year.

 

Okay, now I'm confused. Which position are you taking? That the NFL is a money-making machine for the owners and the players are getting spit in the eyes because they are making so little money while the owners are rolling in dough from the league, or is it that the NFL is just a shiny toy for owners and they can afford a poor return and even a negative cash flow because they are rich from other investments? You've made both arguments in the same thread.

[Bronco Billy]

Well, no but I do know that it's insanely low. Of course, nobody's holding a gun to their head and making them buy a team now are they? If a guy who's figured out a way to make that much scratch decides it's worth buying, who am I to tell him otherwise?

 

Oh, and read my above post...

 

And BTW, feel free to go look up where I say the players are getting ripped off. That's leg two of the "Argue like a bitch triple crown"

 

Part one: Toss out softballs that everyone can agree with

Part two: Pretend people are saying things that they're not

 

Well, perhaps you'd find it comforting to know that the average NFL team is clearing about twice what the highest paid players make per year. So, the owner does have the highest potential reward. Again, and at this point, the "risk" is not that big (which explains why teams cost so damned much). They've got a massive amount of money assured to them each and every year before a single customer walks through the turnstyles.

 

Post edit, here's a couple more:

 

So, if we're going to continue to get squeezed, I'd just as soon as more of the money go to the guy who's risking life long injuries rather than the owners.

 

For an NFL owner to lose his ass, he'd need to screw up pretty bad. This thing is a runaway train that is just spitting out money. On the other hand, every single year, guys are having their bodies absolutely beaten.

 

 

I'm sorry. What were you saying about being a bitch?

Edited May 21, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[Grits and Shins]

Are we sure that the Ryan Leaf debacle actually cost the Chargers serious coin in their bottom line? Much of their revenue is assured because of shared TV deals. So, he may have cost them some butts in the seats but the train just kept on rolling. So, the game is only bigger than the players when it suits your argument?

 

I mean, you guys are trying to make these guys sound like a small businessman like me who opens his doors and hopes for the best with absolutely no assurances that the market is going to want or support my product. The ROI on an NFL franchise is as low as it is for two reasons. #1, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. #2, it's a really neat toy that also happens to spit out several million bucks each year. Let's not pretend it's anything else.

 

If you've got the scratch, buying an NFL team is not much of a risk.

 

Yeah right, the Chargers bottom line was not impacted at all by paying Leaf millions of dollars and getting no ROI from him. These teams can just flush millions of dollars down the toliet and not be impacted. Don't forget to account for the negative impact to the team of drafting the QB of the future (and paying for the QB of the future) only to discover that you have to start over in a couple of years.

 

I'm confused. If you believe the ROI on an NFL franchise is so low ... how can you believe the players need a bigger piece of the pie?

[detlef]

I'm sorry. What were you saying about being a bitch?

Are you freaking kidding me? Really? In what halfwit, BS world does what you just quoted imply that I think the players are getting screwed? Someone said the owners should be making the most money and, guess what, they are. From the data I have read surrounding these stories, they seem to be averaging a bit over $20 mil a year in profits, which, is more than any other player.

 

Now, as to your last bit. You are flat out wrong. I bothered to go back and read what I said, and only through the beaten down eyes of somebody who's tired of having a shoe up his ass all day everyday and is just begging to come out on top just once, could what I said be seen as fitting your alleged waffling.

 

One last time. My point:

 

Owners make money

Players make money

Both are free to try and make as much as they want

I am not of the opinion that players don't make enough but I'm not going to pretend for one second that the owners deserve any more sympathy from the fans than the players do. That, is for little sheep like you to do.

Lastly, I find the product to be too expensive, so I don't actively participate as a customer. I don't by tickets or gear and I'm not putting money in the pockets of the advertisers that subsidize the TV revenue.

They can do what the hell they want.

 

Thank you, and good night.

[Bronco Billy]

Are you freaking kidding me? Really? In what halfwit, BS world does what you just quoted imply that I think the players are getting screwed? Someone said the owners should be making the most money and, guess what, they are. From the data I have read surrounding these stories, they seem to be averaging a bit over $20 mil a year in profits, which, is more than any other player.

 

Please provide links. I'd like to see the same data you're reading.

 

I think E&D is much closer to the truth in what he posted in the Cooley thread:

 

Forbes.com data quoted in the article -

 

The NFL is still the richest sports league in the world (the average team is worth $957 million, 7% more than last year) as well as the most profitable (mean operating income in 2006 was $17.8 million on $204 million in revenue).

 

The 2006 season marked the beginning of six-year contract extensions with the three major networks--a $3.7 billion deal with CBS, a $4.3 billion deal with Fox and a $3.6 billion deal with NBC--that award the NFL with an average of $2 billion a year until 2011.

 

If this is true, that means the average owner is sitting on an asset worth $957m, which is generating operating income to him of $17.8m annually - a return of a whopping 1.9%. Even if we factor in the annual appreciation in the value of the franchise, which was 7% according to the data quoted above, that's a return of 8.9% - before taxes, and if I'm not mistaken, before any interest expense on debt incurred to acquire the franchise (typically the term "operating income" refers to income before interest and taxes, as well as certain other non-cash charges). If you include interest expense as well as certain cash timing differences for front-loaded contracts, it seems very feasible to me that a number of franchises are operating on negative cash flow and are generating a sub-par return to their owners.

[Bronco Billy]

Now, as to your last bit. You are flat out wrong. I bothered to go back and read what I said, and only through the beaten down eyes of somebody who's tired of having a shoe up his ass all day everyday and is just begging to come out on top just once

 

[detlef]

I'm confused. If you believe the ROI on an NFL franchise is so low ... how can you believe the players need a bigger piece of the pie?

Yes you are. You have the same bad habit as Broncos. The players already get a "bigger piece of the pie" and I think that's fine. I'm not advocating, as others, that the players cut them out of the picture or that they fight for an even bigger piece. They currently get more than 50% and I think that's a good thing based on the fact that they are the product and the majority of the labor (it should be interesting to note that in my industry labor and cost of goods typically combine to equal around 60%, though I understand that they don't make up 100% of either).

 

It's really quite simple, but I'm not surprised that it's not simple enough for you to grasp.

[Bronco Billy]

It's really quite simple, but I'm not surprised that it's not simple enough for you to grasp.

 

[Big Score 1]

Comparing basket weaving 101 taken by all the athletes to the CORE classes taken by academic students doesn't fly. "Student athletes" take classes only because they are a necessary evil that allows them to participate in their sport.

Pretty generalized statement there, dontcha think Blitz?

 

You do know that not all athletes are Dexter Manleys, right?

 

I don't think Robert Smith got his Bachelor of Science degree while taking basket weaving 101.

 

And there's no way that Craig Krenzel's molecular genetics major could ever be confused with basket weaving 101.

 

Just a coupla' quick student athlete examples for ya, but there's many, many more.