Lockout

[Ursa Majoris]

 

Best analogy of the year contender.

He's right though, isn't he?

[tazinib1]

He's right though, isn't he?

 

Very much so

[Azazello1313]

Sports aren't really an accurate example of how American business works either - they're kind of in their own weird little universe.

 

the leagues themselves are businesses. the franchises, in a business sense, are closer to cooperating with one another than they are truly competing with one another. competition for the chicago bears, from a business perspective, comes from the NBA, college football, amusement parks, other forms of entertainment, etc. not from the green bay packers. the business of the NFL involves the creation of this little sandbox where its individual fracnhises "compete" against one another to provide entertainment. the competitive environment between the franchises of any particular sports league really has almost nothing to do with a "free market" or anything of the sort.

[Bronco Billy]

Likewise, no one is forcing anyone to own an NFL team. They choose to do it.

 

I find it somewhat interesting that if owners are losing so much money due to their crappy contract with the players that Forbes' estimated average franchise values have gone up every year since 1998 except for last year (which Forbes said was due to the recession).

 

Well this is sure a well thought out post.

 

No one is forcing an owner of a business to be an owner? You're right, they can sell it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with business' relationship with the employees. Owners make the rules. Employees follow them. That's the way capitalism works. Owners years ago tooks risks and losses to keep the business afloat. Now the willingness to assume those risks have turned to reward for the owners. I'm not sure why anyone feels the urgent need to try to diminish that return.

 

As far as franchise value increasing, that is only realized when the franchise is sold. Until then those are nothing but paper figures.

 

And neither has anything to do with the relationship between owners, players, and the NFLPA.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

I think there needs to be some sort of rookie pay structure, and 18 games is probably ok. I take no position one way or another on whether players deserve a greater or lesser share of league revenues.

 

but I think the league should really spend MORE on post-career health care, counseling and such for ex-players. the dave duerson thing shook me up a little bit. while we're at it, I think the players ought to push for some kind of mandatory 4 games (or whatever) lay-up after any kind of concussion.

 

Absolutely agree with rookie pay structure and don't understand why the NFLPA didn't institute this years ago, since it took a significant slice of the cap from proven vets and gave it to unproven rooks who hadn't even played a down in the league. They had the opportunity to control every aspect of this since they license agents and chose not to. That was downright stupid on their part.

 

18 game schedule? I don't like it at all. Players already get torn up enough with the 16 game schedule. More isn't necessarily better and I think the increased risk of injury - especially by making the season longer and having those additional two games that extend the season when the players are already at their most fatigued and beaten-up point in the season - will water down the product as well as placing the players at greater risk.

 

Given the pay structure right now, why aren't the players investing in their own post-playing interests? Oh, that's right. It's way more important to buy that 5th Mercedes or make it rain 10s of thousands of dollars at strip clubs. All I know is that at every company I have worked at a certain post-employment package of benefits that were offered and paid for by the company, and then if I wanted additional benefits it came out of my pocket. I'm not quite sure why it should be any different in the NFL.

 

Mandatory 4 game lay-up after any concussion? Because all concusions are equal? I've had concussions and was fine two days afterwards. I'd like to see some type of emphasis on proper tackling technique and stopping both using the helmet as a weapon and attacking of the head. I'd also like to see mandatory wearing of mouth guards. I'm shocked that the union does not get behind these as mandatory and even more shocked at players' reactions when you suggest this kind of stuff. It's their bodies and they continue to refuse to do minimum things that can enhance protection significantly. Instead they scoff and are derisive at the suggestions.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

So it's silly to me to say that the players are completely off-base in wanting their fair share, when they are driving the enormous revenues to the owners by providing both the labor and product worth selling.

 

Right. So what is a "fair" share. Look at any other privately owned company in the US and tell me one portion of the employees that siphon off as great a portion of the gross revenues as NFL players. That would imply that owners are being more than "fair", they're being damned generous. But they also understand that they need to reward to players generously to keep the product great. That consequently benefits them as well and increases their return, which is the way capitalism is supposed to work. After all, some of the players might choose another profession otherwise, right?

 

Don't forget that player payroll isn't the only salary consideration for owners, nor the only costs to running a team.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

Now, plant K is doing poorly, so plant K's plant manager makes Hardy a HUGE offer to come over and run plant K's production line. However, this isn't allowed by WidgetCo's CEO because Hardy is under contract with plant C. So Hardy has another few terrific quarters, and his contract is allowed to expire. At this point, plant K makes ANOTHER offer but it's again no go because plant C has franchised Hardy, and must pay him the average of other top line managers, but he isn't allowed to entertain other offers. But at this point, plant C offers to send Hardy to plant K for a young up-and-coming AR clerk, their top machinist, and 500 tons of raw materials.

 

Let me know when this starts sounding like a typical business.

 

Actually part of my contract states that I can not go to work for a competing firm for a two full years after leaving my current company, whether my leaving is their decision or my decision. It's pretty common in my industry and in others as well if I'm not mistaken.

 

As for the rest of it, well, there isn't quite the exclusive demand or extraordinarily limited talent pool for my profession as there is for NFL quality players. That's what gives players and the NFLPA their leverage and allows them to make demands that are well out of the mainstream.

[Square]

Well this is sure a well thought out post.

 

No one is forcing an owner of a business to be an owner? You're right, they can sell it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with business' relationship with the employees. Owners make the rules. Employees follow them. That's the way capitalism works. Owners years ago tooks risks and losses to keep the business afloat. Now the willingness to assume those risks have turned to reward for the owners. I'm not sure why anyone feels the urgent need to try to diminish that return.

Zigi bought the Vikings in 2005. What huge risk did he take? Besides acting like a corporation is run like the military "owner makes the rules, players follow them" is over simplified at best. I work in sales and my bosses income is very much tied to my talents and ability to write sales. So I don't get to look at the books, but I can run a calculator and we both know that I've made him buckets of money. We aren't "equals" in the work place because he is the boss, but it's much more of a colaboration than "employer makes rules and employee follows them". Less than 1% of college football players can make it on a pro team so I think we should at least acknowledge that the players are a rare talent.

 

That and for every Cromartie jackass that has 18 different kids and will most likely be broke a couple years after retiring, there are half a dozen Danny Woodheads who played special teams for min contracts are have been waiting for an opportunity. It seems like many of you are only thinking about "ballin" type players and forget that a lot of them don't make "set for life" money. That being said, I'm fine if the owners take back 1 or 2 percent of the profits if they do have real concerns. But I really don't think it's good for anybody except the owners if the players union is "crushed" like this thread suggests.

[Bronco Billy]

Zigi bought the Vikings in 2005. What huge risk did he take?

 

Jeebsus Christ. How hard is this really?

 

The risk is very very low now. That's because of risks that were taken and the management decisions that were made decades ago when the NFL wasn't the thriving business it is now.

 

However, because the risk is so incredibly low and the return is high, the cost is very high and keeps rising.

 

Is this so difficult for people here to understand? Furthermore, the value of franchises have nothing to do with compensation to players. It has to with market forces, and the way both sides try to manipulate them.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

That and for every Cromartie jackass that has 18 different kids and will most likely be broke a couple years after retiring, there are half a dozen Danny Woodheads

 

Danny Woodhead

 

Got $425,000 signing bonus before ever playing a down for NE

2010 $332,000 salary

2011 $550,000 salary

2012 $700,00 salary

Can earn another $1.175M additonally through incentives

2013 FA

 

This doesn't include the incredible health care policy he is now under and what he will recieve after he retires as a pensioned player. Plus, he gets to swing whatever promotional deals he can. Even a 30 second spot pimping a local pizza joint where he says one line can be worth thousands.

 

You think there are any Huddlers who would work for this kind of compensation? Is this what you consider being taken advantage of by Kraft? Please, take advantage of me too!

Edited February 27, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

BTW - I support the players' right to be compensated fairly. They are very specialized and they take huge risks. But they are compensated well for that. When people talk about player compensation they never seem to mention how lucrative the NFL pension plan is, or that you only have to manage to stay in the league 3 years to be fully vested. They don't mention the perks that the fame for being in the league add to the compensation.

 

Look at a guy like Woodhead. He scores a $2.07M dollar contract plus another $1.175M in incentives for a marginal and mediocre RB. Discounting the additional benefits like the pension and promotions, that's the average Joe working 50 years of his life and making $64,900 each and every one of those years - all made in the space of 3 years. After agent fees and taxes, if he could "manage" to live on $100K his first 3 years, he'd have enough left over to invest at a paltry 3% annually to be able to not work another day of his life and have $50K+ each and every year for the rest of his life to live on - and that again discounts the pension he'll get.

 

Let's get a little perspective. The players aren't getting screwed and to make any comparison between player compensation and what the owners get is both meaningless and silly. If the players feel so strongly about the whole deal, why aren't they pooling their substantial salaries and buying out the owners? Given how much they make and the amount of capital they could leverage with their pooled cash - even just signing bonuses - they could buy out the owners and run the league themselves. Hell, they don't even have to buy out the owners. They could as a group simply to decide not to play in the NFL and instead create and manage their own league.

 

They choose not to do so because they don't want the responsibility of ownership. They're happy in their roles of just being employees - and rightfully so. Given the way they manage their own personal finances and personal lives, they'd run the league into poverty in very short order as owners.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[tazinib1]

Let's get a little perspective. The players aren't getting screwed and to make any comparison between player compensation and what the owners get is both meaningless and silly. If the players feel so strongly about the whole deal, why aren't they pooling their substantial salaries and buying out the owners? Given how much they make and the amount of capital they could leverage with their pooled cash - even just signing bonuses - they could buy out the owners and run the league themselves.

 

They choose not to do so because they don't want the responsibility of ownership. They're happy in their roles of just being employees - and rightfully so. Given the way they manage their own personal finances and personal lives, they'd run the league into poverty in very short order as owners.

 

Unknowingly, you just gave Seahawks a raging boner with this statement.

[Square]

They choose not to do so because they don't want the responsibility of ownership. They're happy in their roles of just being employees - and rightfully so. Given the way they manage their own personal finances and personal lives, they'd run the league into poverty in very short order as owners.

I'm sleep deprived, but you can't be serious with this? Why don't a couple thousand people agree on something like buying out the league? Not really sure why we are discussing capitalism anyway. The NFL is socialism. Amirite comrade?

[Bronco Billy]

Unknowingly, you just gave Seahawks a raging boner with this statement.

 

Seahawks is a typical uber-union non-thinker. All they see is what the owners get and they ignore all the hard work and responsibility in getting there and then staying there. The players could not even dream of doing this. They don't have the ability to do it. That's why the owners get compensated the way they do. Hell, the players make enough to be very comfortable for the rest of their lives, and look how many piss all that away and end up in poverty through their own stupidity - and that's after a free college education no less.

[Bronco Billy]

The NFL is socialism. Amirite comrade?

 

Care to expound on that a bit? The NFL is a single owner-operated business entity that collects revenue as a whole, and the teams are 32 different owner-owned departments with 32 different management structures with equal operating budgets for a certain group of their employees, but then operate independently beyond the restrictions that the corporate charter of the business puts on them all. How exactly does socialism fit into that?

[Chavez]

Actually part of my contract states that I can not go to work for a competing firm for a two full years after leaving my current company, whether my leaving is their decision or my decision. It's pretty common in my industry and in others as well if I'm not mistaken.

 

So the NFL would put into their contracts that their players can't go play pro baseball or basketball (or hockey), by that logic (see Az's post above).

 

Somehow I don't think that's a worry. The only modern NFL player I know who went from the NFL to the bigs was Brian Jordan.

 

As for the rest of it, well, there isn't quite the exclusive demand or extraordinarily limited talent pool for my profession as there is for NFL quality players. That's what gives players and the NFLPA their leverage and allows them to make demands that are well out of the mainstream.

 

I think that the talent pool for the NFL is massive, actually. Most NFL players say that TONS of guys coming out have the talent, they just don't get the breaks.

 

What gives the NFLPA leverage is the same thing that once gave ALL unions leverage - the right of all the employees to band together and say "we will not work under these conditions."

[Bronco Billy]

I think that the talent pool for the NFL is massive, actually.

 

The salaries and percentage of gross revenues that the players get prove that to be wrong, don't they? If the available pool of labor was much larger, the demand would be reduced and player salaries would be much lower. Players could simply be replaced by dipping into that allegedly vast pool. They can't be because the vast pool doesn't exist. NFL players are very highly specialized.

 

The fundamental rules of supply and demand don't cease to exist just because this deals with a pro sport, or because players who don't know any better say so.

[Chavez]

The salaries and percentage of gross revenues that the players get prove that to be wrong, don't they? If the available pool of labor was much larger, the demand would be reduced and player salaries would be much lower. Players could simply be replaced by dipping into that allegedly vast pool. They can't be because the vast pool doesn't exist. NFL players are very highly specialized.

 

The fundamental rules of supply and demand don't cease to exist just because this deals with a pro sport, or because players who don't know any better say so.

 

The top end of the talent pool is highly specialized; down at the bottom, probably much less so.

 

There's also the fact that players, in general, are paid based on an obscure formula of past performance + potential to repeat that performance. Sometimes that results in a team giving oodles of money to Tom Brady, sometimes it results in a team giving oodles of money to Albert Haynesworth.

 

The thing is that paying a Tom Brady commensurate with his performance sets the market, and justifiably so - "you want Tom Brady money? OK, go help us win 3 SBs and be a top 5 player at your position for a decade, and we'll pay you" - whereas a Haynesworth-type contract merely drives up the market for less-pedigreed players - "hey, I'm a idiotic tub of goo who dominated for a year, where's my $100 million?"

 

 

I think the rules of supply and demand are skewed because there is a large supply of competent-enough players to replace a huge % of NFL players, but there's a limited supply of jobs.

 

One might conjecture the reason that players are so willing to do damage to their bodies over the short term is that they KNOW that there's a guy out there who's more than willing to step in and get that sweet NFL deal. Heck, you're a Packer fan, look at the no-names who stepped in virtually off the street (Erik Walden, Charlie Peprah, Sam Shields, Howard Green, etc) and played well for them this year.

[Bronco Billy]

The top end of the talent pool is highly specialized; down at the bottom, probably much less so.

 

I disagree completely and think you are undervaluing what it takes to be a NFL player by a wide margin.

[Ursa Majoris]

I disagree completely and think you are undervaluing what it takes to be a NFL player by a wide margin.

Given the number of nobodies who suddenly become fantasy relevant and do very well each year plus the number of practice squad signees who also do well, Chavez may have a good point. Clearly there aren't a million but for sure the pool is much wider than 53 x 32.

[Bronco Billy]

Given the number of nobodies who suddenly become fantasy relevant and do very well each year plus the number of practice squad signees who also do well, Chavez may have a good point. Clearly there aren't a million but for sure the pool is much wider than 53 x 32.

 

How many kids play college football? Now let's look at how many played high school football. Now let's look at the entire annual population of high school students in the country.

 

I'm hoping you get the picture. The pool obviously isn't 1166 people large. But let's say it's twice that, and that would be generous to say the least. And that would be a player pool built over say the average 4 to 5 year career of a NFL player. That's isn't extremely specialized? Adding well less than 600 people a year to the pool, with most of those at best being marginally qualified? Given the overall population of the working class? Hell, people probably have much better odds of working for NASA.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Chavez]

I disagree completely and think you are undervaluing what it takes to be a NFL player by a wide margin.

 

 

Perhaps; I just think it's in ways akin to Hollywood or musical stardom - you see TONS of people who have tremendous talent who never become "superstars" merely because the opportunity isn't there.

 

Let's put it this way - as truly great a player as I think Kurt Warner was, if Rodney Harrison doesn't barrel into Trent Green's knee, he's probably a footnote.

[fitzkek]

You don't think the players are the primary part of the product, when now more than ever individual accomplishments are driving the popularity of the game? People watch games they wouldn't otherwise to keep up with their fantasy players, place wagers on the teams/scores, etc... If it was just about the game, more people would watch things like the CFL, UFL. Thus is the reason why those leagues are trying to grab big names (just look at the Omaha Nighthawks).

 

Further, to think that players don't deserve their fair share of the revenue is to discount what American capitalism is all about. You are not compensated according to how important your job is to society; If this were the case, teachers would be payed much better, and celebrities should make next to nothing....

 

Yes, I would love a more fair pay scale (particularly regarding rookies who've never played a snap), but you are paid according to your earning potential for the company. They don't shell out all of this dough to guys like Peyton just because their that talented. They pay him that much because he enables them to earn them more than that.

 

So it's silly to me to say that the players are completely off-base in wanting their fair share, when they are driving the enormous revenues to the owners by providing both the labor and product worth selling.

Perfectly stated.

 

+100

[SEC=UGA]

Perfectly stated.

 

+100

 

How much money does the league spend (the owners) promoting these players? It isn't as if these characters were created in a vacuum, that their on the field talents alone propelled them into the spotlight, there was a lot of money spent by the owners and league on advertising/promotion in order to draw attention to these players.

[Ursa Majoris]

How much money does the league spend (the owners) promoting these players? It isn't as if these characters were created in a vacuum, that their on the field talents alone propelled them into the spotlight, there was a lot of money spent by the owners and league on advertising/promotion in order to draw attention to these players.

Bah. The league uses players to advertise itself, obviously. Pretty sure the players get nothing from the NFL running trailers (and, IMO, nor should they).