Bronco Billy Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) There are some deep misperceptions here. The NFL is a private company. The owners act as the board, and Goodell IS the CEO. He runs the management end of the league and answers only to the owners, which allows owners to freely manage their own teams. This is in no way comparable to what a typical public servant does, and is in no way comparable to the head referee, who is more of a part time mid to low level manager. I honestly don't see how some people don't understand that Goodell is literally the top level of managment for a $9B private industry. If he or those he hires find a way to make the league more profitable by even $30M dollars a year, either through enhanced revenues (TV contracts, marketing, public image) or reducing costs (controlling the salary cap, maintaining a reasonable CBA) - hasn't he earned his $20M a year? If what he does allows the leaague to functions without the owners investing substantially greater time, which allows them to spend time in other interests or business - hasn't he earned his $20M a year? Now I'm guessing his tangible and intangible impact is a lot more than just an increased margin of $30M a year, but the point being is that he probably has earned every bit of his salary based upon the financial size of the company, what his responsibilities and duties are in that company, and how much his actions in performing his job affect the NFL's bottom line. Edited February 16, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I understand that. I'm asking that given his scope of duties and responsibilities and the financial magnitude of the league that he is responsible for, what do you consider appropriate maximum compensation that you would allow Goodell to earn? What would you deem proper compensation to be? Do you want me to throw out an exact figure? Why can't I simply be entitled to my opinion; stating that $20M is a ludicrous number for one man to be paid for a job? Why do you professional arguers find it necessary to poke, prod and otherwise harp on others' opinions? I think the $20M figure is outlandish and I'll stand behind it. And I don't need to "show my work" to internet blowhards. Sorry, I don't play the detbronco circle jerk game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 They could have chosen not to play and not be in that situation. Choices have consequences. We have just begun to understand the long-term consequences of repeated concussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Do you want me to throw out an exact figure? Why can't I simply be entitled to my opinion; stating that $20M is a ludicrous number for one man to be paid for a job? Why do you professional arguers find it necessary to poke, prod and otherwise harp on others' opinions? I think the $20M figure is outlandish and I'll stand behind it. And I don't need to "show my work" to internet blowhards. Sorry, I don't play the detbronco circle jerk game. Amen. Jeebus, we're shooting the sh*t about football, people act like it's their ultimate validation in life to win a debate in an internet ff forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 They could have chosen not to play and not be in that situation. Choices have consequences. This will not end well. I'm actually sympathetic to permanently disabled players, even though I fully understand they freely chose the profession they were in, should have understood the risks, and were paid a premium because of those risks. Given that, the NFL is a business, the players are employees, and the employees were probably injured, at least in part, in the performance of their duties as players. I also recognize that players are also responsible in part for their own safety, which is why it is almost laughable that the the NFLPA and former players want to sue the league when you see players refusing to equip themselves properly on the field by not wearing proper padding, a mouthguard, etc, by in many cases refusing to engage in proper techniques in on-the-field job related activities like tackling, and by some players using playing techniques that are inherently more dangerous to their fellow players' health. That is - it would be laughable if the outcome at times weren't so severe. Given that, and given the profitable nature of the league, I believe that since both the NFL and the players have a mutual responsibility for optimizing the players' safety, it would be nice to see both the NFL and the NFLPA recognize this, and also recognize the substantial profitability of the NFL, and each take some money out of pocket to create a large continually funded health contigency for former players. But that would take some give from both sides - meaning the league sees its margin reduced a bit, and the players see the cap number go down a bit. Maybe reduce the cap by say $500K per year per team ($16M each year) with matching funds by the league. I'd guess that $32M a year would go a long ways to providing proper care for injured vets, and the impact would be less than $10,000 a player a year on average to support their own quality of life after they are done playing (hell, that's less than one night's eating/drinking/strip clubbing for some guys). Maybe the players could use a progressive contribution system based upon the size of each player's contract, with those players making substantially more also contributing more. Now I know the league in the latest bargaining that concluded last year offered to put up a substantial amount for former players' health care - I want to say $85M if I remember correctly - but I don't know if that actually became part of the new CBA. I also know that the players refused to contribute even one penny collectively to any such fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Do you want me to throw out an exact figure? Why can't I simply be entitled to my opinion; stating that $20M is a ludicrous number for one man to be paid for a job? Why do you professional arguers find it necessary to poke, prod and otherwise harp on others' opinions? I think the $20M figure is outlandish and I'll stand behind it. And I don't need to "show my work" to internet blowhards. Sorry, I don't play the detbronco circle jerk game. Lighten up, darin. For Christ's sake. I don't see anyone pouncing on you and attacking you personally for your opinion. You stated quite clearly that you thought $20M per year was way too much, and some of us would like to see you quantify it so that we can understand what you think appropriate payment is and get a better feel for your position, That's not asking a whole hell of a lot, to be honest. ETA Amen. Jeebus, we're shooting the sh*t about football, people act like it's their ultimate validation in life to win a debate in an internet ff forum. The same for you matt. We're having a civil discussion. You've put your opinions out there, and some of us would like some clarity/quantifying to get a good feel for your opinions. No one is attacking you. You chose to enter a discussion, and when someone asks a simple question, you go defensive and act like a victim. It's a simple request for additional information, no more than that. Edited February 16, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 There are few things I find more annoying than someone coming out, making a rather absolute comment and then hiding behind, "hey, lighten up, it's just my opinion!" Here's an idea: If you have an opinion and don't want to bother defending it, then keep it to yourself. It's really that easy. If, on the other hand, you'd like to share said opinion in an on-line forum, then you might want to prepare to defend said opinion. I mean, what's the point? Are we merely taking a poll as to what everyone thinks Goodell is worth, or are we actually having a discussion about it? I have Matt down for $300K because he's basically a public servant who works in a private capacity helping a bunch of dudes with more money than god, make even more still. I have darin3 down for "not $20 million" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) I have no problems with someone stating their opinion and then just saying their rationale is that it's just their opinion. Everyone doesn't have to explain their stance ad nauseum. I like hearing different opinions because it sparks discussion. Again, I think we're arguing over the wrong thing here though. I'll agree that 20 mil a year is probably a ridiculous salary for what he actually does. But relative to the money that the NFL brings in it's a reasonable amount. The real choker here IMO isn't that Goddell is making this kind of money, it's that the NFL can afford it. Especially given that several months ago owners were complaining about just being able to make ends meet if they paid the players what they were asking and like some have mentioned, complaining about not being able to help disabled players. Edited February 16, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) I have no problems with someone stating their opinion and then just saying their rationale is that it's just their opinion. Everyone doesn't have to explain their stance ad nauseum. I like hearing different opinions because it sparks discussion. I agree with your position, but would also add that if someone chooses to post their opinion that it is fair game for anyone else to use in discussing, and that it is perfectably reasonable for anyone else to ask that person a question or for clarity, and further that if people do use it for further discussion or ask a question that it isn't attacking the originator either. There seem to be a lot of people here who delight in being offended or getting butthurt during the course of simple discussions. The real choker here IMO isn't that Goddell is making this kind of money, it's that the NFL can afford it. Especially given that several months ago owners were complaining about just being able to make ends meet if they paid the players what they were asking and like some have mentioned, complaining about not being able to help disabled players. I think you mischaracterized the owners' position completely. They weren't complaining about just being able to make ends meet. Their position was that 8% annual raises in compensation to the players was not sustainable. If I remember correctly, the owners' initial offer in the bargaining was diminishing the annual raises to be in the neighborhood of 4% to 5% annually. And again, I believe the owners offered to throw $85M in the pot for the health care of former players, while current players did not want to contribute anything. Edited February 16, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The real choker here IMO isn't that Goddell is making this kind of money, it's that the NFL can afford it. Especially given that several months ago owners were complaining about just being able to make ends meet if they paid the players what they were asking and like some have mentioned, complaining about not being able to help disabled players. At no point in the NFL negotiations did I ever get the impression that the owners were playing the hardship card. I certainly got that from the NBA owners, but not the NFL. I saw it as two sides, both of whom were doing just fine in the big picture, trying to use any leverage they could to make sure that they got as big a cut of the pie as they could. Nothing more, nothing less. Owners were certainly playing the "you don't know the whole picture" card, but that's not the same thing. That could mean nothing more than, "I paid a lot of freaking money for this team and I'll be damned if I'm not going to make a nice ROI on it." Which is a far cry from "I'm barely making ends meet." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 This will not end well. I'm actually sympathetic to permanently disabled players, even though I fully understand they freely chose the profession they were in, should have understood the risks, and were paid a premium because of those risks. Given that, the NFL is a business, the players are employees, and the employees were probably injured, at least in part, in the performance of their duties as players. I also recognize that players are also responsible in part for their own safety, which is why it is almost laughable that the the NFLPA and former players want to sue the league when you see players refusing to equip themselves properly on the field by not wearing proper padding, a mouthguard, etc, by in many cases refusing to engage in proper techniques in on-the-field job related activities like tackling, and by some players using playing techniques that are inherently more dangerous to their fellow players' health. That is - it would be laughable if the outcome at times weren't so severe. Given that, and given the profitable nature of the league, I believe that since both the NFL and the players have a mutual responsibility for optimizing the players' safety, it would be nice to see both the NFL and the NFLPA recognize this, and also recognize the substantial profitability of the NFL, and each take some money out of pocket to create a large continually funded health contigency for former players. But that would take some give from both sides - meaning the league sees its margin reduced a bit, and the players see the cap number go down a bit. Maybe reduce the cap by say $500K per year per team ($16M each year) with matching funds by the league. I'd guess that $32M a year would go a long ways to providing proper care for injured vets, and the impact would be less than $10,000 a player a year on average to support their own quality of life after they are done playing (hell, that's less than one night's eating/drinking/strip clubbing for some guys). Maybe the players could use a progressive contribution system based upon the size of each player's contract, with those players making substantially more also contributing more. Now I know the league in the latest bargaining that concluded last year offered to put up a substantial amount for former players' health care - I want to say $85M if I remember correctly - but I don't know if that actually became part of the new CBA. I also know that the players refused to contribute even one penny collectively to any such fund. The "today" players are greedy. They want all the money now but yet a good chunk of them will be there with their hands out wanting cash when they're broke. But in general, I think it's great that the NFL is taking the steps they do in helping retired players who are disabled, maybe in part due to their NFL careers. If not for the CBA I cetainly wouldn't view it as a requirement, and definitely not as a reason to not pay Roger Goodell $20M. I'm not sure why it was brought up in that context to begin with. The owners are who collectively approve his salary. They are obviously pleased or they wouldn't pay him as much as they do and decide to keep him around another 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 At no point in the NFL negotiations did I ever get the impression that the owners were playing the hardship card. I certainly got that from the NBA owners, but not the NFL. You may have to read between the lines a little, but that's the exact impression I got. Commissioner Roger Goodell used the forum of NFLlabor.com on Tuesday to plead for the NFL owners and players come to a compromise for the sake of reaching a new collective bargaining agreement. Here is a look at the highlights of Goodell's piece, an op-ed column that also will appear in newspapers nationwide this week: Roger Goodell wrote an op-ed piece Tuesday to call for a new labor deal, saying the status quo was not good enough. (AP Photo) "The hard work to secure the next NFL season must now accelerate in earnest. We are just weeks from the expiration of our collective bargaining agreement (the morning of March 4, at midnight ET). There has been enough rhetoric, litigation and other efforts beyond the negotiating table. It is time for serious negotiations. "Staying with the status quo is not an option. The world has changed for everyone, including the NFL and our fans. We must get better in everything we do. We need an agreement that both sides can live with and obtain what they need, not simply what they want. • "The status quo means no rookie wage scale and the continuation of outrageous sums paid to many unproven rookies. In 2009, for example, NFL clubs contracted $1.2 billion to 256 drafted rookies with $585 million guaranteed before they had stepped on an NFL field. Instead, we will shift significant parts of that money to proven veterans and retired players. • "The status quo means 16 regular-season and four preseason games -- even though fans have rejected and dismissed four preseason games at every opportunity. We need to deliver more value to our fans by giving them more of what they want at responsible prices. This can be achieved if we work together and focus on more ways to make the game safer and reduce unnecessary contact during the season and in the offseason. • "The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home. • "The status quo means players continuing to keep 60 percent of available revenue, in good years or bad, no matter how the national economy or the economics of the league have changed. From 2001 to 2009, player compensation doubled and the teams committed a total of $34 billion to player costs. The NFL is healthy in many respects, but we do not have a healthy business model that can sustain growth." Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2010-...n#ixzz1mZNoXHwL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 You may have to read between the lines a little, but that's the exact impression I got. I think you need to do more than read between the lines to assume the owners were actually claiming hardship. Even from precisely what you posted, I got, "We want to make sure that we're happy with the agreement going forward." "There's a lot of costs that we incur that people don't realize." Oh, and then there's "the NFL is healthy in many respects." Again, seems to me like guys who weren't just scraping by and at their wits end, but rather guys who wanted to make sure they could continue to count on making tons of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) I think you need to do more than read between the lines to assume the owners were actually claiming hardship. Even from precisely what you posted, I got, "We want to make sure that we're happy with the agreement going forward." "There's a lot of costs that we incur that people don't realize." Oh, and then there's "the NFL is healthy in many respects, but we do not have a healthy business model that can sustain growth." " Again, seems to me like guys who weren't just scraping by and at their wits end, but rather guys who wanted to make sure they could continue to count on making tons of money. You omitted the part of the sentence in bold above, which IMO is the more important part. They are saying that with the "status quo" they wouldn't be able to afford "the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums" and "sustain growth." I'm not quite sure how that is not vividly clear and I'm not sure how that wouldn't be considered pulling the "hardship card." Edited February 16, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 You omitted the part of the sentence in bold above, which IMO is the more important part. They are saying that with the "status quo" they wouldn't be able to afford "the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums" and "sustain growth." I'm not quite sure how that is not vividly clear and I'm not sure how that wouldn't be considered pulling the "hardship card." Sorry, but I still don't see how, "We're fine right now but don't like how the future looks if we don't rework this thing." as playing the hardship card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Sorry, but I still don't see how, "We're fine right now but don't like how the future looks if we don't rework this thing." as playing the hardship card. Just goes to show how two people can read the exact same thing and devise two completely different views. Maybe that may come mostly from perspective, you being a business owner(NFL owner) & me being a worker(player). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Just goes to show how two people can read the exact same thing and devise two completely different views. Maybe that may come mostly from perspective, you being a business owner(NFL owner) & me being a worker(player). Of course, I hardly took the owner's side in that conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 And I don't need to "show my work" to internet blowhards. Sorry, I don't play the detbronco circle jerk game. Lighten up, darin. For Christ's sake. I don't see anyone pouncing on you and attacking you personally for your opinion. You stated quite clearly that you thought $20M per year was way too much, and some of us would like to see you quantify it so that we can understand what you think appropriate payment is and get a better feel for your position, That's not asking a whole hell of a lot, to be honest. There is a dearth of evidence in this entire fcking forum that starting a conversation about this topic with you will not end up in exactly what Darin described. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 There are some deep misperceptions here. The NFL is a private company. The owners act as the board, and Goodell IS the CEO. He runs the management end of the league and answers only to the owners, which allows owners to freely manage their own teams. This is in no way comparable to what a typical public servant does, and is in no way comparable to the head referee, who is more of a part time mid to low level manager. I honestly don't see how some people don't understand that Goodell is literally the top level of managment for a $9B private industry. If he or those he hires find a way to make the league more profitable by even $30M dollars a year, either through enhanced revenues (TV contracts, marketing, public image) or reducing costs (controlling the salary cap, maintaining a reasonable CBA) - hasn't he earned his $20M a year? If what he does allows the leaague to functions without the owners investing substantially greater time, which allows them to spend time in other interests or business - hasn't he earned his $20M a year? Now I'm guessing his tangible and intangible impact is a lot more than just an increased margin of $30M a year, but the point being is that he probably has earned every bit of his salary based upon the financial size of the company, what his responsibilities and duties are in that company, and how much his actions in performing his job affect the NFL's bottom line. I was curious what Goodell makes currently (what the salary was before the new $20 million), a quick search turned up this Based on the NFL tax return, Goodell was paid just under $10 million in 2009. Here are some of the salaries they paid. --Steve Bornstein, head of NFL Media and NFL Network: $7.44 million. --Jeff Pash, chief labor negotiator and general counsel: $4.85 million. --Eric Grubman, executive vice president, marketing and sponsorships: $4.44 million. --Former commissioner Paul Tagliabue (outside consultant): $3.3 million. --Joe Browne, executive vice president of communications: $1.7 million. --Ray Anderson, executive vice president, football operations: $1.12 million. --Anthony Noto, chief financial officer: $853,000. There's also this, an article on the top 5 sports commissioner salaries. commish salaries The last paragraph was interesting (my highlighting for emphasis) "The bottom line Professional sports commissioners make a nice living as the CEOs of sports leagues. Unlike players, they can continue earning large salaries for 20 years or more if they choose to do so. So maybe it’s time to put down the baseball bat and start practicing your contract negotiation skills." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 There is a dearth of evidence in this entire fcking forum that starting a conversation about this topic with you will not end up in exactly what Darin described. You want me to admit that I'm a hugh fan of passionate debate? Okay, done. That doesn't preclude that there are a couple of simple questions on the floor in this thread that some would like to see the answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 You want me to admit that I'm a hugh fan of passionate debate? Okay, done. That doesn't preclude that there are a couple of simple questions on the floor in this thread that some would like to see the answers. He won't answer because he can't. Basically he is just jealous that someone makes an amount of money he can only dream about. He backed himself into an embarrassing corner and the only way out is to try and make it a personal issue. I have no idea why someone would care what a bunch of private business owners pay one of their people. Especially in this sport. You are talking about 625K per owner for his salary. My god, they throw that away on useless players every year. One owner gave one player 26 million for not even playing for God's sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 There is a dearth of evidence in this entire fcking forum that starting a conversation about this topic with you will not end up in exactly what Darin described. LOL at Darin playing the high-road card and pretending to stay above the "broncodet" circle jerk. He didn't have to reply "I hope you're joking " when someone applauded the guy getting paid, but he did. He didn't have to go on to claim that the salary was outrageous, but he did. He could have come back with a better answer than "Not $20 mil" when asked what a better number would be, but he didn't Basically, how it looks on the surface is that he has no issues with making bold statements, showing disbelief that anyone could feel other than he does, but is somehow above having to actually explain why. Because, apparently, unlike some of us, he doesn't stoop to actually engage in debate around here. No, he just drops in, says how it is, and that's that. I'm almost never on the same side of any argument as Bronco, but I at least admire the fact that he has enough sack to defend his points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) $20 million - while a lot - does not seem like a lot for the commissioner of the NFL. I don't care to look it up, but that is probably way less than a buck for everybody that has watched at least one game over the season. ((edited to add - Goddell might not catch or throw a ball, but seeing how most of these cats manage their money, I don't think that they could do what he does either.)) Edited February 16, 2012 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 He won't answer because he can't. Basically he is just jealous that someone makes an amount of money he can only dream about. He backed himself into an embarrassing corner and the only way out is to try and make it a personal issue. I have no idea why someone would care what a bunch of private business owners pay one of their people. Especially in this sport. You are talking about 625K per owner for his salary. My god, they throw that away on useless players every year. One owner gave one player 26 million for not even playing for God's sake. FYI, I don't think it's not a matter of jealousy. While it may not matter to some people, there are a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet that work every bit as hard or harder than somebody like Goddell or NFL stars etc. I don't think it's that one is jealous, it's just the sickening reminder that all things are not fair or equal in this world. Some people are just afforded opportunities a lot most of us can only dream about. Some people are just so naturally gifted that making it in life seems much easier for them. That's just the way things are & I can't fault anyone for being a bit unhappy about that. I'll tell you, from my perspective, it really sucks to see somebody who's only talent is to run really fast and catch a ball really well to get a free college ride and make millions of dollars in the NFL. Especially when you see so many of them blow it all within a few years of leaving the NFL. Just the fact that these owners have that kind of money to just throw away when just a portion of that could change any one of our lives... all from a game... It just makes me shake my head. Would you call that jealousy? I guess you could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Of course, I hardly took the owner's side in that conflict. Are you sure? Are there any threads that exist that would back this up? Big John? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.