DMD 331 Posted March 6, 2006 My father-in-law actually made this observation. The players want there to be more revenue sharing between teams in addition to wanting a higher percentage of non-standard revenue (parking, stadium naming rights, etc.). What would happen if the NFL owners made it part of the CBA that the players had to do revenue sharing? When they received money from non-standard sources like endorsements, why shouldn't they have to share it with all the rest of the NFL players? And have that revenue sharing factored into the amount of money that the players are getting from the teams? It works the same way you know - players on big market teams have far better chances to get endorsements. Players in, say, Arizona are lucky to attend the opening of a new tire store. I mean, it is the same thing as what they want the teams to do. Why would it not apply to players (other than the players have not made the major investments with associated risks to get their money? I thought it was interesting though obviously would never work both ways in this world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sgt. Ryan 0 Posted March 6, 2006 My father-in-law actually made this observation. The players want there to be more revenue sharing between teams in addition to wanting a higher percentage of non-standard revenue (parking, stadium naming rights, etc.). What would happen if the NFL owners made it part of the CBA that the players had to do revenue sharing? When they received money from non-standard sources like endorsements, why shouldn't they have to share it with all the rest of the NFL players? And have that revenue sharing factored into the amount of money that the players are getting from the teams? I mean, it is the same thing as what they want the teams to do. Why would it not apply to players (other than the players have not made the major investments with associated risks to get their money0? I thought it was interesting though obviously would never work both ways in this world. 1353102[/snapback] I think the NFL owners need your father in law in negotations. That is brillant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
untateve 7 Posted March 6, 2006 that's funny DMD...this is the same thing I heard terrell owens suggesting on some sports show Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raider.Nation 0 Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) In labour negotiations and union contracts, the idea is to stick it to your employer. Not each other... But excellent observation none-the-less! Edited March 6, 2006 by Raider.Nation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Score 1 0 Posted March 6, 2006 Excellent point. Something else these numb nuts need to be negoitiating into the CBA. Couldn't hold it up anymore than has already happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darin3 1,755 Posted March 6, 2006 It works the same way you know - players on big market teams have far better chances to get endorsements. Players in, say, Arizona are lucky to attend the opening of a new tire store. 1353102[/snapback] So true. You know Larry Fitzgerald would have plenty of opportunities had he landed in New York or heck, just about ANYWHERE other than the Valley of the Sun. Reminds me of some real cheesy car dealership commercials with Rich Aurilia (and his wife) up in the Bay Area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holliday 0 Posted March 6, 2006 My father-in-law actually made this observation. The players want there to be more revenue sharing between teams in addition to wanting a higher percentage of non-standard revenue (parking, stadium naming rights, etc.). What would happen if the NFL owners made it part of the CBA that the players had to do revenue sharing? When they received money from non-standard sources like endorsements, why shouldn't they have to share it with all the rest of the NFL players? And have that revenue sharing factored into the amount of money that the players are getting from the teams? It works the same way you know - players on big market teams have far better chances to get endorsements. Players in, say, Arizona are lucky to attend the opening of a new tire store. I mean, it is the same thing as what they want the teams to do. Why would it not apply to players (other than the players have not made the major investments with associated risks to get their money? I thought it was interesting though obviously would never work both ways in this world. 1353102[/snapback] This is a excellent post. I am sure the players union would not hear of it though.their highest paying customers might jump out of the union if they wanted to agree with this.but as your father-in-law sais, it would be fair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TripleW64 12 Posted March 6, 2006 That would be interesting if the owners brought that up as part of their negiotation. "We have to share our money. Now you share yours." Might get the players to be a little more flexible in their demands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godtomsatan 27 Posted March 6, 2006 Why should the players agree to a figure of revenues before the definition of revenues is established? I don't really see any evidence that the players are at fault for this. Every media source has point blank said that the owners are divided on how the revenues are split between each other, not whether the players deserve a cut, or what kind of percentage to offer them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holliday 0 Posted March 6, 2006 Why should the players agree to a figure of revenues before the definition of revenues is established? I don't really see any evidence that the players are at fault for this. Every media source has point blank said that the owners are divided on how the revenues are split between each other, not whether the players deserve a cut, or what kind of percentage to offer them. 1353234[/snapback] That is because some owners can afford to spend more because they are in higher markets. the players union is feeding off that arguement IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaP'N GRuNGe 53 Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) I'd like to see H8tank's take on all this. Obviously revenue sharing makes the NFL nothing but a bunch of Kommunists, right H8? Edited March 6, 2006 by CaP'N GRuNGe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Randall 35 Posted March 6, 2006 I'd like to see H8tank's take on all this. Obviously revenue sharing makes the NFL nothing but a bunch of Kommunists, right H8? 1353348[/snapback] That ought to be good. Are the Jaguars a communist organization? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gdawg 0 Posted March 6, 2006 Professional sports are the one venue in which socialism actually WORKS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Randall 35 Posted March 6, 2006 Professional sports are the one venue in which socialism actually WORKS. 1353613[/snapback] Social security, police and fire departments work pretty well when their assets aren't "borrowed". Is this our buddy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gdawg 0 Posted March 6, 2006 Social security, police and fire departments work pretty well when their assets aren't "borrowed". Is this our buddy? 1353641[/snapback] I dont want to get into a political discussion here. I did think the "borrowed" part was pretty funny though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
