Latest on the CBA

[BeeR]

I truly don't believe that this is about "saving" the NFL. It is about greed on both sides.

Exactly. f em. I can get by just fine with college ball (FF on that level could be interesting too ) and in fact will probably end up being glad for more time to do other stuff.

[DMD]

So DMD, since the owners won't open their books, how do you know that their profits are declining? If it was such a certainty that soon enough, franchises will be losing money, then how come values continue to increase? There are billionaire's because they don't buy into "losing" organizations without knowing why they are losing money and a way to get them profitable.

 

I agree with you about the stadium issue and more owners having to put out more of their own money to get these stadiums done. That has been mentioned numerous times as a reason why this is happening. Overall, I just don't believe that the owners are losing money and I would be surprised if there is a regular financial trend moving down that shows within 3-5 years or so that they begin to lose money.

 

I truly don't believe that this is about "saving" the NFL. It is about greed on both sides.

 

I believe the Packers numbers showed they had a decline in profitability in recent seasons. Not that one team represents all 32 either way.

 

The owners are not losing money as far as I know and mostly because they all share revenues to take care of the small market teams. This is not about losing money now, it is about the financial health and viability of the model in the future.

 

My honest take - the players got too much the last time which was what commonly was believed at that time since most were shocked the team owners agreed to it. I think both sides needs to take this time to take the longer view and take better care of the teams and the players down the road and stop acting like both sides are only about seeing which side can grab the most cash out of the barrel for this year.

[bpwallace49]

No private business owner in the history of union negotiations has ever opened their books. It just doesn't happen. I just spoke with an expert in labor relations and he said as much. It is just a standard union ploy that they know will never happen. And the union would only consider the numbers that favor them and not the entire picture let alone the long-term considerations of a business that the NFLPA does not care about. The Union calls for opening the books for this exact reason - to make people think the evil business is hiding something. It is just bluster and a ploy.

 

Another reality - how long would it take to completely audit and comprehend 32 entirely different businesses when each pushes around hundred of millions if not a billion dollars around each year in revenue and expenses? It would take so long that it would no longer be accurate by the time it was done.

 

This is slightly different than a different private business. Quite a bit of the numbers thrown about are in the public realm already for salary caps, TV contracts, etc. It isnt like Scrooge Mcduck here hoarding gold coins in a vault. (Or is it? )

 

If the owners are so adamant that the model is failing, as they are, wouldnt that be reasonably easy to prove? They have had this stance for over a year, so a complete forensic audit probably isnt necessary. Also when negotiating, they key is having each side give a little so that all sides can benefit. From what I have seen, the owners havent really negotiated, they have demanded. Am I wrong in that? Have the owners capitulated to anything the players have asked for?

 

Again, I am not solely taking the sides of the players here, but negotiation means each side needs to compromise. When all the power lies with the owners, does that mean that the players should just be happy with whatever crumbs are handed out? Or could/should the owners look at the "big picture" and give a little to get a deal done? I do not see how missing a year of football and risking doing damage to your fan base like the NHL and MLB did helps the owners argumnet of "growing the game". In fact, missing a season could be seen as really hurting the game.

 

[Skilly]

Can somebody please try to defend the owners? Everything I have read so far just makes them look so darn greedy. The owners are demanding that they make millions on a season-by-season basis. This has never been a worry for professional sports owners before. They're all going to make hundreds of millions on the back-end. The revenue is HUGE, bigger than ever, the owners are raking in cash, and it still isn't good enough for them. They want to have their cake and eat it too. The money that some of them are losing to revenue sharing, they want to make back by cutting down the players piece of the pie. The players came to the table knowing if they wanted to make a deal, it would involve a pay-cut. Still, they wanted to start with the percentage they are currently at, and go down from there. This was not sufficient for the owners, and they walked.

 

The point of my rant is...when is enough, enough? The players will take a 15% smaller piece of the pie this time. What is next? They'll be down 15 more percent, leaving them with about 15% of the profit. And the way it is currently set-up, they have no choice but to take it in the backside. Ultimately, they have to take pretty much whatever the owners offer if they want to play professional football.

 

I can't handle it. When I go to games, when I buy spamshirts and hats, I want to support the players themselves, not the obscenely rich greedy old man that has never entertained me for a second of his life.

 

If you want to support the individual players, then you can get a sharpie and a t-shirt and make your own jersey. When you purchase a jersey, you are supporting the TEAM---in effect, the NFL and the owners of the teams.

 

The defense for the owners is that the current deal will ultimately fail because it will not be able to sustain it's profitability, so it needs to be changed. The players don't want it changed because it's a hell of a sweet deal for them.

[piratesownninjas]

At this point, cannot imagine they will come to their senses by March 4th but I still think they will by the draft. That gives them 6 or 7 weeks of posturing, name-calling, hand-wringing, 1 or 2 "walk away from the tables", a dozen apocalyptic articles written and then sheepishly agreeing to some midpoint.

I heard that the owners have no desire to get anything done until after the 4th. Something with a judge that ruled in favor of Vick not having to pay back all of his signing bonus to Atlanta. I guess he retires on that date as well. Too foggy to remember exactly. I still don't think we miss any football, but the current CBA will run out before the next one is agreed upon.

 

 

And to all of those in favor of the NFLPA in this... How do you like baseballs setup?

[Lloyd Dobler]

Exactly. f em. I can get by just fine with college ball (FF on that level could be interesting too ) and in fact will probably end up being glad for more time to do other stuff.

 

I totally agree with this sentiment.

[detlef]

I can't see why I should have any more than zero sympathy for the players.

Fair enough, but do you have sympathy for the owners? I could honestly give a rat's ass about either. I'm with BeeR here, I'm a non-contributing consumer (don't go to games, don't buy gear, don't really buy any of the crap advertised on Sundays, and through some strange fluke, pay almost nothing for my cable), and I'll keep watching as long as the games are on. But if these jerk-offs can't figure out how to divide up a huge pile of money they've squeezed from a country who's racked in debt and struggling to make it by, then screw 'em. I can certainly find something else to do on my Sundays.

 

I realize the owners are in a much, much better bargaining situation, but I hardly side with them. I don't know enough about the numbers to say who is certainly in the wrong here, I'm just tired of the assumption that the owners are in the right because the other side, "gets paid millions to play a game". Well, that and the fact that there always seems to be someone ready to fork over mad cash to buy one of these teams, so they can't be doing all that poorly.

 

As for Jay Feely's comments. I just want to know if that stuff was said by Richardson. He certainly looks like a freaking ornery old cuffer, so I wouldn't put it past him. And I don't buy the "they don't have to open the books, we just have to take their word on it that they're trending south".

 

The NHL example is also a bad one. They just got too big for their britches. They were in a growth mode and wanted to be relevant, so they started throwing money around that they didn't have. Then, all of a sudden, they realized they were just a niche sport. It's not unlike NASCAR. The worst thing they ever did was do a great job marketing themselves. Then a bunch of marginal fans came out a checked out a race, which drove numbers up. The problem is, many of these people were not NASCAR people so that was it. Then the numbers started "falling". But they weren't falling, they were just settling back to where they should have been all along. The people who dug NASCAR still did, and the marginal sports enthusiasts who came out to see what all the fuss was, went back to the sports they were into. Well, it's the same as NASCAR but for the fact that it's actually a very cool sport that deserves more run than it gets. But that doesn't change the fact that it's on the outside looking in.

 

The NFL is plenty freaking relevant. They've got the cache. The amazing thing is that this is all about a cap that protects the owners from themselves. If they want to save money, quit spending it. There's no rule that says you have to run up against the cap. Is there?

[Seahawks21]

I appreciate the argument DMD, but just can't buy it. There is no way that with how much revenue is coming into the NFL nowadays that the current business model isn't working for the owners. I can't buy that. It still just seems like greedy wealthy folks doing whatever they can to become greedy wealthier folks, at the expense of the players. Don't forget about the hundreds of million they are all going to make in the back-end. In the past, owners never expected to turn a big annual profit. They all knew that it was the long-term investment that was going to make them filthy rich. Now the owners want to turn big profits yearly and still make the huge return on investment in the end. That part seems a bit greedy to me. The hundreds of millions aren't enough, now they want to lower the minimum salary so they can nickel-and-dime their bottom level employees. The owner already takes half off the top, and that isn't enough?

 

I wish nobody ever knew the percentages. It would be fun to ask the public what percentage of the overall revenue they think the players should make versus how much the owners should make.

[redrumjuice]

There's no rule that says you have to run up against the cap. Is there?

 

You need to do some research.

[detlef]

I appreciate the argument DMD, but just can't buy it. There is no way that with how much revenue is coming into the NFL nowadays that the current business model isn't working for the owners. I can't buy that. It still just seems like greedy wealthy folks doing whatever they can to become greedy wealthier folks, at the expense of the players. Don't forget about the hundreds of million they are all going to make in the back-end. In the past, owners never expected to turn a big annual profit. They all knew that it was the long-term investment that was going to make them filthy rich. Now the owners want to turn big profits yearly and still make the huge return on investment in the end. That part seems a bit greedy to me. The hundreds of millions aren't enough, now they want to lower the minimum salary so they can nickel-and-dime their bottom level employees. The owner already takes half off the top, and that isn't enough?

 

I wish nobody ever knew the percentages. It would be fun to ask the public what percentage of the overall revenue they think the players should make versus how much the owners should make.

The owner doesn't take half off the top. That's just the half that doesn't go to the players. There's still plenty of costs involved after that. Mind you, I also think it's foolish to try and apply nearly any other business model in terms of how big a chunk should go to labor, and that is a mistake made by plenty when the argue the players get too much. If the owners truly did take half for themselves, it would be downright criminal, but that is simply not the case.

[detlef]

You need to do some research.

Apparently you have. What's the rule? Obviously they can go somewhat below. How much are they allowed?

[redrumjuice]

Apparently you have. What's the rule? Obviously they can go somewhat below. How much are they allowed?

 

Many teams are more worried with the cap floor than the ceiling. They are cashed starved.

[detlef]

Many teams are more worried with the cap floor than the ceiling. They are cashed starved.

On the surface, this would seem to validate your point, but it doesn't really do so.

 

1) It seems like when the cap vanished, some when up, others went down. But only about 1/3 were below the 2009 floor (which, btw, is a full $20 mill less than the ceiling).

 

2) Also, it seems less like they're cash-starved and more like they're just laying back because they didn't know what the future would hold.

 

Listen, maybe these guys are losing their asses. Again, it's hard to believe considering team values keep rising, but who knows. Maybe they're all really stupid and ego-driven and can't help but spend a ton for businesses that don't turn profits and need us to keep paying mad jack for tickets, parking and hot dogs and make sure that players make as little as possible. Again, I'm really not taking a side here. It sounds like I'm for the players, but that's just because I'm not falling into step with, "these guys get paid millions to play a game." Sure they do, and Justin-freaking-Beber gets paid millions to dance around on stage. So what?

 

Like I said, they can all go to freaking hell for all I care. If this crap dries up, I will be completely cool with it.

[redrumjuice]

On the surface, this would seem to validate your point, but it doesn't really do so.

 

[tazinib1]

[WJW]

The payroll floor was 87.6% of the cap. So it was $108M with the last cap of $123M. FYI - Last season when there was no cap several teams dipped well below the $108M figure. Carolina took the prize for the lowest at around $80M (with Delhomme taking a big chunk). That didn't work out very well for the Panther fans. Some of the other teams under the previous floor in 2010 were ARI, DEN, SD, JAC, KC and TB. On the other end, no team overspent the previous cap of $123M in 2010. That was one of the fears of the non-capped year that never materialized.

 

From the players standpoint, the salary floor is more important than the cap.

[rajncajn]

Apparently Richardson is a colossal tool and the fact that he's still co-chair says a lot about where this is going.

[Caveman_Nick]

It's a tough thing for players to realize that the league would continue on without them. There are other men who would gladly put themselves in the position of NFL players. Inferior in talent, but not necessarily in willingness.

 

The league would be done without powerful ownership and management from the commissioner's office. I am not a Goodell fan, but you have to give him some credit for the continued success of the league.

 

I am not saying that the owners are being completely reasonable, but generally speaking they do hold the best cards.

[BearBroncos]

The thing that gets me is this mentality that an owner is obligated to pay top dollar for someone because they make to much money. Balderdash! It's they who are burden with the most risk. An owner is not different than any other business man. They are invested to make a profit. If they don't manage the team right then it's their revenue base that reminds them (the Fords are apparently exempt from this for some ungodly reason) Their profit benefits a BUNCH of people. Any strike by the already rich players will only hurt the little guy. The hot dog vendor, they parking lot attendant, the field staff etc.

 

The league minimum is more that most of us will ever see and yet, I'll more likely end up with a better retirement than most NFL idiots because their inability to plan for any short comings or retirement. Most could invest their 1st year salaries and by the time retirement approaches, the interest alone would allow for a moderate retirement lifestyle.

 

And regarding retirement benefits, I think that should be up to the league and I see no reason why the league could not provide a similar, VA type benefit but I'd like to see arguments on both sides to see a better argument.

 

I just had to throw out my

[bpwallace49]

The thing that gets me is this mentality that an owner is obligated to pay top dollar for someone because they make to much money. Balderdash! It's they who are burden with the most risk. An owner is not different than any other business man. They are invested to make a profit. If they don't manage the team right then it's their revenue base that reminds them (the Fords are apparently exempt from this for some ungodly reason) Their profit benefits a BUNCH of people. Any strike by the already rich players will only hurt the little guy. The hot dog vendor, they parking lot attendant, the field staff etc.

 

I am not sure you understand the situation. The players are content with an extension on the current CBA. The owners have opted out, and will lock them out of THEY dont get more money. The players are not threatening to strike. The owners are planning to lock them out. If the owners lock them out, doesn t that also hurt the hot dog guy and parking lot attendent? Wouldnt that be the fault of the owner? Cause that is EXACTLY the situation here.

 

If a player is the best at his position, why WOULDNT they get top dollar? havent they proven their worth?

 

When a lot of owners go crying to cities saying they need to pay a portion of their super stadiums, how much risk are they really taking on? In fact, can anyone name an owner of an NFL team that has lost money/gone bankrupt BECAUSE of the NFL team?

[detlef]

It's a tough thing for players to realize that the league would continue on without them. There are other men who would gladly put themselves in the position of NFL players. Inferior in talent, but not necessarily in willingness.

 

The league would be done without powerful ownership and management from the commissioner's office. I am not a Goodell fan, but you have to give him some credit for the continued success of the league.

 

I am not saying that the owners are being completely reasonable, but generally speaking they do hold the best cards.

While I do agree they're holding the best cards (as I mentioned in my first post in this thread), I'm not certain the league needs them as much as they have in the past. I think there enough savvy players that they might be able to pull this off. We've gone through this before and those who doubt it always have a good laugh at picturing Drew Brees sitting behind a desk in full uni writing payroll checks. Obviously this is not how it would go down. The collective league of players could hire guys just like the owners do to actually run the league. There could still be a commish, just like there is now. There could still be some version of owners meetings, just like there are now. It would just be team reps instead of owners (and there are already meetings with team reps as it is).

 

In this day and age, I do think it could be done. The players don't have to rely on any of the meat heads to make important decisions. They'd be in the same boat they are right now. Someone would be giving them rule to follow just like now. It's just those rules would be voted on by senate made up of the smarter players in the league.

 

You guys act like it would be anarchy and there's simply too many reasons to the contrary for that to be the case. I mean, look at the owners, there are good ones and bad ones. And one that goes back and forth between being the best and the worst is the one who is most involved with his team (Jerry Jones).

 

The stadiums are also a non-issue. That is not a football thing, that's a real estate thing. Jerry Jones didn't build the new Cowboys stadium because he thought it would be cool. He built it to make money. He rents it out when the boys aren't playing there. If he didn't own that stadium, the Cowboys would pay someone else to use whatever stadium they played in. Jerry just realized that he'd make more money if he rented out himself his own stadium. If that stadium didn't make financial sense for Jerry Jones to build, even if he wasn't the owner of the Cowboys, he wouldn't have built it. If he's a smart businessman, and I have to assume he is, he sees them as two completely separate things. He owns a team, and he owns a place that team plays ball. The team he owns pays the stadium he owns some % of the gate and game day sales to play there. Just like the Big 12 does when they hold their Championship there.

 

If there's one thing that keeps this from happening, it's the fact that they can't snap their fingers and make it happen. So, it's not like the players could walk away from the table and bring us football by September. The owners could (though I don't think it would be very successful). If the players want this, they'd have to be working towards something over time and then pull the plug when they have the executive infrastructure they needed, in place, ready to go.

 

Also, I also think that previous attempts at using scabs proved that the public doesn't want that. So, I don't actually think that's one of their cards. Again, I do agree that they're in a stronger place than the players are, right now, but I don't think the scab issue is something they want to go with.

[Ursa Majoris]

I am not sure you understand the situation. The players are content with an extension on the current CBA. The owners have opted out, and will lock them out of THEY dont get more money. The players are not threatening to strike. The owners are planning to lock them out. If the owners lock them out, doesn t that also hurt the hot dog guy and parking lot attendent? Wouldnt that be the fault of the owner? Cause that is EXACTLY the situation here.

 

If a player is the best at his position, why WOULDNT they get top dollar? havent they proven their worth?

 

When a lot of owners go crying to cities saying they need to pay a portion of their super stadiums, how much risk are they really taking on? In fact, can anyone name an owner of an NFL team that has lost money/gone bankrupt BECAUSE of the NFL team?

This, especially the point about this being a lockout, not a strike.

[SEC=UGA]

Last year proved that even the blue chip National Football League has not been immune to the recession.

 

NFL team values fell 2% last season to an average of $1.02 billion, the first decline since Forbes began tracking the league's finances in 1998, with 21 of the league's 32 teams seeing their worths drop. (Note: Our valuations are enterprise values, and include revenue from stadiums but not the value of the real estate.) Team values slipped because the bad economy has reduced demand (there are fewer people with the cash to buy a team, and borrowing has become more difficult) and less nonbroadcasting revenue for many teams.

 

But thanks to long-term television contracts negotiated before the recession, the NFL's profitability has never been stronger. National television revenue from CBS ( CBS - news - people ), NBC, ESPN and Fox increased $1.3 million per team to $95.8 million for each of the league's 32 franchises. NFL teams got a big boost when the league settled its long-running dispute with Comcast ( CMCSA - news - people ) last May concerning broadcasting the NFL Network. The 10-year deal pushed each team's take from its nonnetwork media contracts to $45.8 million, up $9.3 million (revenues from DirecTV ( DTV - news - people ) are the biggest component of this). Aggregate league revenue rose 5.8% to $8 billion.

 

But for all the good news, a ticking time bomb remains. Team owners and players are locked in a showdown surrounding their collective bargaining agreement, which expires after this season. Before the current uncapped season, the CBA required teams to pay players no more than 60% and not less than 56% of league revenue, net of deductions for capital expenditures and a portion of local revenue.

 

The league has been showcasing the Green Bay Packers as the poster child as to why this formula is no longer sustainable (the Packers are owned by local shareholders and therefore the only NFL team that releases financial statements). Indeed the Pack's player costs rose from $139 million in 2008 to $161 million last season, while operating profits declined from $20 million to $10 million during the same time.

 

Yet most other teams increased player costs modestly. Total player costs for the NFL increased only 4% last year to $4.5 billion. Half the increase was in the form of salaries and the other half was for benefits, which were $25.8 million per team last year. As a result, operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) during the 2009 season rose to a record average of $33 million per team, $1 million more than the previous year.

 

The real problem is that the National Football League is evolving into a tiered league, with the upper one-third defined by entrepreneurial owners whose teams typically play in big markets and stadiums that generate insane amounts of cash. Most of the remaining teams are run by cautious owners who play in small markets with low-revenue stadiums.

 

The most valuable NFL team is the Dallas Cowboys: Its value increased a league high 9%, to $1.8 billion. The team, worth more than any other sports franchise in the world, save soccer club Manchester United ($1.84 billion), moved into its new $1.25 billion stadium last season and sold out every regular season game with the league's highest average ticket price, $160.

Owner Jerry Jones remains the game's best promoter, (he even landed a star turn on the hit HBO series Entourage this summer). His stadium netted an additional $12 million last year over what it makes on the Cowboys, thanks to events like the NBA All-Star game, boxing and concerts. The team's overall operating income hit $143 million, a record for a U.S. sports franchise.

 

Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder proved once again to be one of the league's biggest--and best--risk takers. When the then 34-year old Snyder used mostly borrowed money to buy the team and its stadium in 1999 for $750 million, the pressure to increase revenue was enormous. But Snyder saw opportunity where others did not and has been able to more than double nonbroadcasting revenue to $202 million since taking the helm by selling the stadium's naming rights to FedEx ( FDX - news - people ), increasing the building's capacity and maximizing premium seating opportunities. The Redskins are now worth $1.55 billion, second only to the Cowboys, with operating income of $104 million last season.

 

The New England Patriots, worth $1.37 billion, are third. They have developed the real estate near Gillette Stadium, and led the NFL in mastering social media to get feedback from fans, keeping them involved with every twist and turn of the franchise's story, year-round. The Patriots also own an MLS team, the Revolution, to help keep a steady inventory of events at the stadium.

 

At the other end of the scale, the NFL's low-revenue teams are struggling to keep pace with their big-market competition. The NFL's 10 least valuable teams all declined in value over the past year, led by the Jacksonville Jaguars, which fell 16% to $725 million. The Jags lost 17,000 season ticket holders following a disappointing 5-win, 11-loss season in 2008. The poor support forced the Jaguars to have all but one of its games blacked out locally on TV. The Jags boosted their season ticket base for the upcoming season, but did it with heavily discounted tickets.

 

The Detroit Lions (owned by auto scion William Clay Ford) are one of only two teams to lose money ($2.9 million) last season on an operating basis (the Miami Dolphins lost $7.7 million). This marks the third time in four years the Lions have posted an operating loss.

 

The team is burdened with a hefty debt load of $350 million thanks to the Lions' contribution to the $440 million Ford Field, which opened in 2002. The Lions have struggled to sell tickets since becoming the first NFL team to ever finish winless in a 16-game season in 2008. The Lions had half of its eight home games blacked out last year as it failed to sell out 72 hours before kickoff. The team cut ticket prices on 19,000 seats for this season in hopes of boosting attendance.

 

 

So while the renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement with players will dominate headlines for the next year, the bifurcation of team values in the NFL is an even more serious long-term issue for a league built on parity of performance. Fans tune in because, on any given Sunday, any team can supposedly beat any other. As the team economics of pro football diverge, the owners need to figure out how to keep it that way.

[detlef]

The thing that gets me is this mentality that an owner is obligated to pay top dollar for someone because they make to much money. Balderdash! It's they who are burden with the most risk. An owner is not different than any other business man. They are invested to make a profit. If they don't manage the team right then it's their revenue base that reminds them (the Fords are apparently exempt from this for some ungodly reason) Their profit benefits a BUNCH of people. Any strike by the already rich players will only hurt the little guy. The hot dog vendor, they parking lot attendant, the field staff etc.

 

The league minimum is more that most of us will ever see and yet, I'll more likely end up with a better retirement than most NFL idiots because their inability to plan for any short comings or retirement. Most could invest their 1st year salaries and by the time retirement approaches, the interest alone would allow for a moderate retirement lifestyle.

 

And regarding retirement benefits, I think that should be up to the league and I see no reason why the league could not provide a similar, VA type benefit but I'd like to see arguments on both sides to see a better argument.

 

I just had to throw out my

You can't double-dip the financial risk argument. Sure, the owners all paid top dollar to buy their teams and this number has continued to climb. So, that means that there are eager buyers who want a piece. That means it must be pretty damned profitable. And, for all the tales of sadness, you just don't see it. Even bad teams sell seats and they all get to share the massive TV deal. Sure, Jacksonville is sucking ass, but maybe that's because Jacksonville isn't a good place to put a team.

 

But really, they are nothing like any other businessman. They're a license to print money. Name one other industry where consumers who are fed up with an inferior product are chastised for not being loyal? But it happens in the NFL. You can suck for 10 years and people keep showing up. It's a matter of civic pride to keep showing up, even if the team sucks. If I start putting out crappy food, I'm done, in a month. And nobody would give two poops. "Oh, that place used to be good. Now it sucks. I'm gone" There would be no "civic pride" in supporting my place. No, I'd be held accountable for my inability to do my job. And this is simply not the case for the NFL. How soon do you think the flap over the how poorly the SB was run will blow over? Oh, wait, it already has. Never mind.

 

But because the players make a lot, they should just shut up and play. That it's their fault and their fault only if hot dog vendors end up out of work because of this. So, let me get this straight. If the owner thinks he can squeeze you for another $10 at the gate, another $5 in the lot, and another buck each on the hot dogs, then we should be cool with that. Because that guy is a businessman and businessmen are supposed to try and make as much as they can. And he knows he can because, every time he does, someone pays. Hell, you have to pay for the right to buy tickets! It's freaking amazing. So, this is all cool even if they're already crazy wealthy. But if the players realize that there's a huge pile of money sitting there, they're a-holes for trying to get as much of that as they can, because they already make so much.

 

You can't have it both ways.

Edited February 16, 2011 by detlef

[BearBroncos]

I am not sure you understand the situation. The players are content with an extension on the current CBA. The owners have opted out, and will lock them out of THEY dont get more money. The players are not threatening to strike. The owners are planning to lock them out. If the owners lock them out, doesn t that also hurt the hot dog guy and parking lot attendent? Wouldnt that be the fault of the owner? Cause that is EXACTLY the situation here.

 

I painted a broad picture in which I should not have. Players are looking for a bigger split of the 9 billion dollar blanket while owners feel that their revenue stream is drying up each year. The Packers organization whom have opened their books can attest to.

 

It is the NFL players union who have canceled talks from all I understand so if they continue to refuse to negotiate, isn't that in essence their stance and considered a strike since they know the outcome is a lockout if they do not negotiate?

 

 

 

If a player is the best at his position, why WOULDNT they get top dollar? havent they proven their worth?

 

We live in a capitalist society. If the market dictates their worth, they will be paid it. If that team doesn't pay the worth, then another team eventually will. If the players agent wrote them into a corner, is that the fault of the team or the agent?

 

When a lot of owners go crying to cities saying they need to pay a portion of their super stadiums, how much risk are they really taking on? In fact, can anyone name an owner of an NFL team that has lost money/gone bankrupt BECAUSE of the NFL team?

 

A city gets a HUGE portion of revenue from major league team, hence you see cities courting teams on a regular basis. Part of that negotiation process is to split stadium revenues. The city generally gets a HUGE chunk of stadium revenues and parking so they are more opt to finance a new stadium. Some teams opt to capitalize on all that revenue but because a market can be fickle, so owning 100% of a stadium can be devistating to a franchise and that's where you see profit sharing.