Did you know?

[WaterMan]

2002–51.87 %

2003–50.23 %

2004–52.18 %

2005–50.52 %

2006–52.74 %

2007–51.84 %

2008–50.96 %

2009–50.06 %

 

Revenue the players received each year. It seems that after the 2006 agree, they received a smaller percentage each year.

 

Did you know that if NFL owners choose to lock out players in 2011, they will receive $4.5 billion from their TV contracts EVEN if there is no football games played next season?

 

Did you know that NFL owners receive a credit of slightly more than $1 billion for operating and investment expenses off the top of the revenue pool ($8.8 billion) BEFORE the remainder of the money is divided with players?

 

Did you know that while NFL owners complain about financial risks, players contributed $800 million to the new Meadowlands Stadium for the owners of the New York Giants and Jets, and contributed $300 million to the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium?

 

Did you know that NFL owners have rejected the union’s request that players get ownership stakes in return for assuming financial risk?

Edited April 24, 2011 by WaterMan

[DMD]

2002–51.87 %

2003–50.23 %

2004–52.18 %

2005–50.52 %

2006–52.74 %

2007–51.84 %

2008–50.96 %

2009–50.06 %

 

Revenue the players received each year. It seems that after the 2006 agree, they received a smaller percentage each year.

 

Any time anyone only shows you percentages and not real numbers, they are trying to prove something that is not supported by the actual stats.

 

I could find total NFL revenues for just 3 seasons but using those:

 

2005–50.52 % x 6.49 B = $3.28B

2006–52.74 % x 7.77B = $4.10B

2009–50.06 % x 8.88B = $4.45B

 

The percentage may be lower but they are still making more money. From 2005 to 2006 the percentage they increased in actual money received was 21%.

 

That was also the year the most recent CBA extension went into effect. So apparently the new CBA bumped the players up 20% by their own percentages.

 

Using just percentages is really a red flag that someone iust trying to support their agenda in spite of reality. Politicians love to use it.

[Seahawks21]

The line John Clayton keeps using on his radio show is that the owners want to send back the salary cap to 2008-2009 levels. I don't follow any of this close enough to tell if he knows what he's talking about, but that would seem a little unjust.

[detlef]

Any time anyone only shows you percentages and not real numbers, they are trying to prove something that is not supported by the actual stats.

 

I could find total NFL revenues for just 3 seasons but using those:

 

2005–50.52 % x 6.49 B = $3.28B

2006–52.74 % x 7.77B = $4.10B

2009–50.06 % x 8.88B = $4.45B

 

The percentage may be lower but they are still making more money. From 2005 to 2006 the percentage they increased in actual money received was 21%.

 

That was also the year the most recent CBA extension went into effect. So apparently the new CBA bumped the players up 20% by their own percentages.

 

Using just percentages is really a red flag that someone iust trying to support their agenda in spite of reality. Politicians love to use it.

With all due respect, using $ amounts has the same agenda and that's exactly what the pro-owner side is doing when they focus on the fact that the players are making more money, despite the fact that the owners want to take a larger % of the revenues. And like I've said the entire time, perhaps that's fair. I don't pretend to know what % each side should be getting. However, I'm not going to let someone tell me that, in a relationship that has been dictated by % share of revenues, if one side gets that % decreased without some corresponding off-the-top compensation, that they're getting a raise. Because, given the spirit of the arrangement, they're not.

 

Considering that this whole thing is about sharing the revenues, then % mean everything.

 

Say you work in sales on 4% commission. You were selling $1 million per year and making 40K. Sales increase so now you're selling $1.25 million but your boss cuts your commission to 3.5%. Is it some agenda-based fixation on % if you're unhappy about this? You're making more money now. Of course, your boss is making much more. Not only is he making whatever more his cut was of the increased sales, he's making the .5% he just peeled off of you (and the rest of the sales reps) as well.

 

Of course, there could be some good reason for why your boss had to do this. But if that's the case, that's the case. It's not enough, however to simply say, "Listen despite the fact that I just lopped 12.5% off your commission, you're making more money now, so shut up."

Edited April 25, 2011 by detlef

[WaterMan]

since the books aren't open, how could this info be known?

 

Are you talking about the percentages or the statements?

[Bronco Billy]

Any time anyone only shows you percentages and not real numbers, they are trying to prove something that is not supported by the actual stats.

 

I could find total NFL revenues for just 3 seasons but using those:

 

2005–50.52 % x 6.49 B = $3.28B

2006–52.74 % x 7.77B = $4.10B

2009–50.06 % x 8.88B = $4.45B

 

The percentage may be lower but they are still making more money. From 2005 to 2006 the percentage they increased in actual money received was 21%.

 

That was also the year the most recent CBA extension went into effect. So apparently the new CBA bumped the players up 20% by their own percentages.

 

Using just percentages is really a red flag that someone iust trying to support their agenda in spite of reality. Politicians love to use it.

 

Thank you David. Nice to see someone else putting numbers out there that show the reality of the situation - not that it will make any difference to some here who are convinced the players are getting screwed.

[WaterMan]

Q: Why do the owners want the additional revenue (cost credits)?

 

A: The owners state that they need this money in order to provide stadium enhancements and to grow the game internationally. According to the owners, without these credits, they are unable to afford the additional cost of these expenses. The NFLPA has asked to see the books in order to validate these claims, but the owners do not appear interested in providing complete transparency. They claim to have provided significant financial information, but complete transparency does not appear to be in the cards.

 

Specifically, the owners want to help build a new stadium in Los Angeles and to bring a team to L.A. While no one has provided any specifics, it has long been speculated that several current NFL teams could be moved to L.A. including the Vikings, Jaguars, Chargers, and others. he owners also plan to help with new stadiums for the Falcons, Vikings and 49ers.

 

As you're aware, the NFL has had pre-season games in Mexico, regular season games in Canada and Europe for the past few years. They are serious about growing the international brand of the NFL, which costs money.

 

It seems the owners could be claiming they need more money so they can expland the NFL to LA and to the world.

Edited April 25, 2011 by WaterMan

[BearBroncos]

It seems the owners could be claiming they need more money so they can expland the NFL to LA and to the world.

 

Or maybe, the cost to do business is higher? If I recall, the only overhead for players is the multimillion dollar mansions and Mercedes they like to buy.

[detlef]

Thank you David. Nice to see someone else putting numbers out there that show the reality of the situation - not that it will make any difference to some here who are convinced the players are getting screwed.

What about to those of us who don't think the players are being screwed but simply realize that, just because the players are making more money, does not mean that their respective shares vs the owners are not decreasing? That is, after all, the debate.

 

Honestly, you're completely delusional. You really do think the owners are offering the players a better deal than what they had. Every time I challenge you on this, you completely avoid the question and focus on some semantics or point out what we all know, that the players will be making more money going forward than they do now. Completely ignoring the simple fact that this is about what % each party gets of the total pot. That neither the owners nor the players can expect the other side to accept increases in actual cash due to an increase in total revenues as a consolation for giving up shares of the same to the other side. But that's exactly what you're suggesting the players should be content with. As long as they make more money tomorrow than they did today, it shouldn't matter that they're losing ground to the owners in terms of the CBA, right?

 

How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot?

 

The debate should be about whether or not the owners deserve a bigger piece of the pie. That is the argument. Because that's what they want, a bigger piece of the pie. We need to at least establish that, and it very much appears that you're not willing to.

[WaterMan]

Or maybe, the cost to do business is higher? If I recall, the only overhead for players is the multimillion dollar mansions and Mercedes they like to buy.

 

I refer you to:

 

Did you know that NFL owners have rejected the union’s request that players get ownership stakes in return for assuming financial risk?

Edited April 25, 2011 by WaterMan

[detlef]

I refer you to:

Um, forgive me if I don't assume that bit is actually true considering that we've heard absolutely nothing about it until your post. Not saying it isn't, but I wouldn't go so far as submit it as evidence quite yet.

[NAUgrad]

What about to those of us who don't think the players are being screwed but simply realize that, just because the players are making more money, does not mean that their respective shares vs the owners are not decreasing? That is, after all, the debate.

 

Honestly, you're completely delusional. You really do think the owners are offering the players a better deal than what they had. Every time I challenge you on this, you completely avoid the question and focus on some semantics or point out what we all know, that the players will be making more money going forward than they do now. Completely ignoring the simple fact that this is about what % each party gets of the total pot. That neither the owners nor the players can expect the other side to accept increases in actual cash due to an increase in total revenues as a consolation for giving up shares of the same to the other side. But that's exactly what you're suggesting the players should be content with. As long as they make more money tomorrow than they did today, it shouldn't matter that they're losing ground to the owners in terms of the CBA, right?

 

How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot?

 

The debate should be about whether or not the owners deserve a bigger piece of the pie. That is the argument. Because that's what they want, a bigger piece of the pie. We need to at least establish that, and it very much appears that you're not willing to.

+1

 

right on the money!

[Bronco Billy]

The debate should be about whether or not the owners deserve a bigger piece of the pie. That is the argument. Because that's what they want, a bigger piece of the pie. We need to at least establish that, and it very much appears that you're not willing to.

 

No, it shouldn't. That's irrelevant, but you somehow can't seem to grasp that simple concept. Since when is employee compensation mandated exclusively by what margin the owners of a company get? The employees should be worried only about what kind of deal they are getting - and being guaranteed 5% raises in thier cumulative salaries every year along with more generous benefits and less working days should be considered nothing less than extremely lucrative.

 

That the owners might - and again, given the economic conditions that will control net revenues and the rising costs of doing buisiness in this country, nothing is anywhere close to certain - net out of the deal should not affect the players' bargaining positions. If the gross revenues grow less than 5% every year, the owners actually get a relatively smaller portion of the pie. But to expect continuous 8% growth in the NFL and then the players basing their salary demands on that number quite frankly is foolhardy. The NFL owners understand this quite clearly and are making their stand because of it.

[WaterMan]

Um, forgive me if I don't assume that bit is actually true considering that we've heard absolutely nothing about it until your post. Not saying it isn't, but I wouldn't go so far as submit it as evidence quite yet.

 

I can't prove this but:

 

Buried on one of the pages on the NFL Players Association’s NFLLockout.com website is this question: “Did you know that NFL owners have rejected the union’s request that players get ownership stakes in return for assuming financial risk?”

 

Answer: No, most people don’t.

 

That’s in part because the NFLPA hasn’t previously chosen to make the issue more of a public fight. But sources within the NFLPA told me this week that they have pushed during negotiations for ownership stakes in return for revenue and that NFL outside counsel Bob Batterman has unequivocally told them: “My clients aren’t interested in being partners with your guys.”

 

If ever there was a statement that best summed up why we seem to be headed for a work stoppage, that’s it.

 

At best, Batterman’s statement amounts to, “Sorry, you’re not on the list.” At worst, “You’re not welcome here.”

 

The flat-out refusal on the part of owners to consider allowing players – and fans – to own what would amount to relatively small shares in the league warrants further scrutiny from the sports media.

 

http://sportsfans.org/2011/03/nfl-owners-d...h-players-fans/

[BearBroncos]

No, it shouldn't. That's irrelevant, but you somehow can't seem to grasp that simple concept. Since when is employee compensation mandated exclusively by what margin the owners of a company get? The employees should be worried only about what kind of deal they are getting - and being guaranteed 5% raises in thier cumulative salaries every year along with more generous benefits and less working days should be considered nothing less than extremely lucrative.

 

That the owners might - and again, given the economic conditions that will control net revenues and the rising costs of doing buisiness in this country, nothing is anywhere close to certain - net out of the deal should not affect the players' bargaining positions. If the gross revenues grow less than 5% every year, the owners actually get a relatively smaller portion of the pie. But to expect continuous 8% growth in the NFL and then the players basing their salary demands on that number quite frankly is foolhardy. The NFL owners understand this quite clearly and are making their stand because of it.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself....

[detlef]

No, it shouldn't. That's irrelevant, but you somehow can't seem to grasp that simple concept. Since when is employee compensation mandated exclusively by what margin the owners of a company get? The employees should be worried only about what kind of deal they are getting - and being guaranteed 5% raises in thier cumulative salaries every year along with more generous benefits and less working days should be considered nothing less than extremely lucrative.

 

That the owners might - and again, given the economic conditions that will control net revenues and the rising costs of doing buisiness in this country, nothing is anywhere close to certain - net out of the deal should not affect the players' bargaining positions. If the gross revenues grow less than 5% every year, the owners actually get a relatively smaller portion of the pie. But to expect continuous 8% growth in the NFL and then the players basing their salary demands on that number quite frankly is foolhardy. The NFL owners understand this quite clearly and are making their stand because of it.

Um since the employees and employers entered into a CBA?

 

You keep 1) trying to compare this to a normal job and 2) do seem to continually imply that there is a price at which an employed man should shut up and be happy but that there is no such price for a man in business. Why is that?

 

Listen, the players are bargaining from a stronger position that most labor forces, that's why they negotiated a cut of the revenues as opposed to just be happy with what the owners are willing to pay them. And, regardless of whether you think they deserve it, the owners did. That's why they signed the deal years ago. It seems like they think the deal the players got in '06 was too good, but that doesn't change the fact that they've openly entered into a labor relation far different than any normal guy would ever be fortunate enough to get with his employer.

 

Now, I've contended in nearly every post I've written on the subject that, for all any of us know, the recently expired deal may not be at all fair or sustainable for the league. If that's the case, that's the case. And if that's the case, I hope the owners win this conflict. I have never implied otherwise but always left it at, none of us here arguing can truly know either way. We can pretend to, but none of us know. We can be pro-player or pro-owner, but that's it.

 

And, by the way, you still won't admit that this is about the owners trying to take a bigger piece of the pie. But that is the argument. Right after you said it wasn't, you simply gave an argument for why they should be able to take a bigger cut if they want. That, my friend, is an argument for why the should get a bigger piece. Congratulations for joining what the discussion should be about. I take that as an admission that you're done pretending the owners aren't trying to increase their cut at the expense of the players cut.

[NAUgrad]

No, it shouldn't. That's irrelevant, but you somehow can't seem to grasp that simple concept. Since when is employee compensation mandated exclusively by what margin the owners of a company get? The employees should be worried only about what kind of deal they are getting - and being guaranteed 5% raises in thier cumulative salaries every year along with more generous benefits and less working days should be considered nothing less than extremely lucrative.

 

That the owners might - and again, given the economic conditions that will control net revenues and the rising costs of doing buisiness in this country, nothing is anywhere close to certain - net out of the deal should not affect the players' bargaining positions. If the gross revenues grow less than 5% every year, the owners actually get a relatively smaller portion of the pie. But to expect continuous 8% growth in the NFL and then the players basing their salary demands on that number quite frankly is foolhardy. The NFL owners understand this quite clearly and are making their stand because of it.

I don't know why any real or normal business environment is ever remotely brought up in conversation when talking about the NFL. It's not even close to the same thing. There is absolutely no comparison that makes any sense what so ever. The reality is that in the real world, everyone is replaceable. Period. Sales people, CEO's, everyone. The company's products and services are what's sold. So of course management can raise goals without raising compensation, or decide to cut pay and not worry about any ramifications.

 

The NFL is completely and totally different. The product is the players. The players need owners as much as owners need the players. This is incredibly simple.

 

Your point about a guaranteed percentage increase brings up a few questions. My understanding was that players where making more money because revenues were increasing. Not because they were guaranteed a certain percentage of the pie. So if the players want to stay as is, they the amount of money available to the players will increase or decrease depending on revenue. But now the owners want a specified percentage increase for the players each year? Why? Do you think they would offer a specific percentage if they thought revenue would go down? Of course not?

 

All of this is about the owners keeping a larger piece of the pie. Nothing more. It is all about money. It's not about mandated training camps, or anything else. It's only about money and what percentage each gets.

[Bronco Billy]

The NFL is completely and totally different. The product is the players. The players need owners as much as owners need the players. This is incredibly simple.

 

That doesn't preclude that the NFL is a business, and these are negotiations between owners and employees. That is the bottom line. To think otherwise is fabricating something that doesn't exist. But it does hit the NFLPA talking points.

 

That the employees are so valuable goes to their wage structure. That's why a 7th round draft pick gets a $2M/4 yr contract.

 

In any case, player expectations of revenue appear to be well out of line with reality - hence the problem.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[flemingd]

With all due respect, using $ amounts has the same agenda and that's exactly what the pro-owner side is doing when they focus on the fact that the players are making more money, despite the fact that the owners want to take a larger % of the revenues.

Which is why this is all irrelevant dribble. It's two sides doing what every single one of us would do given the chance - attempting to get the best deal for themselves. It's how business works and anything we hear about it is just spin. Neither side is "right" and neither side deserves sympathy or empathy. Everyone is making a Ginsuton of money and are just working on getting the biggest cut they can.

 

It's actually kind of insulting, each side is complaining to ME how they are going to split MY money.

[detlef]

That doesn't preclude that the NFL is a business, and these are negotiations between owners and employees. That is the bottom line. To think otherwise is fabricating something that doesn't exist. But it does hit the NFLPA talking points.

 

That the employees are so valuable goes to their wage structure. That's why a 7th round draft pick gets a $2M/4 yr contract.

 

In any case, player expectations of revenue appear to be well out of line with reality - hence the problem.

Then why did the NFL even agree to get into bed with the players via the CBA to begin with? Plus,the owners aren't trying to blow up the whole deal, they're just trying to shave some more off the top. Everything else is just window dressing.

 

And, again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to, but you seem to be saying that the players shouldn't be able to expect anything resembling what they've already been getting because it's an owners world.

 

Everything you say points to the fact that the players should be lucky they get anything and the owners should just take what they want and leave the rest, but even the owners realize that's not realistic. You're talking about the relationship like it's some pipe dream on the part of the players and yet it's a relationship that's been in play for some time and one that the owners are simply looking to tweak the numbers on.

 

But, again, by all accounts, the CBA seems to be about the owners taking a chunk off the top and the dividing the rest with the players. How do unrealistic expectations of what revenues are going to be have any effect. Whatever the numbers are, they are. It should be that simple. Everything I've read, from both sides, comes back to how much more money the owners want off the top. From there it comes down to why they want it or why they need it. And, again, if they need it, they need it. If they can convince the players they need it, even if they don't, good for them. But one thing that can't be denied is that the owners opted out of the CBA because they wanted to be able to take more off the top than they were getting and the argument has become what that number is going to be. They started with $1 Billion and it's moved from there. When the talks melted down it was because the owners and the players were still X dollars away on that number. The number above and beyond what the owners were getting off the top that they now want.

 

That is not necc. evil or wrong, but it is what it is.

[detlef]

Which is why this is all irrelevant dribble. It's two sides doing what every single one of us would do given the chance - attempting to get the best deal for themselves. It's how business works and anything we hear about it is just spin. Neither side is "right" and neither side deserves sympathy or empathy. Everyone is making a Ginsuton of money and are just working on getting the biggest cut they can.

 

It's actually kind of insulting, each side is complaining to ME how they are going to split MY money.

Yup.

[WaterMan]

Revenues go up because of the players anyways.

[bpwallace49]

Then why did the NFL even agree to get into bed with the players via the CBA to begin with? Plus,the owners aren't trying to blow up the whole deal, they're just trying to shave some more off the top. Everything else is just window dressing.

 

And, again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to, but you seem to be saying that the players shouldn't be able to expect anything resembling what they've already been getting because it's an owners world.

 

Everything you say points to the fact that the players should be lucky they get anything and the owners should just take what they want and leave the rest, but even the owners realize that's not realistic. You're talking about the relationship like it's some pipe dream on the part of the players and yet it's a relationship that's been in play for some time and one that the owners are simply looking to tweak the numbers on.

 

But, again, by all accounts, the CBA seems to be about the owners taking a chunk off the top and the dividing the rest with the players. How do unrealistic expectations of what revenues are going to be have any effect. Whatever the numbers are, they are. It should be that simple. Everything I've read, from both sides, comes back to how much more money the owners want off the top. From there it comes down to why they want it or why they need it. And, again, if they need it, they need it. If they can convince the players they need it, even if they don't, good for them. But one thing that can't be denied is that the owners opted out of the CBA because they wanted to be able to take more off the top than they were getting and the argument has become what that number is going to be. They started with $1 Billion and it's moved from there. When the talks melted down it was because the owners and the players were still X dollars away on that number. The number above and beyond what the owners were getting off the top that they now want.

 

That is not necc. evil or wrong, but it is what it is.

 

Very well said.

[Bronco Billy]

Everything you say points to the fact that the players should be lucky they get anything and the owners should just take what they want and leave the rest, but even the owners realize that's not realistic. You're talking about the relationship like it's some pipe dream on the part of the players and yet it's a relationship that's been in play for some time and one that the owners are simply looking to tweak the numbers on.

 

That's not remotely what I said and would patently be poor business practice by the owners - something we know better given the state of the NFL.

 

I AM saying that the current proposed pay structure is a good deal for the players. They are being well compensated as it is right now, are guaranteed an annual 5% increment every year for the next 3 years regardless of what happens with revenues, and are getting better benefits and more days off than under the past agreement.

 

So, a locked-in-stone flat 5% increase per year insulated completely from future economic factors, better bennys, more days off. That's all on top of what they had already gained in the previous CBA extension, which was very player friendly - the current players don't give back a single penny from that deal.

 

I'm sorry that you feel that isn't to the players' benefits, but I'm missing how the players could reasonably expect more. This is almost what you could call a correction of the past extension.

[Bronco Billy]

Which is why this is all irrelevant dribble. It's two sides doing what every single one of us would do given the chance - attempting to get the best deal for themselves. It's how business works and anything we hear about it is just spin. Neither side is "right" and neither side deserves sympathy or empathy. Everyone is making a Ginsuton of money and are just working on getting the biggest cut they can.

 

It's actually kind of insulting, each side is complaining to ME how they are going to split MY money.

 

I can't argue with this one bit.