|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
....There is nothing to prove the NFL's business model is not healthy and cannot be sustained...
If the players union doesn't see the books, they won't know the income side and have no way of knowing how the bills relate to overall business model. It doesn't do much good to try to project the future trend on the negative side of the ledger if the players union can't see the positive side of the ledger and how the bills relate to the income.
Okay - that's your opinion.
Try this on for size: Since the players feel they don't make enough money and want to see the books.........how's about this: The nfl demands that they see the players personal books? Yup - the NFL gets to check the players income (which they already know), BUT, they also get to check every expenditure made by every player.
When they find frivolous expenditures they can factor that in to the pay they give the players.
Hows that sound to you?
The players want to see the teams books? Fine - the teams get to see the players income and expenditures. The teams have as much right to that as the union has to seeing the teams books. (and, since you won't catch it - that is NO right).
If the players don't like the risk/reward that playing in the nfl offers them, they are 100% free to choose another occupation. No one is forcing them to play football in the nfl.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
I'm not saying that the owners are blameless, or that everything is perfect in the players world ...... but when you look at health risks, pay rates, and the entire package ..... NFL players have it one helluva lot better than say miners, or laborers, or sweat shop workers ..... etc. Plus, they can be set for life after just a 3-5 year career ..... if they are smart about it.
I can agree with some of that. And I have no problem with the owners getting a return on their investment.
But unless you're a top15 pick you're not gonna be set for life after a 3 year NFL career. You might be well off for a few years afterward but set for life.....nope, I doubt it.
And can we stop with the comparisons with factory workers, or ditch diggers or whatever. The players are entertainers playing a game. They get paid what the market will bear. If 70,000 people wanted to watch you work you'd get paid like they do, too.
Do they get paid too much? By most standards, yes. But if the owners weren't making a profit they wouldn't be paying these types of salaries. It's really that simple.
I think the problem lies in the fact that some people on here and out in the real world actually think that if the owners break the union and drive salaries down that ticket prices and stadium vendor prices will be lowered. That line of thought is so stupid as to be laughable. But I've actually heard people say that. I mean, seriously, when was the last time any business the size of the NFL lowered prices for any reason other than lack of consumer demand? And there won't be a lack of demand for tickets, at least enough to effect a change in prices, any time in the foreseeable future.
Anyway, most of the rhetoric thrown around by both sides is posturing leading up to serious negotiations. They'll eventually settle on something both sides can swallow and claim victory with. They have to or the golden goose will die. It's just a matter of when.
I'm guessing about October 15th. Is there an over/under on this in Vegas? 
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
I think we need to remember that the actual pension money that the players get from the NFL pension fund is very very small. I want to say it's like $200/month for each year you played (with a small increase for each year after your first). So, it isn't like these guys, after they retire, get millions of dollars a year.
I agree with many of you that these guys need to have better spending habits and savings habits. If you gave me $1,000,000 right now, I probably wouldn't be able to just stop working (I'll be 32 this year), but I would be able to live a comfortable life, or retire much earlier than if I didn't have $1,000,000. But, my body hasn't been beaten up so badly that I probably won't be able to do much after I'm 35 or 40.
But, it's like I said before. This is $9,000,000,000 we're talking about. There's really not a way for these guys to figure out how to split that up so everyone gets a nice slice of the pie?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
I'm guessing about October 15th. Is there an over/under on this in Vegas?
We need a "Guess the day the new CBA is signed" thread in the tailgate. Just like the ones for picking the day the 1st round pick signs his contract in the past.
I'd probably pick a Aug-something.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
Since the players feel they don't make enough money and want to see the books...
They are not demanding MORE money. When will you get this through your head?
At this point they're just trying not to lose too big a chunk of what they've had.
The owners want them to take an 18-20% pay cut AND work two extra games. All they players want is the status quo. Unless they can see a need for the drastic reductions the owners are seeking.
And they're not gonna roll over and play dead just because that's what the owners say they need. Not unless they have some convincing evidence to the contrary. Which would be fairly easy to provide but the owners want to drag this out on the pretext of "poverty".
Sheesh....you make it sound like the players are asking for an 80-20 split. Just ain't true, dude.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545 |
Quote:
But unless you're a top15 pick you're not gonna be set for life after a 3 year NFL career. You might be well off for a few years afterward but set for life.....nope, I doubt it.
However, if you're not on the field enough to make any kind of impact, and a big contract, then you probably also are not taking the huge beating that some players take.
It's really a double edged sword.
Play well, make a lot of money, and probably break down physically over time.
Play poorly, make very good money for a short period of time, and be healthy for the rest of your life ..... but mismanage your money that you made during that short period of time and you wind up with nothing to show for your time in the league. (except a small pension, which is far more than most people get for 2-10 years worth of service to a company)
Man ... imagine if these guys just banked their first 3 years worth of salaries, bought a decent 4 bedroom house that they could pay off ..... and lived without blasting through their salary. These guys could enter the "real world" in their mid 20s with a nice bankroll and a home that is paid off. Look at how far ahead they could be of their classmates. Instead ... most are broke at age 27. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Instead ... most are broke at age 27.
Exactly - but some want us to believe this isn't the players fault.
Typical union stuff - pay me more than I'm worth simply because I belong to a union, then you also have to take care of me for the rest of my life and I don't need to save a penny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
I think we need to remember that the actual pension money that the players get from the NFL pension fund is very very small. I want to say it's like $200/month for each year you played (with a small increase for each year after your first). So, it isn't like these guys, after they retire, get millions of dollars a year.
Can you tell me where you got that 200 dollar a month figure???
(it's not even close to being correct)
The NFL's Post-Career Financial Plan
The NFL Players Association retirement plan package includes four plans:
1. Severance Pay Plan: A player with two credited NFL seasons (on the active roster, injured reserved or physically unable to perform list for three games in each of two seasons), receives $10,000 for every year played between 1993 and 1999 and $12,500 for every year from 2000 on.
2. Player Annuity Program: A player with four credited NFL seasons receives an annuity valued at $65,000 at age 35 or five years after his last credited season, whichever is later.
3. Second-Career Savings Plan or 401(K): A player with two credited seasons will receive a $2 match for every $1 contributed to the plan up to a maximum club contribution of $20,000 per year.
4. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle Retirement Plan (pension): A player with at least three credited seasons earns a benefit credit for every season he plays. The benefit credits add up to monthly pension checks that player receive starting at age 55.
For number 4, according to the most recent version of the CBA the benefit credit for each accrued season is 470 bucks.
If people would take the time to read the CBA you may be surprised at all of the benefits that the players are entitled to. Additionally, the largest portion of the CBA deals with Revenue and/or salary so that is what makes this such a sticky wicket.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Good information Shep,
A (4) year vested player 'today' would receive the following;
Severance Pay Plan:
4 x 12,500 = $50,000
Second-Career Savings Plan or 401(K): putting in $10,000 / year ($40,000) of their own money = $120,000.
Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle Retirement Plan (pension): 470 x 4 = $1,880/ month and $22,560 annually.
+ $65,000 annuity at age 55.
This is above and beyond social security.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 02/16/11 07:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I still maintain that the problem isn't that they don't make enough it's that they don't moderate their lifestyle, especially those making league minimum and/or those nearing retirement from football.
I won't say who but I follow a player on Twitter who is a reasonably well paid player in the prime of his career, certainly above league minimum but no where near an elite players salary... since the end of the season this player spent a week at the super bowl, a week in south florida, and recently 4 or 5 days in Vegas... where he tweeted once about being ahead almost $10K at the table...
Based on his salary now, he can afford to live like that, but when you consider he could be out of football in 4 or 5 years even if he doesn't get hurt... I have no idea how much he might have won or lost gambling but this is all money he could put away and worse yet, once he does retire, he might believe he is still entitled to live like this...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822 |
Quote:
Quote:
You do realize the profit the packers, or any team show isn't personal income for the owner, right??
So, pray tell, where does the profit go? After everyone is paid and all debts are settled the extra money goes.......?
I understand that the profits may go many places. But one of those places IS the owner's pocket.
C'mon, I can see you side with the owners and that's fine. But trying to get me to believe that these guys are just short of wondering where their next meal is coming from just isn't gonna fly.
It can go to the owners if it is claimed as income or bonus and the personal income tax is paid.
At that point it is taxed at a reduced corporate rate.
The money is used to expand, improve...those slick new uni's get paid for somehow....and used as a rainy day fund, and build corporate reserve.
Really Otto....if you think a billion dollar a year corporation starts it's year with a zero balance in the bank, you just aren't thinking because you know I don't think you are stupid like a few others around here.
Teams have to maintain a credit source with the banks.
If you are showing zero or low profit margin and a very low cash reserve, you aren't going to get much credit down at the bank if you really need that loan to keep things afloat.
A billion dollar a year business better show healthy reserves. It shows the bankers the owner is serious about the business and not in there simply to live the high life.
There are a lot of good reasons in the business world to use OPM...other peoples money....if it needed a explanation.
All business' need credit, as all hit a cash flow crunch from time to time.
I hope it doesn't take players checks bouncing or sending out notice checks will be withheld for a month or so until revenue starts to come in from game day sales before players get the message.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
LOL,, I don't claim to be a math whiz, but any of those plans pays way more than a couple of hundred bucks a month Good catch Shep
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Quote:
The owners want them to take an 18-20% pay cut AND work two extra games.
Again, I want to know if this is an actual cut in the salary they are recieving, or a cut in the increase of their salary. You make it sound as if a guy making $1 million a year, all of a sudden has to give up about 200 grand. If I'm not mistaken, it isn't about individual players pay, but the peice of the pie given to all the players.
Also, the "work two extra games " or as you put it earlier in the thread " two more weeks work" is just bogus. These guys are already at work during these weeks. It is just that instead of playing one series in the two weeks, they would have to play the whole game.
Your generalizations do nothing for your arguement.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Good catch Shep, thanks. I have no idea where I heard that 200 figure, but I'm glad I'm wrong. Seemed pretty crazy to me, too.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
Since the players feel they don't make enough money and want to see the books...
They are not demanding MORE money. When will you get this through your head?
At this point they're just trying not to lose too big a chunk of what they've had.
The owners want them to take an 18-20% pay cut AND work two extra games. All they players want is the status quo. Unless they can see a need for the drastic reductions the owners are seeking.
And they're not gonna roll over and play dead just because that's what the owners say they need. Not unless they have some convincing evidence to the contrary. Which would be fairly easy to provide but the owners want to drag this out on the pretext of "poverty".
Sheesh....you make it sound like the players are asking for an 80-20 split. Just ain't true, dude.
No. In all reality, I am not making it sound like the players want an 80-20 split.
The players do not have the ability or authority to demand to see the books. The do, however, have the ability to decide if they want to trade their services for the payment they will receive for doing so.
It's a fairly simple process. It's really no different than anyone else does. It's "I can do this job, for this amount of money, or I can choose to do a different job for a different amount of money."
It's actually really simple.
You must be a union guy - love getting those raises and being taken care of for life simply because you did the job you were hired to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
I'll start at the bottom.... Quote:
You must be a union guy - love getting those raises and being taken care of for life simply because you did the job you were hired to do.
I always love how you assume you know anything at all about me. Or anyone for that matter. Actually, I have been a salaried employee (read not hourly or union) for, well, forever. But I've seen what a vindictive manager can do to someone that is not protected by at least the minimal protections a union can bring to bear. (And before you go there, no it wasn't me.) So, yes, I sympathize with most union issues.
Quote:
The players do not have the ability or authority to demand to see the books.
Of course they don't have the "authority" to demand to see the books. Nor have they "demanded" any such thing. They do have the ability to ask to see them which is what they have done. Something that is quite reasonable if done in the right manner.
Quote:
No. In all reality, I am not making it sound like the players want an 80-20 split.
Well, yeah, you are. Although you've never actually said it you sure make it sound like you think the players are robbing the owners blind. Or at the very least trying to......
By the way, smart guy, the only person that has ever taken care of me is me. Well, at least for the last 38 years, give or take.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Let me see if I can explain this in a less general manner for you. The owners want an additional give back of roughly $1 billion off the top in addition to the $1 billion that they already receive off the top of the $9 billion pie. The players now receive roughly 57% of the $8 billion left of the pie. Which is not out of line with the other pro leagues. The NBA players get roughly 57% while the NHL players get close to 56%. Baseball players' share fluctuates from 50-60% depending on the year because they have no cap. The owners want to pare that back to somewhere in the range of 50%. Now, I can't say that any of that is totally unfair of the owners to bargain for. (If they were actually bargaining and not just barking at the players and questioning their intelligence). I also can't say that I'd just nod my head and say yes and give in automatically if I was a player. I doubt you would either. I trust that is un-general enough for you.....
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901 |
Well put Otto. I think the owners are bent on screwing the players. I'll blame them for sure if they cost me any actual football or even the quality of football. Then Union came out with a decent opener. The NFl has yet to actaully respond in any real way imo..they want a lockout. Basically re-write the rules. And for the folks comparing this to other business's..........it isn't. Let the NFL give up the anti trust exemption, and we'll see what happens. Until then they should have to show the Union (not all the players, or everyone or anyone not connected with the bargaining) the books to prove loss. Seems simple to me. Then they could work out something reasonable. I do think the players need to give some things up, but the owners are being crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030 |
Thanks otto and shep for at least bringing accurate information to this discussion. This thread had been reduced (unfortunately) to absolute mis-truths (the players want more money or the owners are going broke as examples)...............as well as heated rhetoric either for or against unions.
You guys seem to at least understand the complexity of this situation, and aren't trying to compare it to your factory job or some other overly simplistic model.
Ytown brought up the point earlier about all the money that the owners have to invest (from their take) to remain competitive both on the field and as a business. I whole heartedly agree with this, and am on the owners side on this issue. Fujita and some other guys made cracks about not paying for Jerry Jones new stadium, but I'm sure they won't mind splitting the extra revenue it will lead to in the next 5 years. Sixty percent of the split revenue is too high for salary. Do I think teams are going out of business anytime soon?? NOT A CHANCE. However, I do think that this does limit what types of investments (both on and off the field) small market teams like Buffalo and Cincy can do. The good news for the owners is they will win this one........the players union is the worst in pro sports.........they will cave on this.
Against logic,the most effective armor is willful ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
The players now receive roughly 57% of the $8 billion left of the pie.
Actually, they received 57% in the years 2006/2007.
In 2008/2009 they received 57.5%.
In 2010 they received 58% and would have as well this season had the CBA not been opted out of by the owners.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Numbers Show NFL’s ‘Economic Realities’ for Lockout Unwarranted
Forbes Sportsmoney Jan. 10 2011
As fans settle in for the stretch run of playoff games in the NFL, the most important date on their calendar shouldn’t be Super Bowl XLV on Feb 6, but less than a month after on March 3. That is when the current collective bargaining agreement in the NFL expires. Yes, fans could be looking at the league locking out the players in just over 7 weeks creating a work stoppage that, depending on how long it is, could possibly mean the cancellation of preseason games, at best and regular season games at worst.
The claim by the NFL is that if the players don’t reduce salaries and increase the amount they are providing in “expense credits” for expenditures such as stadium development, the league could see rocky times.
“Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well,” said Commissioner Goodell in a January letter to fans. “Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.”
But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.
What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?
The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.
That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?
The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.
Is the NFL profitable by other measures?
According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”
The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.
What are the owners looking for?
In terms of economics, a rookie wage scale and increased “expense credits”, both of which would reduce total revenues (the amount of revenues after the owners take their cut off the top before it gets to the players) by approx. 18 percent.
How much do the players currently take in?
Players receive approximately 50 percent of all revenues in the NFL. Looking at it another way, the players receive less than 60 percent of “Total Revenue” – the amount of revenues after the owners take expense credits off the top. (see a listing of All and “Total Revenue” in the NFL since 2000)
Have rookie wages grown?
Actually, the amount of rookie share of the salary cap has decreased since 1994:
■· 1994 (first capped year) – 6.86%
■· 1999 – 5.41%
■· 2003 – 4.94%
■· 2009 (last capped year) – 3.71%.
How much revenue is the NFL pulling in?
From 2005, the year before current CBA was reached, to 2009, revenues in the NFL have grown dramatically. From 2008 to 2009, during the chilly economy, revenues grew 9%. Going back to the key “All” and “Total” revenues, which is the revenues after the owners take their expense credit cut that is used to determine the salary cap, revenues for the salary cap, the numbers are as follows:
Year..(All) Rev (Billions)..% of increase..(Total) Rev (Billions)..% of increase..
2005........$6.5..............................................$6.0....................................
2006........$7.7.....................18%...................$7.0......................17%.......
2007........$8.0.......................4%...................$7.1.......................1%........
2008........$8.5.......................6%...................$7.5.......................6%........
* 2009......$9.3.......................9%..................$8.2........................9%........
* Calculated
All revenue increase from 2005 to 2009, 43%. Total revenue increase over same period37%
The owners are asking for increased expense credits, what do they pull in now?
Approx. $1 billion off the top before the calculations for the salary cap are made. The logic of expense credits is that in doing business activities such as building new stadiums, the increased revenues will trickle down to the players. The players have concerns about loopholes such as the league using the funds for travel expenses, which does not grow revenues. In terms of recent stadium construction, those expense credits have included $800 million to the new Meadowlands Stadium for the Jets and Giants, and $350 million to the new Cowboys Stadium.
Did Free Agent spending dramatically increase in the uncapped season?
In an uncapped season, there was concern that spending would go spinning wildly out of control. But, clubs in the NFL did the opposite, with spending on FAs growing at less than half the pace that it did in the last year of the capped season. Based on data as of Week 10, spending on free agents had grown 4.8 percent from the year prior. The following is a breakdown of free agent spending in the NFL as of Week 10 over the last three seasons:
YR Total Players Signed...TOTAL 1st YR $... % Increase... AVG FIRST YR..
........(UFA, RFA, OFA).............................................................................
2008...........374...............$708,878,082...............–...............$1,895,396
2009...........385...............$784,674,108...........10.70%..........$2,038,115
2010...........425...............$822,227,925............4.80%............$1,934,654
Has the economy impacted attendance?
Over the same number of home games (254), the NFL drew a total of 17,007,172 for the 2010 regular season. That was down 139,232 in paid attendance from 2009, less than one percent (-0.81%).
Have television blackouts increased or decreased over the current CBA?
There were just 7 blackouts in 2006, compared to 26 this year. The blackouts are tied to whether games are sold out. In an interview with Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, Commissioner Goodell said, “The quality of what people are seeing on television sets with high-definition television and super-slow replays, all of those things make the experience at home terrific. We don’t want to discourage that. We want to encourage that, but what we have to do is make sure that the experience in our stadiums is equally as great. There is nothing like being in a stadium with 75,000 passionate fans enjoying NFL football.”
How does television play into any lockout?
The largest factor in a possible lockout stems from how the NFL’s agreements with their network partners are worded. The NFL would get still get paid for the TV rights, regardless if games are played.
Annually, the NFL pulls in more than $4 billion in television network rights fees (see table below). For all of the network partners, they have agreements in place with the league in which the NFL would be paid these fees, even if games are not played. Roger Goodell has said that the league will have to rebate the networks, with interest, when play resumes, but that’s only half true. The DirecTV fees for NFL Sunday Ticket, which are now almost $1 billion, would not have to be returned.
Network Annual Rights Fee
ESPN .............$1,100,000,000
FOX ................$720,000,000
CBS ................$620,000,000
NBC ................$603,000,000
* DirecTV .........$1,000,000,000
TOTAL .............$4,043,000,000
* Approximate
Is ESPN looking to extend their agreement for Monday Night Football?
John Ourand of the SportsBusiness Journal reported last week that, even on the edge of a work stoppage in the NFL, ESPN, the ABC-owned network, is willing to pay considerably more than they already do for the rights to keep Monday Night Football. According to the SBJ:
ESPN and the NFL have agreed to broad terms on a new media rights deal that will be worth nearly $2 billion per year. Specific numbers still are difficult to confirm, but multiple sources say ESPN has told the NFL that it will increase its annual rights fee by 65% to 70%%, which means it will pay the league a record fee, between $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion a year.
How have television ratings been?
Extraordinary. Nothing comes close to the league’s popularity on television. The NFL have 18 of the 20 highest rated shows during the NFL season. According to a Dec. 19 article in The New York Times, “Of the 50 highest-rated programs during the calendar year, 27 have been N.F.L. games, including 8 of the top 10.” And looking at this New York Times graphic, Sunday Night Football ratings have skyrocketed since 2008.
Are any other business partners reaching lucrative deals with the NFL?
In May of last year, Anheuser-Busch knocked Coors out as the Official Beer of the NFL in a six-year, $1.2 billion deal that begins in 2011, the year there could be a lockout.
What are the players looking for?
Nothing. Technically, they are seeking an extension of the current CBA reached in 2006. To date, the owners have rejected the proposal 5 times.
Are the players willing to bend on any issues?
Yes. The NFLPA proposed changes to the rookie wage scale that has been in the works for over a year. The union for the players offered up what they call a “Proven Performance Plan”. The proposal would reduce rookie contract lengths to a max of 3 years. According to the NFLPA, that would reduce spending on rookie salary by approx. $200 million. The proposal would then take those savings and divert $150 million to players who signed relatively low contracts either as rookies or veterans, but whose performance has been much greater. The rest of the balance (approx. $50 million) would be devoted to a fund for new retired player benefits. The proposal is also seeking the league to match those funds creating a $100 million pool for retired player benefits.
Did the league accept the “Proven Performance Plan”?
Since the Players’ proposal does not reflect the savings on the reduced length of player contracts coming back to the owners, unsurprisingly, the owners rejected the proposal.
Would the players have benefits in the event of a lockout?
No. Medical insurance and other benefits would not be provided to the players as they are tied to CBA. In fact, each of the NFL’s 32 clubs is saving millions in this uncapped year. According to a Q&A released by the NFL in 2010, “The union agreed that in the Final League Year, clubs would be relieved of their obligation to fund numerous benefit programs. Examples include second career savings (401K), player annuity, severance pay and performance-based pay. The total league-wide contributions to such plans in 2009, the last capped year, were in excess of $325 million or more than $10 million per club.”
Do the players have any weapons to try and fight back?
They do, but it’s certainly not full-proof, and fraught with risk. The NFLPA has said that they are considering decertification. That would mean the union for the players would dissolve becoming, ostensibly, a trade organization. Based upon anti-trust law if the NFL clubs, acting as 32 individual businesses, were to attempt to do so, it would be a group boycott of the workers which is illegal.
The NFLPA did this 1989 only to reform as a union in 1993. The NFL would claim through the courts that the new move to decertify is a sham based upon the actions that the NFLPA did prior. It also could mean that a new union could be formed while the current one is dissolved setting up a possible power struggle with the players.
If decertification were to be used, it would likely be a trump card – something that would be acted upon very close to the March 3 deadline
Most of this looks like it shows the NFL doing better, rather than worse, why are the owners looking to a possible lockout?
The NFL could make a compelling case that they are in need of cutting salaries for the players, but as mentioned, they are not releasing financial information, so what is provided paints the picture. If the picture is indeed correct (and unless the NFL is willing to show otherwise, it is as it is), then one could suggest that opportunity is at the center of it. With the television money being so lucrative, the fact that they get paid those rights fees, even if games aren’t played, on top of keeping approx. $1 billion in DirecTV money, then clawing back to where the owners were before the 2006 agreement was reached is a tempting proposition. After all, with the economy just now starting to thaw, it’s easy to say that the NFL is hurting like everyone else, even if they league isn’t presenting compelling figures.
And while the NFL will say that they have to pay the television money back, in the battle of attrition, the owners can clearly outlast the players. If so, the owners will make back part of what they have to pay back through savings on player payroll.
And all of this doesn’t account for other issues the owners are asking for including an 18 game schedule, and possible hGH testing as part of the drug policy. On the 18 game schedule, the players would incur more injuries, which, unless the league is willing to add more money in the way of benefits, is a key concern for the players.
Lastly, there are the fans, who are stuck in the neutral zone of this goal line stance. The owners appear to be willing to sacrifice games while seeing incredible revenues, ratings, and sponsorship deals reached over the life of the current CBA. The players have been asked to take a cut. As you look back over the numbers above, ask yourself if your company was thriving in this economy, and then asked you to take an 18 percent pay cut, how would you react? What the NFLPA is asking seems reasonable in light of what the owners are asking: show us your books and prove it.
When will there be a new CBA?
This is the $64,000 question. What seems clear is no agreement will be reached in time for the Super Bowl. The sides have had discussions, but they have not been of the “meaningful” variety. Real movement in labor negotiations occur the closer one gets to the deadline. The period from after the Super Bowl to the expiration date on the CBA will be telling, especially the week beginning Feb. 28 leading up to March 3rd on a Thursday.
web page
Last edited by mac; 02/17/11 08:03 AM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Antitrust may not be an elephant in NFL’s ‘golden goose’ roomNational Football League players could come up with some antitrust challenges to NFL owners -- including the Arizona Cardinals’ Bidwill family -- if a new collective bargaining agreement isn’t forged by March 4. But sports business attorneys aren’t sure an antitrust push from players — or other parties — will happen with any real substance and juice behind it. The NFL Players Association has already filed some antitrust grievances as part of labor negotiations with owners -- and the existing CBA reduces NFL owners’ ability to claim antitrust exemptions if that labor agreement runs out in March. The CBA includes language that says owners will not try to claim antitrust exemptions if the players bring certain actions against the league. The NFL enjoys some antitrust exemptions, but it is not considered one entity by the federal courts. A 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows the NFL and its teams to make some collective business decision, but the NFL is still considered to be 32 different businesses when it comes to commercial transactions and other decisions. Major League Baseball, in contrast, enjoys a broader antitrust exemption.If a new CBA can’t be forged, the football players union could challenge the owners on various antitrust grounds related to contracts and player transactions. Likewise, vendors could do the same regardless of the CBA status. Gregg Clifton, a sports business attorney with Jackson Lewis LLP, isn’t sure what players could gain from that in the long term if an antitrust suit eliminates things like a salary cap. Clifton said the challenge for the players union is that the league, its teams and the players are making so much money now that no one wants upset that apple cart. “The players want the status quo,” he said. The same goes for vendors, sponsors and media networks that carry the games. There’s also so much money being made right now that businesses and others who are benefiting -- or may benefit in the future -- from the NFL’s television ratings and revenue streams aren’t ready to challenge the “golden goose.” The players union has been calling for the NFL to disclose more financial information as part of CBA discussions. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday that wasn’t happening. He said the owners have shared enough information with players, and such calls are just public relations moves. The NFL and its teams are private businesses, so their financial status is always somewhat under wraps. But Forbes magazine estimates the Cardinals are worth $919 million, with $236 million in annual revenue. The Dallas Cowboys are the most valuable team on the Forbes list, at $1.8 billion. Goodell said Friday that he wants to get a CBA done with players before the March deadline, and he’s sensitive to what a prolonged lockout might do to the popularity of the sport. “I don’t think we are immune from that,” he said in Dallas, where the Super Bowl will be played on Sunday. Cardinals President Michael Bidwill mailed a letter to season-ticket holders Jan. 26 emphasizing his support for the ownership’s positions in favor of an 18-game schedule and a rookie salary cap. Bidwill also wrote of the team’s sensitivity to its fans regarding both the CBA and its disappointing 5-11 season. http://www.bizjournals.com/mobile/phoeni...nt-in-room.html
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
j/c, as a general reply about the subject,....
The argument(s) about players not taking care of themselves financially after football is null and void. They have the ability to get a job, just like the rest of us do, and did, after going to college, serving in the military, and/or accepting work on the Ford line after high school. I have no empathy there, considering the resources available to them in their careers,...CHOSEN career, by the way.
While I generally side with the Owners, greed is a two-way street. If they hadn't taken the risk to spend so much on player salaries in the first place, maybe they wouldn't need to have an 18 game schedule. There is, in my opinion, a point where the 3-dimensional graph shows that (1) lines of games played (2) football performance, and (3) increased revenue,... will force a negative return, or hit a ceiling -- and it ain't made of glass.
The players have no business looking at the books. Most of them are already way overpaid for the amount of effort they exert, relative to the performance they display.
I see no reason either the League or the NFLPA should be asking for help from the National Labor Relations Board.
It's just a game, and can be played by countless others. I for one, will watch replacement players play it.
Arguing over peanuts.
Just some random time bombs ticking here,...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
It's just a game, and can be played by countless others. I for one, will watch replacement players play it.
I agree here. And have seen in here several posts about the drop off in talent exists or doesn't exist.
I think if you have #1's starting against #3's then yes you see a difference, but if all the players are locked out and you get replacement players, then it evens out and you will have #3's against #3s, and for all intents and purposes you will not notice much difference in games at that point other than maybe fewer "highlight" reel plays.
The game doesn't require the best against the best to be entertaining, it only requires similar talent on both sides.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 02/17/11 11:21 AM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
Totally agree. I root for the orange helmet....no matter who's wearing it. (I'd draw the line at a rapist, though). Sure, I have favorite players, but if they leave I'll root for their replacement and not look back. Same with the coaches.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
While I generally side with the Owners, greed is a two-way street. If they hadn't taken the risk to spend so much on player salaries in the first place, maybe they wouldn't need to have an 18 game schedule.
If the owners are not happy about the salaries players are making...they need to stand in front of mirror pointing their finger at the person in the mirror.
On the 18 game schedule, that issue might work in the Union's favor as a bargaining chip, but there will be more injuries and greater risk of injury so the owners will need to deal with the issues that come with the extra games.
A better option, IMO, would be to expand the playoffs to include more teams and add another playoff round.
A specific issue concerning the playoffs that needs to be addressed, IMO...those teams that fail to make the wild card round, but have records equal to the wild card teams.
Example...the Gaints and Bucs both had 10-6 records, same record as the Packers...and did not make the playoffs.
I believe the NFL is looking to expand the number of teams in the league, which will also support the need for another playoff round and include more teams in the playoffs.
The NFL gets more games, but more meanful games than just expanding the regular season from 16 to 18 games.
This just a general outline on expanding the playoffs vs the 18 game schedule.
Quote:
The players have no business looking at the books.
orah...if the owners are going to plead poverty they need to back it up with numbers, not words.
The owners know what the books of the NFLPA and each player looks like but are not willing to open up their books, to show how much they are losing...OH, WAIT...the owners are not losing money, they just are not making as much as they would like.
Truth be known, just from the Forbes article above, we get an idea what the income trend is for the NFL and that trend is upward. Chances are the Union has a pretty good idea what most of the numbers are, but it is an issue with which the Union can use in their favor during negotiations.
Quote:
Most of them are already way overpaid for the amount of effort they exert, relative to the performance they display.
oorah...your opinion...but again, who negotiates and agrees to the terms and dollar amounts in the player's contract?...
Quote:
It's just a game, and can be played by countless others. I for one, will watch replacement players play it.
Clearly more than just a game...or there would be no need to negotiate a contract.
It's a business where the owners are making money and the players are doing well, too. Football is the most popular sport in the USA and fans can't get enough of it.
Putting scab players on the field will not work...fans want to see their players perform. I know people who are not fans of the Colts but want to see every game they can, for one reason...they want to see Peyton Manning play, not a scab QB...
...jmho
Last edited by mac; 02/17/11 12:37 PM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
orah...if the owners are going to plead poverty they need to back it up with numbers, not words.
The owners know what the books of the NFLPA and each player looks like but are not willing to open up their books, to show how much they are losing...OH, WAIT...the owners are not losing money, they just are not making as much as they would like.
OH WAIT... The players earnings are known by the owners, and more or less the owners earnings are known, what neither knows is the expenses each incurs in any given year. That goes both ways.
If the players are going to cry they deserve more, then they should all be willing to present their finances for audit as well.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
You clearly don't have a clue....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
j/c I dunno what all you people are talking about... I'm in year 10 of my Franchise on Madden, and I'm over a Billion dollars in profits... Going broke my butt... 
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
If the players are going to cry they deserve more, then they should all be willing to present their finances for audit as well.
florfan...OH WAIT...are the players crying they want more?
NOPE...NOT TRUE...
florfan...at least educate yourself on the basic issues.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
You clearly don't have a clue....
Daman...you seem to be targeting "me"...not the issues.
Anyone looking at your responses can see, who doesn't have a clue.
BTW, did you see "jmho"?
You want to come after me...go for it.
I'm not attacking you...I'm just kicking around the issues, trying to add fact (via articles) to the discussion...
NOW, WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR FRIGGIN PROBLEM, DAMAN?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
Putting scab players on the field will not work...fans want to see their players perform. I know people who are not fans of the Colts but want to see every game they can, for one reason...they want to see Peyton Manning play, not a scab QB...
I agree to a certain point, but if the entire league goes with replacement players, then heroes will emerge from that group. The longer it goes on, the more likely it is that the "regulars" want to come back. Especially if they see the league is still selling tickets and still being popular.
Hell, I loved to watch Bernie Kosar, Webster Slaughter, Clay Matthews and others. Eventually, every player leaves the game (even Brett Favre), so as a fan you get used to it. If Peyton Manning is out because of replacement players, it's the same (on the field) as if he's out due to retirement - he's not playing in either case.
I'm not saying replacement players will be as good as the current starters, but there WILL be players willing to take those jobs for the money the owners are offering, and that is why the owners have the leverage.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Good post,... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Lockout = No Replacement Players
Strike = Replacement Players
Right?
Are the Owners trying to set the Union up to make them strike?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
cbfan...tell us how well scab football has worked for the NFL in the past.
Fans will watch college ball or nascar but they won't watch poor quality semi pro ball played with players who have little chance of ever playing at the NFL level, imo.
Look it up...tell us how successful scab football has been in tÓe past.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
If the players are going to cry they deserve more, then they should all be willing to present their finances for audit as well.
florfan...OH WAIT...are the players crying they want more?
NOPE...NOT TRUE...
florfan...at least educate yourself on the basic issues.
ma... excuse me, you are correct I used incorrect verbiage. The players are crying they want more than the owners are offering.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Quote:
cbfan...tell us how well scab football has worked for the NFL in the past.
Fans will watch college ball or nascar but they won't watch poor quality semi pro ball played with players who have little chance of ever playing at the NFL level, imo.
Look it up...tell us how successful scab football has been in the past.
What's the difference between "Scab Football" and 90% of what The Browns, Lions, Cardinals, and Bills have trotted out on the field the past 10 years?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
You clearly don't have a clue....
Daman...you seem to be targeting "me"...not the issues.
Anyone looking at your responses can see, who doesn't have a clue.
BTW, did you see "jmho"?
You want to come after me...go for it.
I'm not attacking you...I'm just kicking around the issues, trying to add fact (via articles) to the discussion...
NOW, WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR FRIGGIN PROBLEM, DAMAN?
You sir are a waste of time....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
Lockout = No Replacement Players
Strike = Replacement Players
Right?
Are the Owners trying to set the Union up to make them strike?
You're right, but I was relating to Mac's post above about replacement players. I don't believe there will be any football with a lockout, but I could be wrong.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
cbfan...tell us how well scab football has worked for the NFL in the past.
Fans will watch college ball or nascar but they won't watch poor quality semi pro ball played with players who have little chance of ever playing at the NFL level, imo.
Look it up...tell us how successful scab football has been in the past.
Well, Mac, it's worked out pretty well for the owners, as in each case the players eventually crossed and football survived. That was the point of my post about the leverage that the owners hold.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement Part Deux
|
|
