Blood From A Stone? NFL Owners Cry Poor, Players Cry Foul, And Fans Stand Anywhere But The Sidelines
Everyone is well aware of the looming strike that could occur at the end of the current season, and while most of us are extremely happy and enjoying the game of football for the first time in months, there have been very few signs of progress in any way, shape, or form towards a new agreement. There are a few things to keep in mind when thinking about the issues at hand in this discussion. This is in large part millionaires fighting with billionaires over more money than most people will see in a lifetime. However, the agreement that is eventually reached is definitely going to affect the fans, and more likely than not will have a much greater effect on the lower echelon of players and us than it is on the owners or the Lance Briggs/Jay Cutler's of the football world.
Follow me below the fold where I'll take a quick look at some of the facts of matter, and things to keep in mind during the coming season. I'll also take a small moment to share exactly how I feel on the matter.
It's too late to go back now, and the posturing is much more than posturing at this point. Knives are being drawn, and plans are being made in the event a deal cannot be reached. The first thing we'll take a look at is what that will mean for the standard off-season time-line.
First things first, even if the NFL owners declare a lock-out there will definitely be an NFL draft in 2011. This is something very important to consider, and not without its own caveats and issues. If you want to follow along in your program, the pertinent info is found as part of Article XVI under the heading College Draft in the CBA. The important parts are as follows.
Section 1. Time of Draft: There shall be an Annual Selection Meeting (the
"College Draft" or "Draft") each League Year during the term of this Agree-
ment and in the League Year immediately following the expiration or ter-
mination of this Agreement, with respect to which the following rules shall
apply:
This is basically what establishes that we're having a draft next year, even if we don't have an actual season. Even though the CBA will be effectively terminated at this point, it'll be the League Year immediately following the termination so the college players will be able to be drafted, even if they don't have anywhere to go.
Section 3. Required Tender: A Club that drafts a player shall be deemed to
have automatically tendered the player a one year NFL Player Contract for
the Minimum Active/Inactive List Salary then applicable to the player pur-
suant to the terms of this Agreement. The NFL or the Club shall provide
the player with notice of such Required Tender before or immediately fol-
lowing the Draft.
The grey area begins here, because technically the CBA will be terminated at this point so a lot of the things that the CBA specifies, like minimum contacts and such really won't matter a lot, or be anything close to enforceable. The standard gentleman's agreement between owners will likely apply at this point, so what the CBA doesn't cover, you can fully expect to be left to languish and stay the same because the union will be more focused on the CBA than individual player issues. One final excerpt from this section is very important in regards to the draft:
Section 5. Other Professional Teams:
(a) Notwithstanding Section 4(b) above, if a player is drafted by a
Club and, during the period between the Draft and the next annual Draft,
signs a contract with, plays for or is employed by a professional football
team not in the NFL during all or any part of the 12 month period follow-
ing the initial Draft, then the drafting Club (or any assignee Club) shall re-
tain the exclusive NFL rights to negotiate for and sign a contract with the
player until the day of the Draft three (3) League Years after the initial Draft.
Just to clarify, a league year runs from March 1st to the end of February with the NFL season having zero bearing, so basically they'll have locked up rights on an NFL level for three years, and there is no way, even if a lock out occurs, that it'll be lasting three years. So whoever a team drafts will still be their player even if the game isn't until two years later.
So a draft will happen, what else will occur? Well, the union is almost certain to decertify itself, which means the union theatrically commits seppuku so that it's ghost may sue like there is no tomorrow. Less theatrically, it basically means the NFLPA will no longer be the union that represents the players. Since the players are no longer represented by the union, when the NFL applies the same rules regarding players to all 32 teams, the players, which are basically the union, can then sue under anti-trust laws. In other words, the lawyers get to have fun cleaning up a massive mess, but on the upshot there is probably a 70/30 chance that you'd see football while the lawyers sorted everything out. This basic idea happened before, and it's very similar to what happened in 1987. You may remember this as the time that Sean Payton was a Chicago Bear.
So we've now established what's going to happen if both sides keep facing each other, revving their engines, and letting off the parking break ever so slowly. Now let's take a quick look at why they're actually doing this. First up on the hit parade is Roger Goodell:
"We have guaranteed three more years of NFL football," commissioner Roger Goodell said after the owners used the opt-out clause built into the agreement signed more than two years ago. "We are not in dire straits. We've never said that. But the agreement isn't working, and we're looking to get a more fair and equitable deal." - ESPN
What does he mean by more fair and equitable deal? If one side says the deal isn't fair it's because they want more of the pie. It's as simple as that. It's all about money, and the owners in the NFL think they aren't making enough, the players are making too much, and the risk isn't shared evenly enough.
Goodell's e-mail listed three reasons for the early termination: high labor costs, problems with the rookie pool and the league's inability, through the interpretation of the courts, to recoup bonuses of players who subsequently breach their contract or refuse to perform. - ESPN
Now, we can all look at this and agree with a lot of what is being said. Rookie contracts are currently extremely out of wack, and the union has already said they'd be willing to negotiate on the front. It's a non-issue for all parties as the players already in the union are the same players that would stand to make more money, so of course they are for something akin to a rookie cap.
The inability to recoup large portions of their bonus money is as close to a non-starter as you'll find, even though it sounds incredibly reasonable at face value. The only guaranteed part of an NFL contract is the guaranteed money paid in the form of bonuses. Again, just to emphasize, the only guaranteed part of an NFL contract is the guaranteed money paid in the form of bonuses. To allow owners to take away guaranteed money for any of a laundry list of reasons would basically un-guarantee guaranteed money, and that's exactly what the owners are looking for. If they weren't, this wouldn't be a point of contention. The NFL has already been able to recoup some small parts of various bonuses over the years, but has always failed at taking the lion's share of them any time it's went into the court system so this is about a blatant grab for power as you're going to find in contract negotiations.
The best is left for last, and that's the league's complete and utter tone deaf declaration about labor costs. You can dress it up with fancy words all you would like, but at the end of the day the league is saying that the players make too much money. Their slice of the pie is too big, even if the league is built on the backs of these guys. I'm not going to get into a huge numbers argument, but that's only because the NFL refuses to release their numbers - which is the largest point of contention between the union and the NFL. The NFL has basically played extremely loose with their financial reporting over the years, and a lot of what exists has to be reconstructed, but the long and short of it is that the NFL players salaries currently float somewhere just over 50% of league revenue. The sounds reasonable to both myself, the union, and the majority of fans. However, the NFL has basically come out said that their salaries are outstripping the profits the league is generating.
Think about that for a second, in more personal terms. You go to work every day for a small company that designs websites. There are two people in this company, the owner and the website designer. The company charges $100 a website, and the owner gives you half of the $100. That sounds like a fairly equitable arrangement, especially if that is what was agreed upon. Now then, let's say another arrangement is made where the owner takes $20 off the top to pay for expenses related to finding the business, but then gives you 40$, and takes $40 for himself. Again, if this is the arrangement you made with the owner, it still seems fairly equitable. This is fairly close to the current labor agreement. Now, in the second arrangement, one day the owner comes in and says "Sorry Staley, you're making way too much money compared to what we're bringing in. I'm going to have to ask you to take $25 instead of $40." if you're like most people you would want to know what happened, and why the previous arrangement is no longer working. That's basically what the union has done, and asked for. They've asked to see the numbers, if the situation is different as claimed by the NFL then they want to see proof of that. They want to see the financial data for the NFL since the NFL is claiming that labor costs are outstripping growth. The NFL has stonewalled and basically said it's never going to happen.
This is where the final point of contention really takes a life of its own, and has somewhat been a trojan horse of sorts made to make the players look bad in the eyes of fans. We, as fans, love football. A good majority of people would love to see more football each year. Even more fans would prefer to see more real football over pre-season games. I mean, those lucky enough to have season tickets would love to stop getting gouged for meaningless pre-season games. So it sounds like a great idea to add more games, right? This is where the NFL is playing numbers games, while at the same time trying to win the hearts and minds of the public. To use our previous example, our boss now says to Staley, "It's okay Staley, we're going to pump out a few more websites a week so you'll still get the same paycheck at the end of the month. In fact, we might even be able to raise your rate back up to $30 so you'll have an even larger check than you did before!" That may look okay at first glance, but upon further study it's easy to see that Staley would be working longer hours for a smaller part of the pie, and doing so without ever seeing proof of the financial difficulties claimed in the first place.
We can talk about financial risks until we're blue in the face, but the actual risks are without question the ones made by the players on the field. Every single time a cleat goes into the turf there is a very real risk that their ACL could tear, that their days of earning in the NFL would be instantly over. They may receive an injury settlement, but it's usually the guaranteed money that sets them up for life after football. This isn't even mentioning the long term health risks that thousands of players have not just been at risk for, but actually experienced. Players who have psychotic breaks from brain damage over the years, guys in the 40's who can't get out of bed without taking pain killers due to the progressive joint damage experienced over their career, and much, much more. The early days of the NFL are long since gone, and the chances of franchises ever going belly up died about the same time the MLB decided to strike in the 90's and passed the mantle of national pastime over to the NFL. So if we're going to talk about risk, and value, and everything in between, let's not pretend that the NFL is undertaking that much financial risk anymore, and let's not pretend that these players aren't sacrificing, no matter the number of zeros on their paycheck.
---
Now, I said I'd give my feelings on the matter and I will. I'll try to keep it short since I've already bored you all with the minutia more than I'd care to, but not more than I could have.
---
The reason the NFL is crying poor, and the reason they are securing massive five billion dollar TV deals, and why they opted out of the CBA in the first place, all boils down to the same thing. The vines are withering faster than they can be regrown. What are the vines? They aren't interest in the sport, as that's growing every single year. They aren't revenue from things like jerseys, attire, and other accoutrement. What is dying is the average fan's interest in going anywhere closer to the stadium than the tailgating area.
We, as Bears fans, take Soldier Field for granted more often than not. For all of its terrible field conditions, extremely cold weather, often uncomfortable seating, and any of a long laundry list of complaints, it's still the battlefield that we most closely associate with our Chicago Bears. It's as much a part of the Chicago Bears as Brian Urlacher, or dare I even say, Mike Ditka. We are the fans among fans, we are the people that will go out in negative wind chill with the snow swirling and sit there with our blue and orange parkas on and enjoy a great game of football. Hell, one of the reasons we share such an epic rivalry with the Green Bay Packers is that while we may be hated rivals there is a deep seated respect for the fan on the other side of that coin. Most teams don't have that, in fact, a lot of teams don't have that.
Do you think Tennessee Titans fans could care less about L.P. Field? Hint: If Soldier Field flooded the way L.P. Field did this past spring you likely would have seen newspaper editorials about how horrible it was for such a landmark to be damaged that way. It wouldn't be out of the question to see fans try to save as much of the original building as possible if it would come to that. Soldier Field is the home away from home and our season ticket waiting list, much like the Packers list, shows that as a cold hard fact. Meanwhile, across the division, the Minnisota Vikings basically had to paper a playoff game, and the Detroit Lions are more likely to have a game blacked out, than to actually win one.
I'm not blasting the fans that these teams have, because they have their die hards as well. However, the same culture doesn't exist for every team, even long standing teams, and the times they are a-changing.
This isn't the 1980's and I'm pretty sure no one except the NFL office is mistaking it as such. The best seat in the house is no longer the 50 yard line, it's on a couch in front of a 50 inch HD set with surround sound. For the cost of a couple of aforementioned great tickets along with the parking costs, and refreshments, not to even mention the flight costs for us out of towners, you could make a huge dent in a set up that would not only rival the views you'd get in the stadium, but outright obliterate them. It's not just the views that suffer in the stadium, but the stadium experience has went from a great day out at most places, to essentially the uglier, nastier version of college games.
For those who haven't had the pleasure to hear the stories, simply look at the crowds in lots of these games. Huge portions of the crowds are absolutely hammered even before the gates open, and it isn't the frat boys that are overindulging, but their older and supposedly wiser brethren. Sadly, these drunken idiots are known to spew more invective and foul language than a Cubs fan in a playoff game, and while they've paid for the seats fair and square, to say that most NFL stadiums aren't a family environment may be the understatement of the year.
The cost to fans to go enjoy a game in the stadium has outstripped the fans ability to pay, even under better economic conditions. The environment in most stadiums has devolved to the point that you've alienated large portions of your rabid fan base. The home theater has outstripped the stadium as the place to see most teams in the league. So, if the NFL wants to go hunting for money and goes after the players for it, I'm going to take the side of the players because they sure aren't my enemy, and the NFL has already proven time and again that they sure aren't my friend.
41 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very nice post, appreciate the effort put into it
Will be interesting to see how many, if any, players sign contracts with UFL teams next fall (Assuming the lockout lasts that long). Obviously, they won’t pay as well as the NFL, but could be a great way for the players to show the NFL they have other options. Given a quick influx of talent, the UFL could garner legitimacy pretty quickly and drive up franchise values over the course of a year or two to finally give the NFL some competition.
Well, isn't what LeBron did last night the living embodiment of The Secret, leaving millions on the table and turning himself into a hometown villain, all for the sake of winning?
Neil Paine, basketball-reference.com
The rumors came out really heavily back in February...
That the NFL tried to buy 51% of the NFL, and the UFL countered with 49%. Basically, they were looking to get a controlling interest in the only other option the players would realistically have.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
by Jacob Hayes on Sep 16, 2010 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Hell of a finish
So, if the NFL wants to go hunting for money and goes after the players for it, I’m going to take the side of the players because they sure aren’t my enemy, and the NFL has already proven time and again that they sure aren’t my friend.
To a hell of a post. Well done.
In the 8th grade Mike Ditka won his school's Science Fair with a model of a working volcano. There were 17 other working volcano's made that day, but only one named Mount Ditka.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Sep 15, 2010 3:34 PM CDT reply actions
As a former season ticket holder...
(I held them for one season, that counts right?)
In order to buy the tickets I wanted, I had to put out for pre-game lounge tickets as well. Total cost for 10 games, two of which are pre-season?
$2095
It was a great time, and there were some memories I’ll cherish, but I can’t afford to pay that yearly. Not when I’ve still got college loans to pay off.
When you go to somebody's house, you don't crap on their floor. Being a fan of one team does NOT give you license to be a dick to fans of another.
Corollary: When people are visiting your house and behaving themselves, them being a fan of a different team is NOT a reason for you to piss in their beer.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Nice write up
I knew there would still be a draft but wasn’t sure what happened after that.
"Sorry bro, he Jason Bourned me"- Drama
Excellent write up...
I have to think that if there is a lockout, it can’t last too long. Times are much different now than back in the ‘80s and the “scab games”. With talk radio, ESPN, and the internet being what they are now compared to those times, the public outcry and pressure would be too great for things to last for an extended period, in my opinion. I can’t see today’s fan base, fanatsy football advocates, etc. sitting still for no football. Too much money is at stake for either side to be dumb enough to let things go for too long. At least, I hope that’s the case.
Jacob, outstanding article.
Ultimately, from a fan perspective, I am getting very tired about hearing about the millionaires vs billionaires.
And honestly, if the fan’s perspective and feelings aren’t taken into consideration, then there really doesn’t need to be an NFL.
Wrecked this post like Couture did Toney.
by Dane Noble on Sep 15, 2010 5:27 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
From a fan perspective...
I’d probably jump off of a cliff immediately after the scab season started when it’s announced that the only people to cross the picket line are Lovie Smith as coach, and Rashied Davis as receiver.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
by Jacob Hayes on Sep 16, 2010 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions
absolutely right...
This is what happens when u raise ticket prices too high for the average working class people. If it cost a grand to take a family of 4 to a football game, people won’t go. You can build the biggest baddest stadiums, and they will be empty. I would love it if the ufl got flooded with good nfl players. I pay to watch the players. Not the owners. Put the players in any league and I will watch em. These billion $ stadiums can sit empty while the small ufl stadiums can turn the league into a tv driven small stadium league. The nfl only thrives because of the players. Take them away and you have nothing. The ufl and unions should be working out a plan to leave the nfl and exand the ufl with new teams and owners. Pipe dream I know but it would be the ultimate “Stick it to the Man”
by Ryan21 on Sep 15, 2010 5:51 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Great write-up.
I especially like how you explained it in a way that the layman could understand. I’m sure that was a lot of legal jargon to sift through. Thanks – interesting and informative!
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
Editor/Writer for WindyCityGridiron.com
Awesome stuff
Who’s being greedy- the owners or players? I’ll go with the billionaires rather than the multi-millionaires. By not showing their financials it’s like a murderer preventing the police from seeing his smoking gun. Furthermore, it’s obvious the W.A.S.P.‘s in control don’t want to pay more to current players who make the NFL a booming business that it is. Look no further than their unwillingness to offer sufficient medical relief/support for permanently injured players.
"In order to have a winner, the team must have a feeling of unity; every player must put the team first- ahead of personal glory" - motivational sign at Halas Hall.
We need to put pressure on both sides to prevent this
Nobody wins with a lockout, lets hope this can be averted. The scab year in the 80’s was miserable and all parties need to by any means necessary work to avoid another prolonged lockout. This can be worked out, both side will need to make concessions, period.
White Sox fans need not apply.
by Bears-Cubs Bulls on Sep 15, 2010 6:13 PM CDT reply actions
Fantastic write up.
I think it comes down to the owners being able to recognize the shift in revenue flow during the past two decades. It is very true that not as many people attend the games as they once used to but that’s because they have the ability to watch every game at home or in a bar. So the stadium seating is no longer generating the income it once did, the television contracts sure as hell are. And when NFL network exclusively airs a game who directly gets the revenue from that? The NFL as an entity is raking it in hand over fist but not from ticket sales. My question is this. Does the individual team get 100% of the revenue from tickets sold or does it all go back into the collective pot of revenue sharing?
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
I remain a pessimistically hopeful Bears fan.
Generally speaking...
Yes, 100% of the ticket sales go directly to the team, however in lots of cases there are fees and taxes applied by the local governments as well.
But yeah, nothing goes back into revenue sharing as far as ticket sales go.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
by Jacob Hayes on Sep 16, 2010 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions
So essentially this could be the issue that divides the owners.
Teams like Tampa and Detroit could be much more adamant about keeping the cap low and not giving in to union demands while teams like the Bears and the Giants who routinely sell out may actually be inclined to make concessions to the union. Interesting.
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
I remain a pessimistically hopeful Bears fan.
Well, yes and no.
I wasn’t real exact here, so that’s my fault. There isn’t one big revenue sharing agreement like there is with broadcasting rights and such, but there is a split between the home and away teams. So theoretically, Detroit which can’t sell out games are still going to lose out some from their own games, but they still get their 33% of the away ticketing when they play us or Green Bay who are automatic sell-outs.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
I thought the split was 68/32 home team/away team
I know last year the Bucs paid 32% of their tickets value to the away team to avoid blackouts. If teams had to do this every game, it would quickly and teams aren’t going to make much money on ticket sales.
Yeah, I added that right before your post...
As I had forgotten about that last night before I went to bed. It’s an important distinction, but in the grand scheme of things it more averages out the total value of ticket sales across the league to a large extent as the great fan bases will have a max limit of revenue from tickets as 33% of the total revenue is going to average out around most of the league.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
by Jacob Hayes on Sep 16, 2010 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Damn Jacob
You completely nailed it. I don’t think I could find a single thing in that article that I disagree with. Thank you for the very informative write-up. While the business side of the NFL isn’t as interesting as the actual games, it is interesting none the less.
rec’d
Completely agree
I’m with the players.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
labor problems
I think the best mainstream media take I’ve read on this was by Stephen Brunt in The Globe and Mail.
He quite persuasively lays out something I’ve been saying for years. The real battle isn’t between owners and players – it’s between owners and other owners, with both sides agreeing to take it out on the players. The basic truth of any sports work stoppage is that it happens because tbe owners can’t get their crap together. This was true of the 1994 MLB strike, it was true of the NHL lockout, and it will be true of the upcoming NFL stoppage, if any.
Union
Does the NFL owners have a contract with the NFLPA to use only union members? What’s stopping the players from playing anyways just not under the union?
As a fan I think the while league needs a reset. Set reasonable ticket and concession prices then base salaries and owner profits from there. I would also do tickets like concerts are starting to, require id’s to stop the secondary sellers from jacking $100 tickets to $350. Stop the PSL’s and all other crap. I know its a dreamland but I like it here.
by TheMan1 on Sep 15, 2010 11:05 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Right On w/ the Stadium Experience, great post
Bill Simmons has mentioned this time and time again; The new NFL stadium experience has hurt the game. You get better TV views at home, you get comfort and with Sunday Ticket on DirectTV, or even just with basic cable you get multiple games most of the time! (at least two with regular broadcast stations). At the stadium not only do you have high costs and drunken un-family atmosphere, you also have TV timeouts which kills crowds.
I love the NFL, don’t get me wrong and I love going to games, Ashley and I were at the Vikes game last December and that was a great experience but the what made the NFL so great is that they catered themselves as a TV show for so long that now, going to the thing live seems obsolete.
"I feel like the pieces are in place. But we have to execute...It's about execution. You have to execute. You have to have a scheme that facilitates the strengths of your players. If it doesn't, then it's a bad scheme. It's that simple. So we feel real good about the parts in place on offense."
"We feel very good about this football team. We felt very good about our football teams in the past and it's no different. You've got to go out there and you've got to do it."
-Jerry Angelo, Aug. 2, 2010
by Sam Householder on Sep 16, 2010 12:11 AM CDT reply actions
Oh and I maintain
That Goodell will be the absolute DUMBEST commissioner in sports if he lets a lockout stop football, this is currently the most successful league in US sports and if it were to fall apart because of a labor dispute then I think Goodell loses all credibility. He needs to MAKE these guys hammer out a new CBA, a lockout is no good for anyone but the overall loser would the NFL brand because people will turn elsewhere (NHL, NBA, MLB, UFL, AFL).
"I feel like the pieces are in place. But we have to execute...It's about execution. You have to execute. You have to have a scheme that facilitates the strengths of your players. If it doesn't, then it's a bad scheme. It's that simple. So we feel real good about the parts in place on offense."
"We feel very good about this football team. We felt very good about our football teams in the past and it's no different. You've got to go out there and you've got to do it."
-Jerry Angelo, Aug. 2, 2010
by Sam Householder on Sep 16, 2010 12:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Agreed, on almost all points...
However, the biggest loser is going to be the NFL not the players. Do you remember the uproar when one of the games was going to take place on the NFL network that some people couldn’t get, and it was part of the undefeated season? Do you remember how the government started making rumblings about getting involved, and the NFL immediately made arrangements to allow the game to be carried by other outlets?
That’s going to be a beautiful dream compared to what the politicians do if they are forced to get involved, and I’m looking squarely at the various blackout rules, market restrictions, and platform exclusive deals.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
by Jacob Hayes on Sep 16, 2010 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Id be interested in the numbers you avoided
More so than most apparently…Because there are a couple of things you talk about here that just aren’t 100% objective, even before your opinion portion started. I don’t feel bad for anyone involved so don’t take this as overly argumentative, but I think some things are missing to make this a complete, and less emotional, discussion.
1) Look at the Packers numbers. Its a very small sample, 1 of 32, but it is a sample. It is one team with public records availability on their books because they are publicly owned. Their profit percentages are shrinking, or should I say, growing at a slower rate than the percentage that goes to players for their team. That is good reason for alarmist reaction as an owner of a business. It demands a new business model because the cost of the prime product is growing faster than profits. That can’t be fixed by adjusting prices elsewhere, by trimming corporate salaries, or by getting substantial but fixed sponsorship contributions into the budget. It requires business model adjustment.
2) as a perfect follow on, it is a business. The players say so, the owners know so, and we have to accept that before we look at it. The economic changes affect football more than anyone is letting on. Teams are not finding it easy to convince tax payers to foot the bill for stadiums anymore…That means owners are investing in stadiums and adding additional costs to their side of the table that are, to put it bluntly, gigantic.
3) On that issue, remembering that it is a business, and that owner costs, by PERCENTAGE as well as fixed dollar are increasing, and they are less able to push it off on tax payers (and that is a good thing in my opinion) should make them less apt to want to shell out an ever-growing salary cap’s worth of wages. Its not like its on a fixed 3% growth, the salary cap and the rookie pay scales grown at an unsustainable rate.
2005: $85.5 million
2006: $102.5 million (8.2% growth)
2007: $109 million (6% growth)
2008: $117 million (6.8% growth)
2009: $127 million (7.9% growth)
Now, you don’t have to use all of your salary cap, and most teams don’t “Max” but you better believe players expectations for salaries grew with that cap by similar percentages while the stars continued to get record setting contracts because they demand it, and frankly, if you own a team you HAVE to find and pay stars or you won’t win or gain additional profits. Does anyone think the average NFL team increased its profit margins by 7-10% annually in this economy? What if you added in the required additional costs of stadium funding? These owners already dropped hundreds of millions of dollars, if not over a billion, into getting the team…and now they are dropping hundred of millions into stadiums because the environment shifted… And the have to have a black bottom line, or they will sustain hundreds of millions of dollars worth of loss selling the team.
Our beloved Bears went from a value of $870 million to 1.07 Billion over that same window (2005-2010, so actually 1 year longer than the salary cap window above). The Bears org. grew about 22% in value from 2005 to 2010. The Salary cap grew almost 49% in cost from 2005 to 2009. I don’t need to see all of the books to see the gap closing.
Simplified numbers, but relevant, and EVERYONE in the game knows its a business. Its just the fans who forget.
by Brendan Hess on Sep 16, 2010 7:57 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Interesting points.
Some times it is tough to see the other side, so to speak…
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
I remain a pessimistically hopeful Bears fan.
Yeah...
Like I said, I am not on either side, and there is a lot to see, and say, about both…
But the bottom line is, Unions always ask for more than a fair share, and companies always lowball unions to maximize profit, and not one of them cares about you or me in the process…So I won’t support either. I enjoy the product, but until players admit they make more than they need to and owners apply those discounts to their products, neither side has any good will with me in the business side of the discussion.
by Brendan Hess on Sep 16, 2010 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're missing the key point of the numbers...
There really aren’t any. That’s the point. That’s what the NFLPA has asked for, that’s what you’re asking for, that’s what anyone would be asking for if they were asked to take a large pay cut.
The Packers are a sample, but they are a pretty horrible sample because they are filled with unique qualities. The Packers fan base is one of the most rabid in the league, but they are also the smallest market team in existence. Using the Packers numbers alone to base a pro-NFL argument would be like using the Cowboys alone numbers to base a pro-NFLPA argument on.
In 2005 NBC paid 600 Million dollars for access to Sunday Night games. They signed a 2 year extension last year, but didn’t release the financials of the deal for some reason. That’s also not even beginning to fathom the NFL networking the revenues it generates, the exclusivity deal, and everything else under the sun.
Another thing to keep in mind about trying to use the Packers numbers as a model is that their numbers are based only their income, not the NFL’s income. The NFL takes a billion off the top according to those more in the know than I. If you average that billion across the 32 teams, that is another 32 million dollars of income for each team. You can say that that billion is needed to pay NFL salaries, NFL films, and all kinds of other things, and it’s possible, but who knows? No one but the NFL, because again they won’t release the numbers.
As far as the stadium argument goes, it’s a really tired argument. Take a look at what Jerry Jones did. He’s pretty much the leader in making money in the NFL as far as ownerships go, and Jerry forked over the cash. Why? Because it’s a good investment. He’s held multiple boxing matches there, concerts, and god knows what else there and he brings in 100% of that revenue. The stadium is an investment, and is usually a money generator over time and is only a net loss for teams like the Bears who were foolish enough to basically lease their stadium in perpetuity. It’s nice if you can get the tax payers that really want a team, or don’t want to lose a team to subsidize a new stadium for you, but let’s not pretend that it’s a large issue in the grand scheme of things since again, stadiums are revenue generators.
I wasn’t 100% objective because it’s literally impossible to be 100% objective, and even less so when one side refuses to give the information to people to allow them to look at it objectively.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
and they won't*
Pardon my accidental “enter”.
I work for what qualifies as a private company (not publicly owned) and I can tell you for a fact my company would never open all of their books to the public…Which is what the NFL has refused to do. The NFLPA didn’t ask the NFL to come to a meeting with hard numbers, they asked the NFL to disclose all of their financial information to the public…And I bet you can’t find 10 multi-million dollar PRIVATE American companies that would.
Part of the benefit, and risk, of private ownership of business versus public share holder ownership is the right to conduct your financial business more privately. There are less reporting and less disclosure terms…Because you are 100% on the hook for whatever gets messed up, not public shareholders. That is the NFL’s bag too and it is only fair to remember that. All of the NFL owners are 100% liable, and responsible, for their team’s finances at the end of the day. It isn’t your mutual fund that crashes while they take the money and run, its their money. They are on the hook for the contracts. They are on the hook for everything…Meaning if they went bankrupt, their personal assets are redeemable against that debt as well.
I can understand your frustration that they refused to disclose the information for all to see, but I promise you, no one would. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the NFLPA. If I open my books, it will impact my sponsor negotiations. My ticket sales/charges. What I pay everyone who doesn’t put on a uniform. The perspective of the public official I am trying to convince to help fund a stadium with tax dollars.
The Packers are different, because they are publicly owned, but if you think they are the only team looking at a situation where player salaries are closing the gap on their profits, than I think you are making assumptions in the wrong direction. There is a reason the labor situation came to a head now, rather than at the end of the agreement….Because owners felt, right now, that they are in real danger of losing their profit line.
And before you call the stadium argument “old” and cite the fact that teams benefit from it…Of course they do…But that’s why they take the RISK of putting the money up front, now isn’t it? They have to benefit from owning the team, because they took the RISK of dropping $1 billion dollars to own it. They have to profit from the stadium, because they took the RISK of dropping $300 million into it.
You spent lots of time talking about the players risk from a health perspective, but you neglected to actually acknowledge the risk owners take on in buying a team (Especially a non-Dallas/New York team). The Cowboys may be able to pace, and outgrow the current salary growth…Can the Packers? Vikings? Lions? Jaguars? Bills? Buccaneers? There are NFL franchises on the brink, literally, of becoming loss institutes. If the salary growth is excessive for any one NFL team, you have to either get rid of the team, assume the risk of propping them up financially, or change the salary growth model. If its one team, you prop them up…
The NFL is reacting to a growing segment of their teams being in that position. All of them? Of course not…And the second the “public” gets their hands on those private financial ledgers, everyone will be talking about how the Cowboys and Giants could maintain this pace for the next 60 years…
And everyone would forget to mention that in that time, 12-15 other teams would literally go bankrupt.
I bet if the NFLPA wanted to go sit down and talk numbers, the NFL would bring numbers…But no one wants to release all of their companies information to the public, and THAT is what the NFLPA asked for, not that they get to see, but that it be shown public. If the owners wanted that, they would sell stock and become a public company.
Let’s not also forget that in modern America, Unions are big corporate thieves, just like the NFL. Unions aren’t the “little guys” coalition anymore.
“Smith said the latest NFL offer to the players would reduce their share to 41 percent of applied revenues from about 59 percent. He emphasized that the teams take $1 billion off the top of the estimated $8 billion the league generates.”
That is the head of the NFLPA telling us right now players get nearly 60% of the pot. That is a ridiculous split place to be at as a business owner. To finish that number, assuming the NFL makes $8 billion a year, takes $1 to pay NFL operating costs, then hands the players 59% (or $4.13 billion dollars?), the NFL is left with $2.87 billion dollars… from that, teams must pay all of their league costs and non-player salary costs. Those are the numbers given by Smith of the NFLPA, not the NFL. The NFLPA is admitting that 32 owners of multi-million/billion dollar industries are being asked to be satisfied with just under $90 million a year each (as an average, not an actual, because they all see different amounts) to pay their staff, work out stadium deals, etc. etc. etc.
We all know 30% + of that is going to taxes for people at their income level right? You wonder why the Packers ledgers looks like the team makes about what a star player does? That is what was coming, its why they had the knee jerk reaction to kill the deal in the first place.
Do I feel bad for the Billionaires trending into smaller profits? Nope. Do I feel bad for the multi-millionaires with pay increases averaging over 6% annually? Nope.
Do I want to watch a football game, desire to pay less to see it, and wish it didn’t take 3 1/2 hours because of all the garbage advertisement shoved into it to siphon every dollar off? Yep.
The only deal they can talk about that interests me is one that brings down ticket and merchandise prices and kills advertising quantity. The minute the NFL and NFLPA let “TV timeouts” exist to extend commercial breaks they both lost the right to talk about “The Game”.
by Brendan Hess on Sep 16, 2010 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Most of what you're saying is patently false..
No offense. However, the NFLPA hasn’t demanded full public disclosure of financial statements for all 32 teams. They’ve demanded the financials to be released to them. To act like it’s a all or nothing situation where the entirety of the worlds population gets to know, or just the NFL is ludicrous and hasn’t been the case at any point in the negotiations.
As far as the whole risk argument goes I think you should actually look at the history of NFL franchises. In fact, you should look at the current state of the franchises.
The St.Louis Rams are without question one of the worst franchises both due to market size, history, and lackluster fan support more often than not. Stan Kronke just paid out 450 million dollars to become majority owner of the team, and that’s not even taking into consideration he had already been a 40% minority owner. However, using the best numbers for your side of the argument lets say he paid 450mil for the other 60% giving a total value of 750 million dollars. Still well under the price estimated by Forbes and other outlets for the actual value of the team which is just under a billion.
Now if we look at the last expansion team, the Houston Texans, they were purchased for 700 million dollars. They are now worth upwards of 1.1 billion dollars according to Forbes with an operating income of almost 44 million dollars. A 4.5% increase in value per year, along with basically a 5% dividend might be one of the best investments I’ve ever heard of, specially considering the basically impenetrable stability that the NFL has as an entity.
I’m just not seeing how that “risk” is even really a risk, let along comparable to the real risk of debilitating career and life threating injury the players endure every single game.
So again, almost your entire post is based off a strawman that the NFLPA is demanding public disclosure when they are demanding disclosure to the NFLPA. The NFLPA has said they wanted to sit down and talk numbers, the NFL refused to bring hard numbers, so the NFLPA is refusing to talk about pay cuts until they do.
One last point is the mathematical point regarding Smith’s statement. The 41%/59% are without taking into account the 1 billion dollars the NFL is taking off the top. The NFLPA representative wasn’t saying those were the actual percentages, they were saying those were the percentages the NFL was offering while pointing out those numbers weren’t taking into account a large sum of money.
That’d be like someone saying they were going to give you 50% of the 100$, but we’re not going to count the first 20$. Just because you say we aren’t going to count the first 20$ doesn’t make 40$ fifty percent of 100$, except in the minds of the NFL.
That’s what this whole thing boils down to really. If the NFL was really theoretically hurting that bad you would think they’d have already been sitting down in front of the NFLPA with the same numbers we’re trying to guesstimate out, not releasing vague bogus numbers to the press to try to win PR battles.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
EPIC argument.
I can’t wait to see what’s next!
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
I remain a pessimistically hopeful Bears fan.
Calling my argument patently false...
Is an attempt to avoid things that are actually true…Just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean you can ignore them. But I do want to keep this civil because I do have a lot of respect for you, and your writing, I just think you are telling 70% of a story and don’t want to acknowledge the other half. The Union, and the NFL, are both dirty nasty business people. My whole issue to begin with is your absolute desire to defend a side of the argument that is actually just as ugly, undermining, and dishonest in this process. If it is a business, and it is, you should know, both sides are lying and making tactical media releases that make things look exactly how they want them to.
One last point is the mathematical point regarding Smith’s statement. The 41%/59% are without taking into account the 1 billion dollars the NFL is taking off the top.
My calculations, and numbers, reflected exactly that, the first $1 billion off the top. If you include the $1 billion off of the top, then you have the players still receiving OVER 40% of the entire profit margin without taking on any of the cost. That is a business model I would buy into from the players perspective, any day. Can I get over 40% of your business’ profit margin without any of the overhead? Yes please! Which is in effect exactly what is wrong. It sounds like a great deal for the union…If it wasn’t, they’d be happy to be in re negotiations. Unions are nasty dirty beasts my friend.
will show you Smith admitting they already have all of the revenue information, just not the ALL of the cost information. They already know players costs as well. What they are asking for is the minute details of every expenditure within 32 completely separate private businesses, focusing on the expenses that have nothing to do with the intake of money, nor the numbers of what is given to players (or non-player salaries for that matter, as those expenses are also already publicly available). I will reiterate, and you can call it false all you want, no PRIVATELY owned business will release its complete financial cost list unless they are actually selling OR making an IPO request.
I think your numbers on team sales above support my point. You just pointed out that the St. Louis Rams were bought out by a minority owner going majority for over $250 million LESS than they are supposed to be worth…That my friend, is an owner taking on loss, even if he makes profit from the deal. If you have to sell a $300,000 house for $200,000, even if you pocket $200,000, you took a big hit.
Now if we look at the last expansion team, the Houston Texans, they were purchased for 700 million dollars. They are now worth upwards of 1.1 billion dollars according to Forbes with an operating income of almost 44 million dollars. A 4.5% increase in value per year, along with basically a 5% dividend might be one of the best investments I’ve ever heard of, specially considering the basically impenetrable stability that the NFL has as an entity.
You again supported my point. The 4.5% increase in value per year is SLOWER growth than the known cost of players, without even accounting for growth in other costs…And just like you mentioned with the Rams, if they went to sell, would they GET $1.1 Billion? No, they would lose out on over $200 million of additional “Value”. The Rams sale actually says the teams are worth LESS than Forbes says, not more as the NFLPA asserts. Something is only WORTH what someone will pay for it, and no one is paying the Forbes value levels for NFL teams.
If you want a look, and it is just a look, at what some former players feel about Smith’s attempts to improve their benefits, feel free to read up on it too
Smith has already levied the AFL-CIO to fight for them, one of the dirtiest labor organizations on earth, while at the same time decrying the NFL hiring of a lockout expert lawyer. That same AFL-CIO has, on behalf of Smith, threatened to bring in political pressure and released financial impact assessments on the local economies, based on numbers the NFLPA supposedly doesn’t have…And they don’t, but the disinformation campaign continues.
The only point of yours I still want to address is your denial of the idea of “public disclosure” of NFL numbers. Its hard to find a lot of the specific direct quotes over a year later, let alone the language of the official request, so I want to keep the door open until one of us can prove the point, because I won’t argue something to death unless I know 100% it is accurate so you may be right in this case… The media machine may have propaganda’d me!
The best I have so far is ""If financial disclosure is good enough for Wall Street, why isn’t it good enough for the NFL?" Smith asks." from
That isn’t good enough because it is a media statement, not the formal request, but by comparing it to Wall Street, you are comparing it to PUBLIC disclosure, not a private discussion between two organizations. Public owned companies have to, upon request, make all of their financial practices available to anyone who owns, or desires to own, stock in their company. For a Public (aka Wall Street) company, that means everyone.
The problem with arguing that is we don’t have a transcript of the formal request…But I already know, from the numbers being tossed around by BOTH sides, that if the NFL handed it over, it would be publicly known inside of 2 days in media statements by Smith.
I don’t know how much I like being forced into the “Defend the NFL” role in this conversation, but it seems that’s the only side no one wants to look at, so I’ll take it.
by Brendan Hess on Sep 17, 2010 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions
lol...
You will notice a lot of “missing info” from my post…Apparently I have massive link fail issues. I had tried to link a good few articles with specific quotes to and from Smith. I don’t have time to fix it all right now, I hope I can get to it later….Wasted 30-40 minutes of research as it is.
by Brendan Hess on Sep 17, 2010 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions
LOL
So if I say you’re a Packers fan, and you said that’s a false statement, that means it’s instantly true and you’re just avoiding it?
The NFLPA has never asked for full public disclosure of the NFL’s financials. Simple as that.
Again, outside your union bashing which I highly frown upon as I do any bashing done with a wide brush out of anything but humor, you seem to be missing the point of numbers in a financial conversation and then base most of your post around those numbers that are being used incorrectly.
4.5% is the growth of the prinicipal investment. The 44 million dollars of “dividend” is after players salaries have been removed. The fact that players were paid salaries doesn’t remove the growth of the principal, it simply reduced the dividend so that instead of X million dollars, it’s 44 million dollars.
Also, Stan Kronke and the man before him got preferential deals because of two things. They both promised to keep the Rams in the poor small market they are a part of, and the Rams are terrible. It’s a classic case of buying low. That’s not a sign of structural financial issues, it’s a sign of good financial decision making.
I’m not saying the NFLPA is blameless, but they aren’t the bad guys here. They’ve agreed in principal on the rookie salary issue, they’ve agreed to talk about possibly adding more games. What else do you want them to do really? Just say, sure thing take all of our peoples money?
Yes, they are playing the PR spin game just as much as the NFL now, but their position is the right one and the one I’d want someone representing my interests to take as well.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com - Artist formerly known as Sklz711
You guys beat the hell out of "Meet the Press"
I feel smarter just opening this page.
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
I remain a pessimistically hopeful Bears fan.
lockout
With the NFL being my favorite sport to watch, this would be a painful blow to all of us who love the game. Let’s hope it can be resolved before it’s too late and we’ll have football to watch in 2011.

by 





















