PDA

View Full Version : Football Football's Future If the Players Win by Roger Goodell


Pages : 1 [2]

patteeu
04-26-2011, 03:51 PM
Where would the television dollars go? To an NFL loaded with scabs? Or to the upstart league loaded with the most talented players?

Infrastructure is the biggest hurdle, and it's an enormous one.

My understanding is that there are TV contracts already in place. If it happened at the same time the TV contracts expired, an alternative league might have a longshot chance of overtaking the NFL, but that's not the case in the current situation.

Cave Johnson
04-26-2011, 03:55 PM
Nate Jackson PWNs Roger Goodell.

http://deadspin.com/#!5795895/dear-roger-goodell-this-is-what-a-typical-nfl-career-looks-like

Chief Roundup
04-26-2011, 04:04 PM
It will be hard to get television time on a channel that has a large enough number of viewers as long as the NFL keeps thier contracts up. So that would make it incredibly hard to gain popularity over the NFL.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 04:07 PM
If I just want a basic revenue total, I only need one amount of information. If I want a full accounting of revenues and expenses, I need a different amount of information. I refuse to believe that you're too stupid to figure this out.

It sounds like you didn't understand what I said.

The union had it's chance to put a disclosure agreement in the last CBA. I'm confident that they did so and that the portion of the books that was relevant to the revenue split was disclosed by the owners. What wasn't disclosed were all the non-shared revenue streams (like luxury boxes, for example). The union/players now want the owners to provide an accounting that goes beyond that which was previously negotiated. They should have either negotiated a different agreement last time or they should be willing to make concessions to get the expanded disclosure in any new agreement.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 04:11 PM
Imagine all the players from NFL seasons past aren't in the NFL. Where do you think that tradition is going to be? If the cream of the college crop continually goes to a different league, that league will eventually overtake the NFL.

The average fan doesn't give a **** about infastructure. You don't see too many owner's Jerseys at the stadium do you?

I'm confident that there were some USFL players who could have been decent NFLers who never made it into the NFL. There have been great athletes who chose to play a different sport too. No one missed them.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. If there was a different, more prosperous league than the NFL throughout the years, then the NFL wouldn't be the NFL and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the fact is that that didn't happen. The NFL owners beat every other competing league that ever faced off against them.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 04:12 PM
It sounds like you didn't understand what I said.

The union had it's chance to put a disclosure agreement in the last CBA. I'm confident that they did so and that the portion of the books that was relevant to the revenue split was disclosed by the owners. What wasn't disclosed were all the non-shared revenue streams (like luxury boxes, for example). The union/players now want the owners to provide an accounting that goes beyond that which was previously negotiated. They should have either negotiated a different agreement last time or they should be willing to make concessions to get the expanded disclosure in any new agreement.

In this case, the owners are the ones demanding the money back, based upon a profitability claim. In other words, using your own logic, the onus for the concession falls on the owners. It's fascinating to watch people such as yourself consistently missing and/or ignoring that reality.

Cave Johnson
04-26-2011, 04:14 PM
In this case, the owners are the ones demanding the money back, based upon a profitability claim. In other words, using your own logic, the onus for the concession falls on the owners. It's fascinating to watch people such as yourself consistently missing and/or ignoring that reality.

It's hard to catch every little nuance when you're busy shilling for the man.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 04:17 PM
Pat is claiming that people will root for the NFL regardless of who is playing because it's the NFL and people love the NFL. My point is that the reason people watch the NFL is because it has the best athletes playing. The point in this hypothetical is not how likely it would be that all the players switch leagues, but simply what the outcome would be if it actually happened. If Pat is right, it shouldn't matter who plays for what league, because people will choose the NFL even if it's now the Cleo Lemon show.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, I'm sorry. I still don't see how that makes the guy selling dishwasher in anyway comparable to an NFL quarterback.

Even if every player currently in the NFL was permanently locked out, the vast majority of them would be replaced by equally talented players within a couple of years. I think the NFL could survive that period, but it would be a huge cost. The more likely scenario would be only a partial loss of players.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 04:23 PM
Even if every player currently in the NFL was permanently locked out, the vast majority of them would be replaced by equally talented players within a couple of years. :spock: You're telling us there are QBs in college now that will be as good as Manning, Rogers, Brady, Rivers, et al, in 2 yrs?

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 04:26 PM
:spock: You're telling us there are QBs in college now that will be as good as Manning, Rogers, Brady, Rivers, et al, in 2 yrs?


To be fair to Patteu, that argument is no more ridiculous than most of his others have been.

veist
04-26-2011, 05:15 PM
Which gets way more money out of the general public. Companies wouldn't be doing it if it was stupid.

You think McDonald's regrets spending money on their ad campaigns instead of hiring the best cash-register operators and burger flippers?

You're making my point for me though, if Peyton Manning was so fungible that Casey Printers could bring it why the fuck would he be making what he's making? I mean dude was making megabucks long before he won a ring. If the labor was fungible the NFL wouldn't be wasting its time negotiating with the PA in the first place, they'd find some replacement players to form a replacement union and move on. People need something to draw them in, in the NFL they bank on putting on the best possible show they can and that means they need world class talent.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 05:23 PM
:spock: You're telling us there are QBs in college now that will be as good as Manning, Rogers, Brady, Rivers, et al, in 2 yrs?

Reading comprehension clue: "vast majority"

patteeu
04-26-2011, 05:28 PM
You're making my point for me though, if Peyton Manning was so fungible that Casey Printers could bring it why the **** would he be making what he's making? I mean dude was making megabucks long before he won a ring. If the labor was fungible the NFL wouldn't be wasting its time negotiating with the PA in the first place, they'd find some replacement players to form a replacement union and move on. People need something to draw them in, in the NFL they bank on putting on the best possible show they can and that means they need world class talent.

No one is preventing the players from starting their own league, either on their own or in partnership with an alternative set of billionaire owners. But you're a lot less likely to see that than you are to see the owners flush a large number of these players. (Don't mistakenly think I'm saying that either one is likely).

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 05:36 PM
Even if every player currently in the NFL was permanently locked out, the vast majority of them would be replaced by equally talented players within a couple of years. I think the NFL could survive that period, but it would be a huge cost. The more likely scenario would be only a partial loss of players.

I think you're undermining how enormously detrimental this would be to the NFL. You'd lose gazillion dollar TV contracts. You'd probably be forced to sell tickets at 1/5 of the price and still only be able to sell 1/4 of your stadium.

And in those 3 years, you'd have to build a pipeline of players. If in a given draft, you figure you land, what, 50 or so really solid starters? And, what, 15 or so superstars? First of all, you're assuming all those players mature right away (most take about 2-3 years to hit their stride). Secondly, it would take you more than 5 years to have watchable football games, as opposed to 2 really good teams beating up on 30 horrendously unwatchable teams who have 5 good players and 45 players who are B-league.

And then you'd have to assume that anybody would have any interest in watching Peyton Manning beat up a bunch of Ryan Sims and Mike Brown type players. How would you know if you were watching a superstar if all they were doing was lighting up B-league competition?

It would take 3 years for anyone to take moderate interest. It would take well over 5 years to make the game slightly marketable. It would take much longer to get it to be successful. And even then, you probably lost a ton of fans in the process forever.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 05:40 PM
No one is preventing the players from starting their own league, either on their own or in partnership with an alternative set of billionaire owners. But you're a lot less likely to see that than you are to see the owners flush a large number of these players. (Don't mistakenly think I'm saying that either one is likely).

What I think is unfortunate is that of the two, the owners are significantly more replaceable. All they're doing is providing capital. That's why I see no sympathy on this matter. They're withholding earnings from players who deserve a fair compensation because of they are placing a salary cap based on a fictitious revenue gap between teams. That's what bothers me about this whole mess. When shared TV revenues are going through the roof, the parity argument becomes really weak. These teams have money to spend on players, are placing artificial caps, and yet are making the players look like they're the bad guys.

tk13
04-26-2011, 05:49 PM
What I think is unfortunate is that of the two, the owners are significantly more replaceable. All they're doing is providing capital. That's why I see no sympathy on this matter. They're withholding earnings from players who deserve a fair compensation because of they are placing a salary cap based on a fictitious revenue gap between teams. That's what bothers me about this whole mess. When shared TV revenues are going through the roof, the parity argument becomes really weak. These teams have money to spend on players, are placing artificial caps, and yet are making the players look like they're the bad guys.

Also, don't forget many of them are playing in brand new/renovated stadiums that were built specifically to generate more revenue.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 06:00 PM
I think you're undermining how enormously detrimental this would be to the NFL. You'd lose gazillion dollar TV contracts. You'd probably be forced to sell tickets at 1/5 of the price and still only be able to sell 1/4 of your stadium.

And in those 3 years, you'd have to build a pipeline of players. If in a given draft, you figure you land, what, 50 or so really solid starters? And, what, 15 or so superstars? First of all, you're assuming all those players mature right away (most take about 2-3 years to hit their stride). Secondly, it would take you more than 5 years to have watchable football games, as opposed to 2 really good teams beating up on 30 horrendously unwatchable teams who have 5 good players and 45 players who are B-league.

And then you'd have to assume that anybody would have any interest in watching Peyton Manning beat up a bunch of Ryan Sims and Mike Brown type players. How would you know if you were watching a superstar if all they were doing was lighting up B-league competition?

It would take 3 years for anyone to take moderate interest. It would take well over 5 years to make the game slightly marketable. It would take much longer to get it to be successful. And even then, you probably lost a ton of fans in the process forever.

I don't find any of that convincing so we'll have to agree to disagree. The TV contracts can't change overnight and I doubt that fans would respond in the way you predict.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 06:20 PM
What I think is unfortunate is that of the two, the owners are significantly more replaceable. All they're doing is providing capital. That's why I see no sympathy on this matter. They're withholding earnings from players who deserve a fair compensation because of they are placing a salary cap based on a fictitious revenue gap between teams. That's what bothers me about this whole mess. When shared TV revenues are going through the roof, the parity argument becomes really weak. These teams have money to spend on players, are placing artificial caps, and yet are making the players look like they're the bad guys.

Please tell me you are/were FOR publicly financed stadium upgrades. That would really put the cherry on top.

notorious
04-26-2011, 07:13 PM
Please tell me you are/were FOR publicly financed stadium upgrades. That would really put the cherry on top.

Never quite understood how a Private company can screw the public out of cash to upgrade their property.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 07:16 PM
Never quite understood how a Private company can screw the public out of cash to upgrade their property.

I'm just hoping that guy shows up and was in favor of giving the owners OUR money, but isn't in favor of giving the owners (what he perceives as) the PLAYERS' money.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:16 PM
Also, don't forget many of them are playing in brand new/renovated stadiums that were built specifically to generate more revenue.

There's a point I didn't consider.

The stadiums that are new/renovated are largely funded by taxpayers:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/people-s-game-the-taxpayers-stake-in-nfl-labor-negotiations-20110311

Wow, what a great deal! You get taxpayers to fund an investment that will put more dollars in your pocket, and you have no obligation to share any of those increased revenues to players!

Why do you think owners won't share their books? If they were losing money, they'd share it in the heartbeat. The fact is they're making a shitload of money and are only required to share a fraction of that with the players who are doing the grunt work?

You see where the issue comes in?

vailpass
04-26-2011, 07:16 PM
Please tell me you are/were FOR publicly financed stadium upgrades. That would really put the cherry on top.

State/local governments pay businesses in the form of tax concessions, etc. to do business in their states/cities/towns every day all across America.
Why should an NFL owner decline those same provisions?
(if your disagreement is not with the NFL owner but with the government giving the concessions please ignore my comment).

milkman
04-26-2011, 07:17 PM
Never quite understood how a Private company can screw the public out of cash to upgrade their property.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the sports complex was property of Jackson County, and that Jackson County was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep in the lease agreement.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 07:17 PM
State/local governments pay businesses in the form of tax concessions, etc. to do business in their states/cities/towns every day all across America.
Why should an NFL owner decline those same provisions?
(if your disagreement is not with the NFL owner but with the government giving the concessions please ignore my comment).

As a business owner I'd take anything they were willing to give me. As a taxpayer it was stupid to ever offer it.

notorious
04-26-2011, 07:18 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the sports complex was property of Jackson County, and that Jackson County was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep in the lease agreement.

Are some stadiums privately owned, and some public?


I really don't know.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 07:19 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the sports complex was property of Jackson County, and that Jackson County was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep in the lease agreement.

Yes, and they signed the contract with a retarded clause saying it had to be "current" or some-such undefinable crap. However, all that let the Chiefs do was opt out of the last few years of the lease. The taxpayers bent to the BS line that the Chiefs would move if they didn't get more money.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 07:19 PM
Are some stadiums privately owned, and some public?


I really don't know.

Yes. Most are publicly funded in some way, if not publicly owned.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:20 PM
I'm just hoping that guy shows up and was in favor of giving the owners OUR money, but isn't in favor of giving the owners (what he perceives as) the PLAYERS' money.

I'm saying that NFL owners are making a shitload of money because taxpayers are allowing them to collect more revenue on publicly financed stadiums and TV contracts are going through the roof.

Yet, the salary cap is increasing incrementally.

The salary cap is in place because the owners claim that small market teams aren't making enough money. Bullshit. I'm not saying the players deserve all the money. I'm saying when an owner makes a shitload more money, they can't hide behind an excuse that they're not in order to keep that money away from their salaried employees. I'm saying an owner / player deserves a fair share of INCREASES in revenues.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 07:21 PM
As a business owner I'd take anything they were willing to give me. As a taxpayer it was stupid to ever offer it.

Fair enough. It's one thing to not like owners for whatever reason, another to try and villify them for following standard practice that makes solid business sense.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:21 PM
Are some stadiums privately owned, and some public?


I really don't know.

Read the link in my post above. Pretty good breakdown.

Yes, a lot of stadiums are significantly funded by taxpayers and 11 of them are 100% financed publicly.

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 07:22 PM
Yes, and they signed the contract with a retarded clause saying it had to be "current" or some-such undefinable crap. However, all that let the Chiefs do was opt out of the last few years of the lease. The taxpayers bent to the BS line that the Chiefs would move if they didn't get more money.

A couple of things though,

1. Hunt put up $120MM of his own money into a stadium he doesn't own.

2. Doesn't Jackson County get quite a bit of tax revenue from the sports complex? I could be wrong but it would seem so.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:24 PM
Fair enough. It's one thing to not like owners for whatever reason, another to try and villify them for following standard practice that makes solid business sense.

I'm vilifying owners because they are making a shitload of money off these public deals, and yet are hiding behind an excuse that they don't make enough money in order to shortchange employees. It would be different if there wasn't a salary cap and every player were allowed to test the open market. In that case, Peyton Manning could play for the Cowboys and maybe make $20M more than what he makes today. But he can't, because of the salary cap.

I love the salary cap. But in fairness to the players, if small market teams are making more revenues, then the salary cap needs to go up.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:25 PM
A couple of things though,

1. Hunt put up $120MM of his own money into a stadium he doesn't own.

2. Doesn't Jackson County get quite a bit of tax revenue from the sports complex? I could be wrong but it would seem so.

Hunt did that. But it's not very common practice. Most stadiums are heavily publicly financed. We're just lucky enough to have an owner who cares enough about the team to sink his money into it.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 07:26 PM
A couple of things though,

1. Hunt put up $120MM of his own money into a stadium he doesn't own.

2. Doesn't Jackson County get quite a bit of tax revenue from the sports complex? I could be wrong but it would seem so.

1. Hunt also gets a sweatheart deal on the lease which will put the Chiefs well over the $120M they invested.

2. Last time I saw numbers reported Jackson County was losing money on the stadiums. I don't recall the source (some paper, probably the KC Star) so I can't vouch for the credibility of that information. However, if they were making money on it you'd think they'd be able to do the upgrades and maintenance without asking for tax dollars every time.

vailpass
04-26-2011, 07:28 PM
I'm vilifying owners because they are making a shitload of money off these public deals, and yet are hiding behind an excuse that they don't make enough money in order to shortchange employees. It would be different if there wasn't a salary cap and every player were allowed to test the open market. In that case, Peyton Manning could play for the Cowboys and maybe make $20M more than what he makes today. But he can't, because of the salary cap.

I love the salary cap. But in fairness to the players, if small market teams are making more revenues, then the salary cap needs to go up.

There is a reason these owners attained/maintain the level of wealth they have/do. Good business is hard business sometimes.

Removing the cap wouldn't help small market players (as some suggest), it would kill them. 5% of the players owuld be making 95% of the $.
Raising the cap would make sense if other concessions went with it.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 07:28 PM
I'm vilifying owners because they are making a shitload of money off these public deals, and yet are hiding behind an excuse that they don't make enough money in order to shortchange employees. It would be different if there wasn't a salary cap and every player were allowed to test the open market. In that case, Peyton Manning could play for the Cowboys and maybe make $20M more than what he makes today. But he can't, because of the salary cap.

I love the salary cap. But in fairness to the players, if small market teams are making more revenues, then the salary cap needs to go up.

The problem is the salary cap and floor are set by total league revenues, not the shared revenues. When Dallas or NY or WAS sells the naming rights to the stadium for a gajillion dollars that raises the salary floor and cap for all 32 teams, but only *that* team gets any of the income. The smaller market teams are pretty squeezed already.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:29 PM
1. Hunt also gets a sweatheart deal on the lease which will put the Chiefs well over the $120M they invested.

2. Last time I saw numbers reported Jackson County was losing money on the stadiums. I don't recall the source (some paper, probably the KC Star) so I can't vouch for the credibility of that information. However, if they were making money on it you'd think they'd be able to do the upgrades and maintenance without asking for tax dollars every time.

Just curious, because I don't doubt that there's some truth. But does that factor in the opportunity cost of that team leaving? KC, I feel, is a little different b/c there's not a ton to do there necessarily. But you take away Busch Stadium from St. Louis and you lose a shitload of tourism dollars, as well as casual pre-game and post-game traffic to restaurants/businesses?

notorious
04-26-2011, 07:34 PM
Yes. Most are publicly funded in some way, if not publicly owned.

Read the link in my post above. Pretty good breakdown.

Yes, a lot of stadiums are significantly funded by taxpayers and 11 of them are 100% financed publicly.

So polite Gentlemen.


I really deserved worse for being a lazy asshole and not ready the entire thread, but thanks for taking it easy on me. :)

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:35 PM
There is a reason these owners attained/maintain the level of wealth they have/do. Good business is hard business sometimes.

Removing the cap wouldn't help small market players (as some suggest), it would kill them. 5% of the players owuld be making 95% of the $.
Raising the cap would make sense if other concessions went with it.

The point is for players to make their fair market value. If Peyton Manning deserves $120M, that's his fair market value and he should be entitled to every penny of that. It doesn't matter who is entitled to that money. The owner/GM can decide that based on who they believe deserves it more.

And yes, these owners worked hard to become rich (some of them, on the other hand, fell into money by rich parents). That doesn't mean it's hard work running an NFL team. Give me a break--if it was such hard work, how is it possible for Clark Hunt to be a CEO of a business, own several soccer franchises, AND the Chiefs. Are you saying he devotes 40 hours a week to the Chiefs AND does all those three other things too? The owner's job is to provide capital. Some take a more active role, but many do not and the franchises still make money.

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 07:39 PM
I'm saying that NFL owners are making a shitload of money because taxpayers are allowing them to collect more revenue on publicly financed stadiums and TV contracts are going through the roof.

Yet, the salary cap is increasing incrementally.

The salary cap is in place because the owners claim that small market teams aren't making enough money. Bullshit. I'm not saying the players deserve all the money. I'm saying when an owner makes a shitload more money, they can't hide behind an excuse that they're not in order to keep that money away from their salaried employees. I'm saying an owner / player deserves a fair share of INCREASES in revenues.

If the owners were standing by the theory that they deserve that money because they are the owners and the players are employees, at least it would be a defensible position. Saying they need that money because they aren't making enough obviously begs the question, "What are you spending all that money on??" Refusing to answer that is an asinine approach to negotiation.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:40 PM
The problem is the salary cap and floor are set by total league revenues, not the shared revenues. When Dallas or NY or WAS sells the naming rights to the stadium for a gajillion dollars that raises the salary floor and cap for all 32 teams, but only *that* team gets any of the income. The smaller market teams are pretty squeezed already.

This is an interesting point.

Still, with the wildly increased ticket/concessions/merchandising prices (without owners investing in the stadium in many cases), the enormous increase in total TV revenue, etc... I hardly think there are many owners that are truly getting squeezed.

Like I said before, if they were being squeezed, they would publicly share their books. The fact that they're not is a pretty telling sign to me that they're making a lot more money than the players/public realize.

BigMeatballDave
04-26-2011, 07:41 PM
I hope the audience Boos the fuck outta Goodell Thursday.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:41 PM
If the owners were standing by the theory that they deserve that money because they are the owners and the players are employees, at least it would be a defensible position. Saying they need that money because they aren't making enough obviously begs the question, "What are you spending all that money on??" Refusing to answer that is an asinine approach to negotiation.

EXACTLY.

If they share their books and prove that small market teams are suffering from the cap in place, then you can understand the argument. Why in the world would you not share your books if you were trying to build a case that players' salaries are squeezing you?

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Just curious, because I don't doubt that there's some truth. But does that factor in the opportunity cost of that team leaving? KC, I feel, is a little different b/c there's not a ton to do there necessarily. But you take away Busch Stadium from St. Louis and you lose a shitload of tourism dollars, as well as casual pre-game and post-game traffic to restaurants/businesses?

I can tell you this, I rarely go to KC unless it is for a football or baseball game.

Occasional concert but not often, Tulsa is closer for me and gets the same bands.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 07:43 PM
I hope the audience Boos the **** outta Goodell Thursday.

Ridiculously overrated. Got a bunch of credit for punishing a bunch of players, and then made a mockery of the punishment system.

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 07:47 PM
EXACTLY.

If they share their books and prove that small market teams are suffering from the cap in place, then you can understand the argument. Why in the world would you not share your books if you were trying to build a case that players' salaries are squeezing you?
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/editor/menupop.gif
Personally I don't think the owners want to make the books public because they don't know what each other are doing and making and they don't want to start infighting or disclosing personal info that may not be flattering to them in front of other owners and media.

I am sure the majority are fine but there are probably dirty little secrets within that group like any other and they don't want to let it out.

I just can't see where 32 guys are sitting back bringing in truckloads of $ and decide they all want more and now are afraid to show it.

I know there are greedy bastards in the world but I don't think it's that simple.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 08:09 PM
There's a point I didn't consider.

The stadiums that are new/renovated are largely funded by taxpayers:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/people-s-game-the-taxpayers-stake-in-nfl-labor-negotiations-20110311

Wow, what a great deal! You get taxpayers to fund an investment that will put more dollars in your pocket, and you have no obligation to share any of those increased revenues to players!

Why do you think owners won't share their books? If they were losing money, they'd share it in the heartbeat. The fact is they're making a shitload of money and are only required to share a fraction of that with the players who are doing the grunt work?

You see where the issue comes in?

It's a little late to make that a part of the deal.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 08:15 PM
In this case, the owners are the ones demanding the money back, based upon a profitability claim. In other words, using your own logic, the onus for the concession falls on the owners. It's fascinating to watch people such as yourself consistently missing and/or ignoring that reality.

:facepalm:

No offense, but this post makes it clear that you're not up to using my logic and it's not clear whether logic of any sort is in your arsenal. The old agreement is over. A new agreement must be established. The players don't have any of the revenue at this point. The owners aren't inclined to give them as much this time around as they did last time. They're not trying to get any money back.

milkman
04-26-2011, 08:19 PM
:facepalm:

No offense, but this post makes it clear that you're not up to using my logic and it's not clear whether logic of any sort is in your arsenal. The old agreement is over. A new agreement must be established. The players don't have any of the revenue at this point. The owners aren't inclined to give them as much this time around as they did last time. They're not trying to get any money back.

This post is what you're going with?

Really?

patteeu
04-26-2011, 08:23 PM
This post is what you're going with?

Really?

Yes.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 08:24 PM
The point is for players to make their fair market value. If Peyton Manning deserves $120M, that's his fair market value and he should be entitled to every penny of that. It doesn't matter who is entitled to that money. The owner/GM can decide that based on who they believe deserves it more.

How does that mesh with a salary cap, which is widely regarded as one of (if not the) reason the NFL is so successful?

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 08:24 PM
This post is what you're going with?

Really?

As much as I hate to agree with him it's not a bad argument. Much like a player hitting incentives so he opts out of his contract looking for a bigger one.

He was able to void the old one, now he wants a new one with what he can get out of it.

Not much different than what players do.

Not saying it's good or right. Same concept though.

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 08:29 PM
The point is for players to make their fair market value. If Peyton Manning deserves $120M, that's his fair market value and he should be entitled to every penny of that. It doesn't matter who is entitled to that money. The owner/GM can decide that based on who they believe deserves it more.

And yes, these owners worked hard to become rich (some of them, on the other hand, fell into money by rich parents). That doesn't mean it's hard work running an NFL team. Give me a break--if it was such hard work, how is it possible for Clark Hunt to be a CEO of a business, own several soccer franchises, AND the Chiefs. Are you saying he devotes 40 hours a week to the Chiefs AND does all those three other things too? The owner's job is to provide capital. Some take a more active role, but many do not and the franchises still make money.

Do you have any idea how much work it would be to own and therefore manage the operation of that many business operations? It would be a tough ass job.

He isn't just signing checks unless he is really, really, good at hiring people to make all decisions.

Thing is people like that rarely are willing to turn over total control so they are involved in most of what goes on. You have to be or you could get driven into the ground without even knowing it.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 08:30 PM
As much as I hate to agree with him it's not a bad argument. Much like a player hitting incentives so he opts out of his contract looking for a bigger one.

He was able to void the old one, now he wants a new one with what he can get out of it.

Not much different than what players do.

Not saying it's good or right. Same concept though.

It's not even close. Here's where that part of the thread began:

It sounds like you didn't understand what I said.

The union had it's chance to put a disclosure agreement in the last CBA. I'm confident that they did so and that the portion of the books that was relevant to the revenue split was disclosed by the owners. What wasn't disclosed were all the non-shared revenue streams (like luxury boxes, for example). The union/players now want the owners to provide an accounting that goes beyond that which was previously negotiated. They should have either negotiated a different agreement last time or they should be willing to make concessions to get the expanded disclosure in any new agreement.

Notice the bold part, and notice what I was responding with:

In this case, the owners are the ones demanding the money back, based upon a profitability claim. In other words, using your own logic, the onus for the concession falls on the owners.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 08:32 PM
Not even close.

Thanks for that thorough explanation. I know my opinion was changed.

milkman
04-26-2011, 08:36 PM
As much as I hate to agree with him it's not a bad argument. Much like a player hitting incentives so he opts out of his contract looking for a bigger one.

He was able to void the old one, now he wants a new one with what he can get out of it.

Not much different than what players do.

Not saying it's good or right. Same concept though.

My post wasn't to the point he was making.

It was "The owners aren't taking money back" logic thing.

We all know that the owners aren't technically taking money back.

It's a stupid, obtuse, arguing point.

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 08:37 PM
It's not even close. Here's where that part of the thread began:



Notice the bold part, and notice what I was responding with:

So players don't opt out of a contract looking for a new one expecting to get more profitability ($)?

Which is basically implying they are underpaid under the terms of their remaining contract had they not opted out?

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 08:38 PM
My post wasn't to the point he was making.

It was "The owners aren't taking money back" logic thing.

We all know that the owners aren't technically taking money back.

It's a stupid, obtuse, arguing point.

I assumed the "taking $ back" part meant their portion of the revenue.

milkman
04-26-2011, 08:42 PM
I assumed the "taking $ back" part meant their portion of the revenue.

Doesn't matter.

There's no CBA, so we all know that the owners are not taking money back.

When someone talks about the owners taking money back, they are simply saying that the offer the owners made is not as profitable as the previous CBA that the owners opted out of.

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 08:48 PM
Won't it be so much better when we can go back to arguing about who sucks and doesn't suck on the Chiefs.

At least we can all argue the draft in a few days.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 08:57 PM
Do you have any idea how much work it would be to own and therefore manage the operation of that many business operations? It would be a tough ass job.

He isn't just signing checks unless he is really, really, good at hiring people to make all decisions.

Thing is people like that rarely are willing to turn over total control so they are involved in most of what goes on. You have to be or you could get driven into the ground without even knowing it.

You're assuming that all owners are Robert Kraft.

Not all owners care about their job. Not all owners are good at hiring people, or have any idea what the **** they are doing. The Fords don't care about their team. They hired an incompetent boob in Matt Millen to run the franchise into the ground and refused to fire him. And you know what? The Lions STILL likely made money.

So yes, I still believe the only requirement to owning an NFL team is to have capital to invest in the team. To be a good owner, you have to know what you're doing. To make money, I don't think you have to have any clue what you're doing.

And again... the owner's job is to hire a few really good people. Scott Pioli hires the vast scouting network. Denny Thum, I believe, handled most of the ops side. Again, the fact that you can be a CEO for another business and still own a successful franchise tells you quite a bit about the time commitment. If a guy like Hunt had to consistently pump work into his franchise, there's no way he could be CEO of another business, let alone a franchise owner of several soccer franchises.

KCBOSS1
04-26-2011, 09:09 PM
I don't have time to read all of these threads, I just read the first few pages. But I can't believe some of the lack of common sense on this board. Everything that Goodell said is exactly right. If you worked for me in my business or any business, why should I ever have to open the books to you for you to see what I make. You work for me, I own the company....hence the term "owners". If there is not a salary cap and a draft, then the NFL will turn into the MLB and make farm clubs out of many of the teams, including KC. The rookie situation needed adjustments. They need to leave the season length the same and they need to set up a system to take care of retired players better. The players' profit sharing needs to drop. These guys are not factory union workers. They make more in one year than most union workers do in a lifetime. The owners should have locked them out...dumb jocks hiring a moronic lawyer. This guy makes Willie Upshaw look like a genius. They need to take a pay cut, let the rookies make $700G's first round $600G's second round, dropping incriments of $50G per draft round following assigned to their drafting teams for 2 years, able to negotiate in the second year. This stuff is easy solved, idiotic players. I'm a business owner. They can thank God I'm not commissioner. I would be for firing everybody, establishing the benefits and salary caps with the rest of the owners and the agreement that all players who want to return come back to the team that they are under contract with. If they don't want to, the ones that are rich enough can retire, the others can sell cars or insurance. They would crawling back to the negotation table with bells on in about 6 months.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 09:12 PM
How does that mesh with a salary cap, which is widely regarded as one of (if not the) reason the NFL is so successful?

#1 - I don't believe that is at all true. For all this talk about parity, the MLB has done a great job of getting small market teams to do well and despite an enormous black eye the game suffered between steroid abuse and a strike years ago, the game is as popular as ever right now. The only teams that haven't had a chance at competing are the ones with shitty front offices, like the Royals. That doesn't have anything to do with money, necessarily.

#2 - Again, if it's truly the case that smaller market teams are struggling to make ends meet with the rising cap, then so be it. I doubt that's true. But if it is true, then make them prove it. If it's not true, then you need to keep raising the cap until players can eventually hit their true market value. There is definitely a ceiling. If everyone's team's payroll was $300M, I doubt any team would spend anywhere close to that. And yes, I believe that true market value is going to be higher than can be afforded. So yes, I agree that the salary cap needs to below a payroll's full "true market value." But given that players are getting short-changed by being paid less than their market value, they should try to get as close as they can to that number.

#3 - On the cap... I don't agree at all that restricting spending from big teams had much effect on parity. I would argue that parity is more driven by forcing cheapskate owners to actually invest in their teams. Look at the MLB--the Pittsburgh Pirates' owner doesn't care if he wins games. That ballpark makes a shitload of money and he doesn't have to pay anything in payroll. So no, a salary cap increase doesn't change parity as long as every team can actually afford the pay increases and as long as everyone's cap number increases by the same amount.

KCBOSS1
04-26-2011, 09:15 PM
I love the Royals... but hate the way the MLB is set up.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 09:19 PM
I don't have time to read all of these threads, I just read the first few pages. But I can't believe some of the lack of common sense on this board. Everything that Goodell said is exactly right. If you worked for me in my business or any business, why should I ever have to open the books to you for you to see what I make. You work for me, I own the company....hence the term "owners". If there is not a salary cap and a draft, then the NFL will turn into the MLB and make farm clubs out of many of the teams, including KC. The rookie situation needed adjustments. They need to leave the season length the same and they need to set up a system to take care of retired players better. The players' profit sharing needs to drop. These guys are not factory union workers. They make more in one year than most union workers do in a lifetime. The owners should have locked them out...dumb jocks hiring a moronic lawyer. This guy makes Willie Upshaw look like a genius. They need to take a pay cut, let the rookies make $700G's first round $600G's second round, dropping incriments of $50G per draft round following assigned to their drafting teams for 2 years, able to negotiate in the second year. This stuff is easy solved, idiotic players. I'm a business owner. They can thank God I'm not commissioner. I would be for firing everybody, establishing the benefits and salary caps with the rest of the owners and the agreement that all players who want to return come back to the team that they are under contract with. If they don't want to, the ones that are rich enough can retire, the others can sell cars or insurance. They would crawling back to the negotation table with bells on in about 6 months.

#1 - Most of these Owners are benefiting off of public money. Taxpayers are investing in that enterprise. I think taxpayers have every right to ask how that is being spent

#2 - These owners are not "owners" in the same sense as the Private Sector. They belong to the NFL. The NFL gives them the league that creates the competition between owners that allows them to make money. And the NFL creates the massive licensing, endorsement rights, TV and media rights, etc... that teams share between each other.

#3 - If you're an owner and you restrict your employee's wages, your employee can rebel by finding a new job with an employer who will pay. In the NFL, the league has created a monopoly so players really have no other place to go. Hence, the reason for a union.

#4 - You can't compare players to factory workers. Factory workers can be replaced. You can't replace Peyton Manning with some guy off the street and expect to sell tickets that make you money

#5 - If you were commissioner, based on your approach, you would bleed the league dry.

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 09:26 PM
#1 - Most of these Owners are benefiting off of public money. Taxpayers are investing in that enterprise. I think taxpayers have every right to ask how that is being spent

#2 - These owners are not "owners" in the same sense as the Private Sector. They belong to the NFL. The NFL gives them the league that creates the competition between owners that allows them to make money. And the NFL creates the massive licensing, endorsement rights, TV and media rights, etc... that teams share between each other.

#3 - If you're an owner and you restrict your employee's wages, your employee can rebel by finding a new job with an employer who will pay. In the NFL, the league has created a monopoly so players really have no other place to go. Hence, the reason for a union.

#4 - You can't compare players to factory workers. Factory workers can be replaced. You can't replace Peyton Manning with some guy off the street and expect to sell tickets that make you money

#5 - If you were commissioner, based on your approach, you would bleed the league dry.

Let's say you just gave $800,000,000 for the Redskins.

You feel like the league gives you anything?

How long do you suppose it takes to make back good $ on $800,000,000?

Edited: Snyder only gave 800,000,000 for the Redskins.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 09:26 PM
There are millions of people that can play football and the owners don't require the best. They just require a competitive product.

There's a best dishwasher salesmen in the world. You don't see Sears or Best Buy in a bidding war to get that guy and paying him millions of dollars a year.

It's about Return on Investment.

If you pay a dishwasher salesman a million dollars to sell $100,000 dollars worth of dishwashers.... that is an enormously wasted expense, especially when you consider that a good chunk of that $100,000 went into production expenses to make dishwashers, costs to store/ship it, etc....

An investment in only 53 players can get 80,000 people on any given night to shell out over $100 to watch them. Even more when you factor in concessions and parking. A lot more when you factor in jersey sales and other licenses to merchandising.

C'mon, man. Are you really going to tell me that a dishwasher salesman brings even an ounce of the same money into the organization as Peyton Manning does for the Colts?

philfree
04-26-2011, 09:27 PM
#1 - Most of these Owners are benefiting off of public money. Taxpayers are investing in that enterprise. I think taxpayers have every right to ask how that is being spent

Don't the players make all their money from the same public funded facilities that the owners do? That's just a bad argument.


PhilFree:arrow:

KCBOSS1
04-26-2011, 09:31 PM
#1 - Most of these Owners are benefiting off of public money. Taxpayers are investing in that enterprise. I think taxpayers have every right to ask how that is being spent

#2 - These owners are not "owners" in the same sense as the Private Sector. They belong to the NFL. The NFL gives them the league that creates the competition between owners that allows them to make money. And the NFL creates the massive licensing, endorsement rights, TV and media rights, etc... that teams share between each other.

#3 - If you're an owner and you restrict your employee's wages, your employee can rebel by finding a new job with an employer who will pay. In the NFL, the league has created a monopoly so players really have no other place to go. Hence, the reason for a union.

#4 - You can't compare players to factory workers. Factory workers can be replaced. You can't replace Peyton Manning with some guy off the street and expect to sell tickets that make you money

#5 - If you were commissioner, based on your approach, you would bleed the league dry.


Well I exaggerated a little. That would be an extreme answer. But the stuff that the players are asking for will kill the league. They are clueless. I just want to have football long term and they cannot sustain the salary increase pace that they have been undergoing over the last 10 years.

So who fronted the money to buy the franchise? I'm not against sharing profits, just think the players' percentages should be dropped. This whole process is a delicate balance to maintain level competitive opportunities across the league which is what keeps the NFL interesting and the most popular sport in North America. Bottom line is that the league will not continue as it has been. Not the way the economy is trending, period. Most of the owners' requests are very fair and reasonable and would ultimately benefit the league across the board.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 09:35 PM
#1 - I don't believe that is at all true. For all this talk about parity, the MLB has done a great job of getting small market teams to do well and despite an enormous black eye the game suffered between steroid abuse and a strike years ago, the game is as popular as ever right now. The only teams that haven't had a chance at competing are the ones with shitty front offices, like the Royals. That doesn't have anything to do with money, necessarily.

#2 - Again, if it's truly the case that smaller market teams are struggling to make ends meet with the rising cap, then so be it. I doubt that's true. But if it is true, then make them prove it. If it's not true, then you need to keep raising the cap until players can eventually hit their true market value. There is definitely a ceiling. If everyone's team's payroll was $300M, I doubt any team would spend anywhere close to that. And yes, I believe that true market value is going to be higher than can be afforded. So yes, I agree that the salary cap needs to below a payroll's full "true market value." But given that players are getting short-changed by being paid less than their market value, they should try to get as close as they can to that number.

#3 - On the cap... I don't agree at all that restricting spending from big teams had much effect on parity. I would argue that parity is more driven by forcing cheapskate owners to actually invest in their teams. Look at the MLB--the Pittsburgh Pirates' owner doesn't care if he wins games. That ballpark makes a shitload of money and he doesn't have to pay anything in payroll. So no, a salary cap increase doesn't change parity as long as every team can actually afford the pay increases and as long as everyone's cap number increases by the same amount.

1. MLB is so good right now they are now in their 4th year of lower attendance. And you are stupid if you don't think money is the main problem in baseball.

2. WTF? The players are underpaid? Are you fucking kidding me? You have fat Albert Haynesworth who maybe played 6 games last year getting a $100 million dollar contract. What a joke.

And yes smaller market teams are getting hurt by bigger market teams. I posted a piece about this exact same thing early in the thread.

3. The salary cap\salary floor along with revenue sharing is the main reason why football exploded in popularity because it evened the playing field for all teams and every year every team has a legit chance to win the SB. You can't say that about any other major sport.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 09:37 PM
Let's say you just gave $800,000,000 for the Redskins.

You feel like the league gives you anything?

How long do you suppose it takes to make back good $ on $800,000,000?

Edited: Snyder only gave 800,000,000 for the Redskins.

So when you buy a house for $200,000 (let's say you $200,000 down), you have no expectation that you're going to sell your house?

Dan Snyder shouldn't be expected to make $800M in profits. That would be outrageous. The investment is that between the selling price and all the money he makes every year off the franchise, he will end up over $800M. And yes, you'd be crazy to think he's not making an enormous amount of money when all is said and done.

Man, I wish I could invest in a stock that had probably close to a 100% chance of making money and a high % chance of making a killing.

tk13
04-26-2011, 09:38 PM
I don't have time to read all of these threads, I just read the first few pages. But I can't believe some of the lack of common sense on this board. Everything that Goodell said is exactly right. If you worked for me in my business or any business, why should I ever have to open the books to you for you to see what I make. You work for me, I own the company....hence the term "owners". If there is not a salary cap and a draft, then the NFL will turn into the MLB and make farm clubs out of many of the teams, including KC. The rookie situation needed adjustments. They need to leave the season length the same and they need to set up a system to take care of retired players better. The players' profit sharing needs to drop. These guys are not factory union workers. They make more in one year than most union workers do in a lifetime. The owners should have locked them out...dumb jocks hiring a moronic lawyer. This guy makes Willie Upshaw look like a genius. They need to take a pay cut, let the rookies make $700G's first round $600G's second round, dropping incriments of $50G per draft round following assigned to their drafting teams for 2 years, able to negotiate in the second year. This stuff is easy solved, idiotic players. I'm a business owner. They can thank God I'm not commissioner. I would be for firing everybody, establishing the benefits and salary caps with the rest of the owners and the agreement that all players who want to return come back to the team that they are under contract with. If they don't want to, the ones that are rich enough can retire, the others can sell cars or insurance. They would crawling back to the negotation table with bells on in about 6 months.

I agree the owners have every right to tell the players to screw off and hire a bunch of scrubs if they want, they own the team. And I haven't really weighed in on the "showing the books" issues... I think you could make the argument they don't have to show the players the books. I also think they aren't doing it just because it won't help their cause with 1) the players or 2) the small market owners when they realize just how much Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are pulling in each year, and that will start more fighting amongst the owners.

But, and I've made this argument before with people on here who run a business. It doesn't matter what business you own, this doesn't have to be football with millions of dollars at stake....

You start a business. Whether it's an auto shop, basket weaving, whatever. You hire the absolute best people in the world at that particular job. Whether it be a world class mechanic, world class basket weaver, whatever. There is literally nobody in the world better at that job. Your efficiency goes up, people start buying your product or service because they know you're the best. Profits go through the roof. You can't keep up with the customers, so you expand your shop... you use local tax breaks to expand your business, move into a brand new shop. You hire more workers, once again, among the best in the world. Your reputation is sterling, everybody comes to you because you are the best. Nobody else can touch you, they don't have the talent or resources... you can charge whatever you want. Your business is expanding every year.

Then you turn around and tell your employees that you're not making enough profit, and they're going to get a smaller share of the revenue. They flip out. You could get rid of them. Once you do that though, you no longer have the best of the best. Your efficiency goes down, there are more mistakes fixing cars, weaving baskets, whatever... your reputation takes a hit, people stop coming to you because now it's some hack working on their car. It's not worth the price they're paying. Now you've set up this huge business model and are charging exorbitant prices for work that is no longer world class quality

Of course, if you think that NFL players are not the most talented in the world, then all that really doesn't hold water. Then you just go out and find all the guys with an equivalent skill/speed/talent level to guys like Peyton Manning, Jamal Charles, Calvin Johnson that are sitting on the street right now not playing football.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 09:38 PM
Well I exaggerated a little. That would be an extreme answer. But the stuff that the players are asking for will kill the league. They are clueless. I just want to have football long term and they cannot sustain the salary increase pace that they have been undergoing over the last 10 years.

So who fronted the money to buy the franchise? I'm not against sharing profits, just think the players' percentages should be dropped. This whole process is a delicate balance to maintain level competitive opportunities across the league which is what keeps the NFL interesting and the most popular sport in North America. Bottom line is that the league will not continue as it has been. Not the way the economy is trending, period. Most of the owners' requests are very fair and reasonable and would ultimately benefit the league across the board.

The NFL didn't even have a salary cap prior to 1994. To claim that this would mark the death knell for the league is absurd.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 09:38 PM
Let's say you just gave $800,000,000 for the Redskins.

You feel like the league gives you anything?

How long do you suppose it takes to make back good $ on $800,000,000?

Edited: Snyder only gave 800,000,000 for the Redskins.

that cash wasn't fed into a shredder. You can sell at any time and probably get back equal or more than what you paid.

That 800 million Snyder put in still exists and is appreciating and/or returning income.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 09:42 PM
Don't the players make all their money from the same public funded facilities that the owners do? That's just a bad argument.


PhilFree:arrow:

No. Absolutely not. Not if the owner is taking a disproportionate share of revenue increases. The owner doesn't have a cap on how much $'s he can collect. The players do.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 09:42 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/editor/menupop.gif
Personally I don't think the owners want to make the books public because they don't know what each other are doing and making and they don't want to start infighting or disclosing personal info that may not be flattering to them in front of other owners and media.

That is just tough shit, they need to either get over that hangup or sell out. In every other sport, every team knows every ugly dirty detail of every other team, and it is NOT unreasonable for the NFLPA to expect full disclosure before agreeing to concessions. If the NFL doesn't want to do what every other major sport does, then fine. Have fun competing without a draft and without ANY player control.

Marcellus
04-26-2011, 09:44 PM
that cash wasn't fed into a shredder. You can sell at any time and probably get back equal or more than what you paid.

That 800 million Snyder put in still exists and is appreciating and/or returning income.

I don't have time to look up the article but a corporate accountant did an article on this very subject and pretty much proved the franchises are not worth what is claimed by Forbes.

Selling would be a bitch especially right now in the current state of the banking market and economy.

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 09:44 PM
Al you smashed this thread. I don't feel like going through all 22 pages but whats your prediction moving forward?

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 09:48 PM
I'm pretty sure most players are in favor of a salary cap because it comes with a salary floor. Even if it's done away with, as long as the profit sharing stays intact, competitive balance can be maintained. (Although there are a few owners looking to do away with profit sharing as it is.)

The NBA has a salary cap and it is as bad as baseball when it comes to competitive balance. The reason, IMO, lies largely in the style of the game. While it takes stars to win in any sport, football is much more team oriented than either of those sports.

I'm not saying Goodell doesn't make a couple good points. The wide open free agency market would be detrimental to the game, but I think the apocalyptic future he paints is pretty laughable.

KCBOSS1
04-26-2011, 09:49 PM
The NFL didn't even have a salary cap prior to 1994. To claim that this would mark the death knell for the league is absurd.

The game is different than it was in 1994. Money levels and exposure are completely different. In 1986, the baseball markets were also much more competitive...the Royals won the World Series. Since the 90's smaller market baseball clubs have become basically farm clubs. The smaller market teams that make a decent run can't sustain because the following year, their players are bought out from under them by the Yankees, the Red Sox or the Dodgers.

The NFL has been the best run professional sports business in the country. I'm just saying that most of the conditions suggested by the owners seem very reasonable, practical and good for the league as a whole.

philfree
04-26-2011, 09:50 PM
No. Absolutely not. Not if the owner is taking a disproportionate share of revenue increases. The owner doesn't have a cap on how much $'s he can collect. The players do.

The games are played in the stadiums and that's what turns the revenue and from that revenue the players make bank. Without those public funded stadiums the players don't make nothing.

It's not a good argument IMO.


PhilFree:arrow:

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 09:51 PM
The game is different than it was in 1994. Money levels and exposure are completely different. In 1986, the baseball markets were also much more competitive...the Royals won the World Series. Since the 90's smaller market baseball clubs have become basically farm clubs. The smaller market teams that make a decent run can't sustain because the following year, their players are bought out from under them by the Yankees, the Red Sox or the Dodgers.

Again, the real reason baseball suffered was lack of profit sharing. As it's profit sharing has increased to mimic the NFL, the competitive nature of the games has increased as well. Sharing profits is way more impactful on parity within a sports league.

Just Passin' By
04-26-2011, 09:54 PM
The game is different than it was in 1994. Money levels and exposure are completely different. In 1986, the baseball markets were also much more competitive...the Royals won the World Series. Since the 90's smaller market baseball clubs have become basically farm clubs. The smaller market teams that make a decent run can't sustain because the following year, their players are bought out from under them by the Yankees, the Red Sox or the Dodgers.

Of the 4 main US Sports, no sport has had more different champions than baseball over the course of the last 15 years.

As for your small market argument, the Marlins are a small market, and they've won the thing twice in the 1994-present time frame. They didn't have to sell off their players after that. They chose to do so. The problem in baseball, if you want to call it that, is not that the bottom teams can't compete, because they can. The problem is that some owners pocket the money rather than spending it on players. The results are very similar to what you get in the NFL. You get the Bengals/Lions of the MLB.

Football was a growing sport prior to 1994, and it would be fine without a salary cap. People were sure that free agency was going to kill professional sports, too, yet they seem to have survived that just fine.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 09:55 PM
1. MLB is so good right now they are now in their 4th year of lower attendance. And you are stupid if you don't think money is the main problem in baseball.

2. WTF? The players are underpaid? Are you ****ing kidding me? You have fat Albert Haynesworth who maybe played 6 games last year getting a $100 million dollar contract. What a joke.

And yes smaller market teams are getting hurt by bigger market teams. I posted a piece about this exact same thing early in the thread.

3. The salary cap\salary floor along with revenue sharing is the main reason why football exploded in popularity because it evened the playing field for all teams and every year every team has a legit chance to win the SB. You can't say that about any other major sport.

1. You're right on MLB attendance trends--that was on hunch more than data. Still, if the issue is parity, it most certainly exists in the MLB.

2. Yes. Players are underpaid. I believe employees should be paid their market value. If owners are willing to pay Peyton Manning $10M, then obviously Peyton Manning brings in enough money to the franchise for the GM/Owner to believe he is worth every penny of that. If an owner is willing to pay $15M but can only pay him $10M not because he is incapable of paying, but because there is a payroll cap that keeps him from paying what he would normally pay, then yes, he is underpaid. Grossly underpaid. Who cares what a factory worker makes? Your compensation is based on what the person paying you thinks you're worth.

3. I entirely disagree that parity had nearly as much to do with capping top teams from spending as much as it did force smaller market teams to spend. The problem with the MLB is you have tons of owners who don't invest in their teams. Some don't because they are douche bag cheapskates. Others don't because they're not smart enough to realize that investing in players brings fans to the ballpark. And it doesn't help that the season is so long that when your team is out of the hunt, it's harder to motivate fans to come out and support you. In the NFL, you don't see fire sales of players because the NFL won't allow it. You HAVE to invest in your team. I love the salary cap. Trust me. But would there be parity in the NFL without it? I believe a lot more so than we are fooled into believing. The NFL is growing in popularity because the marketing has been tremendous, a shorter season makes it easier to keep money, and the declining popularity of other sports. Case-in-point, if the salary cap is so great, then why did the NBA decline dramatically while the NFL improved?

philfree
04-26-2011, 09:57 PM
I'm not saying Goodell doesn't make a couple good points. The wide open free agency market would be detrimental to the game, but I think the apocalyptic future he paints is pretty laughable.


While I agree a little about the apocalytic future if the Chiefs are uncompetitive are you still going to watch them? Recent history show that alot of people won't.


PhilFree:arrow:

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 09:59 PM
The games are played in the stadiums and that's what turns the revenue and from that revenue the players make bank. Without those public funded stadiums the players don't make nothing.

It's not a good argument IMO.


PhilFree:arrow:

Uh uh. The stadiums give a license for owners to charge more money for tickets/parking and especially luxury boxes. The old Arrowhead was more than good enough to house players and make money for both players and owners. Most stadiums didn't need public financing to actually field a profitable NFL experience.

The owners did it so they could make more money. And guess what, they're making a shitload more money while players are making very small incremental gains. I'm saying that while owners should obviously get most of the share, the players should get a good chunk of that too. They don't because payrolls are capped.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 10:06 PM
1. MLB is so good right now they are now in their 4th year of lower attendance. And you are stupid if you don't think money is the main problem in baseball.

Stick with profit. You don't want to go to attendance or revenue.

The average attendance in 2010 for the NFL was around 500 or 600 thousand per team. It was close to about 2 million in baseball. Hell, even the Royals drew about 1.8 million.

Obviously MLB has over 10 times more games than the NFL, so even if they don't come close to selling out, even some of the worst baseball teams dwarf the attendance by the best NFL teams.

Obviously, the NFL has fewer costs, but even so, total revenue for the NFL is only 1 or 2 billion ahead of MLB. The gap used to be wider. Licensing revenue (caps, jerseys, video games, etc) for baseball has been higher then football for a few years now.

The MLB will probably not surpass the NFL in sheer fame and fan following anytime soon, but don't dismiss baseball as if they were some broke-ass haphazard broken league, this isn't the 90's anymore, MLB is now a financial powerhouse with strong revenue sharing. The Yankees will always have the most money, but they aren't unbeatable anymore.

chiefzilla1501
04-26-2011, 10:09 PM
I don't have time to look up the article but a corporate accountant did an article on this very subject and pretty much proved the franchises are not worth what is claimed by Forbes.

Selling would be a bitch especially right now in the current state of the banking market and economy.

Even if you sell at a loss, the amount of income they likely made through the life of the investment almost certainly made up for the loss and then some. It's really hard to imagine that most owners are losing out. And truth is, if you're losing money on your investment, it's probably because you did a shitty job managing your investment.

But here's the greater point. These guys are investing to make a profit. The upside potential is absolutely enormous. The downside potential, I would imagine, is EXTREMELY small. What other investment gives you that? Stocks have huge downside risk. Houses can lose enormous value. Nobody should feel sorry for an owner for losing a small bit of value for his large investment.

KCBOSS1
04-26-2011, 10:10 PM
Uh uh. The stadiums give a license for owners to charge more money for tickets/parking and especially luxury boxes. The old Arrowhead was more than good enough to house players and make money for both players and owners. Most stadiums didn't need public financing to actually field a profitable NFL experience.

The owners did it so they could make more money. And guess what, they're making a shitload more money while players are making very small incremental gains. I'm saying that while owners should obviously get most of the share, the players should get a good chunk of that too. They don't because payrolls are capped.


You are talking about a guy throwing or catching a ball for $100 mil. Really? What they do is not vital for society at all, they are rediculously compensated for their contribution. They are purely entertainment. I realize that all of these guys are motivated by some level of greed. But this will correct itself eventually and the fans will end up paying for it. They will pay for it monetarily until they can't afford to pay anymore...and we may be there now. After that, if the players and owners don't adjust to the overally economic trends of the nation, we will pay by not having football until they get things corrected. It will correct itself, I guarantee it.

philfree
04-26-2011, 10:11 PM
Uh uh. The stadiums give a license for owners to charge more money for tickets/parking and especially luxury boxes. The old Arrowhead was more than good enough to house players and make money for both players and owners. Most stadiums didn't need public financing to actually field a profitable NFL experience.

The owners did it so they could make more money. And guess what, they're making a shitload more money while players are making very small incremental gains. I'm saying that while owners should obviously get most of the share, the players should get a good chunk of that too. They don't because payrolls are capped.

The players haven't been making a good chunk since 2006? And players salaries have doubled in the last 10 years so to think that they've only had small gains in salary isn't really right.

So you think there shouldn't be a salary cap? Do you think that will benefit all the players? It won't. You'll end up with 10% of the players making 90% money while the other 90% gets to split up 10%. Not a good deal for the most of the players.

PhilFree:arrow:

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 10:14 PM
While I agree a little about the apocalytic future if the Chiefs are uncompetitive are you still going to watch them? Recent history show that alot of people won't.


PhilFree:arrow:

When I say apocalyptic, that include a future where the Chiefs can't compete. ;)

Seriously, I would watch, yes. Regardless, I don't think the current path the players are on will lead to a lack of competition. If Clark wants to pay to get the players, he can. If profit sharing stays in place as it is, he won't be at a financial disadvatage in doing so.

Only a couple owners will dump a ton more money into their teams to win, and that has not translated to NFL success in the past. I doubt it will in the future.

kysirsoze
04-26-2011, 10:21 PM
You are talking about a guy throwing or catching a ball for $100 mil. Really? What they do is not vital for society at all, they are rediculously compensated for their contribution. They are purely entertainment. I realize that all of these guys are motivated by some level of greed. But this will correct itself eventually and the fans will end up paying for it. They will pay for it monetarily until they can't afford to pay anymore...and we may be there now. After that, if the players and owners don't adjust to the overally economic trends of the nation, we will pay by not having football until they get things corrected. It will correct itself, I guarantee it.

Man this is bullshit. They provide a product that generates billions upon billions of dollars. I don't see people bitching because the owner of Krispy Kreme makes millions of dollars (billions?). WTF do those greasy ass doughnuts (I said it!) do that is "vital for society"?

These guys are the closest thing we as Americans have to gladiators. They put their body through hell for our entertainment and are repaid not only in money but life long pain and sometimes mental disorders. You can quibble about the details of the CBA, but this "players are overpaid" bullshit pisses me off.

Dave Lane
04-26-2011, 10:24 PM
You my friend are completely clueless about business or how it works. You really need to not comment when you have basically no understanding of the facts involved. Read responses carefully and you may learn something instead of knee jerk reactionism. And refreshingly you did admit you didn't read the comments so it would make your response more understandable.

Well I exaggerated a little. That would be an extreme answer. But the stuff that the players are asking for will kill the league. They are clueless. I just want to have football long term and they cannot sustain the salary increase pace that they have been undergoing over the last 10 years.

So who fronted the money to buy the franchise? I'm not against sharing profits, just think the players' percentages should be dropped. This whole process is a delicate balance to maintain level competitive opportunities across the league which is what keeps the NFL interesting and the most popular sport in North America. Bottom line is that the league will not continue as it has been. Not the way the economy is trending, period. Most of the owners' requests are very fair and reasonable and would ultimately benefit the league across the board.

Dave Lane
04-26-2011, 10:25 PM
Man this is bullshit. They provide a product that generates billions upon billions of dollars. I don't see people bitching because the owner of Krispy Kreme makes millions of dollars (billions?). WTF do those greasy ass doughnuts (I said it!) do that is "vital for society"?

These guys are the closest thing we as Americans have to gladiators. They put their body through hell for our entertainment and are repaid not only in money but life long pain and sometimes mental disorders. You can quibble about the details of the CBA, but this "players are overpaid" bullshit pisses me off.

That.

chiefzilla1501
04-27-2011, 06:35 AM
You are talking about a guy throwing or catching a ball for $100 mil. Really? What they do is not vital for society at all, they are rediculously compensated for their contribution. They are purely entertainment. I realize that all of these guys are motivated by some level of greed. But this will correct itself eventually and the fans will end up paying for it. They will pay for it monetarily until they can't afford to pay anymore...and we may be there now. After that, if the players and owners don't adjust to the overally economic trends of the nation, we will pay by not having football until they get things corrected. It will correct itself, I guarantee it.

This is wrong on so many levels. So the players are greedy for making money off the game, but the owners who are making probably up to $50M a year (some of whom probably put in no more than 10 hours a week) aren't? The owners are making money off the game too.

Again, you have to get over the idea that people get paid for what they contribute to society. This is capitalism. You get paid what the person who is paying you thinks you're worth. And most of that is based on your replaceability. A factory worker working a critical function makes $50K or whatever because the factory knows that if the guy leaves, they can replace him probably within a week with someone just as good. And there are millions of people who could do the job equally as well. There is only one Peyton Manning.

If there is an owner willing to pay Peyton Manning $10M, then that is exactly what he's worth. And front offices are not stupid. They will continue to charge fans exactly what they are willing to pay. If they start charging too much and fans stop going, they'll lower prices. But for me, I love sports and football and will pay a high price to go. And I think the experience is worth every dollar. Fans have tried to organize boycotts and it doesn't work. The mentality is if you don't want to pay, there are thousands waiting in line for your ticket.

Chiefnj2
04-27-2011, 08:11 AM
The owners and players have been "winning" for years. You are talking about ridiculously wealthy owners and wealthy players. At the end of the day, no matter who the media declares the "winner" in the negotiations, they all come out way ahead of 99.9% of the fans. It's silly to get wrapped up in being on the owner's side or players side. There is no loser between them.

BigMeatballDave
04-27-2011, 08:14 AM
The owners and players have been "winning" for years. You are talking about ridiculously wealthy owners and wealthy players. At the end of the day, no matter who the media declares the "winner" in the negotiations, they all come out way ahead of 99.9% of the fans. It's silly to get wrapped up in being on the owner's side or players side. There is no loser between them.I dont give a shit about any of this. I just want to see football this fall.

patteeu
04-27-2011, 09:44 AM
The owners and players have been "winning" for years. You are talking about ridiculously wealthy owners and wealthy players. At the end of the day, no matter who the media declares the "winner" in the negotiations, they all come out way ahead of 99.9% of the fans. It's silly to get wrapped up in being on the owner's side or players side. There is no loser between them.

Right. The perspective that makes the most sense to me is the one that leads to a better result for the fans, which in this case is the league envisioned by the owners group rather than the one envisioned by the players, IMO.

The owners are interested in cost control, the players are not and the result will be reflected in ticket prices. The majority of owners are interested in maintaining the competitiveness and stability of every team in the league, the players are interested in player opportunity even at the expense of parity and stability.

BigMeatballDave
04-27-2011, 09:54 AM
Right. The perspective that makes the most sense to me is the one that leads to a better result for the fans, which in this case is the league envisioned by the owners group rather than the one envisioned by the players, IMO.

The owners are interested in cost control, the players are not and the result will be reflected in ticket prices. The majority of owners are interested in maintaining the competitiveness and stability of every team in the league, the players are interested in player opportunity even at the expense of parity and stability.Riiight. Do you really think the Owners are concerned at all about cost when it comes to ticket prices? Dream on, Pat. Dream the fuck on.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 10:05 AM
No. Absolutely not. Not if the owner is taking a disproportionate share of revenue increases. The owner doesn't have a cap on how much $'s he can collect. The players do.

The players haven't risked any of their own money either. That no-cap-on-profit thing is the "reward" in risk/reward.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 10:09 AM
Man this is bullshit. They provide a product that generates billions upon billions of dollars. I don't see people bitching because the owner of Krispy Kreme makes millions of dollars (billions?). WTF do those greasy ass doughnuts (I said it!) do that is "vital for society"?

These guys are the closest thing we as Americans have to gladiators. They put their body through hell for our entertainment and are repaid not only in money but life long pain and sometimes mental disorders. You can quibble about the details of the CBA, but this "players are overpaid" bullshit pisses me off.

It's so vital that more Americans don't watch football than do.

Your argument is absurd. The greasy donut isn't vital, but neither is football.

patteeu
04-27-2011, 10:14 AM
Riiight. Do you really think the Owners are concerned at all about cost when it comes to ticket prices? Dream on, Pat. Dream the **** on.

They're more concerned about it than the players are. They're the ones who have to sell them. It's not that they're being benevolent, it's just the reality of their situation.

Who is more concerned about costs and the price of their products, the restaurant owner or the waiters and busboys?

veist
04-27-2011, 10:32 AM
:facepalm:

No offense, but this post makes it clear that you're not up to using my logic and it's not clear whether logic of any sort is in your arsenal. The old agreement is over. A new agreement must be established. The players don't have any of the revenue at this point. The owners aren't inclined to give them as much this time around as they did last time. They're not trying to get any money back.

The fact that the old CBA is over doesn't mean it suddenly disappears from everyone's memory as if it never existed. In any negotiation between the two its going to be the baseline from which either side judges. So yes, for all intents and purposes of the negotiation process the owners are asking for money back.

BigMeatballDave
04-27-2011, 10:41 AM
The fact that the old CBA is over doesn't mean it suddenly disappears from everyone's memory as if it never existed. In any negotiation between the two its going to be the baseline from which either side judges. So yes, for all intents and purposes of the negotiation process the owners are asking for money back.Yea, I'm hoping the judge orders business as usual under the expired CBA.

Cave Johnson
04-27-2011, 10:44 AM
Such a joke of a letter by Goodell. I can't believe his PR people wrote it with a straight face.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14995838/goodell-plays-us-for-fools-in-letter-to-wsj

patteeu
04-27-2011, 10:47 AM
The fact that the old CBA is over doesn't mean it suddenly disappears from everyone's memory as if it never existed. In any negotiation between the two its going to be the baseline from which either side judges. So yes, for all intents and purposes of the negotiation process the owners are asking for money back.

Use whatever mental gymnastics that make you happy, but don't impose your counter-reality on me.

Chiefnj2
04-27-2011, 10:59 AM
The way I see it is as this - if the owners win in court, there is a greater chance of normalcy.

If the players keep winning, there is incentive for the owners to get things done quickly, but there is also a slim chance of some really bad things happening such as "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

In particular, the potential antitrust allegations and lawsuits could really be a mess. Imagine Andrew Luck has a dad just like Archie Manning. Buffalo has the first pick in the 2012 draft and papa Luck doesn't want Andy playing in Buffalo. He files suit that the draft is unfair, etc. It's a slim chance, but all you need is one a-hole to mess it up.

veist
04-27-2011, 11:40 AM
I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Windmills don't work that way.

vailpass
04-27-2011, 11:52 AM
The owner hate by some of the posters in this thread is staggering in both jealousy and stupidity. The support for employee entitlement beyond that which is offered by the employer and agreed upon by the employee isn't surprising.
The thought that anyone can be an owner, that being an owner is easy and requires no work is laughable.

Chiefnj2
04-27-2011, 11:53 AM
How many employees does an average nfl team have? (non players)

Brock
04-27-2011, 11:59 AM
The owner hate by some of the posters in this thread is staggering in both jealousy and stupidity. The support for employee entitlement beyond that which is offered by the employer and agreed upon by the employee isn't surprising.
The thought that anyone can be an owner, that being an owner is easy and requires no work is laughable.

Yeah, you haven't posted this over and over enough. We weren't really sure where you stood on the matter.

Cave Johnson
04-27-2011, 12:00 PM
The owner hate by some of the posters in this thread is staggering in both jealousy and stupidity. The support for employee entitlement beyond that which is offered by the employer and agreed upon by the employee isn't surprising.
The thought that anyone can be an owner, that being an owner is easy and requires no work is laughable.

Anyone can be an owner. You just have to win the sperm lottery.

patteeu
04-27-2011, 12:01 PM
Anyone can be an owner. You just have to win the sperm lottery.

Yeah, you haven't posted this over and over enough. We weren't really sure where you stood on the matter.

BigMeatballDave
04-27-2011, 12:02 PM
The player hate by some of the posters in this thread is staggering in both jealousy and stupidity. The support for employers entitlement beyond that which is offered by the employee and agreed upon by the employer isn't surprising.
The thought that anyone can be an player, that being a player is easy and requires no work is laughable.FYP :)

Cave Johnson
04-27-2011, 12:02 PM
Yeah, you haven't posted this over and over enough. We weren't really sure where you stood on the matter.

Show me one post where I said this previously.

vailpass
04-27-2011, 12:02 PM
Yeah, you haven't posted this over and over enough. We weren't really sure where you stood on the matter.

Although I appreciate your concern it really isn't necessary. Or interesting.

vailpass
04-27-2011, 12:03 PM
Anyone can be a player. You just have to win the sperm lottery.

Agreed.

Ultra Peanut
04-27-2011, 12:04 PM
http://i.imgur.com/oN43c.gif

patteeu
04-27-2011, 12:07 PM
Show me one post where I said this previously.

Maybe I got you confused with one of the others. I wonder if they're silver spooned hypocrites like you.

Ultra Peanut
04-27-2011, 12:19 PM
lol @ this being in the WSJ, btdubs

It basically says everything that needs to be said.

Roger, you are one hell of an amazing mind-blowing moron.

Its very simple: bargain in good faith. Thats it, just bargain in good faith.

EVERY GOD DAMNED MAJOR SPORT in the ENTIRE US except the NFL OPENS THEIR DAMNED BOOKS to their players.

If you need more money, fine. Prove it. If you open your books and explain why you need to take away another $600MM from the players and they dont buy it, OK fine. We'll probably have a strike and you can see who can hold out long enough.http://i.imgur.com/sjNpq.gif

Cave Johnson
04-27-2011, 01:08 PM
Maybe I got you confused with one of the others. I wonder if they're silver spooned hypocrites like you.

So, and answer the question honestly, does the fact you fap to Goodell's Fox News anchor wife color your opinion on this issue?

patteeu
04-27-2011, 01:12 PM
So, and answer the question honestly, does the fact you fap to Goodell's Fox News anchor wife color your opinion on this issue?

No, I'm completely objective. And for the record, there are several more attractive women at Fox News AFAIC, but I don't get that channel at my house so I don't see them very often.

Swanman
04-27-2011, 01:39 PM
On the subject of the owners opening their books, this not just a simple case of the players wanting access just for the hell of it. The owners are asking for money back in the new deal because of increased costs, and the players want to prove it through review of audited financial statements. The review of the books is due diligence on the part of the players as part of a good faith negotiation. The players just aren't going to hand over $1 billion per year for expense credits if the owners can't prove that the increased costs actually exist.

vailpass
04-27-2011, 01:41 PM
On the subject of the owners opening their books, this not just a simple case of the players wanting access just for the hell of it. The owners are asking for money back in the new deal because of increased costs, and the players want to prove it through review of audited financial statements. The review of the books is due diligence on the part of the players as part of a good faith negotiation. The players just aren't going to hand over $1 billion per year for expense credits if the owners can't prove that the increased costs actually exist.

Incredible. Really?

kysirsoze
04-27-2011, 01:45 PM
It's so vital that more Americans don't watch football than do.

Your argument is absurd. The greasy donut isn't vital, but neither is football.

:spock:

What? You just made my argument. My point was that neither are vital but no one bitches about how much doughnut barons make. How did you not get that?

Swanman
04-27-2011, 01:45 PM
Incredible. Really?

What about that is so incredible? This is not a simple case of a lowly employee asking to see the books and records. When one side in a negotiation is claiming something, the other side wants that claim proven.

kysirsoze
04-27-2011, 01:48 PM
Incredible. Really?

Sometimes when clear logic is ignored, repetition is the only recourse.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 01:52 PM
:spock:

What? You just made my argument. My point was that neither are vital but no one bitches about how much doughnut barons make. How did you not get that?

Oil is vital and everyone bitches about how much they make. People don't bitch about donut guy specifically, but they rail on about greedy corporations as a whole.

kysirsoze
04-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Oil is vital and everyone bitches about how much they make. People don't bitch about donut guy specifically, but they rail on about greedy corporations as a whole.

Fine. But until something like this comes to a head, you never hear about the greedy bastard owners. Greedy, overpaid players is a chorus that runs through all major professional sports constantly. It's bullshit.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 01:56 PM
Fine. But until something like this comes to a head, you never hear about the greedy bastard owners. Greedy, overpaid players is a chorus that runs through all major professional sports constantly. It's bullshit.

They're both greedy and I don't view that as a vice.

kysirsoze
04-27-2011, 02:00 PM
They're both greedy and I don't view that as a vice.

Fine. Still doesn't refute my initial post that you called absurd. My issue was with the guy saying players are overpaid. I made a clear point as to why I thought he was full of shit. You objected. I was curious as to whether you had good reason after all. I suppose not.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 02:18 PM
I'll break it down further.

Man this is bullshit. They provide a product that generates billions upon billions of dollars.

In fact the *owners* provide the product. The players are the employees.

I don't see people bitching because the owner of Krispy Kreme makes millions of dollars (billions?). WTF do those greasy ass doughnuts (I said it!) do that is "vital for society"?

People bitch about corporate profits all the time. You'd have to have your head buried in the sand to miss it. Hell, this thread is littered with it. In this case the thread is targeted at the NFL, but you could go check out the oil thread that keeps popping up to see the same thing in another industry.

These guys are the closest thing we as Americans have to gladiators.

Being the closest doesn't mean it is close. Because it isn't. At all. Slaves forced to kill each other and hack each other apart compares to NFL players in the same way the Holocaust compares to one Jewish guy being mugged in NY for his wallet.

They put their body through hell for our entertainment and are repaid not only in money but life long pain and sometimes mental disorders.

They're also paid hundreds or thousands of times more than they would have ever made in any other industry. That's the trade off. Nobody forced them to do it. They chose money over their health.

You can quibble about the details of the CBA, but this "players are overpaid" bullshit pisses me off.

The only way their salaries affect me are when the teams and/or the league start taking public money. I almost couldn't care less what either of them make.

BigMeatballDave
04-27-2011, 04:14 PM
In fact the *owners* provide the product. The players are the employees.



No. The players are the product. We pay to watch the players play football. What 'product' do the Owners provide? The product is football and its players.

kcfanXIII
04-27-2011, 04:54 PM
Well gee Roger, maybe your fucking owners shouldn't have opted out of the old CBA and started this shit.


How did this thread last so long after this?

Post #2 should have closed this thread.

kysirsoze
04-27-2011, 07:03 PM
I'll break it down further.



In fact the *owners* provide the product. The players are the employees.



People bitch about corporate profits all the time. You'd have to have your head buried in the sand to miss it. Hell, this thread is littered with it. In this case the thread is targeted at the NFL, but you could go check out the oil thread that keeps popping up to see the same thing in another industry.



Being the closest doesn't mean it is close. Because it isn't. At all. Slaves forced to kill each other and hack each other apart compares to NFL players in the same way the Holocaust compares to one Jewish guy being mugged in NY for his wallet.



They're also paid hundreds or thousands of times more than they would have ever made in any other industry. That's the trade off. Nobody forced them to do it. They chose money over their health.



The only way their salaries affect me are when the teams and/or the league start taking public money. I almost couldn't care less what either of them make.

You wrote all that and still didn't refute my point? Once again, my one and only point was that players are not overpaid. Was the gladiator thing hyperbole? Yes. But we do send these men to beat the hell out of each other for our amusement. Did I say their compensation wasn't a fair trade off for the health risks? No. As far as other industrys being the target of criticism, I don't think it matches what athletes get with the possible exception of oil and only because people are constantly hit with high costs at the pump. The fact that you even make the comparison is pretty telling.

You say yourself you don't even care what they get paid. Why did you even get involved? Are there really bot enough people for you to argue with in this thread?


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk