no football in 2011????

[sussnk]

"The negotiations for a new labor agreement couldn't be going any worse.

 

If the past few days, I've spoken to sources on both sides of the labor talks, and I've come to the conclusion that it'll be an upset if there isn't a work stoppage that either delays or cancels the 2011 season. Many of us in the media have speculated about the chances for a lockout and predicted one is coming, but the total lack of progress over the nut issue in 11 bargaining sessions tells me unless there's a sea-change by one side or the other, you'd better savor the 2010 season because it could be the last football we see for a while.

 

At the core of the problem is ownership's demand for players to bear an equal part of the cost for stadium construction, debt service and upkeep -- and the players saying it's not their problem. In NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith's recent e-mail to player representatives, he startled player leaders by saying ownership wanted to cut player compensation by 18 percent per year in the new CBA.

 

I thought the 18 percent number might be an exaggeration, a scare tactic to get players' attention. It's not. The owners, one management source said, have asked that the players' pool of revenue against which the salary cap is calculated be reduced by 18 percent.

 

The players' response, a union source told me, is that they're not prepared to take a penny, or a percentage point, less. While Smith, in his letter to players, didn't dismiss the possibility of negotiating on the issue, he wrote that there has been no compelling information presented to players to justify such a major reduction in what players make.

 

You wonder what 18 percent means. So did I. The management source said the owners want $1 billion a year credited to ownership and not subject to being part of the pie that the players divide. "There's obviously been an enormous shift from public financing of stadiums to private funding,'' the management source said. "Those costs are not recognized in the current CBA, and we feel that has to change.''

 

The league has beat this drum for several years. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some give-and-take in the owners' demands, because this is collective bargaining, but I would be surprised if the owners drop this as a demand altogether. They're just too dug-in on it.

 

But from the players' perspective, it's got to be a tough sell to union leaders. Imagine Smith going into a union meeting at a team and telling the players that the average compensation to the men in this room is about $1.8 million this year in salary and bonus payments, and explaining to them in a time of bountiful success for the NFL, each of the players is going to have to take, on average, a $324,000 pay cut. The players will never go for that, absent the owners being able to prove they're losing money in a time of unparalleled wealth in the league.

 

At some point, serious talks will start, with each side compromising. But I can't see the two sides bridging this chasm anytime soon.

 

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz0cysM3lrL

Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription"

[BearFan2000]

sorry but, in an economy where many are jobless, many are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs and many are in a salary freeze barely making it paycheck to paycheck. You have pro athletes who will balk at salary decreases that will still make them vastly higher paid than most real world people. I've been working at the same place for 11 years and am well below average in salary partly because my employer is cheap and more recently due to the economy. I barely make enough to keep the bills and mortgage paid up and have a little to set aside for emergencies. If I had half the salary of the average player it would be a lot more than I make now. Yet these guys will refuse to take a pay cut when the fans that work hard to fork over their hard earned cash to support them are barely making ends meet. Doesn't seem right.

[nfoligno]

One. Despite all the negative I read, I simply find it so hard to believe either side truly is dumb enough to force a work stoppage. Football has never been more popular. In fact, I might even argue no sport has ever seen the total popularity football has today. Example after example has shown how negative of an impact work stoppages has had, for both sides, in the past. Football, baseball, hockey. Yes, league rebound over time, but the key term there is time. Baseball was once the American Pastime, but football has not only taken their place, but lapped them in the process. I just have such a hard time believing most of what I read/hear isn't hot air.

 

Two. My personally, I side with the owners here. Sorry, but in no other business that I can think of do the employees see the level of company income as you have here. Even in industries where employees are true talents. Business wise, employers are taking all the risk, while giving up a great deal of the returns. If players want to be considered more like financial partner, then they should accept more financial risks.

 

I realize they risk injury every day, but that is simply not the same thing in terms of business.

 

The only thing that holds me back some from truly attacking players rather than owners is the owner's past reluctance to "open their books". If they were to open their books, and we found they were making a far greater profit than realized, that very well could change my opinion, but while there may well be some "fudging," I don't think it is on a level to change my opinion.

 

"The negotiations for a new labor agreement couldn't be going any worse.

 

If the past few days, I've spoken to sources on both sides of the labor talks, and I've come to the conclusion that it'll be an upset if there isn't a work stoppage that either delays or cancels the 2011 season. Many of us in the media have speculated about the chances for a lockout and predicted one is coming, but the total lack of progress over the nut issue in 11 bargaining sessions tells me unless there's a sea-change by one side or the other, you'd better savor the 2010 season because it could be the last football we see for a while.

 

At the core of the problem is ownership's demand for players to bear an equal part of the cost for stadium construction, debt service and upkeep -- and the players saying it's not their problem. In NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith's recent e-mail to player representatives, he startled player leaders by saying ownership wanted to cut player compensation by 18 percent per year in the new CBA.

 

I thought the 18 percent number might be an exaggeration, a scare tactic to get players' attention. It's not. The owners, one management source said, have asked that the players' pool of revenue against which the salary cap is calculated be reduced by 18 percent.

 

The players' response, a union source told me, is that they're not prepared to take a penny, or a percentage point, less. While Smith, in his letter to players, didn't dismiss the possibility of negotiating on the issue, he wrote that there has been no compelling information presented to players to justify such a major reduction in what players make.

 

You wonder what 18 percent means. So did I. The management source said the owners want $1 billion a year credited to ownership and not subject to being part of the pie that the players divide. "There's obviously been an enormous shift from public financing of stadiums to private funding,'' the management source said. "Those costs are not recognized in the current CBA, and we feel that has to change.''

 

The league has beat this drum for several years. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some give-and-take in the owners' demands, because this is collective bargaining, but I would be surprised if the owners drop this as a demand altogether. They're just too dug-in on it.

 

But from the players' perspective, it's got to be a tough sell to union leaders. Imagine Smith going into a union meeting at a team and telling the players that the average compensation to the men in this room is about $1.8 million this year in salary and bonus payments, and explaining to them in a time of bountiful success for the NFL, each of the players is going to have to take, on average, a $324,000 pay cut. The players will never go for that, absent the owners being able to prove they're losing money in a time of unparalleled wealth in the league.

 

At some point, serious talks will start, with each side compromising. But I can't see the two sides bridging this chasm anytime soon.

 

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz0cysM3lrL

Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription"

 

[nfoligno]

I agree this is a bad time for the players to make their cases. It is always said and argued that the average joe can simply not compare his life/job to that of a player. While that may still be true, in this economy, it may be harder to rationalize.

 

Many, if not most, companies today are taking steps to try and improve the position (current and future) of the company, and often times it comes at some expense to employees. Could be layoffs. Could be pay raise freezes. Lowering of benefits. Something. Point is, when you have an economy like we have, companies are having to find ways to cut costs.

 

The NFL is no different. While I have no evidence, I would bet the profits for the league and owners are down today than they were not long ago. Every sport seems to be suffering as the average fan simply can not afford to drop $500 to attend a game. Many can not even afford the $75 jerseys and such. While football maybe more protected due to TV deals, that doesn't mean they are totally insulated from the down economy.

 

So at a time when we read about what companies and employees are doing to keep jobs, here you have the NFL players refusing to accept a paycut. I just have a hard time seeing many people showing much empathy with these guys. Sure, owners are rich also, but aren't most company owners?

 

sorry but, in an economy where many are jobless, many are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs and many are in a salary freeze barely making it paycheck to paycheck. You have pro athletes who will balk at salary decreases that will still make them vastly higher paid than most real world people. I've been working at the same place for 11 years and am well below average in salary partly because my employer is cheap and more recently due to the economy. I barely make enough to keep the bills and mortgage paid up and have a little to set aside for emergencies. If I had half the salary of the average player it would be a lot more than I make now. Yet these guys will refuse to take a pay cut when the fans that work hard to fork over their hard earned cash to support them are barely making ends meet. Doesn't seem right.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

The only thing that holds me back some from truly attacking players rather than owners is the owner's past reluctance to "open their books". If they were to open their books, and we found they were making a far greater profit than realized, that very well could change my opinion, but while there may well be some "fudging," I don't think it is on a level to change my opinion.

 

for me this says everything. if they are legitimate paupers why not let the world see their profit percentages and if player salaries are bleeding them out, i will cry along with them. until then i have no sympathy what-so-ever.

 

just curious, do the corporations like kraft have to make statements to their boards on profits/losses in this area? if so i would like to see them.

 

as far as nfl players getting too much? compare it to any other major sport in the world. total paid out in salary compared to length of time able to play due to injury vs age retirement and complete physical condition when they do.

 

baseball players are averaging what? 5-10+ million a season? how many are forced to retire due to physical injury including concussions compared to football players.

[chitownman]

It has become pathetic at how professional sports is run. The owners go nuts with some of these contracts that they have with the athletes and cry foul because in the long run they claim to be losing money. On the other hand the athlete as well makes ungodly money for a short professional career however, is not truly held accountable for their performance on the field. Both sides need to give and share what ever in order to make this all work out better for everyone involved. I have mentioned that all professional athletes should sign performance enhanced contracts or incentive laced contracts as the saying goes. I also agree that the owners need to open the books to everyone, not just the players so that we are all able to see what it is that they are doing. Most companies out there do have annual reports that the public is able to review to understand what is happening for the company. Professional sports for some reason remains on the QT and alienates everyone from the players, various other staff members to the fan base. I have also mentioned before that the owners need to understand that they are not in a typical business and that they are not able to follow the standard model for a business which means increase the bottom line. Put a quality product on the field and spend to invest in your future and be forthcoming to what is happening. All this secrecy is appalling and the fact that the owners and the players take the attitude of, "I Don't Care About The Rest Of The Word, I Only Care About Me," is not a way to be. There are far to many issues that effect all of us and those who make the most money need to do a better job at helping everyone out and not being elite snobs. There must be a way to work together to get things going in the right direction for everyone involved and not pissing off their respective fan bases. It is I am sure another thing that is making Papa Bear spin in his grave as I am sure he did not see the NFL turn into the financial spectacle that it has. If there is a lock out next season or a player strike, so be it. It will just continue to alienate the fans and it shows that they do not give a rat's ass about the fans.

[LT2_3]

I wouldn't get too worried about much quite yet. The owners have no reason to compromise anything right now. It's the players that don't want the uncapped year. The owners do want it so teams can wipe some bad contracts off the books without the normally corresponding cap hit. Also, in an economic climate like this, teams like the Bucs need there to be no salary floor as well so they can get by.

 

As for King's perspective, he's not a business guy. I'm sure he's reporting the propoganda that he's hearing accurately, but he really has no idea what anything that he is hearing means. That's it plain and simple.

[balta1701-A]

Without commenting on which side is right, there's one more thing the owners are thinking here; they think they can break this union fairly quickly. Their example is the NBA in 1999. The number of players who are smart with their money is surprisingly small; a lot of them manage to find ways to live paycheck to paycheck, just like me except making 1-2 orders of magnitude more money each year. In 1999, the NBA union basically broke, because so many of their players couldn't get by without a paycheck that the owners got serious concessions through a lockout that they couldn't get otherwise. The NBA owners are probably going to be doing the exact same thing next year, breaking the union again. As a business decision, it makes sense for the NFL owners to push the same thing; they can simply outlast the players.

[Lucky Luciano]

It has become pathetic at how professional sports is run. The owners go nuts with some of these contracts that they have with the athletes and cry foul because in the long run they claim to be losing money. On the other hand the athlete as well makes ungodly money for a short professional career however, is not truly held accountable for their performance on the field. Both sides need to give and share what ever in order to make this all work out better for everyone involved. I have mentioned that all professional athletes should sign performance enhanced contracts or incentive laced contracts as the saying goes.

 

i agree that the way pro sports are run in todays world is atrocious. it's pure greed that is driving the nfl today. it's all geared up for bottom line profit structure and whether the game is hurt or changed for the worse is a 2nd or even 3rd consideration. in fact what you are seeing today is not the same game that was played 25 years ago. the media contracts have forced rule changes and even the way you watch football. how many times have you seen a game that comes back from one of the dozens of commercials they force into every pause in the game to actually have missed plays? that would NEVER have happened even 15 years ago yet now is reasonably common. the nfl is geared for offense because they (the media) have determined that mindless fans would become restless if the scores don't resemble basketball scores and changed the rules of the game.

 

the accountablility for player performance is certainly a problem with no real solution. performance can be hindered by injury, fellow players, coaches or scheme. i don't know how you could account for this fairly on a year by year evaluation of salary. although if they made contracts shorter with no bonus money and the contracts guaranteed to be paid 'might' be a way to counter some of the problems. for instances if you sign a player at X dollars for 2-3 years you pay him that salary for 2-3 years and there are no bonus bucks paid up front or on the backside or any way out of the contract unless you bought the player out. it would probably raise the actual amount of yearly salary but wouldn't hold teams accountable for unpaid money that was backloaded.

 

in my opinion the rookie contracts need especially to be worked out fairly for both owners and players. this is also a complex arrangement on potential as some positions (qb for instance) take longer for the player to learn to play at a high level.

 

If there is a lock out next season or a player strike, so be it. It will just continue to alienate the fans and it shows that they do not give a rat's ass about the fans.

 

agree on this. the 82 and 87 strike years were sham seasons that changed the way the nfl operated. the owners bet on the 'more money for them' horse and it appeared to come in last. nobody cared or wanted to watch scabs play during the 87 year and the entire year was a bust. same with the shortened 82 season.

 

some good reading if this interests you can be found here that will give you some insight on how the nfl progressed and how the players actually started getting what they SHOULD have from robber baron owners and fought for basic rights that that should have been a given especially considering the amount of money involved: http://nflplayers.com/user/template.aspx?f...1036&type=c

[jason]

One. Despite all the negative I read, I simply find it so hard to believe either side truly is dumb enough to force a work stoppage. Football has never been more popular. In fact, I might even argue no sport has ever seen the total popularity football has today. Example after example has shown how negative of an impact work stoppages has had, for both sides, in the past. Football, baseball, hockey. Yes, league rebound over time, but the key term there is time. Baseball was once the American Pastime, but football has not only taken their place, but lapped them in the process. I just have such a hard time believing most of what I read/hear isn't hot air.

 

Two. My personally, I side with the owners here. Sorry, but in no other business that I can think of do the employees see the level of company income as you have here. Even in industries where employees are true talents. Business wise, employers are taking all the risk, while giving up a great deal of the returns. If players want to be considered more like financial partner, then they should accept more financial risks.

 

I realize they risk injury every day, but that is simply not the same thing in terms of business.

 

The only thing that holds me back some from truly attacking players rather than owners is the owner's past reluctance to "open their books". If they were to open their books, and we found they were making a far greater profit than realized, that very well could change my opinion, but while there may well be some "fudging," I don't think it is on a level to change my opinion.

 

Completely agreed. Nearly all the risk is on the owners, and the players get an abnormally large portion of the pie compared to numerous other industries. Just look online at various pro sports teams that have lost money on a fairly consistent basis while their players continued to rack up millions. And what choices did the owners have? Either risk financial future by keeping up with other teams, or get rid of the team and cut losses.

 

This seems very one-sided to me, and I don't think the players are shouldering their portion, especially considering the fact that most cities are hesitant to pay for new stadiums with taxes from people already struggling in a weakened economy.

 

[nfoligno]

Yea, the only thing that holds me back from totally taking a side here is the lack of public disclosure. I could be wrong, but I think GB is the only teams who's finances are actually known, as they are a publically held company, and thus required by law to open their books. The rest of the teams are not required to do so. While I understand any company being hesitant to open up the books, when you claim your losing money, you need to show proof.

 

If the books were opened though, I think we would find some teams doing well, others not so much, but I think across the board, most teams would show lower numbers in this weakened economy. If that is not the case, then the NFL truly is a shining beacon as it would be maybe the only place not affected by recent financial woes. But I doubt that is the case. I read constantly about teams finding it harder and harder to find sponsors. Teams finding it harder to sell those expensive suites as companies are not as willing to fork over the big bucks they once were. Hard to justify execs living it up in some awesome suite when they are at the same time laying off tons of workers. Some teams were even struggling w/ attendence. Overall, I think there is more than enough reason to believe NFL owners, just as w/ most every other company boss in America, has been hit by hard times.

 

Players are quite willing to be equal partners when it comes to taking the money, but when times are down, they don't seem to want that same level of committment.

 

Completely agreed. Nearly all the risk is on the owners, and the players get an abnormally large portion of the pie compared to numerous other industries. Just look online at various pro sports teams that have lost money on a fairly consistent basis while their players continued to rack up millions. And what choices did the owners have? Either risk financial future by keeping up with other teams, or get rid of the team and cut losses.

 

This seems very one-sided to me, and I don't think the players are shouldering their portion, especially considering the fact that most cities are hesitant to pay for new stadiums with taxes from people already struggling in a weakened economy.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Completely agreed. Nearly all the risk is on the owners, and the players get an abnormally large portion of the pie compared to numerous other industries.

 

what other industries are you talking about?

 

pro sports is an industry where the employees ARE what is sold to the public.

 

Just look online at various pro sports teams that have lost money on a fairly consistent basis while their players continued to rack up millions. And what choices did the owners have? Either risk financial future by keeping up with other teams, or get rid of the team and cut losses.

 

This seems very one-sided to me, and I don't think the players are shouldering their portion, especially considering the fact that most cities are hesitant to pay for new stadiums with taxes from people already struggling in a weakened economy.

 

NAME the amount of nfl teams that lose money on a fairly consistent basis. what is that percentage as a whole? show me the bottom line from their financial statements. show me what they do different from the ones you don't consider losing money. is geography/location a factor? poor football operations management policies which includes personnel and their salary along with the final results in wins/losses? overpaying initially for the franchise? overestimation of sport popularity or initial profits in specific areas? poor borrowing practice? is it a planned tax break for the owners? overestimating the value their franchise will rise and be worth? do you consider the owner/CEO salary factors in your estimation? or is it just a wide brush whitewashing statement that the players are to blame because of salary?

 

sorry but until i see the actual financial statements by owners and how they are losing money just for the good of the fans i ain't buyin it.

 

some interesting reading:

http://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/doc...waystowin.shtml

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wealth/b...iressports.html

http://www.bos.frb.org/peanuts/sptspage/inning4.htm

 

2000: Zimbalist suggests that if the NBA owners are truly serious about competitive balance, they should pursue the NFL’s strategy of revenue sharing, but that faces serious obstacles in both basketball and baseball. The best solution, he argues, is one also suggested by Fort: Foster competition by breaking up the existing leagues and creating new ones. With two leagues in each sport, largemarket teams would have to share their market with teams from competing leagues, and cities would not have to compete against one another by offering new stadiums to attract teams.

http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/ch1/kern-sports.pdf

 

2009: The NFL is different. It’s still a money machine, the country’s most popular sport and it has leverage. Ironically, since it’s so popular, it’s still in a position to dictate terms to cities. And those terms are terrible. They want stadiums that are now costing up to a billion dollars and are not a good civic investment, since many are used only about 20 times a year and look like giant blimp hangers blighting the landscape.

http://www.dwightjaynes.com/owners-getting...orts-facilities

 

2009: As the Redskins close out a decade of losing, one thing is undeniable: off the field, the team has been a roaring success. The Washington Redskins make more money than any other professional sports franchise in the United States. Their estimated annual revenue is $345 million, according to Forbes. Their closest contender, the New York Yankees, bring in somewhere around $320 million a year--but the Yankees bring home championships, 27 and counting.

http://www.wopular.com/redskins-revenues-h...pro-sports-team

 

here is some fun reading that is dated, 2001: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/2001/0710/1224543.html

[nfoligno]

NAME the amount of nfl teams that lose money on a fairly consistent basis. what is that percentage as a whole? show me the bottom line from their financial statements. show me what they do different from the ones you don't consider losing money. is geography/location a factor? poor football operations management policies which includes personnel and their salary along with the final results in wins/losses? overpaying initially for the franchise? overestimation of sport popularity or initial profits in specific areas? poor borrowing practice? is it a planned tax break for the owners? overestimating the value their franchise will rise and be worth? do you consider the owner/CEO salary factors in your estimation? or is it just a wide brush whitewashing statement that the players are to blame because of salary?

 

One. This is something you always do that drives me nuts. you ask for hard evidence which is simply not possible to attain. The media, which has a lot more time than Jason, I or others on this board to research, can not get such info, yet here you are asking for it? Why? Can you offer this evidence? I know you throw down some articles below, but in reading through them, they are little more than pieces of the puzzle, or flat out opinion pieces.

 

Two. "or is it a wide brush whitewashing statement...." Its an opinion. You know, the sort of thing you read on a message board. Players are employees who want to see huge salaries (fine) but who do not want to feel the affects when a team doesn't do so well financially (not fine). You say you want proof teams are losing money. I am not sure anyone has said that. I think the questions are (a) do players deserve the percentage they get and ( are teams not suffering from the down economy, and if so, should players not feel some of that burden. That isn't to say teams are in the red, but simply that profits are not as great as they were before. Do I have proof? No. Nor do you. but I think it logical to believe the NFL, like most every other industry out there is feeling the effects of a down economy.

 

sorry but until i see the actual financial statements by owners and how they are losing money just for the good of the fans i ain't buyin it.

 

Again, not what anyone is saying. I don't think Jason, I or any others are trying to say owners are in bread lines or teams are losing money. It is a question of percentage of profits that go to players. I could be wrong, but I believe the greatest aspect of where players get a piece of the pie is a more constant number, stemming from media contracts and such. I think much of the money players do not get a piece of the pie come from areas which are most likely to be hit in a down economy. Thus, owners are having to payout to player the same numbers (actually, it is continually going up) while other areas they usually get X amount in profits go down.

 

some interesting reading:

http://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/doc...waystowin.shtml

 

Um, this is a 2002 article, and based on even older info. Not exactly current, nor does it consider the current economy.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wealth/b...iressports.html

 

This article is about mega wealthy men who buy teams, and the entire feel of the article seems to question the logic. It talks about teams not really being great investments, and most examples of those who do so well are ones like Cuban or George Steinbrener who have tie in (like cable or media) which boost an organizations profits, rather than simply the team itself. This article does not seem to help your argument.

 

http://www.bos.frb.org/peanuts/sptspage/inning4.htm

 

Nice read, but even in this article it mentions several areas which teams rely on big numbers to see big profits, and some of these areas are ones which teams seem to be struggling with of late. Jerry Jones could not find anyone to pay for naming rights, for example, his new stadium due to the weak economy. I find it hard to believe merchandice sales have been steady in this economy. And even ticket sales. It seems more and more teams struggle to sell out these days, and many point to the economy.

 

2000: Zimbalist suggests that if the NBA owners are truly serious about competitive balance, they should pursue the NFL’s strategy of revenue sharing, but that faces serious obstacles in both basketball and baseball. The best solution, he argues, is one also suggested by Fort: Foster competition by breaking up the existing leagues and creating new ones. With two leagues in each sport, largemarket teams would have to share their market with teams from competing leagues, and cities would not have to compete against one another by offering new stadiums to attract teams.

 

Honestly, this piece seemed a bit out there.

 

http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/ch1/kern-sports.pdf

 

2009: The NFL is different. It’s still a money machine, the country’s most popular sport and it has leverage. Ironically, since it’s so popular, it’s still in a position to dictate terms to cities. And those terms are terrible. They want stadiums that are now costing up to a billion dollars and are not a good civic investment, since many are used only about 20 times a year and look like giant blimp hangers blighting the landscape.

http://www.dwightjaynes.com/owners-getting...orts-facilities

 

This was little more than an opinion piece by someone making a case that the public should not have to pay for stadiums as they do not see any return, which I disagree with. There are many reports for either side.

 

2009: As the Redskins close out a decade of losing, one thing is undeniable: off the field, the team has been a roaring success. The Washington Redskins make more money than any other professional sports franchise in the United States. Their estimated annual revenue is $345 million, according to Forbes. Their closest contender, the New York Yankees, bring in somewhere around $320 million a year--but the Yankees bring home championships, 27 and counting.

http://www.wopular.com/redskins-revenues-h...pro-sports-team

 

But the article specifies Wash, and Dallas too, as teams that make a ton of money, w/o making a more general statement to other teams in the league. You would not suggest everyone in baseball makes a ton of money using NY as an example. Similar, in football, can you really point to Wash as an example for the league. A key reason they make so much money is having a stadium which seats 20k more than the average, and closer to 30k more than we.

 

 

[LT2_3]

Thanks, nfo.

 

After his last one where he quotes an article saying that ALL businesses in the US lose $250 billion in revenue annually to counterfeit merchandise, and then uses it as a number for the NFL as evidence of how much they actually make, I lost any interest in counterpointing this malinformed choad.

[nfoligno]

I will say this. I think so long as owners keep their finances under closed books, they open themselves up to speculation and criticism like Lucky feels. I don't blame lucky for this reason. If what I think is true, the owners should open their books to show their profits/revenue have dipped w/ the economy. If they did this, and showed that, I think they would bring far more support to their side.

 

 

Thanks, nfo.

 

After his last one where he quotes an article saying that ALL businesses in the US lose $250 billion in revenue annually to counterfeit merchandise, and then uses it as a number for the NFL as evidence of how much they actually make, I lost any interest in counterpointing this malinformed choad.

 

[LT2_3]

I will say this. I think so long as owners keep their finances under closed books, they open themselves up to speculation and criticism like Lucky feels. I don't blame lucky for this reason. If what I think is true, the owners should open their books to show their profits/revenue have dipped w/ the economy. If they did this, and showed that, I think they would bring far more support to their side.

 

That may be true, but I think that the public perception they are afraid of is the difference between the haves and have nots. The difference between Dallas and Washington, and Detroit, Buffalo, and Jax.

 

The big issue (as I see it) is that the haves don't want to have to do the revenue sharing with the have nots. The major issue in the last negotiations was that the players wanted the same percentage (60%) of ALL revenues, but not just the DGR (designated gross revenues). They want the teams that make far less to be able to run as a franchise, but not have to share their wealth with them because of the players wanting that big a piece of the pie.

 

If they WERE to open their books, I think that they would find a huge disparity in the actual profits of the different teams and I don't think the league wants that info published.

[nfoligno]

Why does it matter? I mean, if Wash or Dallas make a ton of profit due to other aspects of their business or deals they have vs a franchise like Jax, why would the league care.

 

In baseball, you have the yankees and such, but the reason (IMHO) for negative comments is not simply due to NY making so much money, but due to the lack of a salary cap, and thus the perception that a team can buy a world series. Football is very different. Even if Wash makes more money than another team, while it may give them some advantages, for the most part, the salary cap keeps teams on a more even playing field. Yes, Wash can offer bigger bonuses and play w/ the cap more than some teams, but the disparity is still far less than it is in a sport like Baseball. So I am just not sure that I buy the public perception slanting toward negative if they saw the disparity. Frankly, most know of the difference now between teams like Wash and Jax. I think the issue is far more about the teams more in the middle. The Bears for example. We really have no idea what the profit is at the end of the year for the team. Not just Chicago, but the bulk of teams IMHO. I think there are a group of obvious "havs" and a group of obvious "have nots" but it is the majority of teams that are more in the middle and unknown which I think is the greater question.

 

Honestly, I am not sure I understand your point about some teams not wanting revenue sharing. While I do not doubt a team like Wash would prefer not to have revenue sharing, at the same time, I have not heard of that really being an issue, at least not in tems of this CBA. Any new CBA would include revenue sharing, right? It doesn't seem like that is really on the table.

 

That may be true, but I think that the public perception they are afraid of is the difference between the haves and have nots. The difference between Dallas and Washington, and Detroit, Buffalo, and Jax.

 

The big issue (as I see it) is that the haves don't want to have to do the revenue sharing with the have nots. The major issue in the last negotiations was that the players wanted the same percentage (60%) of ALL revenues, but not just the DGR (designated gross revenues). They want the teams that make far less to be able to run as a franchise, but not have to share their wealth with them because of the players wanting that big a piece of the pie.

 

If they WERE to open their books, I think that they would find a huge disparity in the actual profits of the different teams and I don't think the league wants that info published.

 

[balta1701-A]

Honestly, I am not sure I understand your point about some teams not wanting revenue sharing. While I do not doubt a team like Wash would prefer not to have revenue sharing, at the same time, I have not heard of that really being an issue, at least not in tems of this CBA. Any new CBA would include revenue sharing, right? It doesn't seem like that is really on the table.

I think the reality here is that there are 2 big debates going on; the owners vs. the players and the small market owners versus the big market owners. Increased revenue sharing is definately a big deal for the smaller franchises (i.e. Buffalo) and that's going to make it hard for the Owners to get the players to agree to anything until the owners agree about what they're after.

[nfoligno]

Admittedly I have not followed "that" close. So are you guys saying some owners are in favor of dumping the CBA because they basically want to trash the current system, not only w/ the players agreement but the owners agreements too?

 

I know that I have heard in the past some owners, like Jerry Jones, not caring for the current system as he beleives he brings so much more to the table than many other teams. Frankly, he's right. Its not just a more successful team, or even the market either. Dallas isn't "that" great of a market. In fact, the baseball team here is as often as not lumped w/ the small market teams. But Jerry has a very good business mind, and brings so much ancillary dollars to the table. Meanwhile, there are many other owners who really don't add much, but are happy to take plenty.

 

I fully understand this issue some owners have. At the same time, football has never been more popular, and I believe a big reason for that is the parity, for lack of a better term, which is brought about in large part by the salary cap and revenue sharing. I am sorry, but in baseball, it is really hard to care when the Yankees are set to face this small market team or that one. Sure, you have a team like Minny who simply defies the odds, but then you have a team like the Royals who come to town w/ their $25m team salary and go up against NY and their $200m+ salary. This exemplifies an extreme example, but is regardless part of the problem IMHO.

 

In the NFL, small market teams can and do compete with big market teams. It takes more than money to win a championship, and much more than money to sustain lasting success. IMHO, if some of the more rich owners get their way, they may well be able to buy themselves more championships, but they may also find their overall profits dip down the road as lower ratings for football lead to smaller TV deals and smaller ad buys.

 

To me, the solution would seem to be a change is what profits are shared. Allow owners like Jones, Snyder and others who do more to up the profits of their teams to keep more of those profits. There is plenty of money to not only go around, but to also keep the big boys happy. So long as their is a salary cap, allowing teams to keep a greater share should not make that great of a difference.

 

As for the players, I would still shave their share of the revenue, as I simply don't believe they deserve as large of a piece of the pie as they currently receive, but that is my opinion.

 

I think the reality here is that there are 2 big debates going on; the owners vs. the players and the small market owners versus the big market owners. Increased revenue sharing is definately a big deal for the smaller franchises (i.e. Buffalo) and that's going to make it hard for the Owners to get the players to agree to anything until the owners agree about what they're after.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

One. This is something you always do that drives me nuts. you ask for hard evidence which is simply not possible to attain. The media, which has a lot more time than Jason, I or others on this board to research, can not get such info, yet here you are asking for it? Why? Can you offer this evidence? I know you throw down some articles below, but in reading through them, they are little more than pieces of the puzzle, or flat out opinion pieces.

 

Two. "or is it a wide brush whitewashing statement...." Its an opinion. You know, the sort of thing you read on a message board. Players are employees who want to see huge salaries (fine) but who do not want to feel the affects when a team doesn't do so well financially (not fine). You say you want proof teams are losing money. I am not sure anyone has said that. I think the questions are (a) do players deserve the percentage they get and (cool.gif are teams not suffering from the down economy, and if so, should players not feel some of that burden. That isn't to say teams are in the red, but simply that profits are not as great as they were before. Do I have proof? No. Nor do you. but I think it logical to believe the NFL, like most every other industry out there is feeling the effects of a down economy.

 

first... would you like some cheese with your whine?

 

if you can't take someone asking you to elaborate, or to question, define, or prove the validity of your statements and EVEN opinions or comments then what is the point at all? if not just state that as a qualifier in all your posts and save yourself (and me) a lot of typing and wasted space (not that the post you are replying to was even directed at you in the first place).

 

second... just what are you even talking about? it's an opinion? so what. does that make it untouchable? in fact if you read it carefully it does not read as an opinion but as a statement of fact or an opinion BASED on fact. take your pick.

 

jason: Nearly all the risk is on the owners, and the players get an abnormally large portion of the pie compared to numerous other industries. Just look online at various pro sports teams that have lost money on a fairly consistent basis while their players continued to rack up millions. And what choices did the owners have? Either risk financial future by keeping up with other teams, or get rid of the team and cut losses.

 

next... you are "not sure anyone has said" teams are losing money? LOL!!! did you even read the specific post you are defending? if not read the paragraph above.

 

moving on...

 

nfoligno: Players are quite willing to be equal partners when it comes to taking the money, but when times are down, they don't seem to want that same level of committment.

 

sounds like it would be utopia if they did doesn't it?

 

now i want to ask anyone on this ENTIRE board if they think fair is fair in good times and bad times whether the owners of any NORMAL healthy corporation would accept it if you put it to them thus:

 

we as employees will accept the percentage of company loss in cut wages in the bad years if you share ALL the excess profit percentages in good years exclusively among us (we also want to see the books to be sure you aren't loading them).

 

they would laugh you right out of their rosewood offices!!! don't believe it? ask anyone who owns or runs a corporation and especially one with stockholders. why? because the upside for profit is too great unless your company is swirling around the rim and ready to go down anyway. that is the way business works and to have them complain about salaries being lowered in specific bad years by healthy flourishing companies is posturing for sympathy to the ignorant and is pure balderdash.

 

Again, not what anyone is saying. I don't think Jason, I or any others are trying to say owners are in bread lines or teams are losing money. It is a question of percentage of profits that go to players. I could be wrong, but I believe the greatest aspect of where players get a piece of the pie is a more constant number, stemming from media contracts and such. I think much of the money players do not get a piece of the pie come from areas which are most likely to be hit in a down economy. Thus, owners are having to payout to player the same numbers (actually, it is continually going up) while other areas they usually get X amount in profits go down.

 

that is an interesting 2 edged sword. I believe the greatest aspect of where players get a piece of the pie is a more constant number, stemming from media contracts and such. and you don't think that is a major portion of where the owners get their piece of the "pie" from? you act like the players get ALL of the gross revenue. how much is allotted every single year to the owners? (please take into account my mathematical ignorance and if the figures are not correct please feel free to do it correctly and post it)

 

last year the cap was about $138 million dollars. so that means if the players are getting 65% (?) of total revenue for the cap the owners just got about $74 million dollars to pay their franchise expenses and consider profits NOT INCLUDING what isn't collected by the nfl to determine the cap figures.

 

also when the NEXT years totals come up to figure the SALARY CAP everyone gets less money if the gross totals add up to less don't you think? isn't THAT having the players take a pay cut or is there some magic involved that the players still get more? hmmmmm....

 

some interesting reading:

http://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/doc...waystowin.shtml

 

Um, this is a 2002 article, and based on even older info. Not exactly current, nor does it consider the current economy.

 

ummmm... well then why don't you spend a little time doing just a LITTLE research on your own to substanciate your claims or statements and post links to information to dispute facts and opinions i state? i'm certainly willing to change my mind if you or anyone else finds real evidence or valid, educated (even non educated) opinions contrary to this. in fact it would save ME hours looking up things you SHOULD have. but oh yea, i forgot. you never do that.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wealth/b...iressports.html

 

This article is about mega wealthy men who buy teams, and the entire feel of the article seems to question the logic. It talks about teams not really being great investments, and most examples of those who do so well are ones like Cuban or George Steinbrener who have tie in (like cable or media) which boost an organizations profits, rather than simply the team itself. This article does not seem to help your argument.

 

i put this in to give the reader a look at how some of the other owners of sport franchises in DIFFERENT sports operate or think and included this article from another country to show a different perspective or owners psyche. if you don't think it was interesting, so it goes.

 

http://www.bos.frb.org/peanuts/sptspage/inning4.htm

 

Nice read, but even in this article it mentions several areas which teams rely on big numbers to see big profits, and some of these areas are ones which teams seem to be struggling with of late. Jerry Jones could not find anyone to pay for naming rights, for example, his new stadium due to the weak economy. I find it hard to believe merchandice sales have been steady in this economy. And even ticket sales. It seems more and more teams struggle to sell out these days, and many point to the economy.

 

and your entire paragraph means just what in regards to this post? times are tough and jerry jones can't sell naming rights after building a BILLION DOLLAR stadium? LOL!!

 

which teams struggle to sell out these days? what are the reasons you SUPPOSE would cause that besides times are tough? why does soldier field sell out as has been stated in the past (not getting full attendance but selling out)? why do you think the bears attendence records were so GOOD this season while times are so tough?

 

2000: Zimbalist suggests that if the NBA owners are truly serious about competitive balance, they should pursue the NFL’s strategy of revenue sharing, but that faces serious obstacles in both basketball and baseball. The best solution, he argues, is one also suggested by Fort: Foster competition by breaking up the existing leagues and creating new ones. With two leagues in each sport, largemarket teams would have to share their market with teams from competing leagues, and cities would not have to compete against one another by offering new stadiums to attract teams.

 

Honestly, this piece seemed a bit out there.

 

yea, what would a flake like *Dr. William S. Kern as interim chair of the Department of Economics at Western Michigan University know about stuff like this.

 

*"William S. Kern has been a faculty member since 1987. His areas of specialization include microeconomics, comparative economic systems, and environmental and natural resource economics. He also has written and made presentations on the impact of sports franchises and new stadiums on regional economics. Prior to coming to WMU, he taught at Franklin and Marshall College for five years and also held faculty positions at Colorado State and Emporia State universities. He earned a bachelor's degree from Florida International University in 1976, a master's degree from Louisiana State"

 

http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/ch1/kern-sports.pdf

 

2009: The NFL is different. It’s still a money machine, the country’s most popular sport and it has leverage. Ironically, since it’s so popular, it’s still in a position to dictate terms to cities. And those terms are terrible. They want stadiums that are now costing up to a billion dollars and are not a good civic investment, since many are used only about 20 times a year and look like giant blimp hangers blighting the landscape.

http://www.dwightjaynes.com/owners-getting...orts-facilities

 

This was little more than an opinion piece by someone making a case that the public should not have to pay for stadiums as they do not see any return, which I disagree with. There are many reports for either side.

 

yea an opinion piece by a journalist and sport radio host: Dwight Jaynes You may remember me from my 25 years at The Oregonian and Oregon Journal. Or my stint at the Portland Tribune or appearances on local talk radio. They call me "The Godfather" now, especially in the mornings, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the "Morning Sports Page" with Gavin Dawson and Chad Doing, on Portland's No. 1 sports station, 95.5 The Game.

 

2009: As the Redskins close out a decade of losing, one thing is undeniable: off the field, the team has been a roaring success. The Washington Redskins make more money than any other professional sports franchise in the United States. Their estimated annual revenue is $345 million, according to Forbes. Their closest contender, the New York Yankees, bring in somewhere around $320 million a year--but the Yankees bring home championships, 27 and counting.

http://www.wopular.com/redskins-revenues-h...pro-sports-team

 

But the article specifies Wash, and Dallas too, as teams that make a ton of money, w/o making a more general statement to other teams in the league. You would not suggest everyone in baseball makes a ton of money using NY as an example. Similar, in football, can you really point to Wash as an example for the league. A key reason they make so much money is having a stadium which seats 20k more than the average, and closer to 30k more than we.

 

ok let's look at this... did you not site snyder in the past as being a bad owner who grossly overpays for players in the past, present and future? doesn't that shoot to hell the notion that players salaries are killing the owners? or do you now believe because he has 30 thousand more seats in his stadium that makes him more money than the freaking new york yankees?

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Thanks, nfo.

 

After his last one where he quotes an article saying that ALL businesses in the US lose $250 billion in revenue annually to counterfeit merchandise, and then uses it as a number for the NFL as evidence of how much they actually make, I lost any interest in counterpointing this malinformed choad.

 

and as usual you have come to the wrong conclusions and add nothing even mildly important to the conversation with the exception of the usual jibes and acidic giant-head wit expected from an infantile meglomaniac.

[madlithuanian]

Only if it is a publicly traded corporation, like the Packers are basically. That's why you usually only see their info when this topic gets brought up.

 

I imagine most these owners are LLC's.

 

just curious, do the corporations like kraft have to make statements to their boards on profits/losses in this area? if so i would like to see them.

 

[madlithuanian]

I love your take! I just wish the powers that be would listen... Their ears are plugged up with hundreds...

 

It has become pathetic at how professional sports is run. The owners go nuts with some of these contracts that they have with the athletes and cry foul because in the long run they claim to be losing money. On the other hand the athlete as well makes ungodly money for a short professional career however, is not truly held accountable for their performance on the field. Both sides need to give and share what ever in order to make this all work out better for everyone involved. I have mentioned that all professional athletes should sign performance enhanced contracts or incentive laced contracts as the saying goes. I also agree that the owners need to open the books to everyone, not just the players so that we are all able to see what it is that they are doing. Most companies out there do have annual reports that the public is able to review to understand what is happening for the company. Professional sports for some reason remains on the QT and alienates everyone from the players, various other staff members to the fan base. I have also mentioned before that the owners need to understand that they are not in a typical business and that they are not able to follow the standard model for a business which means increase the bottom line. Put a quality product on the field and spend to invest in your future and be forthcoming to what is happening. All this secrecy is appalling and the fact that the owners and the players take the attitude of, "I Don't Care About The Rest Of The Word, I Only Care About Me," is not a way to be. There are far to many issues that effect all of us and those who make the most money need to do a better job at helping everyone out and not being elite snobs. There must be a way to work together to get things going in the right direction for everyone involved and not pissing off their respective fan bases. It is I am sure another thing that is making Papa Bear spin in his grave as I am sure he did not see the NFL turn into the financial spectacle that it has. If there is a lock out next season or a player strike, so be it. It will just continue to alienate the fans and it shows that they do not give a rat's ass about the fans.

 

[madlithuanian]

I know the strike years weren't good, but was it areally a bust per se? The expectation had to be low I imagine.

 

I just don't know enough about the details.

 

I know many a person that rooted the helmet, and in fact, i recall a guy that played QB for the Saints that actually did well and had some nibble after. i think he was a high school teacher or something.

[madlithuanian]

I have heard that point brought up a lot in all this.

 

It will be fascinating how this plays out.

 

Admittedly I have not followed "that" close. So are you guys saying some owners are in favor of dumping the CBA because they basically want to trash the current system, not only w/ the players agreement but the owners agreements too?

 

I know that I have heard in the past some owners, like Jerry Jones, not caring for the current system as he beleives he brings so much more to the table than many other teams. Frankly, he's right. Its not just a more successful team, or even the market either. Dallas isn't "that" great of a market. In fact, the baseball team here is as often as not lumped w/ the small market teams. But Jerry has a very good business mind, and brings so much ancillary dollars to the table. Meanwhile, there are many other owners who really don't add much, but are happy to take plenty.

 

I fully understand this issue some owners have. At the same time, football has never been more popular, and I believe a big reason for that is the parity, for lack of a better term, which is brought about in large part by the salary cap and revenue sharing. I am sorry, but in baseball, it is really hard to care when the Yankees are set to face this small market team or that one. Sure, you have a team like Minny who simply defies the odds, but then you have a team like the Royals who come to town w/ their $25m team salary and go up against NY and their $200m+ salary. This exemplifies an extreme example, but is regardless part of the problem IMHO.

 

In the NFL, small market teams can and do compete with big market teams. It takes more than money to win a championship, and much more than money to sustain lasting success. IMHO, if some of the more rich owners get their way, they may well be able to buy themselves more championships, but they may also find their overall profits dip down the road as lower ratings for football lead to smaller TV deals and smaller ad buys.

 

To me, the solution would seem to be a change is what profits are shared. Allow owners like Jones, Snyder and others who do more to up the profits of their teams to keep more of those profits. There is plenty of money to not only go around, but to also keep the big boys happy. So long as their is a salary cap, allowing teams to keep a greater share should not make that great of a difference.

 

As for the players, I would still shave their share of the revenue, as I simply don't believe they deserve as large of a piece of the pie as they currently receive, but that is my opinion.