So, who are you madder at? The players or the owners?

[chancellor]

Does anyone else see the irony of Scott Walker apologists/supporters standing up for the NFLPA?

LOL...fundamental difference here: the NFL isn't $3.3 billion in the red the next two years. If it were, I'd be advocating, oh, about $3.3 billion in cuts for both sides.

[madducks]

Ask me again in October.

[GwynnInTheHall]

They're both too rich to give a **** about, but if I had to side with someone-- it'd be the owners-- go figure.

[OaklandA's]

OTOH, if you want to claim another $1 billion/year of a $9 billion pie, I'd fully expect some real documentation that supports the need for the players to give up that money.

I agree with chancellor on this one.

[revo]

- I disagree that people don't buy jerseys, etc. just based on the player and not the team. Perhaps that's true in areas that have pro football, but it most certainly isn't in other areas. Around here, people like the Broncos and Cowboys, generally speaking, but it's individual players that get a lot of play on the merchandise front. Most fans, at least around here, are pretty casual fans and tend to like winners and strong personalities. The devotion to specific teams is far less that Revo implies.

Completely disagree.

Sure, specific players may drive merchandise sales, but frankly, that's about it.

The Jets made the AFC Championship game two straight seasons. Who's the star there? Giants fans are fanatical about their team. Is it because of Eli Manning? Ahmad Bradshaw? Some Giant fans were on a 33-year waiting list for season tickets until last season. The players they had on the team had very, very little to do with that reasoning.

NFL clubs, for the most part, sell out in good years and bad, in years where they have a ton of stars and years where they have none.

Football, more than ANY other US sport, is driven by the game itself and is far less about individual personalities or players.

- I also disagree with the notion that playing in the NFL for a job is a "privilege", at least in any sense that any job anywhere is a "privilege". I guess you can look at it that way but all employees at every job in this country deserve the same kinds of protections --- protection from unsafe conditions, discrimination, etc. Just as there are very, very few people who could operate a particle collider, there are also very, very few people who could play football professionally. The fact that either field requires a college degree does not lessen the value of its employees. Just the opposite, I'd argue.

It is a privilege. You want to play football, feel free to go ahead and play in the CFL, Arena League or the UFL for $50k a year (if you're lucky.) Oh, you want to make millions? Well, there's only one place you can do that if you're a pro football player. The NFL is not a "right." You have to earn your way in, and earn your stay. Don't think talented players can futz their way out of the NFL? Happens all the time -- just ask Maurice Clarett, Lawrence Phillips and Michael Vick (who was so lucky that his talent is one of a kind).

Playing football is not a privilege, but playing in the NFL most certainly is.

[OaklandA's]

Playing football is not a privilege, but playing in the NFL most certainly is.

I'm not sure I get the point you are trying to make. Even if you consider playing in the NFL a "privilege," does that mean that the owners have the right to unilaterally impose any type of salary and work conditions that they want?

[Vecmizer]

I'm with the owners.

I cannot go to my boss and demand 50% of his profits, Micro soft employees cannot and I'm guessing 99% of the people here cannot either. And then after I demand half their cash say oh by the way I do not want to work before 10am not work later than 2pm and i do not want to take phone calls between 11am and 1pm. The players now want half the cash, less practice, less hitting and less OTA'S. Yes any union can try for these things but I willing to bet they rarely ever get even close to anything like that.

Players are employees period. There is always the next big RB, QB, DB coming along and if the current employees do not want the job someone will. If you do not want the job go do something else you have an education (excluding most of your football factory players--they might be able to fill out a THE Mc'Donalds app). If you want to make the rules and the bigger piece of the pie then go out and start a league, a business or whatever. The only thing I was with the players on was no 18 game schedule and thankfully that is gone. Bring on the Salary Cap, Salary floor and a rookie pay scale. I hope the players lose a ton in the this deal.

I feel this way for Baseball and Auto workers, labors etc. Unions were meant to get fair wages, safe working conditions and employees not being abused (working conditions hours) not to take half the pie or get a janitor $32 a hour for pushing a broom, protecting employees that steal from employer etc. Unions are needed but they have far exceeded their original intention.

[OaklandA's]

I'm with the owners.

I cannot go to my boss and demand 50% of his profits.

The players are not asking for 50% of the profits. In the current CBA, the owners take the first $1B or revenue, and the remaining $8.3B is split 50-50. So that means the players are currently getting around 45% of the revenue. The owners wanted to take $2B up front, and split the rest, which would mean the players would be getting around 39% of the revenue.

Just as a reference point, here are some numbers for the percentage of operating expenses that are spent on employee salaries in some other industries:
Health Care - 52%
For-Profit Services - 50%
Education - 50%
Durable Goods Manufacturing - 22%
Mining/Oil/Gas - 22%

Clearly, the industries that have lots of capital equipment expenses spend a smaller percentage on employee salaries.

[revo]

I'm not sure I get the point you are trying to make. Even if you consider playing in the NFL a "privilege," does that mean that the owners have the right to unilaterally impose any type of salary and work conditions that they want?

Of course not, which is why the union has collectively bargained for their charges. But that said, the players in this day and age (emphasis on "this" day and age) come off as like having to work in a coal mine. The players of the past earned a far less annual % as compared to the common man's wages and had far less career options in football (i.e. no free agency). These players, earning an average of $1.9m per player, come across as prima donnas.

Let's not kid ourselves here. No current NFL player salaries are being affected for the worse --the salary cap offered was going up by $18m per year. Rookie salaries will be affected, but the players want this. This is not like 1960s MLB where owners gave players pay cuts for hitting .280. These guys are making a small fortune.

And what "work conditions" do you mean? The 18-game season is out the window. Outside of this, how are work conditions being negatively affected?

IMO the players are coming across like grossly-overpaid prima donnas. It's comical to see Brady, Manning & Brees, making a collective $80m a season, so pissed off.

[revo]

Just as a reference point, here are some numbers for the percentage of operating expenses that are spent on employee salaries in some other industries:
Health Care - 52%
For-Profit Services - 50%
Education - 50%
Durable Goods Manufacturing - 22%
Mining/Oil/Gas - 22%

Clearly, the industries that have lots of capital equipment expenses spend a smaller percentage on employee salaries.

Where did you come up with these figures?

Here's a report that shows the average dental office (and dental specialists) pays 18%-22% on salaries. Where are you coming up with Health Care paying 52%?

http://www.somersetcpas.com/Resources/2008DentalCompilation.pdf

And your numbers seem to be cloudy, since the majority of those salaries include the owners, which would make up the lion's share of any small business wage expense.

[Mithrandir]

F**k the NFL

Both sides can kiss my ass. Football can disappear for all I care.

[chancellor]

They're both too rich to give a **** about, but if I had to side with someone-- it'd be the owners-- go figure.

Cold, Koch-loving, capitalist bastage. The Charger OL is coming to pick you up and throw you out of their team Escalade.

[chancellor]

IMO the players are coming across like grossly-overpaid prima donnas. It's comical to see Brady, Manning & Brees, making a collective $80m a season, so pissed off.

Any group with Richardson and Jones wins the prima donna battle, hands down, IMO.

[OaklandA's]

Where did you come up with these figures?

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I can't find the full report online, but it is referenced in several places, such as here:

http://www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Articles/Pages/MetricoftheMonthSalariesasPercentageofOperatingExpense.aspx

In your link, those percentages are listed as a percentage of professional fees. The numbers I posted are listed as a percentage of operating expenses - that's why the numbers are so much higher.

[revo]

Any group with Richardson and Jones wins the prima donna battle, hands down, IMO.

Errr yeah, that's true. You win!