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

[revo]

Drew Brees, who earned $13m in 2010, says he's happy to lend his name to the NFLPA lawsuit. He's so &$^&#^&*^* pissed off!!

Imagine you own a company, and your highest paid employee-- by far-- is so PO'd at you he's going to sue your ass because you suck!! Hey, thanks for the dough, but F__k you!!!

IMO that's a slap in the face to the Saints, I don't know about you.

FYI, the other non-big names on the lawsuit are Mike Vrabel (15-year vet, multi-millionaire), Brian Robison (signed a 3-yr, $15m contract last week), and a rook. That's awesome, I feel so bad for these guys.

[revo]

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.

But the argument is not as a % of operating percentage, but as a % of revenue. So the percentages/revenues should be far lower.

"NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6107737

[revo]

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.

Again, not sure if your numbers are accurate:
The players currently receive 59.6 percent of designated NFL revenues, a number agreed to in the 2006 CBA. The owners say that's too much, arguing that they have huge debts from building stadiums and starting up NFL Network and other ventures, making it impossible to be profitable.

The NFL generates nearly $8 billion in revenues annually, with about $1 billion going to operating expenses. The owners receive about 40 percent of the rest, but they want about $1.3 billion more before the players are given their cut, and they'd like two more regular-season games to get more money out of the networks for everyone."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81aef091/printable/players-presented-first-detailed-proposal-for-18game-season

[OaklandA's]

But the argument is not as a % of operating percentage, but as a % of revenue. So the percentages/revenues should be far lower.

I know, but I couldn't find the BLS data on revenue percentage. Besides, if the NFL is not very profitable, then the revenues and expenses would be pretty close.

The Players Association would have been perfectly happy to extend the current CBA, where they get 45% of the revenue.

Rather than talking about outrages, being pissed off, and slaps in the face, how do you think the revenue should be split? If one side is asking for a significant change in the status (taking anywhere from $600M-$1B from the current agreement), shouldn't the burden be on the owners to justify it?

[OaklandA's]

Again, not sure if your numbers are accurate:
The players currently receive 59.6 percent of designated NFL revenues, a number agreed to in the 2006 CBA.

When they say "Designated NFL revenues", they have already taken out the $1B of operating expenses.

But I was a little off, the players actually did get about 50% of total revenues in 2009. They actually got almost 53% in 2006.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/10/report-cba-talks-broke-down-after-union-proposed-50-50-split/

[amcg]

In an enterprise where there is essentially no competition allowed, I have no sympathy towards either side.

[revo]

Rather than talking about outrages, being pissed off, and slaps in the face, how do you think the revenue should be split? If one side is asking for a significant change in the status (taking anywhere from $600M-$1B from the current agreement), shouldn't the burden be on the owners to justify it?

Yes, I agree the owners should justify why they need more. My guess is the initial stadium costs and those for the NFLN were huge, but soon they will be showing big profits so they don't want to argue over those future figures.

Although those % were already agreed upon before, it does seem bizarre that just 65 players need to get 60% of a team's revenues.

[Hammer]

until the owners fully disclose, its all conjecture on whats being made.

[OaklandA's]

Although those % were already agreed upon before, it does seem bizarre that just 65 players need to get 60% of a team's revenues.

again, it is only 50% of TOTAL revenue, not 60%.

[nullnor]

there's always lingerie football if things don't work out.

the stiff arm.



the huddle.



ducking an elbow to the head.



whats worse, running for a touchdown after losing a shoe or running for one bare ass?

[nullnor]

it's all good and fun until someone's boob gets grabbed.



the dreaded triple hit into a steel wall. (whats' those things on the wall for, traction?)

[nullnor]

my opinion in the NFL players vs owners thing is:

1) it's the owners team and they can do what they want with it. they can improve the team and league or they can ruin them. but either one is their right.

but, it's also my opinion that the NFL is becoming more violent or dangerous. technology hasn't been able to keep up with the players. helmets still aren't safe in preventing concussions.

2) i heard something long ago from a writer Ron Borges of the Boston Herald who was more of a boxing guy. in boxing when a boxer gets knocked out it's a concussion. that boxer is not allowed to have any fights for 6 months. this is not the case in the NFL. and neither would the owners or players agree to such a rule.

basically the players are agreeing that in the future there is a greater chance of getting hurt. because of their competitive nature, this isn't something they are going address on the field. instead they want more compensation for the increased competitiveness or injury. this is especially why increasing the number of games directly increases the amount of compensation. it's the most two closely related things.

also, lowering compensation or pay because the economy is bad doesn't work in the NFL because no matter how bad the economy gets rich people will always renew their tickets because, for them, owning them is a status thing. even the worse teams in the NFL sell their tickets.

i really want to be on the owners side, im just trying to see the players side too.

ps. also, intense exercise enlarges your heart. you get heart disease from running marathons.

[revo]

Yeah, this will win over fans who just suffered through the worst economic conditions of their lives:

"Referring to the owners' business arrangement with players, Adrian Peterson said, "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too."

http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/27915198

[onejayhawk]

As a Steward, I have always had a problem with major leagues having Unions at all. If they have a Union, why are they allowed agents, and vice versa? Our motto is, "To Do For All That Which No One Can Do For Oneself".

J

[Phineas to Ferb]

1. How many have read "Ball Four"? I did in middle school and ever since then I tend to side with the players. If left unchecked, the owners will completely screw the players as a whole.

2. The NFL makes so much money because they have the best players in the world. I don't want to see Dan Snyder or the third string from East Tennessee State play football. With $9 Billion in revenues, there's going to be some big cuts. Ask the XFL if it matters how good your players are.

3. It is the owners who are wanting to change the currently profitable status quo by asking for an additional billion dollars. Without showing why they need it.

4. Comparisons with what we deal with on a day to day basis is not comparable because as employees and business owners, our supply of replacement employees or businesses to work for is infinitely larger than NFL teams and players.

5. In the end for me, I don't get all that worked up about it. Sports is a business, has been for years. A lot of the players play because it's a fantastic way to make a fortune, if you have the talent. Let the market/negotiating skills determine the winner. The owners and players have a lot more stake in the outcome than any of us. If both sides thought that not playing a season would shut down the entire league forever, I'm sure they'd be at the bargaining table. As of now, they know that isn't the case. So they stop a season when it makes sense financially to do so.