Ongoing CBA discussions

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

Re-reading this, and my perspective was that of the consumer. I realize that I left out the perspective of the employee (the player).

So, an employee in a market with virtually only one employer. What could happen that requires government regulation to avoid? I guess lockout is the only thing, since an employer should not have the power to deny an employee from practicing their trade in their industry. So, is that all the court will be ruling on -- the lockout? Or will the court decide on the argument of whether the owners will have to show their books?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Re-reading this, and my perspective was that of the consumer. I realize that I left out the perspective of the employee (the player).

So, an employee in a market with virtually only one employer. What could happen that requires government regulation to avoid? I guess lockout is the only thing, since an employer should not have the power to deny an employee from practicing their trade in their industry. So, is that all the court will be ruling on -- the lockout? Or will the court decide on the argument of whether the owners will have to show their books?

I believe only on whether they can be locked out

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

Was hooskins talking about the fans? It may be a luxury to them, but this isn't about them

[KLHJ2]

Original post was deleted because it would have resulted in a threadjacking.

[hooskins]

SBXVII, just because players accept their contracts doesn't mean the owners aren't screwing them. The NFL provides the best option/salary but that may not be "fair". The players just have to accept the salary, after a bit of negotiating because it is not like they can go to another company and make a comparable salary(UFL, etc.). I realize fair is subjective, but that is why the NFLPA wants to see the books in full.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by hooskins

SBXVII, just because players accept their contracts doesn't mean the owners aren't screwing them. The NFL provides the best option/salary but that may not be "fair". The players just have to accept the salary, after a bit of negotiating because it is not like they can go to another company and make a comparable salary(UFL, etc.). I realize fair is subjective, but that is why the NFLPA wants to see the books in full.

Understood. I guess my problem with this is most unions are lobbying for pay raises, ie; 5% or 10% pay raises because the employees are payed close to the same hourly rate or close and have not had a raise or decent raise in a while. Sometimes it's insurance and how much coverage the employee gets. Then there is the issue of retirement benifits. I'm having difficulty with the employee demanding to see the company books because he wants to make sure all the employees are getting their 50 or 60%. especially when in reality it doesn't matter. Why? Because each player has an agent and each agent lobbies for the best contract his client can get. Where not talking about a union argueing for the $10 to $20 dollar an hour employee were talking about a $400,000+ a year salary job to millions that their agent brokered for. If they don't like the dollar amount they have 31 other teams to try and get what they want ..... unless their skills have dwindled. But my point is they are not set at the same hourly rate for 10 to 20 years and need a union to make sure owners are giving them raises when in fact if they don't get a decent contract their first time they usually do in their second unless they suck. But in any event a team is not going to say hey I know you only want 3 mill a year but because I have to meet the 60% rule according to your union I'll have to pay you 6mill a year. < That ain't going to happen. No different then the players saying "oh I know I'm asking for 6 mill a year but because that will put you spending 61% of your revenue towards salaries I'll take the 3 mill a year so you don't go over." < That ain't happening either. So in reality the 50 or 60% rule is only for the teams who chose to be cheap and not put the majority of their money towards player salaries. But that wouldn't really matter because those teams would be trying to get said free agents at a cheap price and basically get out bid all the time... ie; Like the Bills or dare I say Pateiots who prefer draft picks over high priced free agents.

[hooskins]

You may claim the market determines what's fair, in terms of player salaries, but that goes back to my original point that pro football does not operate in a free-market environment.

[Dirtbag59]

I feel like DeMaurice Smith deserves an "F Demaurice Smith" thread.

[CRedskinsRule]

What if the NFL says that they are not a monopoly based on the UFL/CFL and other opportunities that the players are given. I am not saying that the NFL isn't the best football, but certainly the owners could make the argument that other options are now available. (I am thinking along the lines of when Sirius and XM wanted to merge, they were threatened with antitrust, but made the case that other players had come into their market share - HD Radio, Wifi, etc. and the courts accepted that Sirius XM could merge due those competing brands)

If they did, and the NFL were to move away from the CBA system to just open market, I wonder how the players would respond to no salary floor, no draft, no guaranteed benefits of a CBA.

I don't expect that this will happen, but it's not impossible either. Also, this is just a hypothetical based on the Sirius XM case.

[CRedskinsRule]

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

Owners

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

I would say players, but only because they didn't take the deal the owners proposed & opted to decertify, which may hurt them in the long run. Time will tell of course. i.e. at this point in time, I see the players taking a bigger risk here and I'm not convinced that its worth if for them. If they get less than what the owners last proposed, they will indeed wear the title of "slightly bigger idiots." (in terms of sheer mass they are more than 'slightly bigger' though)

Overall, though, the owners must accept blame for agreeing to that deal in 06 knowing that it wasn't acceptable to them long-term. That IMO has created this mess, which could've taken place in 06 rather than now. So to answer the question, I'll say players, but that in no way should mean I'm blaming the players moreso than the owners, that's why I voted 'both.'

[CRedskinsRule]

Wow ... Adrian Peterson (vikings) from an interview with Yahoo

SC: We're talking about 15 minutes after the NFLPA sent in the paperwork to decertify, so the lockout's on everybody's minds. I've talked to a lot of players about this recently, and I always ask the same question — what is the message you want to get out to the people who love the game and are tired of hearing all the labor talk?

AP: We're business-minded, also. It's not just fun and games. A lot of football players, whether it's Sunday or Monday night — we're out there on the field, competing, hitting each other. But people don't see everything else behind it. It's a job for us, too — every day of the week. We're in different states, sometimes thousands of miles away from our families and kids, and a lot of people don't look at it like that. All some people see is, 'Oh, we're not going to be around football.' But how the players look at it … the players are getting robbed. They are. The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that…

SC: It's nothing that I haven't heard from other players, believe me.

AP: 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. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football.' There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we're not all on the same page — I don't know. I don't really see this going to where we'll be without football for a long time; there's too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we'll get something done.

But this crazy idea about an 18-game season … I'm sure they want more entertainment and more revenue, but we're not going to see a pinch of that (the increased revenue), and it's just the business we're in.

SC: It seems to most of the players that if the owners had nothing to hide financially, and if the current business model was as unsustainable as they claim, they'd have no trouble opening the books and showing audited profit and loss per team. Is that your impression?

AP: Exactly! It's like … 'Well, show us.' We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want. If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information. Why not? Obviously, there's a lot to hide -- these guys are professionals, and they're maximizing what they do. But they know that if all this information comes out, the information the players want, it'll be right out there for everyone to see. It's a ripoff — not just for the players, but for the people who work at the concession stands and at the stadiums. The people working at the facilities, you know?

SC: Do you feel that you're represented well by DeMaurice Smith and George Atallah and what now used to be the Players' Union?

AP: Yeah, I think so — they're doing a good job. And with the veteran guys on board, and the player reps, they give us a lot of confidence.

The two bolded statements make it to where I will never see the players side (and I have heard similar statements from multiple players - Winston Justice saying that they are not better off than 5 years ago, Drew Brees, etc)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Wow ... Adrian Peterson (vikings) from an interview with Yahoo



The two bolded statements make it to where I will never see the players side (and I have heard similar statements from multiple players - Winston Justice saying that they are not better off than 5 years ago, Drew Brees, etc)

The part about modern-day slavery is ridiculous, I agree. Players don't have to play. And, if slaves get paid $5 mil. a year, sign me up for slavery!

[53Fan]

*Players. The owners are making a lot of money as they should be. The players are also...enough to be financially secure for the rest of their lives after a relatively short career that also opens a lot of doors for them after their playing days are over. I don't see many guys turning down a chance to play in the NFL. Don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. It's a pretty good gig, if they don't think so....find another line of work and see how "fair" you think that is.