Union Warns NFL Owners

[Kirkendall]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5052301594.html

[redsfan2]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5052301594.html

It figures.

What was the part about cancelling the hockey season ???? Did they do that ???? Jeez ! why couldn't it have been Hockey AND Basketball ????????

And no, I wouldn't be saying that if Cincy still had the Royals.

[Ox]

Seriously, can you imagine the torture if we had to wait another year and a half to watch our boys play? I really would go nuts without the NFL. Dunno if college fball would suffice....

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

Are the players that stupid? The OWNERS locked the players out of Hockey, the players had no power. The NFL has shown in the past that rather than have a lockout and lose all their revenue, they will hire scrubs from the indoor leagues, etc. and have replacement players play. And America has shown they will go to the games and still have fun and line the owners pocketbooks.

[BengalszoneBilly]

And America has shown they will go to the games and still have fun and line the owners pocketbooks.

True. The Owners will still make some money with bringing in replacements. But IMHO, the ones who are the most grossly over paid is the players!

Making that much money for playing a freakin' game is without reason when looked at in the perspective of how little the teachers who teach our children make, as well as the men and women who are serving in America's armed forces and protecting us, most risking their lives every damn day!

Before you defend the salaries the players make, first imagine yourself standing in front of a group those people I just mentioned, looking them straight in the eye and telling them why ball players should rightfully make so much more than they do.

If you can do that, you could sell refrigerators to Eskimo's!

[BengalsOwn]

And America has shown they will go to the games and still have fun and line the owners pocketbooks.

True. The Owners will still make some money with bringing in replacements. But IMHO, the ones who are the most grossly over paid is the players!

Making that much money for playing a freakin' game is without reason when looked at in the perspective of how little the teachers who teach our children make, as well as the men and women who are serving in America's armed forces and protecting us, most risking their lives every damn day!

Before you defend the salaries the players make, first imagine yourself standing in front of a group those people I just mentioned, looking them straight in the eye and telling them why ball players should rightfully make so much more than they do.

If you can do that, you could sell refrigerators to Eskimo's!

So you'd rather the players earn less, while the owners make millions of dollars more? It says the players get about 60% of the money.

Would it be better if they receive 10%, while the owners received 90%? Since when did the owners put it all on the field to entertain us? It's not the players fault us idiot Americans are more than willing to spend thousands of dollars a year to watch them hit each other.

[BengalszoneBilly]

I'd rather they both earned less. But seeing how the players are still, without a doubt, the most grossly over paid between the two...them first. Nobody should make more than a million dollars to play a game. Period.

And you never even tried to sell that to the teachers or servicemen did you? That's okay. They'd have never bought it.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

And America has shown they will go to the games and still have fun and line the owners pocketbooks.

True. The Owners will still make some money with bringing in replacements. But IMHO, the ones who are the most grossly over paid is the players!

Making that much money for playing a freakin' game is without reason when looked at in the perspective of how little the teachers who teach our children make, as well as the men and women who are serving in America's armed forces and protecting us, most risking their lives every damn day!

Before you defend the salaries the players make, first imagine yourself standing in front of a group those people I just mentioned, looking them straight in the eye and telling them why ball players should rightfully make so much more than they do.

If you can do that, you could sell refrigerators to Eskimo's!

So you'd rather the players earn less, while the owners make millions of dollars more? It says the players get about 60% of the money.

Would it be better if they receive 10%, while the owners received 90%? Since when did the owners put it all on the field to entertain us? It's not the players fault us idiot Americans are more than willing to spend thousands of dollars a year to watch them hit each other.

Naw, it would be better if the players earned less, and the owners earned less too, and the FANS got paid more... In other words, lower salary expectations = lower ticket prices.

However, I don't think they are grossly overpaid at all. We are talking about a career where you could not only be done but disabled on any given Sunday. We are talking about a career that shortens your life significantly.

[HoosierCat]

Before you defend the salaries the players make, first imagine yourself standing in front of a group those people I just mentioned, looking them straight in the eye and telling them why ball players should rightfully make so much more than they do.

Because it's the entertainment business, billy. When those kids are back on American soil (which they ought to have been a long time ago...but don't get me started ), they'll fork over cash to see ball games, movies, buy CDs, etc., etc. Movie stars and pop stars earn millions...why not sports stars?

And the reality is, the vast majority of football players don't earn the big bucks. They still make very good money, with salaries measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even those who are making something in the low million-dollar range, like a Rich Braham, aren't doing any better than top executives at many big companies.

And their long-term employment prospects are a lot worse. In business, you can go on earning princely salaries into your 60s. Ditto with movie and pop stars. In football, you're pretty much done by your early to mid-30s.

[TJJackson]

In football, you're pretty much done by your early to mid-30s.

...and that's for a TOP NOTCH and VERY DURABLE player.

The average player I would think gets no more than 4 years or so of earning a few hundred thousand in salary. and yes, I'm just guessing at that figure....

NFL minimum pay is still great money compared to what most of us will ever make - certainly more than I ever will - but it generally doesn't last very long.

[Kirkendall]

Personally, I don't care about their longevity. If they were smart, they earned their college degrees before (or during) their NFL career. If they didn't, well then boo-hoo; not anyone's fault. Same logic applies to the theory that any play could be your last.

Anyway, did you guys notice what Upshaw said:

Upshaw said if it came to an uncapped year, he would decertify the union, a move that essentially would mean all players would become free agents.

I guess there's some truth to the fantasy draft in the Madden video game series.

[HoosierCat]

Anyway, did you guys notice what Upshaw said:

Upshaw said if it came to an uncapped year, he would decertify the union, a move that essentially would mean all players would become free agents.

So Upshaw is going to decertify the union, eliminate his whole power base, and put himself out of a job?

Uh-huh. I believe you, Gene... Next thing you know, Gene will be telling us that he'd "rather flip burgers" than stay head of the NFL player's union.

Everybody's just doing the usual negotiating bit of staking out extreme starting positions.

[Kirkendall]

You're probably right. I would assume this statement would have more affect on public opinion. One of the no. 1 reasons the NFL is embraced is their fiscal system preventing skyrocketing payrolls and, obviously, discourage competition based on money; all of which tailors towards the majority of the fan base (middle-lower class young to middle aged men) And public opinion goes along way...

[BengalszoneBilly]

And their long-term employment prospects are a lot worse. In business, you can go on earning princely salaries into your 60s. Ditto with movie and pop stars. In football, you're pretty much done by your early to mid-30s.

So your saying that once the majority of football players finish their playing careers, they remain unemployed? C'mon. They use any fame they may have gotten while playing and use it to their advantage in finding another way to make a living, although usually it's not quite as high on the hog. Trade in the Porche, and buy them a Pontiac.

[HoosierCat]

And their long-term employment prospects are a lot worse. In business, you can go on earning princely salaries into your 60s. Ditto with movie and pop stars. In football, you're pretty much done by your early to mid-30s.

So your saying that once the majority of football players finish their playing careers, they remain unemployed? C'mon. They use any fame they may have gotten while playing and use it to their advantage in finding another way to make a living, although usually it's not quite as high on the hog. Trade in the Porche, and buy them a Pontiac.

Some can find deals...but what about the ones who toil in the league at low salaries for several years then finally wash out? They aren't getting any endorsement deals or free beer distributorships.

Think of it this way: what if you graduated from college, but 10-15 years later your degree expired, you couldn't work in your field anymore, and you had to find something totally new to do? Wouldn't you seek to max things out for that first 10 or 15 years, considering all your investment in time and effort and money for that degree?

[schweinhart]

Anyway, did you guys notice what Upshaw said:

Upshaw said if it came to an uncapped year, he would decertify the union, a move that essentially would mean all players would become free agents.

So Upshaw is going to decertify the union, eliminate his whole power base, and put himself out of a job?

Uh-huh. I believe you, Gene... Next thing you know, Gene will be telling us that he'd "rather flip burgers" than stay head of the NFL player's union.

Everybody's just doing the usual negotiating bit of staking out extreme starting positions.

No doubt ratfinks like Jerry Jones and Snyderbrenner loved hearing this out of the gate. An uncapped year with a flood of free agents? Snyderbrenner might gladly forego his revnues from the Fed Ex Hooters for the chance to buy the winning team he can't say presto to make with the cap in place.

All Upshaw did was try to lay a smarting on the small market teams for proposing to drop the revenue pct. for players. It's up to the haves and haves-a-little-less...the owners...to make some concessions or share them!

[Kirkendall]

Some can find deals...but what about the ones who toil in the league at low salaries for several years then finally wash out? They aren't getting any endorsement deals or free beer distributorships.

Those types can stop feeling sorry for themselves. If they don't have enough common sense to plan for life after football, then hey, no one to blame but themselves.

[Kirkendall]

No doubt ratfinks like Jerry Jones and Snyderbrenner loved hearing this out of the gate. An uncapped year with a flood of free agents? Snyderbrenner might gladly forego his revnues from the Fed Ex Hooters for the chance to buy the winning team he can't say presto to make with the cap in place.

All Upshaw did was try to lay a smarting on the small market teams for proposing to drop the revenue pct. for players. It's up to the haves and haves-a-little-less...the owners...to make some concessions or share them!

Think the owners will lock out the players if it comes to that?

Personally, I think both sides are eager enough to get a deal done so there's limited black eyes and they can continue to act as the prince of professional sports -- MLB '94, NHL '04, NBA (possible '05).

They should take a page out of NASCAR. Any team can qualify per game with some skills competition, and if you're in the top-32 in that qualifying skills competition, you play that week. If not, you're out. OK, that's dumb. But it sure would force more and more teams to be competitive.

[schweinhart]

It would be a sin against the nation if a lock out happened over the owners haggling about revenue sharing at this point. There's no vibe in what's happened so far that the union or players are unhappy with the way things are but that could change.

Player issues that have seemed to be surfacing are akin to the Shawne Merriman hold out where his agent has used him as an example for getting more assurances from unsigned draft picks in the off-season. But more assurances and maybe disability issues don't seem like they would shut down a season.

[HoosierCat]

Some can find deals...but what about the ones who toil in the league at low salaries for several years then finally wash out? They aren't getting any endorsement deals or free beer distributorships.

Those types can stop feeling sorry for themselves. If they don't have enough common sense to plan for life after football, then hey, no one to blame but themselves.

So what's your plan if all the jobs in your chosen field suddenly get outsourced to India? Or if some company comes up with a product that renders what you do obsolete? And you still haven't answered my question: if you knew this was going to happen X years down the road, rendering all your investment in time and money worthless, wouldn't you look to maximize your gains in those few years?

[HoosierCat]

It would be a sin against the nation if a lock out happened over the owners haggling about revenue sharing at this point.

If the NFL stays true to form, some incredibly overcomplicated Rube-Goldbergish plan will be hatched and adopted. My bet is that the amount of shared revenue will go up fairly dramatically -- it's around 60% now and I think it'll go up to 80-90% -- however, like the U.S. tax code, there will be an exhaustive laundry list of exemptions, deductions, "alternative minimum league contributions," etc.

[bengalboomer7]

Still, it's the fans that always get lost in this. These guys bitch about pay, now owners are bitching about revenue sharing and money, but when fans bitch over ticket prices it fall on deaf ears. Fans and owners alike have forgotten that the game really belongs to us, and the choices the fans make decide what kind of money is made by both the owners and the palyers. No one sell yourself short, you have more ppower to influence thes sports thatn you think.

My two sense is that the greedy owners make too much, the superstars make too much, but your special teamer or the seasoned vet doesn't make enough. (Plus, major sports need to put some of that money in retirement plans for these guys) The concept of team is nearly dead, yeat no one thinks about the fact that it's the team guys (Pats, Pistons, Spurs, teams like that) that are winning everything right now. Football is in a more perilous position than they think because of the greed factor(or TO factor, the Drew factor, whichever one you prefer.

Kirk, I don't buy that college thing on bit. Why risk life and limb for the good loe U when you can do the same thing for millions. I will only agree with you there if they start paying athletes but I don't think that's too right either.

This message was brought to you without the use of the spellcheck button!!!!!

[Kirkendall]

And you still haven't answered my question: if you knew this was going to happen X years down the road, rendering all your investment in time and money worthless, wouldn't you look to maximize your gains in those few years?

It's a logical question -- and perceptional (I may have made that word up) one.

Me personally, none of those questions apply to me because none would happen. But to play along:

I would not maximize my investment, training, or time in a field that's going to be, as you say obsolute. It doesn't help you. So why not prepare for an alternative, a different future so you don't get put in a situation of not knowing?

BB --

My two sense is that the greedy owners make too much, the superstars make too much, but your special teamer or the seasoned vet doesn't make enough.

Yea, but most will acknowlege the NFL has the most sound financial system in professional sports -- at least the big-four. Why change that around to focus on veterans like MLB -- and their strike happy union? I would suggest the NFL, their agents, union, and teams alike, stop publically detailing contracts; or forbid it in the next CBA. Take a page out of the Bengals camp. It's really none of our business, and in some cases, it puts too much onto athletes, and people's perception on them. Just MHO.

Kirk, I don't buy that college thing on bit. Why risk life and limb for the good loe U when you can do the same thing for millions. I will only agree with you there if they start paying athletes but I don't think that's too right either.

Hey, that's their decision -- right or wrong (I'm not suggesting either) they make that choice. But wouldn't you agree that they should face the consquences as well for not going to college or planning into the future. Investing money when the money was a gettin'?

[bengalboomer7]

I agree, but college is just like the NFL. Normally if you have a scholarship and get injured then that scholarship goes away, and usually if you've made it this far your trying to make a living out of it anyway, and usually these guys get so reverred in high scholl and even junior high that they are naturally stupid from everyone kissing thier asses and letting them slide! I'm just saying this, the percentage of "Star" NFL players is very small compared to the overall player numbers but their percentage of salary on the cap is very large. If it's a team game then share the wealth to that guy thats running full spedd on a punt return trying to murder a little 180 pound speedster that looks like a human joystick.

Let's say you were a special teamer/practice squad guy for the Eagles right now. I bet those guys have the same opinion of T.O. as we do

NFL does have the best financial system in sports but whne looking at it that's not saying too much

And George Mikan just helped out my retirement rant, this guy was one of the 50 greatest and he was forced to sell off his trophies and rings and MVP's just to keep living. No one in sports has a 401K to fall back on.

[Kirkendall]

And George Mikan just helped out my retirement rant, this guy was one of the 50 greatest and he was forced to sell off his trophies and rings and MVP's just to keep living. No one in sports has a 401K to fall back on.

Yes they do -- haven't you seen all those dag on investment commercials? There are many companies out there players can use to invest their money in. And one salary bonus invested for a few years will have a great return -- and the players can continue to add into the fund and get a bigger return.

Granted, the teams and league provide little in terms of retirement because frankly, with all the money going towards players, they don't need to give players a retirement package -- fiscally not logical.

The players can do that on their own. They are babied enough.

As for Mikan, I'm not going into the retro-times argument because those days had much less invested, financially, into professional sports and players got much less, adjusted, in comparison towards players today. If pro sports were financially relatable today as they were in Mikan's day, then yea, I'd agree with you.

Good debate topic though.