NFL Lockout 2011: The NFL's Revenue Gap Problem
by One.Cool.Customer on Feb 21, 2011 7:01 AM CST
in Dallas Cowboys General
Email
Print[This is part two of our look at what's behind the potential lockout. In Part I, we looked at why the NFL’s revenue sharing agreement was the real issue at the heart of the current labor issue.]
In the early 1960s, the NFL discovered socialism. Prior to 1961, NFL team's revenues consisted almost entirely of ticket sales, and each team looked after its own revenue. TV at the time was seen as more of a threat that would keep paying fans at home and out of the seats in football stadiums.
In 1961, then-commissioner Pete Rozelle successfully persuaded congress and NFL owners to make two landmark decisions. Congress approved a special exemption to antitrust law that would allow NFL teams to market the broadcasting rights to their games as one national package. Owners gave up their local television broadcasting and agreed to redistribute the proceeds from a national deal evenly among all NFL teams.
In 1962, each team started the season with $332,000 from that revenue sharing agreement - more than most teams' payrolls at the time - thereby in principle guaranteeing financially sound franchises for years to come and thus laying the cornerstone for what was to become arguably the most successful sports league in the world.
Revenue Sharing
NFL teams today have two principle revenue sources, shared revenues and retained revenues. Shared revenue is income shared more or less equally between the 32 NFL teams, with the bulk coming from national broadcast rights fees, augmented by a share of ticket sales, non-network media income and licensing.
Retained revenue (or unshared revenue) is revenue generated and kept by individual teams. This includes about two thirds of the gate receipts, luxury suite revenues, stadium naming rights, sponsorships, concessions, parking fees and any local broadcast revenues.
The Green Bay Packers are the only team that regularly publishes a statement of income, and we'll look at their numbers to better understand the individual revenue streams. The latest numbers available are for the 2009 season.
| Green Bay Packers, Income Statement for league year ending March 31st, 2010 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Type | Revenue Source | in $ million |
| Shared | Television and radio | 95.8 |
| Retained | Ticket Revenue: Home games | 31.1 |
| Shared | Ticket Revenue: Road games |
16.0 |
| Shared | NFL Properties income | 45.8 |
| Retained | Marketing\Pro Shop | 43.0 |
| Retained | Other - Local Media, Concessions and parking | 13.3 |
| Retained | Private box income | 12.9 |
| Total Income |
258.0 | |
I. Television and radio income (Shared revenues)
What started out as a $322,000 check per team 1962 has grown into $95.8 million per team in 2009 in revenues from the league's contracts with CBS, NBC, ESPN and Fox. Non-network media contracts with providers like Comcast and DirecTV are not included in this number. Television and radio income from national broadcasting rights remain the single biggest source of income for most of the 32 NFL teams.
II. Ticket Income (mix of shared and retained revenues)
Ticket revenues have both a shared and a retained element. 60% of game ticket sales (but excluding luxury suite revenue) for home games are retained by the home team. Of the remaining 40% game ticket revenue, 34% is pooled and shared equally among the 32 teams (road game revenue), the remaining 6% stay with the home team to account for various deductibles.
The Packers generated $47.1 million income from the sale of tickets, a little below the 2009 NFL average of $54.1 million. The Cowboys led the league in 2009 with an estimated $112 million ticket income, the Raiders rank last in the league with an estimated $34 million.
III. NFL Properties income (Shared revenue)
NFL Properties, Inc., manages all licensing for the 32 teams and shares its annual revenue equally with all 32 NFL teams. Traditionally, this revenue was generated largely from the sale of any of the countless items with an NFL logo on them (anything from lunch boxes and hats through jerseys, jackets and coffee mugs). But recently, this revenue stream has grown to include revenues from the NFL Network as well as revenue from non-network media contracts with providers like Comcast and DirecTV.
This is by far the fastest growing source of income for NFL teams. The Packers' income statements show that while NFL Properties income in the 2002 season was a miserly $4.7 million, it has skyrocketed to $45.8 million in 2009. While the exact split of these incomes is unclear, it is probably safe to assume that most teams take home a similar figure.
During the 1990's Cowboys heyday, Cowboys merchandise sales easily outpaced those of any other NFL team. By 1995 Jerry Jones had had enough of this aspect of revenue sharing, and, despite existing league deals with Coke and Players Inc., signed sponsorship deals with Pepsi and Nike. The league of course decried Jones' use of "ambush marketing deals" and, litigious bunch that they are, sued Jones. Jones, himself no stranger to litigation, of course immediately counter-sued.
Long story short: by 1996 both sides reached a settlement that allowed the Cowboys to keep their new sponsorship deals. The deal also allowed other NFL teams to pursue local revenue streams, and retain the entire proceeds those opportunities generated. While it is unclear how much each NFL team makes from its local deals (see details below) it is safe to assume that the Cowboys and other big market are taking home a significantly bigger slice of the merchandising pie than envisioned under the original revenue sharing agreement. The disparity between the haves and have-nots has steadily increased.
IV. Marketing/Pro Shop (Retained revenue)
This income source summarizes basically all local revenue generated by the teams through advertising, sponsorships, and pro shop revenue to which Jerry Jones opened the door in 1995. The Packers generated $43 million in 2009 which they did not have to share with other teams. My guess is that this figure puts the Packers in the top half of the league, but nowhere close to the Cowboys, Redskins or Patriots.
V. Other - Local Media, Concessions and Parking (Retained revenue)
The Packers took in $13.3 million in this catch-all for local revenue. A critical driver for this revenue stream is the size of the local market and revenue potential of the stadium.
VI. Private box income (Retained Revenue)
Luxury suites and pricey club seating are the latest opportunity for owners to generate cash for their own pockets and are becoming a top source of revenue for NFL teams. Because teams get to keep all revenue from their suites, luxury boxes are a key consideration in the construction and renovation of NFL stadiums - even at the expense of total seating capacity.
The Redskins for example generated more than $45 million in luxury suite revenue in 2008, the most in the NFL in 2008 according to Forbes.com. That's more than seven NFL teams generated in total gate receipts in 2009. With the opening of Cowboys Stadium in 2009, the Cowboys are likely to have easily eclipsed the Redskins figure, and the Giants and Jets will likely generate similar revenues in 2010 with their new digs in the swamps of New Jersey.
The missing luxury suites and lack of the associated revenue stream is one of the key reasons why there is no NFL team in Los Angeles, which has not one but two stadiums (LA Coliseum & Rose Bowl) available with a total seating capacity of over 90,000 - but no luxury suites.
Additional source of revenue for small market teams
Part of the appeal of the NFL is the notion of parity, of small market teams like the Packers or Saints being able to win a Super Bowl. In this day and age, this is only possible because big market teams are subsidizing small market teams. Recognizing that the revenue sharing model was coming apart at the seams, the NFL and NFLPA agreed to implement a supplemental revenue sharing (SRS) pool in the 2006 CBA negotiations.
The pool was valued at $210 million in 2009 and $220 million for 2010, and between eight and twelve of the league's bottom dwellers in terms of revenue received additional income from this pool. In 2010, the NFL tried to get rid of the of the SRS again but failed when the NFLPA won a decision against the NFL.
Summary
In the past, the NFL teams shared more than 80% of the total league revenue. More recently, there has been a dramatic increase in unshared or retained revenue. League rules have incentivized going after unshared revenue, which has resulted in the construction of new stadiums and the expansion of local revenue streams. In principle, this is a very good thing.
Ironically, what is good for the league revenue overall can be bad for individual teams, as unlocking these revenue streams is easier for big market teams than for small market teams who are falling behind further and faster than ever before. The revenue gap between the league's haves and have-nots is widening almost hourly, and the imbalance this creates is threatening the future financial parity and competitiveness of the NFL. The Cowboys topped the league in 2009 with an estimated revenue of $420 million. The Lions were at the bottom of the league with a figure of $210 million, exactly half of what the Cowboys took in. This revenue gap will create a competitive imbalance that the league must address if it wants to avoid becoming the MLB.
The NFL’s revenue sharing agreement is coming apart at the seams. Today, the owners do not appear to have a solution to this, and are looking to gain time by asking the players to finance part of the income disparity between the teams that the successful, financially potent teams have helped create, just as much as the bottom dwellers of the league helped create it by not being able or willing to keep up with the Joneses.
In the next post, we'll look at how much money each team is making and some more fun facts as we find out who the haves and have-nots are in the league.
274 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So Socialism doesn't work?
Or maybe socialism for the rich! (take notice America!).
Great report. I just can’t see how the income disparity between teams can be bridged. What a shame that billions of dollars can’t make everyone happy.
Money is the root of all evil!
well it looks like the issues started happening when the owners went away from shared revenue
but certainly dragging the players into the middle of this and making them the sacrificial lamb for their own stupidity seems absurd.
The power between the owners and union seems to have shifted over to the owners since the ’87 debacle. Hopefully the fans can get their voices heard and correct this imbalance.
I know it is hard for fans to choose sides in a dispute between billionaires and millionaires, but when their is a good balance of power then the fans can enjoy a better product on the field. If either the owners or the players gain too much power then we as consumers will end up losing the most.
Sean Lissemore = The next Bruce Smith
The fans have no voice
Yes the players and Owners might pandor to us hear and there, but the only way fans can make the NFL notice them is to stop spending money. The Owners have the real power here, because it’s lat eaiser to keep 32 people on the same page than the 1700 players.
Owners and players should act more like partnerss (like Taglibue and Upshaw) what’s good for the game is good for both, so instead of figuring how to get more money off the top how about some ideas that grow the game and make everybody more money. And yes that includes revenue sharing and the new streams should be on the the table. No one NFL team could survive on it’s own. Socialism or whatever you want to call it has worked in the NFL, just look at MLB if you don’t think it has.
by Late for Dinner on Feb 21, 2011 8:12 AM CST up reply actions
Except...
There’s more issues being discovered about player safety, the rich owners are getting sick of supporting the broke owners, and rather than going public and facing the wrath of the lazy crappy owners the rich owners want to take the cut from the players.
Also, MLB is FINE. The Twins, Rangers, Blue Jays and Reds have turned into teams that are willing to spend, and that’s just in recent times. MLB has no salary floor and no cap, but PLENTY of revenue sharing. That’s about as player friendly as it gets. The owners can be as cheap as they want like Loria or they can go all in and invest in the team like Steinbrenner.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 10:25 AM CST up reply actions
Not exactly
It is a fine line to walk. Sharing 100% of the revenue is never going to work. It makes big market teams resent smaller market teams and discourages people like Jerry Jones from finding new revenue streams. Simply socialism represses creativity.
However a purely capitalist system does not work either. They share revenue (luxury tax) and still have some teams that can only put 30 mil in product on the field vs the Yankees with over 200 mil. Baseball is not even pure capitalism, if the luxury tax was to be abolished many teams would cease to exist.
The problem here is neither economic model applies to a sports league effectively. Unlike any free market situation. The Dallas Cowboys require the Detroit Lions, and the Oakland Raiders to remain in business for Dallas to make any money. Yet pure socialism does not work either because Dallas brings in much more money to the league then the lions do, and without incentive of profit things like NFL network and NFL Europe simply are not worth the risk and effort for owners like Jerry Jones.
It would work but...
The rich owners are sick of supporting the poor owners and want a bigger slice of the pie. Greed kills all good things.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 10:21 AM CST up reply actions
nice summary of the revenue sharing
Good info as this thing will drag out till July-August
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
This is but a microcosm of recent economic policy in the U.S.
Look at the pharmaceutical industry, for example. The large drug companies have incentives to produce new drugs that are better, or more effective than anything currently on the market. When a pharmaceutical company like Pfizer develops a new drug, the U.S. government grants them a certain period of time (around 5 years, I believe) to market that medication without competition. This is when prescription medications cost hundreds of dollars.
After that period of time without competition expires, other drug companies manufacture similar drugs, known in the market as “generic brands”. At that time, the cost of the medication becomes sensitive to market forces, such as supply and demand. Until generics are introduced into the marketplace, however, a drug company (like Pfizer, in this example), can set any price it desires for maximum profit.
By permitting drug companies to reap the extreme financial rewards of developing new medications, the population benefits by having a more effective way to treat a health issue…if they can afford it, of course. By comparison, the NFL offers their fans an addiction to football that teams like the Cowboys, Patriots, Giants, and Redskins finance for teams like the Jaguars, Panthers, and Bills.
By limiting the financial rewards teams like the Cowboys receive, the NFL risks losing market share of its product due to a lack of incentive to improve. Teams that struggle financially are now weighing down the league.
Fortunately, having the Buffalo’s of the league serving as an anchor to the New Yorks’ does not have the same deliterious effects to one’s health as not having Vicodin to fight pain. It is, however, a nagging, aching problem that the NFL will have to deal with until it decides to let natural market forces intercede and force contraction.
Then quality will take the place of quantity.
All of this is pretty much wrong.
I love the Cowboys and my home state, but good god are the people that occupy the fan base are poorly read. Read Gridlock Economy, working together for a common reward works. The NFL is just doing a very bad job of it.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 10:28 AM CST up reply actions
+1 Money
The problem with this system is that the small market teams, or have-nots have little incentive to expand and make their franchises worth more and earn more in the market place. They can free-ride on the likes of the haves’ profit while keeping their own efforts to a minimum.
In the end, this mentality not only hurts the have owner’s but it’s bad for the players as well, because among many other things, paying pensions for retired players, and help provide them with lasting health-care due to the violence of the sport, is a cost that the nfl fronts as a whole. Who pays for the majority of this stuff then under revenue sharing, the have owners.
Bottom line, the way to fix this is to enforce a rule that every team every team must contribute 75% as much as team with the highest revenue sharing figure. You figure out how to make it work, move your franchise, contract, who cares, but all the owners need to share a roughly equivalent load. It is irresponsible for them not to. If there’s no market or the franchises such as Jacksonville or Buffalo are so poorly run that they can’t do this, then they shouldn’t be in the NFL.
by The Triplets on Feb 21, 2011 11:20 AM CST up reply actions
Right....
Yes, lets blame the small market teams. The only successful teams in the league are teams that play in massive metropolitan areas like the Packers who play in the bustling metropolitan area that is Green Bay, Wisconsin that’s a 101K strong. Or the Pittsburgh Steelers who play in the massive 311K strong city of Pittsburg. Or the Patriots, who get have the hearts of all of Boston’s 645K citizens.
Please, the Chiefs, the Steelers, the Packers, the Patriots, the Saints, and the Titans all do quite well. Neither are “large market teams” by any stretch of the imagination.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 11:43 AM CST up reply actions
Let's agree to disagree
seeing as I think that you should get out what you put in, ie, meaning there needs to be some relationship between everyone contributing similar amounts and thus getting the product which is the nfl. It’s not Jerry’s problem to fund Buffalo. Period. End of discussion. If I invest in a company and someone else invests less, and we turn a profit I expect more of the profit in return. So if we all get out the same thing which is the nfl, it seems fair that nfl teams must roughly contribute an equal share.
Equality is a responsibility not an entitlement, which if not properly cared for is lost. If the small team owners and markets want to be a part of the nfl, it is there responsibility, not the big market owners to make it so. The opposite breeds mediocrity and mediocrity eventually is the ruination of anything. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and the small market teams must understand that they should either man up or get out.
It amounts to subsidizing franchises that are not competitive. Look at any subsidized industry and tell me you think it should be subsidized. Corn for instance is a great example, that should have ended a long time ago. No industry or business should be given a subsidy, and history has born this out. You may think it best today to subsidize the non-competitive franchises, but if you get your wish you will rue the results.
I’m not going to argue this further, because ‘A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still’ and I don’t have the time or the patience to argue this point. Neither do I care enough. In the end, something will happen for better or worse and we will all have to live with it.
Another rule which might be suggested is that each team has to contribute up to the mean revenue sharing figure for each team or the median revenue sharing figure, whichever is less. Something of this nature would Jerry to push his profit higher, while only forcing teams such as Jacksonville and Buffalo to keep up with the rest of the leaugue, which I think is absolutely fair, but no doubt we will disagree.
by The Triplets on Feb 21, 2011 6:20 PM CST up reply actions
Simply not true. You are only going to be able to make so much money when your a team from Jacksonville, or Buffalo. Compared to teams from NYC or even teams with national followings like Green Bay, or the Steelers. Right now there is plenty of incentive to make more money. Look at the estimated Revenue, Dallas is estimated to make 2x as much as the Lions, and large shares of that money are not shared at all. You wonder why all the push is on building these billion dollar palaces to play in and not increasing the overall brand. It is because this is the way the owners can personally gain
that's an argument for
those teams to move from Buffalo and Jacksonville IMO. See my reply to Omar Little above for further discussion.
by The Triplets on Feb 21, 2011 6:23 PM CST up reply actions
Actually...
The Pfizers of the world are getting out of the R&D world because of the ridiculous cost structures associated with that part of the business arising from clinical trial costs, legislative roadblocks to innovation and the high cost of labor. .
Instead, they HAVE to become a marketing and distribution company and lay off thousands of employees who do R&D.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
The pharma industry is in awful shape and a completely different beast
From someone who has worked in IP and Patent law and knows about what it takes to develop a drug that’s capable of curing cancer there are NUMEROUS small little patents that go into most of the drugs that these people are trying to develop. The problem is that lets say Pfizer has the patent to one part of the drug and Astra-Zenca has the patent for another…nothing gets done. The process is in a state of gridlock. Each company wants to be the first to get the drug made, and in the process focuses more about the glory of being the first rather than actually developing a cure.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 11:58 AM CST up reply actions
I don't disagree, but nothing on that front is going to change in the short term
There are no carrots for competing companies to share with their competition. It just never has worked that way.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Which is why an outside force is needed.
In things as important as curing terminal diseases I think it’s the state’s responsibility to step in and play moderator. To not stray too far way from football, that’s where the league comes into play. The crappy teams help the good teams, because it gives them a “cushion” in the schedule and it allows fans to watch games that they know will be victories, and the good teams help bring in fans to the bad teams’ stadiums. If the league would actually moderate the dispute between the owners and not just try to get more money from the players then we might have a solution here.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:09 PM CST up reply actions
I can see small market teams soon being a thing of the pass.
The NFL wants to go international and that could be the answer to their problem. Teams in Europe, England and Canada would capture a whole new market and it’s revenue. I can see it now, the SB in 2020 pits the Dallas Cowboys and the London Red Coats, with the game being played in Berlin.
Lock n Load
and Cities like Detroit and Chicago are under capitalized by their frigid ownership.
Most of America is trending towards living in larger metropolitan areas, this is just part of the drain that is happening in a lot of older rust belt towns like Buffalo, and this Jacksonville experiment just wasn’t worth it.
by AustonianAggie on Feb 21, 2011 9:43 AM CST up reply actions
Well that's a stupid thought.
Europeans are more interested in soccer. While that would be cool, don’t get me wrong, but it won’t happen. Europeans aren’t as violent as we are. Canada might work, but I somehow doubt it. Besides, Small Market teams are doing GREAT in the NFL. Yes, some are struggling, but the Packers, Steelers, Bucs, Rams, and Patriots are doing fine. Whereas LA hasn’t been able to support a team.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 10:33 AM CST up reply actions
Take away the cap and revenue sharing and some of thoes teams might not be doing so well.
It seems the league maybe slowly moving in that direction. The owners that invest in their teams are tired of supporting the ones that don’t. More owners like Jerry are buying teams, the NFL will change with the new breed of ownership. Canada, Europe and England are in the conversation already, so I wonder who is stupid.
Lock n Load
Yeah
Because a 12 hour flight to all away games is reasonable. teams in the EU would be cool, but that’s soccer territory. Why the hell would anyone want to watch an NFL player when you can watch Cristiano Ronaldo or Didier Drogba do their thing. Besides, the Steelers rack in ratings, merch sales, and ticket sales. I’m sure they’d be just fine without revenue sharing. The same goes for the Chiefs, Pats, and the Pack. Perhaps the Bucs and the Rams would struggle a bit, but seeing as how both teams have won Lombardis in recent memory and now have bright futures ahead for the franchise…I think they’ll be just fine.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 11:47 AM CST up reply actions
It was said the NFL would never get big in the U.S.
because baseball was the national past time. Four or five teams overseas would probably do great.
Lock n Load
Sadly, I remember that
Small minds abound.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Four or five teams overseas?
Lets try to get four or five games played overseas before we talk about adding teams overseas.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:01 PM CST up reply actions
It would have to be the equal of a Division for it to work out
That is why he is saying 4 or 5 teams, you would have to make it so the teams in teh US would go on Road trips to the EU to play the teams there. Would have to have NFL owned shared practice fields for the visiting teams and such
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
Just look at the source Dire.
They make a habit of running around calling people “stupid” and telling them they “shouldn’t have an opinion because they’re terrible at it”. It’s just a matter of time before Dave or someone else gets tired of it and reins them in.
Rabid and luvin' it
by lonewolfz28 on Feb 21, 2011 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
The Chiefs too
As far as small market teams doing just fine.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 10:40 AM CST up reply actions
I find this interesting on the heels of a Super Bowl win for the team that has the smallest local DMA of any team
One has to ask if it makes sense to have teams in Jacksonville and not in L.A.? What other league does that?
The biggest problem I have, and have always had, is the idea of unions in sports. The unions destroyed the automobile industry in the U. S. and their time has come and gone.
There are moral and ethical imperatives that the owners (and players) surely must address, but the very idea of a business owner being asked to show their financials to their employees is utterly ridiculous. The idea of HAVING to spend 50% (or any % for that matter) of those revenues makes my free-market blood boil. What other business is held to that kind of burdensome financial heresy? If you didn’t know better, you’d think Lenin wrote the CBA!!!
Great read, OCC.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
What other business?
There in lies the rub. This isn’t some industry that can hire/fire/and train new employees in the blink of an eye. These are very specialized employees that have trained their whole life for the job and as such, the owners will have to pay a premium to keep that kind of life-long career planning NFL athlete working hard from an early age and making professional football their life’s goal. The owners’ product depends on the players (employees) more so than in any other business. Your Detroit and American-made car is rarely based on the general autoplant employees. Sure, the designers/engineers and concept builders play a huge role, but the majority of the staff can easily be replaced and retrained. Not the case in the NFL, where your product (the team) is almost totaly dependent on the players and what the training and coaching staff (in the car metaphore the designers) can get out of them.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
It’s not like the NFL will be lost to overseas companies and factories that have cheaper labor (like in the auto industry)
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
HAHA - one more thing
And I think you greatly oversimplify the death of the car industry by laying it at the union’s feet. Automotive companies unwillingness to try new car types (electirc, hatchback, etc.) and relying on the same old retread car concepts, not to mention the government not helping the car industry (until it’s death in ’09) and the national economy and regulations aimed more at basing the US economy on the financial sector and neglecting all the real production industries is a huge culprit as well.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Nailed.
Besides, the Unions just wanted health care. The auto industry shipped the cars overseas to countries with a national healthcare system already in place. So if anything place it at the feet of insurance companies.
BTW have you seen who killed the electric car?
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
Incredible documentary
“Who killed the electric car” really says a lot about the stubborness of the car industry. They actually found a car that the population loved, but then recalled them all and sent them to a scrap yard so that history would forget it existed…all because of oil company lobbyists in the governement and the industry not wanting to spend money on new technology and plants to build a new type of car.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
The problem is...
That we have idiots like 5blings who focus on the wrong issues, won’t stray away from their doctrinal views, and are willing to follow a red herring.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:15 PM CST up reply actions
Yes, that's the problem
It’s not that we have geniuses like you who have all the panaceas.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Omar, you should argue your point
don’t attack others on this site. We may think what we do of each other, but keep things to discussing the issue and not the person you have an issue with. It’s callous, rude, and inappropriate for this site.
by The Triplets on Feb 21, 2011 6:27 PM CST up reply actions
Flat out calling a BTB poster an idiot
is a good way to get yourself banned Omar…just saying. Save those monikers for guys like Cowlishaw and Taylor from DMN.
In Romo we Trust
Japanese and German auto manufacturers use a meritocracy to reward their employees...which is at the heart of the Capitalist ideal
Detroit was hamstrung by onerous labor deals, with workers whose skills were not improving and an inability (because of the delta in profit margins with their Asian competitors) to invest in the innovations you mentioned, that eventually destroyed them.
It doesn’t need to be hyper-complicated if it’s correct.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
German auto manufacturers
Love it. The reason why German auto manufacturers do well is because Germany has an incredible educational system, a national healthcare system, and the people who design cars are the most capable of designing cars. They aren’t afraid to try something new and their workforce doesn’t have to worry about what happens if they or a family member gets sick, and they can focus on getting the work done.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:17 PM CST up reply actions
Your free-market blood boil
should be placed not only towards unions, but also industries that refuse to follow supply and demand needed in free markets.
There was a demand for something the industry decided they would not supply. They tried to control their supply and avoid demands.
It wasn’t the unions that made the owners not spend money on new research, technology, and innovtion in the auto industry. You can blame payroll, but it was a business decision. And another big reason Asia is leading automarkets (besides cheap labor) is that their own tech research in other industries (especially batteries) had their auto industry at the forefront of hybrid cars.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Actually
The US auto industry reached the height of it’s powers, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, when per capita labor union membership and labor union powers in general were at their height. Unionization in Japan and Germany has been higher than that in the US since 1950. Unions are an easy scapegoat, but not the source of the problem.
What brought down the US auto industry was the complete ossification of managerial thought that did not allow them to respond to competition. Japanese manufacturers employed statistical quality control processes advocated by W. Edwards Deming and Genichi Taguchi which completely revolutionized the industry, producing the highest-quality autos at the lowest cost. When those cars began entering the US market in numbers in the late 1970’s, the domestic industry could not compete, something from which they have not yet completely recovered.
And it’s not just in SPC methods they have lost the battle. Academic studies have shown the US auto industry has been slower to incorporate new technologies to lower cost than their Japanese counterparts, even when it was funded in the US. It’s pretty amazing mismanagement that has dug the US auto industry into the deep hole they’re in, right up to the present day where advertsing concentrates on huge pickup trucks, when the population is looking less gas-guzzling means of transportation.
Your point is misplaced
The highpoint was reached in the 50’s and 60’s when organic growth was fueling consumption and international competition was almost non-existent. The emergence of a globalized economy changed all of those fundamental underpinnings and exposed the unions as a competitive disadvantage.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Maybe...But Why
Did Japan do so well, when they had higher rates of unionization than the US? Using the logic of unions = competitive disadvantage, Japan should have fallen further behind. Instead, they raced to the head of the class.
The reason is because Japan’s management was light years ahead of that of the US.
Relative cost of goods sold
…the COGS model delta between the two cultures allowed the Japanese to create a higher quality product at a lower cost, thus further speeding the decline of the American automaker.
The other thing to keep in mind was the timing of capital investments into innovation. The Japanese moved ahead because they had Capital to reinvest in their businesses that their U.S. peers did not have (again due to the relative disparity in labor cost and overall product cost versus quality). You can spout off nonsense about Kaizen all day long, but that is the crap they use to help sell books.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I See
So unions are bad…except when the Japanese utilize them more than us, then it doesn’t matter. Got it.
You’ll have to be more specific on the COGS argument. It’s too vague (and from my view, evasive) to have any validity.
There were few industries, in the last century, anyway, that had more capital than the Big Three US auto companies in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The Japanese wage scale was also much higher than their US counterparts. So your argument that somehow that one of the most most prosperous industries in Western history was unable to fund capital investments makes zero sense.
And you can tone down your rhetoric about “spouting nonsense”. I’m perfectly fine with an adult, civil disagreement, but you can keep your belittling language for yourself.
How is it evasive?
I’m not going to be able to impart the Booth School of Business’ curriculum in a single post, but suffice it to say this; every business has to wrestle with Operating Cash Flow Margins (revenues minus operating expenses and direct expenses) and Operating Free Cash Flow, which is a measure of OCF less Capital expenditures.
The global economy inserted a new variable into the automaker equation; competition for the U.S. buyer.
That buyer was forced to look at the cost of the car versus the potential value (worth what paid for) and layer other elements in like resale value and maintenance costs.
As the price/value ratio started to lean away from Detroit, the labor unions had already established wage rates that were higher than their Japanese counterparts and fought off qualitative oversight while almost guaranteeing jobs for their members regardless of performance.
The result was simply a better car for the money coming from Japan. By the time Detroit realized the depth of the problem (kinda like Jerry seeing Winnie for what he truly was), it was too late and they lacked the OFCF to reinvest in modernization.
The COGS model favored Japan.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Your Fundamental Premise
Keeps falling back on the assumption that US auto workers make more than those of their Japanese counterparts. I’d like you to point to some legitimate commercial or trade source that can confirm that, because I don’t believe you.
Everything I’ve seen, the Japanese workers make more, much more than their US counterparts. The Japanese ministry of HLW estimated regular worker direct labor costs, if you do the conversion math, to be around $34.50 per hour. The US auto worker makes much less, around $28 per hour.
So where is the objective evidence to the contrary?
I’ll set aside the discussion of quality, which actually was a major determinant for US buyers in the 1980’s. US cars were generally crap then, because management hung on to outmoded thinking…in fact, they still do.
Here you go
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/business/economy/18sorkin.html?_r=1
In addition, here’s some more direct correlative dataUAW has been blamed for the automotive industry crisis of 2008-2009. Union workers’ higher wages and more generous benefits has been compared to those working at union Japanese auto plants in the U.S. as one of the primary reasons for the poor competitiveness of the Big Two. In a November 23, 2008, New York Times editorial, Andrew Ross Sorkin claimed that the average UAW worker was paid $70 per hour, including health and pension costs, while Toyota workers in the US receive $10 to $20 less.17 The UAW asserts that most of this labor cost disparity comes from legacy pension and healthcare benefits to retired members, of which the Japanese automakers have none.
At the end of the day, while you can argue a multitude of positions relative to the degree to which is is true, the cost burden of the labor agreements with their union laborers (all in) was significantly higher for US automakers than their Japanese counterparts and that is generally accepted by economists and academics in the field as fact.
Next?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
You're a Businessman, Correct?
Then you might well know the difference between direct labor rate and a burdened wrap rate. I was careful to mention the direct rate, which is what the union members take home. Different burdening based on varying bookkeeping practices can lead to all sorts of misleading comparisons, like the one shopped by Ross in his article, which would not pass any serious accounting test and is ultimately right-wing propaganda. As I hope you would know very well, it is management that sets the accounting schemes, not the unions, burdening labor from direct to wrap rate using overhead, G&A, cost of money and any other burdening factors. Oh and by the way, management’s salary and retirement is almost always part of overhead, so I suppose it’s the union’s fault they’re paying for Jack Welsh’s caviar in the Cayman Islands, which contributes to the alleged $70 rate, right?
The only useful comparison is at the direct labor rate, and all the data I’ve seen shows the Japanese make more. Which is only common sense. The cost of living in Detroit (and the other plants in the US) is certainly less expensive than what it is in Japan, so the market seeks a lower price.
And If It's Generally Accepted
By academics and economists, could you point me to one? I’m in graduate school now, and was not able to find any such studies in my research.
actually kindablue
the reason Japan ate our auto industries lunch was that we, as a country, at the bidding of the auto industry, imposed a limit on the number of cars the Japanese could import, thus incentivizing the Japanese to make the luxury cars to maximize profit. By the time, automakers had discovered how ruinous this was to their business, the Japanese had a huge comparative advantage. It would have been much better for us to have done nothing and forced our auto industry to compete with theirs. If we had, all the luxury cars would probably not be foreign, and our auto industry much sounder.
There are of course other reasons, but I thought I would mention this one.
by The Triplets on Feb 21, 2011 6:34 PM CST up reply actions
LOL!!!
The lack of electric cars is the undoing of the auto industry ?
Laughable. Unions have been their undoing. How can you tell ? Which companies make the best cars ? Non-union companies, that’s which ones.
by deadrody7774 on Feb 21, 2011 12:38 PM CST up reply actions
More incorrect than I can stomach.
Chevy just released MT’s car of the year, Ford’s been doing well. Also it’s intellectual dishonest (or plain stupidity) at its highest point to compare the US workforce conditions to the conditions in Japan or Germany.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
Not the only reason, read more carefully
But look outside the US and the Asian and German cars remain on the forefront of the industry AND have the best selection of hybrid cars selling like hotcakes. Electric cars aren’t the only reason, just like unions aren’t the only reason. Then you get into things like cheaper labor abroad, better healthcare systems abroad, more money being poured into new factories/rechnologies, and car designs abroad…the unions didn’t single handedly destroy the autoindustry, but they are certainly the scapgoat
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Unions just wanted healthcare and a decent pension for later in life
Two things that are standard in Canada and many other countries.
...and wages that were out of sync with their international counterparts
…which changed the economic profit margins for the american companies.
The antithesis of free market economics.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
What international counterparts make should not effect US workers who are living under different economies, with different retirement benefits, different cost of living, etc. Now, it does make a difference to the owners, but you can’t expect any US employee to base their salary requests on the wages of the Chinese autoworkers.
There were far more detrimental factors to the us auto industry than the demands of the unions, that’s all I am saying.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
You don't like my example, so let's extend...
Education;
The teaching unions had perpetuated a system of entitlement where teachers who can’t even pass basic literacy tests are guaranteed jobs when by rights, they should be fired and replaced with better, more qualified candidates.
It’s nearly impossible to break that logjam because they are a powerful special interest group.
The result is a declining quality of education that has downstream effects of great magnitude.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Those Powerful Unions
Most teachers of public schools don’t make beans. The average salary in every state is below $60k. Most are in the low $40ks. Given the crap they have to put up with, like overcrowded classes and having to pay for their own supplies, singling them out is bizarre. They earn every penny they get, and in a sane society would get much more. If their unions are so powerful, how come they barely make enough to live on?
The guaranteed jobs while not able to pass basic literacy tests is either mythology or something so rare it’s perverse to bring up.
I agree that teachers are undervalued
My mother was a teacher. So it’s from her experiences as a teaching professional that I am able to draw my own conclusions.
I’m not sure why you think my position is “perverse” and you probably misused the word in trying to make the point that it creates a negative emotional response on your part.
In Oakland, California, there was an attempt by teachers in that district to create a paralanguage called Ebonics. It was an atrocity and represented a waving of the white flag when it came to teaching the African American segment of the student body proper English.
Senate Bill 736 in Broward county, Florida is an example of where the Union is fighting merit-based pay for teachers rather than the age-old tenure-based system.
There are a ton of instances where teachers in this Country are failing students and neither the taxpayer nor the districts can overcome the Union lobby to enact reform.
The reality of the situation is that, while I am a product of the public school system, I’m not surprised that those with the means to do so are sending their children to private schools where teaching positions are based on merit.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
A few things...
The teachers union, as well as other unions like the California Prison Guards union, is a completely different beast. Education is in the toilet for a number of reasons. Teachers are paid like garbage, put up with loud mouthed borderline illiterate bastards who think they’re Benjamin Franklin Redux, so in other words it’s like handing a WR coach a team full of Freddie Mitchells, after a while of course they’ll give up. This is for a number of reasons, partly the poor pay doesn’t attract the best candidates. Most people who I know who are teachers basically said “eff it” in college and teaching was the fall back option. People who were successful and intelligent didn’t want to put up with these idiot kids for 35K a year. The teachers union is a problem, but one of many in the education system. Low pay, little incentive to become a teacher, bad parenting, a culture of anti intellectual pride, ever declining attention spans of Americans, zero respectable intellectual role models, and a bare bones budget are all reasons why the education system is in the toilet.
Each union has its own situational issues
To say that the UAW, IBEW, CWA, Teachers, whatever is/are a different beast isn’t really saying much.
At the end of the day, the common thread is that they had a role in the industrial revolution in this country but their time has come and gone.
At this point, the bulk of what they do is make it difficult to create change. their legacy infrastructure reqwards for tenure over merit. The companies who are thriving in the global economy are those that are true meritocracies.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Right...
Because everyone has access to good health care, a decent retirement, and middle class wages are skyrocketing…oh, wait…they’re not? Yeah, unions are still needed.
Just wondering...
are you a member of one?
It seems like I’ve offended your sensibilities with the facts.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Currently?
Nope. I’m a law student, but I have worked for several unions. It seems that your “facts” seem to be an amalgamation of bad unions and you getting mad at your employees.
I love my employees
…but they’re not in a union.
They get variable reward structures based solely on their contributions.
It’s the antithesis of a Socialist entitlement.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I disagree
The only reason you know the names of any of the players is because of the game itself. The very nature of putting on the spectacle that is an NFL season is to CREATE the superstars we all gravitate to today.
I also disagree with your assessment of Detroit. The work done on the line is absolutely critical to the output of a high-quality vehicle.
In both cases, however, the staffs can be dismissed and a new staff (maybe a better one if the compensation and rewards are based on a meritocracy rather than draft slotting) can replace them.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
You really think the NFL could dismiss their staff (players union) and replace them easily?
I do not agree. Their product would not be anywhere close to what it was.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Product would suffer short term but
There is not much comp. for it, I would continue to watch, as i did during the scrubs. I’m a football fan, and more a Dallas Cowboys fan. I will continue to support the team. Whether the talent level overall goes down or not.
Are you still a fan of the Cowboys when their product on the field is not anywhere clsoe to what it was ??
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
Okay that's not fair, you're a Cubs fan
So you have sort of a warped perspective on rooting for teams who are no longer trying
;)
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:34 PM CST up reply actions
They try
they sign big name players past their prime, kind of like the skins….3rd highest payroll in MLB lol, just spent very poorly
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
I would still be a Cowboys fan
But I would spend more time following the “better” league with all the former NFL players and would spend more time watching the other league’s games when the Cowboys aren’t playing…I would also have a new team that I would cheer for in the league with all the “former NFL” elite players.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
You and the 3 other guys who could afford tickets to those games...
but afterwards, the mass media would follow the viewership to whatever met fan needs.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
M-M-A-dden
;-)
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Finally! Some recognition for my comedic brilliance...
I’m here all week.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Yes I do
Out of the gate, you’re probably right and it would certainly suffer but, over time, it would recover fully.
Has baseball talent gone down since the last strike? Hardly.
Why would the NFL be different?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Actually...
Baseball’s popularity is going down in Puerto Rico, and there’s fewer black players than there ever have been. Also just because the talent hasn’t gone down in the game does not mean that the game as a whole did not suffer.
It's ascending in Japan and the Dominican Republic
Salaries for players are at record highs. Last season saw attendance records in the midst of an historically significant economic downturn.
What else you got?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
You're changing the argument
You said that the labor lock out would ultimately be good for the sport. Not true, baseball got big in the DR because Juan Marichal was a role model for thousands of Dominican kids and kids who lived in a third world country saw baseball as a way to get off the island. Pedro Martinez and Sammy Sosa inspired a new generation and MLB talent scouts set up baseball camps and academies all over the country and they are actively promoting the game there. That had absolutely nothing to do with the labor situation, which in baseball was a strike not a lock out and it was the players breaking the owners back.
Japan: Americans brought the game of baseball to Japan after WWII. It’s taken a while, but finally baseball is the big sport there. They have a budding national baseball program, their own professional baseball league, and plenty of successful imports in the MLB (regardless of the fact that the imports were shells of their former selves). Again: Nothing to do with the labor situation in 90s.
Hell, if anything the high wages of baseball players (which was given to them by the hard work of the MLBPA) caused this. So in that case, the players should be given MORE money. If we want football in Europe maybe Peyton Manning, Nmandi Asomugha, and Patrick Willis should be paid like Lionel Messi, Didier Drogba, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Wayne Rooney. Maybe then football would be a more popular game internationally, of course, these athletes will also have to be taken care of and given just compensation the hardships they will suffer later in life for playing such a violent game and putting their bodies through hell…
No, I was responding to your comment about the decline of baseball in PR
…which lacked merit, and when put into a larger context (baseball is bigger than just PR), was bereft of value in bolstering your position.
I think the argument is still the argument. The union is not a good thing.
If you don’t want to talk about the international appeal of baseball, then why bring it up in the first place?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
...
False. The Union is a great thing. The reason why baseball is dwindling in PR is because their prospects are subject to the draft. In countries where baseball prospects get paid handsomely (which the union and wealthy owners like) baseball is doing fine. Where the owners had their way, in the States and PR fewer kids are picking baseball.
And the veracity of your view is validated how?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
...
When the (cheap) owners got their way with the draft the talent started to dry up. In places where IFA bonuses run rampant the game is doing quite fine. Where the players union and the rich owners get their ways, the sport does fine…huh…imagine that.
So, in Omarland, correllation = causation?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
But you're not doctrinal
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I'm just inferring from your previous posts
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
As far as staying competitive goes
The main issue is keeping a salary cap in place. If the owners change their revenue sharing structure, the most important element is maintaining a limit on how much a team can spend on talent.
As long as every team can cover player, coach, scout, and office payrolls, it doesn’t matter how much it takes home after that. I would guess that every team in the league covers this cost easily now.
With the ever growing number of billionaires in the US, there will be no shortage of rich guys wanting to own a professional sports team, no matter if it is profitable or not.
The hidden point
“With the ever growing number of billionaires in the US, there will be no shortage of rich guys wanting to own a professional sports team, no matter if it is profitable or not.”
Basically this nails it with the owners bitching.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 10:43 AM CST up reply actions
Wow...really?
As long as every team can cover player, coach, scout, and office payrolls, it doesn’t matter how much it takes home after that.
My guess is that you’ve never owned a business.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Coming from the guy who thinks a labor lock out would be good for the sport...
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
You said absolutely nothing, so don't expect much of a response
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I really don't want a response from someone who considers work stoppages good for business
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 11:54 AM CST up reply actions
It's about the broader perspective, Omar
Something you are apparently limited in.
I’ve tried dumbing it down for you, but I can only do so much.
Read some Adam Smith. Even Keynes.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Riiiiiiiight...
Because those two individuals are COMPLETELY on the same page. Wealth of Nations was a book written centuries ago that’s pretty much lost all practical usage. Hell, Milton Friedman has a better take on Capitalism now than Smith does. Which isn’t to discredit Adam Smith, it’s just that the world’s a different place now .
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
The point is still the point
For someone who says the world has changed, it seems hypocritical of you to think that other sports (like MMA) couldn’t fill the void or that the NFL could not expand beyond our shores.
If the world is truly changing, why are you so myopic about the globalization of the league or the idea of something supplanting the NFL in the same way the NFL supplanted baseball?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Two things:
MMA isn’t even in the same universe as the NFL in terms of popularity. Things take time to build up, and while there is a massive crowd of the 18-25 year old douche bags who buy hideous tapout shirts and think they can be a cage fighter, and there’s a bigger (more importantly wealthier) crowd of 25-34 year olds who watch the paperviews and dress up like their favorite fighter when they go out, it’s still no where close to becoming a major player in the sports world. It’s harder for the older generation to get into, most people think it’s inappropriate for the younger crowd, and schools don’t have MMA programs.
Globalization of the NFL: The other sports that have “globalized” have global competitions. Once there’s schools overseas with dedicated football programs or there’s overseas imports being big stars in the NFL we can talk about globalizing the league. Until then…
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:12 PM CST up reply actions
So everything has to be viewed in your 24-month window of opportunity?
The NFL was once a highly marginalized sport.
Why couldn’t that happen with another sport? It doesn’t HAVE to be MMA (you seem to have a burr under your saddle about MMA) so how about badminton? ping pong? Arena Football?
It’s like the NFL is the be-all and end-all for you but you’re ignoring (no surprise) how it rose to its current level of prominence and are closed-minded about how history could easily repeat itself.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Well, no
We were talking about the current CBA and what to do with teams that make less money. In that regard, putting a team overseas within the next ten years WILL NOT happen.
Second as far as why can’t another sport become popular, well lets look at the NFL. College football is extremely popular, HS football is huge in small towns and kids all across the country play HS football and have played for decades. The NFL may have been marginalized league, however football as a whole caught on pretty quickly. Maybe greco-roman wrestling might catch on (it has the things that football has going for it) but I also doubt that.
I'm guessing you would have predicted that nothing could have supplanted baseball
You’re right…until you’re dead wrong. And then you’re just wrong.
Odds are that SOMETHING will take over from football as America’s sport at some point.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
You're better at making false equivalencies and making the point than anyone I have ever met.
One:
The NFL is NOT going anywhere, something more popular may come along but the NFL will always be popular. Just like baseball.
Two:
As far as things taking over for football in twenty or thirty years…what the hell does that have to do with the current CBA? The league is fine as it is, and if anything, is only tightening its stranglehold on popularity in the states.
If the league is fine as it is, why are we on the verge of a lockout?
Your existentialist perspective is quirky (in a comically endearing sort of way). If you’ll recall, you went ballistic when I said the sport might benefit, in the long run, from a labor dispute that results in a more reasonable relationship between employer and employee so that we could actually go several decades without seeing any stoppage of play.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I'm getting you a ladder
Because the point just seems to be flying over your head. The league is fine in terms of popularity right now, yes the NFL needs to plant some seeds in other areas but by no means is moving a team in a new country (besides Canada) a prudent move. The reason why we are on the verge of the lock out? Because the owners aren’t ballsy enough to take more money from eachother and want more money from the players.
LOL...Omar, Omar, Omar
I find it funny that you type those words after you said this;
That we have idiots like 5blings who focus on the wrong issues, won’t stray away from their doctrinal views
You don’t own a mirror, do you?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
There's a difference
Between going to London and having a pro-football camp and moving a team overseas. One is a no risk publicity stunt, the other has a good chance at becoming an albatross.
Well, ONE of us is certainly dogmatic
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I have no clue what point you're trying to make
You are suggesting that in order to fix the small crappy market situation we move a team over seas. I’m telling you that’s a stupid idea and won’t work. To which, you respond that the game needs to grow. I accept that proposition, but deny the fact that moving a team overseas is a viable option in the next 30 years. By accepting your proposition I suggest that as of now the best way to grow the game would be a low risk camp in a different country with all the biggest stars to drum up excitement for the game in other countries.
Really?
Did I say that?
You’d better re-read, speedy. You’re missing things.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Or you think I made points that I didn't
My point is simply that you’re wrong and I am right.
The facts support my position and you just keep on going.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
So you didn't make any point...
You’re a self centered egotistical idiot. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up!
Yeah, that's what all the girls say
You’re not really Cyndi posing as a BTB’er, are you???
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
When you say...
“You’re wrong, I’m right” that’s no different than just calling someone an idiot. At least I have the decency to come right out and say it.
The extension of that ridiculous attempt to legitimize your name-calling
…is that only idiots can ever be wrong.
I think you’d have to be an idiot to truly believe that…and I don’t think you’re an idiot. Just an angry, semi-disenfranchised kid.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I'm not trying to legitimize my name calling
I realize I’m being a dick here…I don’t think I ever pretended to suggest that I wasn’t.
We just needed to get to the point where you said this before all could be right in the world again
I’m being a dick
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
BTW, who cares what you want on this blog
I certainly don’t.
You may want to take a poll. It may wake you from that self-centered coma of a reality you’re in.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I also think it's funny how we're talking about the league struggling or certain teams bringing down the league.
League revenues are at an all time high. TV contracts are at an all time high. The LEAGUE is branching off to broaden revenue streams (European games, increased draft coverage, etc.).
It's the Capitalist End Game
Things can be very profitable and sustainable, but because the search for even greater profits is insatiable, the wealthiest owners will decide they can carve out an even bigger slice of the revenue for themselves. The irony is Wellington Mara saw the long-term folly of making a grab for himself back in the 1960’s, and by creating revenue sharing laid the foundation for the Golden Age of the NFL. Unlike baseball, where small market teams are essentially consigned to farm league status, the NFL created a relatively level financial playing field that allowed the league as a whole to flourish. That beneficial long-term relationship is starting to unravel, and it will be the death of the NFL as we know it.
Whenever greed runs unbridled, it destroys virtually everything in its path, including the ability to sustain long-term growth.
Whenever greed runs unbridled, it destroys virtually everything in its path, including the ability to sustain long-term growth.
You mean like with collectivist communism ?
Capitalism is the worst possible system – except for all the rest.
by deadrody7774 on Feb 21, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
Throughout Europe
There are many democratic countries that have a capitalism/socialism hybrid system that are doing far better than the US in many important areas – health care, education, happiness, etc.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Where...
their healthcare systems and educational systems aren’t corrupted by the demands to make them profit driven.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
have you ever received healthcare over there?
This is really silly. The UK’s health care system is way behind technologically and understaffed compared to the US. I know this because I know several traveling nurses who have worked in both US and British hospitals.
Also, all of the European countries are trying to become less socialistic, and are also, out of necessity cutting government spending. They will be happier perhaps, until there free lunches end which they will and must due to the unsustainable levels of government spending.
This is already coming to fruition, and should serve as a warning to the US not to continue on such an unsustainable path. We can only continue to borrow so long as someone is willing to lend, as many European countries are finding out.
by The Triplets on Feb 21, 2011 6:45 PM CST up reply actions
Not completely true, sir
The drugs available in the UK, especially those that are based on stem cell research, far outpace our own clunky FDA-based system.
I know a young lady who had to take her 7-year old daughter to the UK for just such a treatment for an autoimmune disease that was literally CURED through the use of the treatment.
Scary, isn’t it?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
It's bigger than W.
It’s a legislative bureaucracy that impedes R&D.
The FDA is more foe than friend to the medical research community.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
The way it should be...
The FDA SHOULD be a pain in the ass to Big Pharma. Just like the USDA should be a pain in the ass to the idiot farmers with dirty slaughterhouses and unhealthy cows.
Let's hope you and your family never need medicine that you can't afford
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Do you know how many Americans go to Canada to buy prescription drugs
This is another of those dreaded socialist systems with universal healthcare and Americans who can’t afford the ridiculous prices of prescription drugs (who also don’t have a good precription plan/health care) travel north and cheat the Canadian system.
As for borrowying versus spending, you are right, except that you think the spending in Europe and US is due to their healthcare and education system and other socialistic attempts . The US economy is based on borrowing (national level and individual) not because of governement spending for socialist ideals…the US uses borrowing in the financial sector as an investment and then take on too much risk with the borrowing…and the most governement spending isn’t on universal healthcare, it is the 40% of the budget that is going to the military.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Collectivist Communism
At least as described by Karl Marx, has never been practiced anywhere at a sovereign level. That is to say, the people on the ground floor make managerial decisions. Except for a few isolated instances, that’s never been practiced. The Soviet and Maoist models were communist in name only; they still had an autocratic class ruling their societies.
Like Kegbearer mentioned, there are many other countries with a higher quality of life than the US, by any objective measure.
Ding ding ding we have a winner.
Many people have horrible idea of exactly what true socialism is. it is not represented by some simple government intervention in the economy. It is a larger movement with class power at the core of its ideas.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 3:41 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
5blings, not sure that comparing the auto industry to the NFL works.
Not sure about this, but I don’t think there is a thriving football league in Japan (or China) waiting to pounce on our protected NFL market.
However, I’m sure there are plenty of poor Chinese that are willing to play football for 100 bucks a year. However, I’m not sure that would make for good TV.
I can see it now, Demarcus Ware going heads up on a 190 pound import from China.
No, but the other sports would love it
If there were no NFL, something would take its place. Maybe MMA becomes the new American pastime. Maybe Basketball, Baseball, Nascar and other sports fill the space in the vacuum. Maybe Arena League takes center stage. It’s hard to know what would, but it’s a lock that something would.
The point is that it’s not just about the auto industry. It’s about labor unions and how they’ve inadvertantly changed this economy from goods-based to services-based. In the process, our dependence on other countries to produce the goods we consume faster than anyone has created trade deficits and an international stake in the U.S. that is heretofore unseen in American history.
The owners were right to opt out. A long labor standoff would suck, but it would probably be good for the long-term future of the sport.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
New Rule:
If you think MMA will fill the void that football leaves or has a chance in hell of being a major sport, you don’t get to have opinions on the labor lock out.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
That's quite Taliban of you
TYVM.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Disagree
It’s about labor unions and how they’ve inadvertantly changed this economy from goods-based to services-based.
The US is neither a goods-based nor service-based economy. For the past two decades everything has been about the Financial markets and it has hurt both the goods-based and service-based industries. The only service-base industry that has thrived in the last decade is business consultants and other financial market “servicers.” Let’s not blame unions for the fault of the national government and economy.
If you are interested, there is a great book about this very debate/topic. “Unsustainable: How Economic Dogma is Destroying America”
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Google, Facebook, Twitter...
The tangible goods industries in this country have dried up.
I attribute it to labor costs that don’t compare favorably with other countries.
Outsourcing the production of these goods isn’t a debate. It’s an empirical fact.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
American workers will never have wages as low as Mexico, Asia, India, and other coutnries with a lower cost of living and less educated population.
The death of tangible goods industries are not union demands. It is occuring due to government decisions to make the country reliant on the financial sector (the only sector where growth has continued since ‘89) and which has made the US far too dependent on imports. This isn’t the unions fault.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
They aren't less educated
The schools in Europe and Asia are producing grads with much higher degrees of skill in math and science and it is those segments of the population who are comparing favorably to our their peers in the US.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Majority are less educated, and the majority of highers that go overseas are for minimum wage jobs on the factory floor or 1800 line phone operators.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
That is changing fast, my friend...
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Yes
Which will mean wages abroad will continue to steadily increase and multinational corporations won’t be able to screw Americans out of jobs as easily as they seek to avoid union demands and send the jobs overseas.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
doubtful
It’s more likely to get far, far worse before it has a chance to get better.
As evidence, look at the stock market. Profits rise and unemployment in this country is largely unchanged.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
PLEASE
Can we separate “small market teams” from “crappy cheap teams?” The Steelers, Rams, Chiefs, Bucs, Packers, and the Patriots are all “small market teams.” LA is the second largest city in the country and has never supported an NFL team. Meanwhile the is small town in the sleepy valleys of the f*ck if know river has a record number of NFL championships. People are fickle and stupid. They like winners. When the Bills were good things were good for the Bills ownership. Few fanbases keep on showing up and tuning in to watch crappy teams. I’m proud to be a member of one of them.
"Few fanbases keep on showing up and tuning in to watch crappy teams. I’m proud to be a member of one of them."
Oh my god, after the 6-10 season we really are showing up to watch a crappy team, aren’t we? cries
The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.
by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 21, 2011 12:19 PM CST up reply actions
Three 5-11 seasons in a row
I watched every game. Still wore the blue and white after victories. There were some rough seasons and the fans were still there.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:20 PM CST up reply actions
Im a Cubs fan
you dont have to explain crappy teams and why we still support them to me :-)
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
Wow, You Blew That One
A lot of facts and a little opinion, but you ought to stick to facts because every time you inject opinion, you are wrong.
The Cowboys with $420 Million in revenue vs. Detroit with $210 million does not result in a competitive advantage because there is a SALARY CAP. Whatever advantage you think Dallas is enjoying by being able to afford fancier facilities and better workout equipment – if it exists at all – if negligible. And if you believe otherwise, I’d like to see a study that shows a correlation between higher revenues and success on the field. I’ll believe it when I see it. Seems to me that our own Dallas Cowboys LACK of said success while accruing the most revenues pretty much destroys that idea.
The only way such a difference turns into the disparity in MLB is if the salary cap goes away.
Meanwhile, the whole point of the league’s position is that they want to reserve MORE of the overall revenue for sharing purposes before it gets split with the players. Because if you take more revenues away from Dallas and New England to give to Detroit, you disincentivize Dallas and New England from pursuing more revenues. Its the same principle behind keeping tax rates low. The higher the tax rate, the more incentive to hide income and less incentive to earn.
The big market teams want to retain their money and at the same time ensure small market teams are profitable, and right now that is not the case (or so they say).
Two words
Signing Bonus.
Besides, baseball still has more individual World Series champions and more individual playoff teams than the NFL does despite having fewer teams in the league and having fewer playoff teams. How about you stick to the facts?
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:43 PM CST up reply actions
Warning: this post contains forward looking statements
The revenue gap between the league’s haves and have-nots is widening almost hourly, and the imbalance this creates is threatening the future financial parity and competitiveness of the NFL
Deadrody, if you’re going to lecture me about what I wrote, then please read what I wrote and don’t start making things up.
by One.Cool.Customer on Feb 21, 2011 12:44 PM CST up reply actions
What's even funnier
He calls you on your “opinions” when he can’t even get his facts straight.
by Omar Little on Feb 21, 2011 12:47 PM CST up reply actions
Why do the players need to make more money?
Why is it anyones job to help the players plan for their future. They get paid MILLIONS. I know a lot of people that get paid far less and can retire comfortably. Its not like NFL is the only job where you can get hurt and have to worry about future medical cost. Making less than 40k a year myself I have plenty in a roth IRA that will guarantee I can retire comfortably. So why can’t the NFL player do the same.
So?
That is why the get paid Millions. So now they want Millions AND to never have to work again or pay medical bills?
Sounds just like a jealous viewpoint to me.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 3:36 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Logic requires an argument.
All you did there was whine about how much the players are getting paid.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 3:49 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
It wasn't clear in the OP?
They get paid handsomely for their “rare” skills and the ability for their employers to benefit profitability from them. Why should said employer have to worry about the players after they no longer are an employee?
They get paid more than enough to take care of themselves after employment of the NFL.
And the average career is a little over 3 years.
Also, with regards to this debate, the players don’t want more money. It’s the owners that want more money.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 3:33 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
The players want more money than the people paying them want to pay.
I understand the owners want more money than they have been getting but they have that right as it is their business. Cost of doing business has to be going up proof being everything is going up. Every other business is laying off and handing out paycuts. Why do the players feel entitled to the world.
The avg career is 3 years and and avg pay of 770k a year equallying 2.3 million dollars. Hell someone who took a personal finance class in High school can invest that into retirement. Oh did I mention this avg player will only be 26, still able to get whatever job with whatever degree he obtained.
If its the difference of the NFL to continue to thrive and grow vs slowly becoming like MLB or falling apart all together, Then I say give the players that 18% paycut and move on.
Yeah, the day that an employee of mine tells me they should get more of my money than I am paying them
…is their last day of work in my employ.
The sense of entitlement among the Union membership is staggering.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Good Busines
Businesses are only as good as their employees. If you think you can fire your entire employed staff because they have demands, you will quickly find your company will have little employee retention and your product will be hurt by all the new employees and retraining you have to do to keepup with the firings you make.
There is a middle ground where owners and employees both prosper when the compnay is managed properly with a foundation of workers that are happy (well compensated), well trained, have experience, and make tough choices for a boss and owner that has shown they respect and value them.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
I own a business, kegbearer
I can tell you that I place a great deal of marquee value in my employees. But I have to keep labor costs in check or my product becomes non-competitive.
The long-term viabililty of my business is a selling point that affords me the luxury of higher-tenured employees.
Running off to join that start-up that flames out in 6 months is not nearly as attractive as it used to be.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Then this seems drastic
Yeah, the day that an employee of mine tells me they should get more of my money than I am paying them …is their last day of work in my employ.
You should know that it is a fine balance and you might lose a great employee that deserves a raise. If you fire everyone that asks for one you will eventually cripple your business.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
The funny thing is, in this economy especially, every time I lose someone of note...
I’m able to backfill them with a much higher grade of skills.
And isn’t that the outsourcing conundrum that all big companies are faced with?
The talent is better and available at lower prices abroad.
Sorry, I’m just laying out the facts, bro.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
This economy - operative phrase
That isn’t always the case. Sure, right now with unemployment due to the recession. But eventually, they will ask for a raise and you will have to decide to pay them more for their skill set and experience in your company or go hire a new guy and lose some production until they catch up.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
In a global economy, yes, it is
The competition for jobs will always be hotter now that I can easily move production facilities, help desks, etc. anywhere I see fit.
In order to survive, employees in the U.S. must compete and win on a much grander playing field than the unions will allow them to.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
US Cost of living
Will never allow for a purely competitive market between employees in countries where they live off of far less money. And this isn’t because the working class or unions have made US wages upsurd, in fact…
Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it’s not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
Some would say US employees and unions have every right to ask for higher wages.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans — those making $380,000 or more — have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
See my response above
You cannot control how much profit gets generated unless you want a CBA for all private sector endeavors.
I fall into the category that gets bashed for optimizing margins, yet I provide a significant number of jobs in my local community. If someone tells me how to run my business, I can pack it up and move it some other place where I can maximize profits. The problem the U.S. has is that it continues to become less and less friendly to entrepreneurs.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
PS no need to be sorry
Besides the fact that I can debate politics and football without letting things get personal, I am also the anamoly. i actually work in the sector that is ruining the US (finance) and am doing better off than most Americans…but I still wish we could correct the imbalance. If people udnerstand that the world would be better off with a mutualcooperation model as opposed to an end sum game, then the split between uppper and lower class will shrink and the rich will make money in a more stable economy, with happier workers, making more money and willing to spend more, which gets cycled back into the system, etc. Eventually, making 1 billion versus 1.5 billion is ridiculous, especially if it means the lives of thousands of employees are ruined and you again make less the follwoing year because people don’t have money to spend.
This is one reason I think the US relied so heavily on the financial sector, assuming they would make money off of other corporations since they left the mass public at a stagnant wage.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Yep, you and I have always been simpatico
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Given the nature of this conversation I'm curious to know what it is that you do.
Because if you’re good at something there’s always someone willing to pay you more, unless there’s a cartel and an invisible hand forcing down wages (e.g. the NFL and a salary cap).
It's not about if you're good at what you do
It’s about how good you are versus what you cost. It’s about the value you bring that no one else could bring at a lower price.
In the global labor market, a lot of people in the U.S., who may indeed be good at what they do, are too pricey to win jobs they are losing to those willing to take what the market will bear.
The boom is long gone and any recovery will be long and slow. That has dramatically changed the employment landscape and people are struggling to understand that. Unions are certainly not the answer. A better-trained, more competitive workforce is.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
False, again.
The NFL is not the ideal comparison to a free market work place. There’s a salary cap which depresses wages, baseball is a better example. The reason why the US can’t compete with other industrialized countries is because we don’t give people health care or a decent retirement pension. A national healthcare system and removing the social security tax ceiling would fix a lot of that and Unions would be fighting for much different things. Your hatred for unions is ridiculous.
Depressed Wages?
Do you just type away as if in some sort of dream state or does the real world ever play a significant role in your day?
Sam Bradford made tens of millions of dollars before he ever played a down.
The median NFL salary in 2009 was $770,000!!!
Depressed wages?!?!?
Depressed by whose standards Omar? Is it depressed compared to the guy who buys 5 tickets for his family to see a game? You seem more concerned for the players than you do the fans. Your allegiances are totally misplaced.
Face it, you’re just pulling stuff out of your arse because you have the need to exert some sort of internet dominance over others. The facts contradict you at every turn and now you just look foolish.
You can keep digging if you like , but your hole is already pretty deep and I’m not going anywhere.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Ugh...
Wow, completely missed the point. Again. Yes the median NFL salary in 2009 was 770K (either you or ham don’t know what median is or are being intellectually dishonest), however the league made 9 billion dollars. So I think a median salary of 770K is perfectly fine. Besides, it’s been proven time and time again that salary caps do not create parity, rather they just artificially depress wages, and in the NFL it creates a scenario where players have to get most of their money up front when they’re drafted and through a signing bonus.
The guy who buys tickets for his family? Well he’s in a tough situation. He likes the most popular game in the country, and because of which there’s millions of people vying for those tickets. Supply and Demand takes over and if there’s people willing to pay 100 bucks per ticket, there’s going to be people willing to sell tickets for a hundred bucks a pop.
More concerned for the players than the fans? Are you high? No one in this situation cares about the fans. The owners want more money, and are glad to charge the fans through the nose if fans are willing to pay through the nose. You are an idiot if you think otherwise. At a AAA ball park a beer is six bucks, those players don’t make much, why is a beer six bucks? BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BUY THE BEER THERE IF YOU WANT A BEER!!! They then can charge you what they’d like too. So it’s no surprise to me that beer at an NFL stadium is ten bucks.
Microsoft made more than 9 Billion
Do you support a similar ‘spread the wealth’ ideal where the median there is greater than $770,000?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I don't see where you're going with this...
But yes, I think their employees should get paid pretty well too. I got a degree in Mathematics and Computer Science in college, and I recall their starting wages. Starting out at 80K to be a programmer in Washington on just a small team of many programmers, so yeah I support that too…I guess.
So you are a Socialist
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Finally!
Some clarity.
Well, I appreciate your candor (even though it was veiled in nasty and condescending commentary).
So, the current economic system that we operate on, which creates an huge wage disparity between business owners and their emplioyees, must really chap your hide, eh?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Pretty much...
I think people should do their best for others. I’m much more capable than most people that I know, and I have to perform to the best of my abilities for them, not for my own personal reward. I know most people are selfish pricks (I read Wealth of Nations) and because of that it’ll have a hard time working, but yeah. It does piss me off quite a bit.
That anger will eat you alive Omar...
and calling me names won’t make you any more right. It just makes you look smaller and smaller.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Well you know I'm not really angry at you...
Just your view points, it’s the internet. What’s the point of anonymous internet debate if we can’t yell at people and say things to strangers that we wouldn’t say to people we know in real life?
I have a brother that thinks the same as you....
and in a perfect world, Socializm would be the way to go, but since the world is not perfect………
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
So you're going to be doing a lot of...
pro bono work when you graduate law school…right?
Rabid and luvin' it
Most attorneys can't find work these days either
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Not every other business is going down like you suggest.
That is myopic and ignorant of the stock market’s current state.
Regardless, the issue is that owners have their own problems and are trying to take money out of the players pockets without even showing that they are indeed are losing money. And they want to do that while asking the players to play more games. Sorry, but I can’t get behind that viewpoint considering the players are the product.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 3:55 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Not every other business?
Well all I know is what I can see happening around me and that is all my friends and family getting laid off, pay cuts, down sizing, closing stores, etc etc.
More games but yet still the same time. Instead of preseason its regular season and most likely less training camp. So really the players are still getting paid to work for 7-8 months. Its the same amount of time. July-Jan with sprinkles of Offseason stuff.
I think we can agree that the wear and tear of
regular season games is different than that of preseason games that starters don’t even play much in anyways.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 4:11 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
true but they are getting less wear and tear during the offseason.
It all balances out, and they will most likely get another bye.
Creasy729....do you really
think that the stock market is a true indicator of the value of a company and how well or poorly it is doing ?
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
That's everyone who has ever worked a job in their lives
EVERYONE WANTS MORE MONEY THAN WHAT THEIR BOSS IS WILLING TO PAY! The process of bargaining is how you get more. What’s so wrong with becoming like MLB? The Steinbrenners are doing just fine, the Twins just built a new ball park, the Rays are somehow getting a new stadium despite having zero fans, and there’s maybe three or four teams that need a new stadium. What’s the matter with you?
Idk because the Yankees and RedSoxs always win
And the world series gets less ratings then a SNF with Cowboys and Eagles/Giants
Football is a more popular game period
NCAA football is more important than NCAA baseball and that’s true at almost every level of competition. The Yankees and Red Sox have won six world championships in the past 30 years. I’d hardly call that “always winnings” both teams have missed the playoffs in the last decade, when was the last time the Colts or the Pats missed the playoffs. The past few WS:
Giants over the Rangers
Yankees over the Phillies
Phillies over the Rays
Red Sox over the Rockies
Cardinals over the Tigers
White Sox over the Astros
Red Sox over the Cardinals
Marlins over the Yankees
Angels over the Giants
Diamondbacks over the Yankees
Yankees over the Mets.
In football
Packers over the Steelers
Saints over the Colts
Steelers over the Cardinals
Giants over the Patriots
Colts over the Bears
Steelers over the Seahawks
Patriots over the Eagles
Patriots over the Panthers
Bucs over the Raiders
Pats over the Rams
Tell me which league has more parity?
Uhhh...repeats are more coincidence than anything
The Pats were in four SBs in a ten year period and won three…the Yankees were in four and won two. The Red Sox were in two WS and won two, the Steelers were in three and won two. The Cardinals were in two WS and won one, the Colts were in two and won one. In the past ten years they’ve been about equal in terms of parity, despite the salary cap.
The "average" player makes 10 times the salary of a similarly educated non-NFL player
So, 30 years worth of income (up front) poorly invested in an Escalade creates pretty big deltas between these players and the everyday shmo who has to pay $125 for a ticket.
You can fault the owners as much as you want, but that and a quarter will get you a gumball.
At the end of the day, the correct answer is that they ALL want more money.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Individually I would agree.
Collectively though the players have not asked for more money. In fact, their last proposal gave the owners slightly more money than they currently get but got rid of the owners credits. And so the owners walked out. That my friend is the reality of the situation.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 4:01 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
By extension, they have...
The expired CBA stipulated that a large % of revenues had to be paid in player salaries.
As revenues increased, so did labor costs. That model, like the auto manufacturers, makes reinvestment into innovation more difficult. Over time, the business model sees value erosion.
I don’t see the Jags being able to play their players less because they can’t fill their stadium. Do you?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Well now you has come upon the problem.
The problem is the revenue sharing where big teams making money forces smaller teams to pay more money through the labor costs going up. But rather than address that, the owners would rather trying to make the players play longer and for less of a share of the revenue. Needless to say, I can’t support that b
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 4:17 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Some markets (and businesses) cannot self-sustain
Gotta know when to say, “NEXT!”
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Agreed.
The owners need to fix their issues with revenue sharing because that issue won’t just go away even if they win a temporary victory in this next CBA.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
Unless I am missing something
the players have never offered less than what they are getting now. They want to keep the status quo
negotiating team that it will forgo its request to examine the league’s financial books by simply taking the flat 50 percent cut of “all revenue,” which would eliminate $1 billion to $2 billion credits off the top and erase the definition of “total revenue.”
Players’ Percentage of All Revenues 2009 50.6
Every time I read that last box, I shudder
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Why!?
Is is that crazy to have 1700 employees making as much as the 32 owners. Does that kind of “equality” really deserve a shuddering response?
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Yes
Because there is no standard set for economic equality.
The owners are called owners for a reason. The players are employees, nothing more and nothing less.
You’ve become too enamored with the superstardom that is the NFL player. Why should 1700 employees make as much as one owner??? where does it say that in the business owner’s manual?
It’s that kind of managed earnings platform that drives businesses that have hard production costs out of the US. Earnings should be based upon whatever the competitive market will bear. Period. End of story.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
This isn't about economic equality.
The players don’t want to keep their current share of money because they feel they have to be equal to owners. They want to keep their current share because they believe that it is fair compensation for their contribution to the game (where I would argue that they are the product or at least most of it).
And as much as anti-union guys hate it, the NFL players have earned the right to collective bargaining due to the fact that they are extremely hard to replace in general (due to their own personal investment in their physical ability and talent) and therefore they can form an organization to represent their interests. I fail to see why the market should only work to serve the interests of the owners and not the players. And you know what, if the owners don’t like it, go ahead and hire temporary replacements. If the players aren’t the product than the owners should have no problems getting TV ratings high enough this fall to ensure they get to keep all of that money from their TV contracts.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
They were replaced with a whole new set of rosters in one season
Were they the stars you knew? No. But given 3 or 4 years, you would have forgotten about the ones who were dispatched.
The players HAVE earned the right to collective bargaining just as the owners have the right to lock them out and start anew if they so desire.
This made no sense;
due to the fact that they are extremely hard to replace in general (due to their own personal investment in their physical ability and talent)
Personal investment in their ability and talent? Oh please. Most of these guys wake up and have the innate ability to be good at this game. They’re big, strong and fast. They can be replaced with others who are also big, strong and fast. Three draft classes and you’d forget how to spell “Dez”.
And admit it, you’d watch scrubs and rookies play. :-)
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
First of all, I think the fact that you recognize such a recovery
could take 3 to 4 years is proof enough for me that the players are the product. Name me another industry where that could be the case.
And yes, I recognize the owner’s right to a lockout. Heck I even recognize their right to hire temporary replacements. That does not mean though that I am going to support their position.
Now, to your main criticism regarding personal investment in ability and talent, I think that is a pretty misguided view you have. Consider that you could easily argue the same type of viewpoint for investment in personal education since there are undeniably some people that have natural advantages in learning. Of course, I think we would all hold such a viewpoint to be ridiculous since obviously the time spent working in school and learning outside of school has a direct effect on our abilities to do our jobs. It is the same in my opinion for football players. These are guys who often play the game from the time they were kids and not only that but invest the time to practice, learn the game, and maybe most importantly, get in the gym to become the physical freaks they are. Sure, many of them are more athletically gifted than a normal person, but to hold that as the determinant of NFL players’ success is misguided. These guys undeniably put in a huge amount of work to get where they are. And if you don’t believe me, consider that the NCAA limit on weekly time spent on football is 20 hours. However, as an investigation at Michigan demonstrated, it is common practice at many universities for players to choose to put in more than that per week. As a college student, I can vouch for exactly how much extra work that is.
And yes, I would watch scrubs and rookies play. However, I am not the average fan and certainly not the person the NFL would stand to lose (assuming it keeps its monopoly on professional football) if the NFL did hire non-union replacements.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
but thats the thing
the avg fan doesn’t know x and o and the avg fan doesn’t have anything to compare the NFL to. Its not like they can drink a coke and hate then try pepsi.
The avg fan watches their team. Don’t underestimate a fans love for their team. Love of the team that has been passed down for generations. Very few would watch the UFL because Manning was playing. Most would stay and watch the NFL because they have their favorite team still.
This is where we part ways
Sure, many of them are more athletically gifted than a normal person, but to hold that as the determinant of NFL players’ success is misguided.
I’m sorry, but a guy who is 5’9" and 175 pounds isn’t likely to play in the NFL no matter how hard they work. There’s a reason they measure height, weight and speed this week in Indy.
Lots of kids work hard and play the game early in their childhood, but if you don’t have elite natural athletic ability at the outset, you’re not likely to make a living at it.
As for the scrubs, they’d be the regulars after a season. We’d neverknow for better and we’d all be back here Blogging The Boys.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
They're the product
The owners do NOTHING. They just provide the start up capital, the way the NFL is set up there is very very very little risk in running an NFL franchise. Nobody gives a rats ass about Jerry Richardson or Bob Kraft, people watch the players so if half goes to the players salary and the other half goes to covering expenses and what’s left after that is given to the owners then I say fine.
do nothing?
So you really don’t understand owning a business at all then? If 50% of my revenue is going into producing my product something is wrong, because that leaves very little for payroll, taxes, insurance, most of all marketing.
The players do NOTHING to help the NFL grow. They take their money and run. Where the owners reinvest their money back into their team. Without owners like JJ you wouldn’t have things like the NFL network that the owners had to pay for out of product which is a risk because no one said the NFL network would be successful.
LULZ
I’m pretty sure Peyton Manning has done more to grow the game than just about any owner in the game right now. Perhaps Jerry Jones is doing quite a bit for his team, but he’s an exception. Overall is who is growing the game is the players and the fans. Hell, Fantasy Football has done more for the sport than any owner has.
The TEAMS are the product
Do you root for an individual player or a team ? If your favorite Dallas Cowboy becomes a Washington Redskin in the offseason, are you done with the Cowboys and are going to become a Hog ? Based on reading your comments, I dont think so…..
The players do make up the teams, but there is not one player that is greater than the team
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
I would have a hard time rooting for a team that had
Eli Manning, Albert Haynesworth, Brandon Jacobs, Osi, Bart Scott, LT, and DeAngelo Hall.
So if they were all Cowboys next year
you would not be a cowboys fan anymore ? I dont care for those players either btw, just asking for clarification
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
Not that I would stop being a Cowboys fan all together
I’d probably find one of my “pet” players and actively pursue those teams. I was glad to see Troy Hambrick go, and I’ve had more fun rooting for Tony Romo and MB3 than I did Cowboys of the past. I’ll still like the team, but my fandom would grow a bit dormant.
Then you're not a fan of the team
You’re a fan of pet players.
Free Agency must keep you up at night.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
False.
You’re creating a false dilemma, it’s not an either or thing. There are players who don’t play for the Cowboys that I like: Suh, Megatron, Phillip Rivers, etc. If the team was filled with unlikeable assholes I’d probably have a hard time rooting for the team. I still would, but not as ardently as I did before.
It is an either or proposition
You want it both ways and you’re not pleased with the idea that people would hold you accountable for your belief system being markedly different than the large majority of the fans of the TEAM.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
I've had that problem all my life
People that like the things I like are idiots. That doesn’t mean I want it both ways.
I was thinking just the opposite
My team allegiance transcends the players. Players come and go.
I liked Herschel Walker.
I love the Dallas Cowboys.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Really...
Man…I’d still like the team if they had Brett Favre as the QB, I just wouldn’t go to games or buy more Cowboy merch, but I’d be running back with open arms as soon as they replaced him with a likable QB.
I'm glad we had this talk...
:-)
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Deion Sanders is a great example
Was a Falcon, then went to the hated 49er, but then became a Cowboys, and then left for the Redskins….
I like Deion now that he is not playing for the Redskins anymore, but during the time he was with the skins and niners, i had a very strong dislike for him.
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
Friggin PI that was never called in that NFC title game against Irvin
#$%$^%^&#^!@!
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
yep
would have been 4 straight SB titles,
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
Both great Socialists in their own right
Neither were ever about the money.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
You are missing something
Something huge: THE NFL IS DOING JUST FINE. The players shouldn’t have to offer anything, it’s less profitable to be an owner of an NFL team now than it was ten years ago, yet you will still make an obscene amount of money for not actually having to do anything. If you don’t like it there are plenty of billionaires that will buy your team off of you.
Yeah? And those billionaire owners will want to turn a profit too.
If the owners don’t make money the NFL doesn’t grow. End of story. The owners are all about growing the NFL to make it better for us Fans.
Ah, but that's the problem
Not every owner is about growing the NFL. The have and have-nots can basically be defined by those increasing league revenue and those just getting bye. That is the real issue, not that the players have been making the same % the past 10 years, but that it suddenly is an anchor to the growth of the league. Since 2001 NFL has been growing in leaps and bounds while the players are making the same %.
It’s the owenrs that aren’t fighting to increase revenue and grow the league that aer compaining baout salary to players being too big. This is what needs to be fixed, not the % that the players get (which has remained just about constant the past decade).
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
I think that's wrong
In a revenue share world, EVERY owner has a fiduciary interest and responsibility to grow top line revenues and bottom line profits. Now, if they can do that without having to pull out their own wallets, all the better for them.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Thats the point
No one is looking at how operating cost % has risen. So if Op cost were at 15% in 2001 with the players cut still 50% and now the op cost is 35% and the players still getting 50% something has to change.
You only think the real issue is the haves and haves not because that is only what is being presented.
No
I don’t assume anything has stayed constant. I understand everything is increasing, revenue, operating costs, and player salaries.
What I am saying is that the owners still making a hefty profit are those actively trying to increase team and league revenue. Those that aren’t are complaining about the increase to their player’s salaries. For example, I can’t think of an owenr that has seen operating costs increase as much as Jerry Jones in the past 2 years, but his efforts are always towards spending money to make more money. The problem is the have-not owenrs who aren’t spending money to make money, but as a result of revenue sharing to players still have to spend more money for their players because JJ and other owners are increaasing revenue. It’s not like in the past decade the % to players sky rocekted and things have gone heywire. Things are great for those owenrs spending money to increase revenue, but the lagging ones are feeling the crunch.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
"If you don’t like it there are plenty of billionaires that will buy your team off of you"
and there are plenty of college kids that will never get the chance to play pro ball that would be willing to do so at 1/10th the cost of what most players get pd now.
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
And do a worse job...
The problem is guys like Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, and perhaps even Vince MacMahon would do a better job of running teams than quite a few owners. The same can’t be said for guys like Chris Simms.
How do you know that?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Chris Simms sucks at football
Mark Cuban is doing pretty well with the Mavs, and would definitely do a better job than Richardson and Brown. Donald Trump did okay with his own league, and would also be better than Richardson and Brown. Vince MacMahon is the man, plain and simple.
How do you know Trump would be any different than Al Davis?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Well that's his floor...
And even then the Raiders aren’t in that awful of a situation. Aside from firing Tom Cable, Davis hasn’t been awful.
Something else we disagree on
Oh goody!
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
+1
This point keeps being ignored. This isn’t the players threatening a strike because they want more money. They even offered to make less, but the owners then asked for even more money off the top. This is the owners being greedy and deciding that it is easier to take money away from their employees than make the hard fix and correct whatever is wrong with the revenue sharing between owners.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
They didnt offer less please learn what you are talking about.
They offered the same thing they are getting now a 50/50 split of ALL revenue. Hey if the bosses say they can’t do that than who are they to tell them how to run the business. Without those 32 men the ~1500 players a year wouldn’t be making millions.
Wrong.
Math must not have been your subject. The offer of 50% would net the owners 4.5 billion. The old CBA, assuming the same revenue, gave them 1 billion plus 40% of the remaining 8 billion. That adds up to 4.2 billion.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
by Creasy729 on Feb 21, 2011 4:04 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah that's my bad. Shouldn't have said that.
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Things to know about NFL men who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
