Union Chief Gene Upshaw Warns NFL Owners

[jksmith269]

This is a serious problem and is starting to sound like the NHL and NBA with the back and foruth in the Media. I hope something gets resolved soon.

Union Chief Warns NFL Owners

By Leonard Shapiro
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 24, 2005; Page D04

The head of the NFL Players Association offered a stern warning yesterday to team owners convening today in Washington for a two-day league meeting.

"To sit around and think that labor peace is going to just fall off a tree, they're reading the wrong tea leaves," said Gene Upshaw, the union's executive director. "It's time for them to wake up to the fact that we have a problem, and we need to get it fixed."

The league and the union have had discussions over the last year on extending the collective bargaining agreement past its expiration following the 2007 season. But Upshaw said that in recent meetings with owners and Commissioner Paul Tagliabue: "It's beginning to sound like that movie 'Groundhog Day.' They give us the same thing over and over and over.

"Their last proposal to us was totally unacceptable. You see what happened to hockey [a lockout that forced cancellation of the 2004-05 season]. Now basketball is moving in the same direction. I don't see us as being too far off the pace from those two. For some reason, the owners have not moved the ball at all."

At their winter meetings in Hawaii in March, the owners continued to discuss a CBA extension tied to changes in the current revenue-sharing agreement among the 32 teams. The major issue has been the reluctance of higher-revenue teams such as the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys to share more of their locally generated revenues with teams in smaller markets.

Upshaw said that, in the latest talks with the league, the union has been offered 57 percent of the league's designated gross revenues "when they admit to us under the old agreement we've been getting 59 to 60 percent. So why would we accept something less than what we're already getting? We're not going to do that."

Under the current labor agreement, a salary cap will be in effect for the last time for the 2006 season, and if there is no extension, the 2007 season would be uncapped, meaning teams could spend as much as they want to sign free agent players. Upshaw said if it came to an uncapped year, he would decertify the union, a move that essentially would mean all players would become free agents.

"Once you get to an uncapped year, you can't go back," Upshaw said. "I think that's something they don't want to see happen. I think we need to do this before it gets too late. I'd much rather talk to the players this fall about what we can agree on rather than telling them you better prepare for a train wreck, because that's what it will be."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello declined to respond to Upshaw's comments but noted that CBA negotiations are a key part of the agenda for this week's meetings.

Over the next two days, owners also are expected to approve the sale of the Minnesota Vikings to Zygmunt Wilf, a New Jersey developer and real-estate magnate who has agreed to purchase the team for $625 million from Red McCombs. Wilf became the principal buyer when Arizona businessman Reggie Fowler was unable to meet the league's criteria for full ownership. Fowler, who had hoped to become the NFL's first black owner, will instead be a limited partner in Wilf's ownership group.

Owners also will pick a site for the 2009 Super Bowl; Atlanta, Houston, Miami and Tampa are the candidates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301594.html

[MinnesotaCowboy]

Are these people nuts? Hockey all but gone and the NBA right behind them.........owners and players better agree on something soon or we can forget about any kind of sports on TV. Good bye NFL Sunday Ticket......hello to the cheapest TV available!

[junk]

I don't see why they don't just extend the current deal. No need for everyone to get super greedy. The cap is going up every year, TV deals are booming and the NFL is the poster child for how to run a sports league.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't see why they don't just extend the current deal. No need for everyone to get super greedy. The cap is going up every year, TV deals are booming and the NFL is the poster child for how to run a sports league.

I got a funny feeling about this one. The NFL owners are not a weak little sister. In cases like this, the Owners have always won out. It will be interesting to see this unfold.

I think that the owners are trying to draw a line in the sand here. The NFL and it's players have prospered for wll over 20 years now. Suddenly you have rookies and 1st year players demanding renegotiations. You have the players union demanding proffits from everything to team logo's to hot dog sales. I think the Owners are going to hold firm on this. If the players don't relent, I think there could be a strike. I also think the players will break. This could be a very costly strike, should the players elect to do this. The will most certainly lose ground over it. JMO

[blindzebra]

In a way the union has a point. When you buy a team jersey the fan usually buys their favorite player's jersey, so I don't see why that player should not see some of that profit.

Any merchandise directly tied to a player is fair game, but any other stuff is really pushing it, IMO.

[StanleySpadowski]

The NFL has dominated professional sports because of the relatively weak NFLPA. The achieved parity gives all fans hope in the off season. There's no way a strong union gives us a hard salary cap, or even comaring to baseball, a strong drug testing plan.

On the other side, an NFL player definitely gets the short end of the stick compared to baseball or basketball players. Ungauranteed contracts. Alex Rodriguez getting more that the two highest paid footballers combined (and the NFLer's may never see the money. ARod will).

[blindzebra]

The NFL has dominated professional sports because of the relatively weak NFLPA. The achieved parity gives all fans hope in the off season. There's no way a strong union gives us a hard salary cap, or even comaring to baseball, a strong drug testing plan.

On the other side, an NFL player definitely gets the short end of the stick compared to baseball or basketball players. Ungauranteed contracts. Alex Rodriguez getting more that the two highest paid footballers combined (and the NFLer's may never see the money. ARod will).

Apples and oranges.

You have 12 players playing 82 games in the NBA.

You have 25 players playing 162 games in MLB.

Those ratios get flipped in the NFL where 53 players play only 16 games.

If you have 4 times or twice the players playing one 5th or one 10th the games you can't pay them the same.

[junk]

The NFL has dominated professional sports because of the relatively weak NFLPA. The achieved parity gives all fans hope in the off season. There's no way a strong union gives us a hard salary cap, or even comaring to baseball, a strong drug testing plan.

On the other side, an NFL player definitely gets the short end of the stick compared to baseball or basketball players. Ungauranteed contracts. Alex Rodriguez getting more that the two highest paid footballers combined (and the NFLer's may never see the money. ARod will).

True, but baseball and basketball are struggling. They are a far inferior product to the NFL. I think the reason the NFL has succeeded, while others are failing, is due to parity and a hard salary cap. If anything, I would be for making a harder cap and eliminating LTBE incentives.

[Derinyar]

It comes down to you have a group of people who aren't the most intelligent out there listening to people who tend to manipulate them.

If the Players let their union force this into a Lockout/Strike, they really are dumber than I give them credit for collectively. Football owners will never agree to guranteed contracts, the injury risk is just too high for that. The players get their part of things that are marketed with their name on it, its called a SALARY. Thats right, part of what these guys are being paid for with a multimillion dollar deal is their name/star power. If they want to cash in on marketing they need to get a deal with an individual outlet, say Nike. The problem is that the very few football players are really marketable. You wouldn't recognize the face of most players if they walked past you, even ones that are probowl level, because the only time you see them are inside helmets, or on sports center.

Few people buy jersey's of players that aren't of their favorite team. I know I didn't rush out to get a new Emmitt Jersey when he went to Arizona. I wouldn't have ever owned an Emmitt Jersey if he hadn't been a Cowboy.

One of the last things in this world I would worry about is a bunch of all ready over paid people complaining because they need more money.

[Derinyar]

True, but baseball and basketball are struggling. They are a far inferior product to the NFL. I think the reason the NFL has succeeded, while others are failing, is due to parity and a hard salary cap. If anything, I would be for making a harder cap and eliminating LTBE incentives.

No, football is succeding because it is the game best designed around TV and the best marketed game. You can pretty much pencil a football game in as running right around 3:15-3:30. You can know approximately how many TV time outs are needed and exactly how long they will be.

Baseball is a great game, and has probably changed the least of the major sports with time. Its failing because this generations kids are much to attention deprived to pay attention at the level baseball demands. Paying attention to something 1 time a week for 3 hours is much easier than almost nightlly for 2:30-3:00.

Basketball is marketing itself to people without the means to support the league.

Hockey has just murdered itself in an attempt to attain profitibality.

[StanleySpadowski]

True, but baseball and basketball are struggling. They are a far inferior product to the NFL. I think the reason the NFL has succeeded, while others are failing, is due to parity and a hard salary cap. If anything, I would be for making a harder cap and eliminating LTBE incentives.


I think I may not have been clear. The NFL is successful because of the weak union, but the players suffer (if you can call a $10 million dollar bonus suffereing) because of it.

[StanleySpadowski]

Apples and oranges.

You have 12 players playing 82 games in the NBA.

You have 25 players playing 162 games in MLB.

Those ratios get flipped in the NFL where 53 players play only 16 games.

If you have 4 times or twice the players playing one 5th or one 10th the games you can't pay them the same.


They are not apples and oranges, because you have to look at the revenue generated, not the number of games played. Factor in the TV contract and you'll see why NFL owners earn more than owners in other sports.

NFL players get a smaller slice of the pie than players in other sports.

[Hostile]

Oh I will lose it if they strike or lock out.

[Wood]

The NFL's Holy Grail is the "hard cap". If the NFL owners loose that in anyway then the league will spiral to insolvancy. Interest in the NFL is at an all-time high - I dont know why either side would want to mess what has worked incredibly well.

[blindzebra]

They are not apples and oranges, because you have to look at the revenue generated, not the number of games played. Factor in the TV contract and you'll see why NFL owners earn more than owners in other sports.

NFL players get a smaller slice of the pie than players in other sports.

Not true at all.

Baseball owners get to make individual TV deals, the NFL owners each get the same amount of money.

A baseball owner gets 81 home games complete with consessions and souvenirs, plus they get a cut of the gate on the road games, and a cut of the network TV deal and then they get their local TV deal.

All that money goes to paying 25 players.

NFL owners get 8 home games with consessions with an equal split of all merchandise and TV money to pay 53 players.

NFL stadiums hold on average around 70,000 seats x 8 games = 560,000 fans per season. 560,000 x an average of 100 dollars per fan = 56,000,000.

Baseball stadiums hold 40,000 x 81 games = 3,240,000 fans per season at 100 dollars per = 324,000,000.

[junk]

No, football is succeding because it is the game best designed around TV and the best marketed game. You can pretty much pencil a football game in as running right around 3:15-3:30. You can know approximately how many TV time outs are needed and exactly how long they will be.

Baseball is a great game, and has probably changed the least of the major sports with time. Its failing because this generations kids are much to attention deprived to pay attention at the level baseball demands. Paying attention to something 1 time a week for 3 hours is much easier than almost nightlly for 2:30-3:00.

Basketball is marketing itself to people without the means to support the league.

Hockey has just murdered itself in an attempt to attain profitibality.

You mean like keeping a sharp eye on the action as the guys scratch themselves, step out of the box, step back in, step out, scratch themselves, etc? :D

I find baseball, other than in person, to be incredibly boring. 162 games with huge breaks in the action. I think football's shorter season (thus creating greater emphasis on each game) and faster paced action make it a far superior product. Not necessarily the time required to watch a game.

I honestly feel baseball may have folded if it hadn't been for the home run race with McGwire and Sosa. I think baseball has real issues.

[blindzebra]

You mean like keeping a sharp eye on the action as the guys scratch themselves, step out of the box, step back in, step out, scratch themselves, etc? :D

I find baseball, other than in person, to be incredibly boring. 162 games with huge breaks in the action. I think football's shorter season (thus creating greater emphasis on each game) and faster paced action make it a far superior product. Not necessarily the time required to watch a game.

I honestly feel baseball may have folded if it hadn't been for the home run race with McGwire and Sosa. I think baseball has real issues.

Think about that baseball was saved by two guys who were both cheating.:D

[Crown Royal]

I hate Gene Upshaw (I am an anti union type of guy).


But more than that, I hate this whole "big market revenue sharing nonsense."

Move your team if you don't like it, Indianapolis.

[ChldsPlay]

hmm...unions are evil.


...and only crazy people pay anything close to $100 for a ticket to a baseball game.
Football tickets don't average $100 unless you count luxury suites.

[Nors]

Baseball will always be america's past time. If you played the game, its something that is passed down generation to generation. I can watch a little league game on a Sunday afternoon. I often sit in the bleachers and take in a game at Fenway. Its a game you have to see live. It does not translate well to tv.

It has a bigger tradition than football - jmo

[underdark]

Man, Nascar and Golf must be salivating at this news. The would love to (and have the leadership to) sweep into the TV vacuum created by lack of football and scoop up market share. Some of that increased market share would be irreversible IMO.

The owners need to give it up. NFL players make squat compared to other professional entertainers and have much more devastating injuries than many athletes. Their careers are usually much shorter. The stars are more likely than basketball players to have spent multiple years plying their trade for nothing. Meanwhile, owners are getting gonzo taxpayer-funded stadiums and other municipal incentives. Leave the hard cap, but bump it up a little.

[lkelly]

Baseball will always be america's past time.

Unintentional pun noted.

[jobberone]

True, but baseball and basketball are struggling. They are a far inferior product to the NFL. I think the reason the NFL has succeeded, while others are failing, is due to parity and a hard salary cap. If anything, I would be for making a harder cap and eliminating LTBE incentives.

I think u r right. But people flocked to the tube and games before the cap.

I do worry about the little guys with all that TV money thrown around. I don't care to see the NFL equivalent of the NY Yankees.

But I do see the players side as well esp the merchandise issue and sponsers for players. That needs to go away IMO.

Hope we don't get another strike. The replacements didn't do a lot for me. I guess we'd see some more replacement movies though.

[scottsp]

Call me crazy, but I could've sworn there are still three more years on the current deal. Good to see it's at least being discussed at this time. Don't really see the need to be too concerned right now, if at all.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Baseball will always be america's past time. If you played the game, its something that is passed down generation to generation. I can watch a little league game on a Sunday afternoon. I often sit in the bleachers and take in a game at Fenway. Its a game you have to see live. It does not translate well to tv.

It has a bigger tradition than football - jmo

Wow. We completely agree on something. It's difficult for people to understand the draw of Baseball if you haven't ever really played it. I agree with your points here.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Man, Nascar and Golf must be salivating at this news. The would love to (and have the leadership to) sweep into the TV vacuum created by lack of football and scoop up market share. Some of that increased market share would be irreversible IMO.

The owners need to give it up. NFL players make squat compared to other professional entertainers and have much more devastating injuries than many athletes. Their careers are usually much shorter. The stars are more likely than basketball players to have spent multiple years plying their trade for nothing. Meanwhile, owners are getting gonzo taxpayer-funded stadiums and other municipal incentives. Leave the hard cap, but bump it up a little.

These are all very good points. I think it's interesting that players want to change the ssystem in place. In actuallity, players have consistantly been getting paid more year to year. It's not like the cap is not increasing. This is what's so puzzling to me. Why kill a good thing?

I also think your point of football players making less money then other sports is relative. That is what it is. The real question here is not what the players make but what the owners make. Are the football owners making more then the other owners in baseball or basketball? I think the answer is no.

Lastly, I think it's each athletes option to try whichever sport they choose. If they have the skill to play basketball, then play that. If they have the skill to play baseball, then play that. If you only have the skills to play football, then that's what you play. It beats the hell out of an everyday 9 to 5 gig, no question. I also think it's interesting that we seem to understand the dynamics of the financial ramifications of other sports but we seem to hold it against athletes who may try to play baseball and come back to football. It's as if it's some kind of holy grail that can't be spoiled. I just think it's the reality of the issue. If a guy has an opportunity to play football or baseball, he would be stupid not to try it. The money is much better. The longevity is much longer and you can actually walk after you finish your career. It's a no brainer to me but that's just my opinion.

[Waffle]

I hate Gene Upshaw (I am an anti union type of guy).


But more than that, I hate this whole "big market revenue sharing nonsense."

Move your team if you don't like it, Indianapolis.

I agree! They already share all the TV money which is the primary pie slice. If Jerry and Bob Kraft have created alternative revenue streams by having better marketing departments and stadiums than teams like the Saints and Colts for example, then these other NFL teams need to get on the ball. Stadium revenue deficiencies are somewhat understandable, but like you say CR...move or come up with a plan (like Jerry did) to get your new stadium. I don't hear the Packers complaining about being in a small market, do you?

[WoodysGirl]

Call me crazy, but I could've sworn there are still three more years on the current deal. Good to see it's at least being discussed at this time. Don't really see the need to be too concerned right now, if at all.If I'm not mistaken, it's actually about contracts. Currently signing bonuses are spread out over the length of the contracts. But with there being no cap in 2007 at this time, the question is how do the teams work the numbers so that their cap is not busted by some back-breaking bonuses before the salary cap no longer exists.

I'm not sure of all the particulars, but I get the fact that it's imperative to get the CBA issue resolved for the good of the league.

[Ashwynn]

Man if these fools strike, I too will strike. Man, I hate these greedy bastages. It took two years to get back into Basketball after that last strike and since the strike I have not gone to a game, bought a jersey or spent a dime on NBA products. I will root for my team and watch em on free tv. I will never again spend money on NBA gear.

While football is more exciting, I can live without that too. If they strike, time to turn into a gardner or something to occupy all the free time I will have.

As it is, I have forgotten totally about hockey, I enjoyed the 99 season as the Stars won it all, but was at best a semi-fan. Baseball, football and basketball are the only three sports that exist for me and I can cut that down to 2 or 1 or even none in a heartbeat.

Message to union leaders and team owners, Dont screw with the fans, we have other options then watching your spoiled brats whine cause 19 million wont feed their families, when most of us are not even pulling down 100K. We get by. Make due with your 10-15 million a year and shut the hell up and be happy and actually do something for the fans once in a while. You know, the little guys that actually pay your salaries. Remember us?

[Eddie]

Wow ... NFL strike looming? Amazing.

Imagine Peyton Manning knocking on your door offering to mow your lawn for $1 mil ? ha ha

[kartr]

They are not apples and oranges, because you have to look at the revenue generated, not the number of games played. Factor in the TV contract and you'll see why NFL owners earn more than owners in other sports.

NFL players get a smaller slice of the pie than players in other sports.

There you go tryin' to use logic with BlindZebra again. He sees things from just one side, usually the wrong one. What you're saying is perfectly obvious to me. The players have been saying what you're saying, they are the commodity that's being sold and they want a proportional part of the revenue which is fair. You can't think of them as just salaried employees, because they generate revenue because of their unusual talents. You can't just replace a franchise QB, a pro bowl RB or WR or a shut-down corner with a Joe Schmo off the street like you can in other industries.

[kartr]

I hate Gene Upshaw (I am an anti union type of guy).


But more than that, I hate this whole "big market revenue sharing nonsense."

Move your team if you don't like it, Indianapolis.

You hate unions. The reason that unions first came into existence because wealthy companies were exploiting their workers. The biggest union in the NFL belongs to the owners, that's why they have revenue sharing, they reward people can't run a franchise with the same money as those who can. See, the Bengals the last 15 years. When a player can't play anymore, he's released. Even if he can still play, they'll release him to save dollars and bring him back for lesser money, no matter how well he plays.

[blindzebra]

There you go tryin' to use logic with BlindZebra again. He sees things from just one side, usually the wrong one. What you're saying is perfectly obvious to me. The players have been saying what you're saying, they are the commodity that's being sold and they want a proportional part of the revenue which is fair. You can't think of them as just salaried employees, because they generate revenue because of their unusual talents. You can't just replace a franchise QB, a pro bowl RB or WR or a shut-down corner with a Joe Schmo off the street like you can in other industries.

So your opinion = logic, that's rich.

I gave numbers to back my opinion, and they were not numbers that were flat out lies, like someone I could mention.:rolleyes:

[Doomsday101]

In the words of Bobby Jones "Money will be the death of Sports"

[Waffle]

There you go tryin' to use logic with BlindZebra again. He sees things from just one side, usually the wrong one. What you're saying is perfectly obvious to me. The players have been saying what you're saying, they are the commodity that's being sold and they want a proportional part of the revenue which is fair. You can't think of them as just salaried employees, because they generate revenue because of their unusual talents. You can't just replace a franchise QB, a pro bowl RB or WR or a shut-down corner with a Joe Schmo off the street like you can in other industries.

They already are. The salary cap is determined via a complicated formula based on the revenue that all NFL teams receive during the previous year. Players salaries currently exceed 60% of this formula.

Where the problem lies is how NFL revenues are being calculated. Individual teams such as Dallas and Washington derive much more income from their stadiums and localized marketing agreements than others. That revenue is currently not shared with other owners nor is it being counted in the total NFL gross revenue forumla.

Players are getting their percentage, but are "gross revenues" really accurate when this income isn't being counted? That's where the real question lies and the owners really have to settle this matter amongst themselves before working out an arrangement with the players.

[conner01]

jersey sales are licenced thru the nfl and that revenue is already shared.what the players want is local money.such as that tcby sign at the end of texas stadium.thats local revenue and teams don't share that.the reason,some owners own there stadiums and thus must generate more revenue to pay for it.some stadiums are owned by the cities and the teams don't get that local money but don't have to pay for stadiums.if you take away the local revenue there is no incentive for teams to look for extra revenue sources and you get a situation where there is no reason for a team to try and make money if you simply have to give it all to teams who don't do a good job of marketing there teams,and don't put winners on the field.i say the owners call there bluff and the guys who invest there money into stadiums deserve that local revenue.otherwise every team will want someone else to pay for stadiums

[GTaylor]

In the words of Bobby Jones "Money will be the death of Sports"

Is it really money, or ego? As I mentioned in the NBA lockout thread this is most likely agents and owners, instead of working together to make the sport work are trying to outdo the other.

To me what is killing hockey and almost killed baseball 10 years ago is that both teams have done a poor job of marketing their sport. Can you name any marketable stars in either league? 10 years ago no baseball player had his likeness on a Wheaties box, shoe, etc. If you were to ask a casual baseball fan today to name 5 baseball stars could he do it? Heck, I can't even name 5 hockey players, much less 5 stars.....But I can name almost every team's starting QB, I can easily name 15 stars in the NBA.

That, is marketing...