09' Last Year Of Salary Cap Says Upshaw

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wrong. NFL players get 57 to 58 percent (gradually increasing each season). NBA players don't even get a guaranteed percentage for three years (2005-2008), then it's 55 to 57 percent. NHL players get 54 percent. And baseball players, who don't have a salary cap (and no guaranteed percentage) got a whopping 41.3 percent last season.



And obviously, the NFLPA comes out on top in "what matters."



It was the players who came to him and asked for the conduct policy to be strengthened.



Owens' complaint was with the NFLPA lawyers that he used, not Upshaw. Never mind that the NFLPA told him before he joined the Eagles that he shouldn't sign the contract because they could come after him for part of his signing bonus if he was ever suspended. Or that Upshaw kicked out the arbitrator who ruled against Owens in 2005.




He didn't turn his back on them. They broke the rules and got suspended, as they should.



Turley's beef is over the former players, whom Upshaw doesn't represent. And Birk was proven wrong when Upshaw got the players the CBA extension in 2006.

The NBA CBA stares 'at least.' That means they will get over that amount. And considering the soft cap the NBA has and teams like the Blazers and Knicks this bodes well for the players. Your not stupid so nice misrepresentation. Its not guraenteed to do anything but be higher than that number. The 'increase' for the NFL is not a % increase but based on overall revenue increases. ANother misrepresentation very nice.

Birk was not 'proven wrong.' he has an opinion as to Upshaw handles things and he doesnt like it. Im sure that Upshaws most recent claims of keeping 60% of the revenue are going to go over really well considering . Birk doesnt like the way that Upshaw handles himself and I cannot say that i blame him. they guy act like an idiot.

quite frankly trying to posture for negotiations via the media is problematic to begin with but to take that stance especially with what average joes opinion is of pro atheletes salaries is just idiotic. just what I expect from the guy who threatens other through the same medium as well.

he essentially is telling the american public that not only is he a greedy prick but hes proud of it. great job there gene.

as for TO, normally the union is supposed to act before hand. upshaw's typical reactionary ploy after TO got hammered didnt help much now did it. but really the fact that they let the guy reside in the first plaece just shows complete lack of due diligence on his part. but hey you keep thinking thats a good thing.

and yes while Turley did have issue with the manner in which he was dealing with the disability pension it just goes to show that its not just some concensus where the players just say 'hey screw those guys.' no that would just be gene. this also draws questions into your claims that the players 'came to him' on the conduct policy.

First of all they did not come to him to completely give up all of their rights in arbitration regarding conduct which is what he did. they said address the problem. the 'hope the legue doesnt screw us ont his' policy is quite franky complete mismanagement.

Additionally, there was hardly a concensus on the topic from the players. many of them were outspoken about how they felt he had given entirely too much up. they should because he did.

and yes they were suspended but its the NFLPAs job to send people to defend players under these circumstances. his initail response was to do nothing. after jones lawyers took him to task he changed tune but that is just another example of complete lack of responsibility on his part.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Unless the NFL wants the train wreck that is MLB they should just force a strike.

The difference between MLB and NFL is MLB cannot afford strikes, because the fans will walk away from MLB. The NFL is a different story. I say clamp down and force a strike and force Upshaw out before you allow the strike to end.

 

[YosemiteSam]

You do realize that Upshaw got the players a deal that the owners think is a bad one for them, right?

Upshaw has been nothing but excellent for the NFLPA. The people that have a beef with him are people he's not paid to represent.

Once they retire, they all seem to hate him. Upshaw is a shrewed man led by greed.

It's the NFL's job to make sure the retired players are taken care of. It's the NFLPA's job to ensure that it is done. Why? Because the NFLPA supports the players. Once they retire, they are getting dumped on because they no longer chip in money to the NFLPA. They are still NFL Players. They are just retired.

The NFLPA exist because of those players, they should do their part to protect them.

Thats is one thing that can never be confused. If you're not putting money in Upshaw's pocket, Upshaw trys to ignore you.

 

[TheHerd]

I agree without a CBA there would be no football. But how will this affect contracts? I would think over the next two years, players may balk at long term deals because things could change DRAMATICALLY with a new CBA.

 

[Kangaroo]

As an economist, I totally understand where the owners are coming with this. Owners with successful franchises who sell their stadium naming rights, build their brand, and cultivate various local revenues should be rewarded for their efforts. That is the essense of capitalism. Making the teams split that money is deterimental to basic capitalistic business fundamentals.

Take a guy like Daniel Snyder. Now, he didn't "build the Commanders brand", but the fact is that he managed to extract huge profits from various shrewd deals he's made since he took over as owner... revenues of the Washington Commanders have grown at a larger rate than the league's revenues by a large margin for the entire time he's been owner. It's not right that he should have to share the fruits of his labor with say the owner of the Cinncinnati Bengals, who despite have a solid fan base has also historically been notoriously cheap and unable to extract maximum revenue from his enterprise.

Anyway, I'm not saying the players don't have a right to this money, but I don't see how you can fairly distribute this money under a salary cap system. All that being said, however, the NFL and the player's union have much more creative people than I do, and I can't forsee the salary cap being abandoned after all this time... so I'd bet something will get done.

Yes but they also have Anti Trust waiver which changes the dynamic of the free market as well. Sorry you left out that important fact and how much that helps the league make money.

 

[theogt]

The reason it probably seems like the NBA cap is higher is because the players get paid more and that's because there are much fewer players to pay. They don't have 53 man rosters.

 

[AbeBeta]

You do realize that Upshaw got the players a deal that the owners think is a bad one for them, right?

Upshaw has been nothing but excellent for the NFLPA. The people that have a beef with him are people he's not paid to represent.

Finally, someone gets it.

Aside from the continued agreement on non-guaranteed contacts for players, he stacks up very well against any pro sport union head.

It amazes me here that folks call the players greedy and Upshaw a "joke" when it would be the OWNERS saying "we aren't making enough." Anyone who has sympathy with the ultra rich owners when they cry poor is touched in the head. Owners are 1000 times richer than any player could hope to be.

I really am beginning to think that lots of folks slam Upshaw because they are closet bigots who are threatened by his power.

 

[AbeBeta]

The reason it probably seems like the NBA cap is higher is because the players get paid more and that's because there are much fewer players to pay. They don't have 53 man rosters.

and their product remains total crap

 

[Phrozen Phil]

Finally, someone gets it.

Aside from the continued agreement on non-guaranteed contacts for players, he stacks up very well against any pro sport union head.

It amazes me here that folks call the players greedy and Upshaw a "joke" when it would be the OWNERS saying "we aren't making enough." Anyone who has sympathy with the ultra rich owners when they cry poor is touched in the head. Owners are 1000 times richer than any player could hope to be.

I really am beginning to think that lots of folks slam Upshaw because they are closet bigots who are threatened by his power.

Upshaw's comments are part of the "dance" that is done in the collective bargaining process. His job, as the Union head is to get the best deal he can for the players. The Owners will trot out their own rhetoric and the dance will continue. The fact is, NFL football has never enjoyed more prosperity. None of the teams are in any real financial trouble, but the small market teams want a bigger piece of the pie. If either side of this process were to shut things down, it would be extraordinarily foolish. Like the "hype" leading up to the Superbowl, I would not take it too seriously. An uncapped year might sound like a real bonanza for some folks, but the long-term stability of the league would suffer.

 

[notherbob]

I have quit going to games and now I may have to quit watching it on TV if all this stuff comes about. There's always HS or college ball, or I may just get away from football altogether, after all, there's plenty to do around this place.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Bad news.

How is this bad news fro the Cowboys. They will benefit dramatically with no salary cap, especially with a new stadium with naming rights close to $1 billion in non-shared revenue.

We are going to have freaking probowlers at every single postion!!!!

You think Jerry gives a rats arse about payroll expense. Jerry would drop $200 mill easily on the roster and not think twice. Very few teams would be able to compete with us.

Unfortunently "Little Napoleon" will drop $200 mill as well. I really see maybe 5 or 6 elite teams if there is no salary cap.

Dallas
Commanders
Patriots
Seattle
San Diego

Thats about it off the top of my head. These teams are either high revenue teams or their owners are freaking loaded.

 

[Doomsday101]

Finally, someone gets it.

Aside from the continued agreement on non-guaranteed contacts for players, he stacks up very well against any pro sport union head.

It amazes me here that folks call the players greedy and Upshaw a "joke" when it would be the OWNERS saying "we aren't making enough." Anyone who has sympathy with the ultra rich owners when they cry poor is touched in the head. Owners are 1000 times richer than any player could hope to be.

I really am beginning to think that lots of folks slam Upshaw because they are closet bigots who are threatened by his power.

The players are greedy and so are the owners and the fans pay for it. I'm sorry we are talking about men making millions to play a game no matter how anyone wants to spin it this is still just a game and no illness will ever be cured by it no new inventions will derive from it this is pure entertainment and like many other entertainment venues they are over pricing their own value. No doubt the owners are greedy as well but in the end the owners made their money off of other business to be in a position to own a team to begin with.

I do think the players are paid more than what is fair by any standard. In the end if the players want to go on strike then let them, I think it is funny as hell seeing millionairs going on strike as if they are some poor abused coal miner or other occupation that is more risky than their own and is done for a much cheaper price.

If the Owners are willing to stand by their guns I can promise you they could bust the union because these players are not going to enjoy the same standard of living they would in the real world as they do from the NFL.

 

[Temo]

Finally, someone gets it.

Aside from the continued agreement on non-guaranteed contacts for players, he stacks up very well against any pro sport union head.

It amazes me here that folks call the players greedy and Upshaw a "joke" when it would be the OWNERS saying "we aren't making enough." Anyone who has sympathy with the ultra rich owners when they cry poor is touched in the head. Owners are 1000 times richer than any player could hope to be.

I really am beginning to think that lots of folks slam Upshaw because they are closet bigots who are threatened by his power.

It's not an intelligent way to run a business by saying "these guys are making enough, these guys aren't". The way our business system is built, it relies on, yes, even the billionaires having the incentive to chase ever greater returns on their investments. It's not fair to simply take money from one side because "they can afford it", because that sort of action deprives the party involved of incentives to do better.

Both sides are entitled to fight for the most money they can: this is the essence of capitalism, and it is what ultimately ensures a solid foundation for the business of pro football.

Upshaw is to union heads as Dave Campo is to head coaching.

he sucks at his job and the fact the players still allow him to represent them is hilarious.

That's very unfair. The football player's union has been able over the years to strike deals that don't suffocate the league and allow it to grow while still being able to get their share. To say that football players are underpaid compared to the rest of the sports world is simple untrue. Football Salaries from the end of the 1980's have grown more percentage-wise than any other sport, and in the end that is Upshaw's greatest responsibility.

Yet it is this system that has ushered in the most prosperous era in League history.

It is in the league's best interests long-term to have 32 financially viable teams. I don't know if there is a system better equipped than the current CBA to do this while still ensuring that the players are receiving fair compensation for their efforts in helping build this multi-billion dollar industry.

That and labor trouble means I can't get my pro football fix. That does not sit well with me.

But the inclusion of local revenues in revenue sharing was never part of that agreement. It is the ability to keep these revenues that led many of the best owners to promote their brand within their communities. It is what led to the growth in stadium naming fees, and even to Jerry Jone's infamous 300 million dollar pepsi deal. Now, I can see where guys like Jerry and Synder (they're both very united on this, btw) would have a problem with having to share the revenue streams that they solely own and built.

Then there's also the notion of the relative cost of their teams. Owners of teams that have gigantic local revenues either paid a premium for their team (to get a team that was in the right market, etc.) or bought it cheap and built the brand up from the ground. They don't want to then lose all the financial reasons that they invested in their club by having to split their local revenues 32 different ways.

Yes but they also have Anti Trust waiver which changes the dynamic of the free market as well. Sorry you left out that important fact and how much that helps the league make money.

But that's exactly why it's important to not take away managerial incentives like being able to keep your local revenue. Being a huge enterprise with no competition (which is not precisely true, btw) can be very suffocating to the growth of a business. Allowing certain owners to "free ride" on the shrewd dealings of others would not result in growth of the industry, and, it can be argued, depress the salaries of the players.

But in the end, I DO believe the players have a right to this money, but getting it in a manner that will not hurt owners of big teams will be challenging to say the least.

 

[Sonny#9]

Which means a Commanders Superbowl

Which also means we'll beat the Cowboys to get there

 

[Sonny#9]

Right.

Folks, if there is no CBA for 2010 then we aren't having a season. Plain and simple.

As much as I'd love to see that -- Skins and Dallas are the top 2 teams in terms of revenue, now THAT would be fun! I agree there wouldn't be a season w/o a cap.

 

[mmillman]

Dallas would obviously be a beneficiary of uncapped football but I sure wouldn't want to see that. Pro Football is a much better product because of the salary cap and revenue sharing. I liked it better without free agency, but that is never going back. Imagine how good the early 90's Cowboys would have been without free agency hitting them so hard.

 

[Temo]

Dallas would obviously be a beneficiary of uncapped football but I sure wouldn't want to see that. Pro Football is a much better product because of the salary cap and revenue sharing. I liked it better without free agency, but that is never going back. Imagine how good the early 90's Cowboys would have been without free agency hitting them so hard.

I don't think Free Agency hit them as hard as the salary cap did. Free Agency only allows a player to decide his own destiny, the salary cap is what determines how much you can offer a player.

 

[AdamJT13]

Aside from the continued agreement on non-guaranteed contacts for players, he stacks up very well against any pro sport union head.

The only thing guaranteed contracts do is let players make money they don't earn. In the NFL, each player's contract isn't (normally, or completely) guaranteed, but ANOTHER player will make the money that doesn't get paid out of any terminated contracts. Let's say you cut a player who would have made $5 million in base salary -- now you have $5 million more to pay someone else. If you're paying $5 million to someone who can't get on the field, that's $5 million less to pay players who can.

And if a player can't fulfill his contract because of injury, there are numerous protections and benefits that he'll receive anyway.

 

[dogberry]

If the cap is eliminated, do all salary restriction/enhancements go away? For example, will a player like Nathan Jones make $45,000 a year so that the money will be available for a superstar.

 

[Beast_from_East]

If the cap is eliminated, do all salary restriction/enhancements go away? For example, will a player like Nathan Jones make $45,000 a year so that the money will be available for a superstar.

Not for 2010, the last year of the CBA. The restrictons will still be in place and free agency moves from 4 yrs to 6 yrs.

However, after 2010, the CBA expires and it is free for all. No spending restrictions, no spending limits, anything goes.

Now I doubt we will actually get to that situation, but we should know in November. That is when either the players or the owners can "opt out" of the agreement.

Nothing to worry about, cap or no cap, free agency or no free agency, doesnt matter. Dallas is positioned to be one of the top teams under any situation.