Bill Simmons: Greed is good in NFL Labor talks (must read)

[jason54858]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304

I believe this is an outstanding article.

 

[ejthedj]

Like!

People don't understand that when the owners say they are "losing" money, what they mean is they aren't setting record profits anymore. That they are only making 10s of millions YEARLY, not 20s. (and that's Green Bay, not Jerry).

And nobody understands what a BILLION will buy you. 1/2 the owners are billionaires...

http://www.alternet.org/economy/149..._country's_obscene_division_of_wealth/?page=2

 

[RCowboyFan]

Its been posted, same Rich vs Poor deal, wherein Rich Owners are just leaches trying to make money regardless of cost to their employees.

 

[Nightman]

Eliminate the salary cap and teams can decide the real value of their players. Why negotiate a percentage of all revenues and create a system the limits the player's true value. Teams can decide for themselves whether they value winning over profits and the fans can punish the "greedy" teams. They could still share the big revenue streams(TV and merchandise), but reward the innovative and successful teams on the local level.

 

[jason54858]

Eliminate the salary cap and teams can decide the real value of their players. Why negotiate a percentage of all revenues and create a system the limits the player's true value. Teams can decide for themselves whether they value winning over profits and the fans can punish the "greedy" teams. They could still share the big revenue streams(TV and merchandise), but reward the innovative and successful teams on the local level.

Will never happen, small market teams would cry and moan how life isn't fair and so on and so on and so on. I do agree with you though.

 

[NextGenBoys]

But this is the players fault right?

That seems to be the consensus from several around here.

 

[Randy White]

Eliminate the salary cap and teams can decide the real value of their players. Why negotiate a percentage of all revenues and create a system the limits the player's true value. Teams can decide for themselves whether they value winning over profits and the fans can punish the "greedy" teams. They could still share the big revenue streams(TV and merchandise), but reward the innovative and successful teams on the local level.

Question:

How innovative can a team like, let's say the Packers, be when they play in a city that has a population of 105,000, compared to the Cowboys, who play in an area ( Dallas metroplex ) that holds a population of 6,500,000 people ?

 

[satam55]

Loved the article.

 

[satam55]

Will never happen, small market teams would cry and moan how life isn't fair and so on and so on and so on. I do agree with you though.

Agreed. The small Market teams have always done this in Baseball and they are now starting to this in Basketball because stars don't wanna play in small markets.

 

[trickblue]

Eliminate the salary cap and teams can decide the real value of their players. Why negotiate a percentage of all revenues and create a system the limits the player's true value. Teams can decide for themselves whether they value winning over profits and the fans can punish the "greedy" teams. They could still share the big revenue streams(TV and merchandise), but reward the innovative and successful teams on the local level.

Because it makes the league stronger as a whole...

If you take away the salary cap, only the teams with the most money can sign top players. That will lead to a handful of teams with the ability to compete on a yearly basis with a smidgen of Cinderella stories here and there (like MLB).

Whether or not you have a salary cap, the salary structure will still be the same. The top players are going to get an exorbitant amount and the lesser players will get little. EVERY team will have their own salary cap and those that are in smaller markets will likely put a sub par team on the field, year after year. I would also assume the owners would never go for this without abolishing the minimum salary structure... with the lowest paid players getting even less.

The current structure is the reason the NFL is the juggernaut that it is. The teams share revenues, so those with less coming in still can field a good team. Each team has the same amount of money to spend on players. Teams can come from nowhere and win. Fans love the product... and without fans, there will not be the NFL as we know it.

I seriously doubt the richer owners will go for the current revenue sharing system with no cap. The higher revenue teams are set up to reap a bit more than the lesser money teams... as it should be, but the higher revenue teams will want more if they are spending more.

The problem with all out free agency/no salary cap is that you'll have the same 5 or 6 Harlem Globetrotters every year, and the rest of the teams will be the Washington Generals.

 

[notherbob]

I'm greedy, too.

I used to attend games when they played in the Cotton Bowl but when they moved to Texas Stadium and ticket prices started getting ridiculous, I quit attending games. That's how it is supposed to work. Those who can afford to pay the price support those who either cannot or will not pay the price and they get to watch it at home on TV. I don't have a problem with that.

I just want them to come to whatever agreement they make so I can watch the games my way. They're not fighting over my money, only other people's money. My money gets put to other uses which benefit my family and I still get to watch football.

Works for me.
Thanks guys.

Life is good if you let it be.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Its been posted, same Rich vs Poor deal, wherein Rich Owners are just leaches trying to make money regardless of cost to their employees.

Actually, this is MegaRich vs ExtremelyRich. There is no poor here except the "poor schmucks" that spends their millions as fast or faster than they where making it and have nothing to lean on in case of a lockout. (or retirement for that matter)

 

[Nightman]

The current structure is the reason the NFL is the juggernaut that it is. The teams share revenues, so those with less coming in still can field a good team. Each team has the same amount of money to spend on players. Teams can come from nowhere and win. Fans love the product... and without fans, there will not be the NFL as we know it.

I disagree with this. The NFL has been very strong for a long time. I feel it was a better league when there were 5 or 6 top teams every year, like the Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Commanders, etc and teams could keep their core for many years. The battles between the 49ers and Cowboys were epic because you knew they were the best of the best going at it. And as a Cowboy fan for life, we all know that we were destroyed by the cap after our Super Bowl run and took a decade to recover.

And what Cinderella teams are you talking about in the NFL. The last decade has Super Bowl Champs like the Pats, Steelers and Colts. MLB has had more different champions than the NFL and has no cap. In fact the the Florida Marlins have as many championships as the mighty Boston Red Sox.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if the Player's are going to be locked out, why not fight all the way back and demand an end to the cap. It was a major concession in the 90's that seems to be forgotten. Why settle for an artificial percentage when you can maximize your true value. Forget the rookie wage scale, salary cap gurus, pro-rated signing bonuses, impossible trades and veterans cut for money not performance.

 

[trickblue]

I disagree with this. The NFL has been very strong for a long time. I feel it was a better league when there were 5 or 6 top teams every year, like the Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Commanders, etc and teams could keep their core for many years. The battles between the 49ers and Cowboys were epic because you knew they were the best of the best going at it. And as a Cowboy fan for life, we all know that we were destroyed by the cap after our Super Bowl run and took a decade to recover.

And what Cinderella teams are you talking about in the NFL. The last decade has Super Bowl Champs like the Pats, Steelers and Colts. MLB has had more different champions than the NFL and has no cap. In fact the the Florida Marlins have as many championships as the mighty Boston Red Sox.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if the Player's are going to be locked out, why not fight all the way back and demand an end to the cap. It was a major concession in the 90's that seems to be forgotten. Why settle for an artificial percentage when you can maximize your true value. Forget the rookie wage scale, salary cap gurus, pro-rated signing bonuses, impossible trades and veterans cut for money not performance.

Although I enjoyed the old school perennial powers (mainly because we were one), ratings are continually broken these days and merchandise sales are through the roof...

Although the decade was dominated by the Pats (and remember their first Lombardi was definitely Cinderella), perennial run of the mill teams like the Panthers, Seahawks, Bears and Cardinals all played in the Superbowl.

The Rams, Ravens, Bucs and Saints won Superbowls as well. That's 6 out of the last 10 (counting the Pats first Lombardi) that little to no one would have wagered them to win before the season.

The Giants and Packers also won as Wildcards with GB being a 6 seed that barely made the playoffs...

Also remember that although the cap hurt us, it was our own Jerry Jones primarily responsible for it...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I disagree with this. The NFL has been very strong for a long time. I feel it was a better league when there were 5 or 6 top teams every year, like the Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Commanders, etc and teams could keep their core for many years. The battles between the 49ers and Cowboys were epic because you knew they were the best of the best going at it. And as a Cowboy fan for life, we all know that we were destroyed by the cap after our Super Bowl run and took a decade to recover.

And what Cinderella teams are you talking about in the NFL. The last decade has Super Bowl Champs like the Pats, Steelers and Colts. MLB has had more different champions than the NFL and has no cap. In fact the the Florida Marlins have as many championships as the mighty Boston Red Sox.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if the Player's are going to be locked out, why not fight all the way back and demand an end to the cap. It was a major concession in the 90's that seems to be forgotten. Why settle for an artificial percentage when you can maximize your true value. Forget the rookie wage scale, salary cap gurus, pro-rated signing bonuses, impossible trades and veterans cut for money not performance.

You are mistaking liking it more from before versus the more encompassing vote of the almighty dollar. More people are paying more dollars than they were back then.

There are a lot more of them.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Actually, this is MegaRich vs ExtremelyRich. There is no poor here except the "poor schmucks" that spends their millions as fast or faster than they where making it and have nothing to lean on in case of a lockout. (or retirement for that matter)

So the players are spending money and putting it back into society? Good.

 

[Miller]

Yeah I put this in the thread about the Owners winning yesterday. It is a very well written piece on what they are doing. There are many out there right now talking about how the owners shouldn't get much sympathy and I agree.

 

[LarryCanadian]

Nobody knows what the exact numbers are, but when it comes to an investment, the investor should be able to chose the appropriate risk versus reward scenario.

If I invest $ 1 Billion in a risky venture, I do want 15-20% return. Maybe more, IF on top of it, I'm spending all my waking hours making sure it pays off - in that case I'm not only risking my money I'm working as well and need to be compensated for that.

There is nothing in the article that does not basically summarize what most EVERY business tries to do, in fact, what most shareholders require a public company they invest in to do.

Basically, the maximization of profit is the capitalistic system. Businesses are intended to expand and products have a life-cycle and then are remarketed or reinvented. That is business.

Now there are suppossed to be regulations and safeguards in place, but they don't always work. There are 100's of Ponzi scams and othe examples of failed "Capitalism" models.

Also, it is bad long-term business and very short sighted to do what the article suggests, but it is human nature. Consumers often have very short memories though.

There are a lot of Union reps that aren't in it for the sake of the players per se either.

If I'm a player I will likely do what I think is best for myself. If I'm an owner I would do the same. Hopefully they can find the middle ground that is win/win. Often if what the owners do is best for the league this will eventually benefit the players (more teams, longer careers, larger pool of money, etc). If the players do the same, then it can benefit them long term as well as the next generation of employees/players (pensions, benefits, protections, etc).

Often these articles just polarize business owner versus employee. Rarely do they encourage mutually beneficial co-operation.

LarryCanadian