Forbes Chimes in on NFL's CBA War

[JeffInDC]

Here's the link.

http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2006/03/06/nfl-upshaw-football_cx_tvr_0307nfl.html

Why did I post this you say? Check out this little paragraph that completely explains the "percentages of revenue" the players get from the current CBA and what that percentage translates to in the new revenue formula (all total revenue). Pretty interesting.

From Forbes:

In the latest negotiations, NFL owners have agreed in principle to expand the pool of money that players get a cut from. They'll include all revenue sources, such as stadium-naming rights and luxury suites, rather than just direct "football" sources like tickets and broadcast rights. Upshaw has succeeded in getting the pool enlarged; the only sticking point is how much of it goes to the players.

Under the expiring agreement, the players have been receiving an average of 64.5% of "football" revenue, a number that would equate to 55% of all revenue under the new formula. The owners' latest offer would bump that up to 56%, but the union is holding out for 60%.

Man, that IS a big-*** jump in what $ would be made available to the players. And, since none of the NFL players contracts are guaranteed, I can't say I truly blame Upshaw for finally being a hardass.

 

[Eddie]

Considering I make a fraction of what these guys make, work 14 hour days, with a family to feed, and a newborn to take care of ... I have less than $1000 in the bank right now.

I'm one check away from being on the streets.

Sorry if I don't have any sympathy for Upshaw and these greedy azzed millionnaires.

 

[superpunk]

Considering I make a fraction of what these guys make, work 14 hour days, with a family to feed, and a newborn to take care of ... I have less than $1000 in the bank right now.

I'm one check away from being on the streets.

Sorry if I don't have any sympathy for Upshaw and these greedy azzed millionnaires.

:violin: They make their employers millions upon millions. Most of us don't. It's called capitalism. Or something.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

:violin: They make their employers millions upon millions. Most of us don't. It's called capitalism. Or something.

And their employers pay them millions in return.

 

[aikemirv]

I used to be all for the owners in these situations, but over time with the NFL and the reasonableness of their salaries compared to Baseball and the NBA I am fine with them asking for more money than what they currently have.

I know the owners are the ones that have all the risk, and put up their money to buy these teams and I am sympathetic to their right to earn the rewards they deserve for their entrepenurial spirit - That is what America was built on.

I just don't like Upshaw at all, I think he is a poor rep for the players and is not acting in their best interest in all of this, and in the case of this labor battle he is flat out lying to the press by saying that the NFL are giving the players less than they already have as this Forbes article points out.

I agree with a poster who said that he does not have the degree required to work out a deal as complex as this. Their are some economic factors that he is just not smart enough to figure out and understand the impacts on the players over the long term.

Case in point is the revenue sharing. Just because more revenue sharing will increase the cap limit, that does not guarantee that the players will see that money.

 

[superpunk]

And their employers pay them millions in return.

So these sort of talks are pretty standard stuff, it's just that the amounts are magnified. If I'm unhappy with my compensation, based on my perceived value to the company, I address it with my employer. Same thing here, pretty much, IMO. Just much higher stakes. And extensions piss many more people off

 

[aikemirv]

I really don't understand why these extension would be pissing people off. I mean as long as the teams have time before the draft to settle their FA needs, it does not hurt one thing for the upcoming season.

The fact is, as shown by a number of topics in this forum daily, most fans have no patience!!!

 

[Eddie]

:violin: They make their employers millions upon millions. Most of us don't. It's called capitalism. Or something.

It's called ... be happy you're playing a game you love and get paid millions for it.

I have no sympathy for the players. If they feel they're being treated unfairly, try working for corporate America.

 

[superpunk]

I really don't understand why these extension would be pissing people off. I mean as long as the teams have time before the draft to settle their FA needs, it does not hurt one thing for the upcoming season.

The fact is, as shown by a number of topics in this forum daily, most fans have no patience!!!

It is disappointing for fans, if they're expecting moves to be made, and it's extended again. Many fans look forward to the start of the offseason, and things like the start of FA and the draft really help give us something to talk about in the looooooooooooooonnnngggggg offseason.

 

[superpunk]

It's called ... be happy you're playing a game you love and get paid millions for it.

I have no sympathy for the players. If they feel they're being treated unfairly, try working for corporate America.

It's called employees at any level of business being entitled to their fair share of the profits. Americans have the right to get as much as they can, while they can get it. If you're a burger flipper, and can get more money, you should do it. If you can't, improve yourself so you can. Same goes with professional athletes. It matters not that they play a game as their occupation, it's still a business.

 

[aikemirv]

Its really hard to blame the players. We as Americans have created the system that is in place for all entertainment stars. Our love for sports/entertainment has created this beast that we currently have.

What does it cost to go to a movie these days - I don't go so help me out $8-10 (average family it would cost $30-35 bucks) and most Americans pay it instead of waiting for the DVD that the whole family can watch for $4 at the most.

Who buys Air Jordans for over $100 bucks? - if you do you just contributed to it. Do you pay at least $50 bucks for a ticket to the game? I mean , really, who is to blame?

 

[AtlCB]

Here's the link.

http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2006/03/06/nfl-upshaw-football_cx_tvr_0307nfl.html

Why did I post this you say? Check out this little paragraph that completely explains the "percentages of revenue" the players get from the current CBA and what that percentage translates to in the new revenue formula (all total revenue). Pretty interesting.

From Forbes:

In the latest negotiations, NFL owners have agreed in principle to expand the pool of money that players get a cut from. They'll include all revenue sources, such as stadium-naming rights and luxury suites, rather than just direct "football" sources like tickets and broadcast rights. Upshaw has succeeded in getting the pool enlarged; the only sticking point is how much of it goes to the players.

Under the expiring agreement, the players have been receiving an average of 64.5% of "football" revenue, a number that would equate to 55% of all revenue under the new formula. The owners' latest offer would bump that up to 56%, but the union is holding out for 60%.

Man, that IS a big-*** jump in what $ would be made available to the players. And, since none of the NFL players contracts are guaranteed, I can't say I truly blame Upshaw for finally being a hardass.

The contracts are not guaranteed, because the players sign contracts that are not guaranteed in order to get a larger contract.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Its really hard to blame the players. We as Americans have created the system that is in place for all entertainment stars. Our love for sports/entertainment has created this beast that we currently have.

What does it cost to go to a movie these days - I don't go so help me out $8-10 (average family it would cost $30-35 bucks) and most Americans pay it instead of waiting for the DVD that the whole family can watch for $4 at the most.

Who buys Air Jordans for over $100 bucks? - if you do you just contributed to it. Do you pay at least $50 bucks for a ticket to the game? I mean , really, who is to blame?

I agree. The players should try and get what they can while the getting is viable. I do not sympathize in their cause, however, since nobody put a gun to their heads and demanded that they play football for a living.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ultimatly, it is the consumer who will foot the bill. We are the ones who will ultimatly pay for the revenue increases. To be honest, I don't see the need for increased salaries. There is no stipulation on how much of the increased revenue gets spent on the players. Only that the pool has to be 60% of the whole. What if an owner elects to do as little as possible to imporove his earning potential and spends only 55% of the total pool on Salary for his players? What then?

Rosters have not been expanded, more teams have not been added, the economics of the game has not been changed. There is no need to put more money into the pot when there is no set of checks and balances in place to protect the interests of the owners who are shouldering the heavier burdens. This, to me, is not equitable. I would never agree to an increase under these conditions. It's the difference between a smart business man seeing an opportunity to maximis his investment and an owner wanting to win. Simple as that. Every team has the ability to enjoy the advantages of larger revnue returns. They have to be willing to go out and invest to see those returns. Any smart business man is going to sit on there hands and let the Jones of the world break there backs to make them both money as opposed to getting out there and actually breaking a sweat themselves. Business 101.

 

[wxcpo]

:violin: They make their employers millions upon millions. Most of us don't. It's called capitalism. Or something.

The guys who work at gasoline producing plants make a product that their employers then turn around and sell, they are making gasoline companies millions upon millions. I don't see those guys holding out for a larger percent of the profits. They are given a specific salary and work with that despite the fact that gasonline corporations made millions more this year than they did last year.

Owners paid millions of their own dollars to buy the francises. They should advertise that I will pay you this amount of money to come play for my team, gurantee that money and keep all other monies period. Even the worst paid NFL player makes more money for half a years work than I make in 5 full years of work. As said before in this thread, sorry if I don't feel sorry for these cry baby millionaires. All it's going to mean is more money coming out of the fans pocket to go see a game anyways.

 

[Danny White]

Here's the link.

http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2006/03/06/nfl-upshaw-football_cx_tvr_0307nfl.html

Why did I post this you say? Check out this little paragraph that completely explains the "percentages of revenue" the players get from the current CBA and what that percentage translates to in the new revenue formula (all total revenue). Pretty interesting.

From Forbes:

In the latest negotiations, NFL owners have agreed in principle to expand the pool of money that players get a cut from.

Under the expiring agreement, the players have been receiving an average of 64.5% of "football" revenue, a number that would equate to 55% of all revenue under the new formula. The owners' latest offer would bump that up to 56%, but the union is holding out for 60%.

Man, that IS a big-*** jump in what $ would be made available to the players. And, since none of the NFL players contracts are guaranteed, I can't say I truly blame Upshaw for finally being a hardass.

I can't believe FORBES ended a sentence with a preposition! Where are journalistic standards these days?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I can't believe FORBES ended a sentence with a preposition! Where are journalistic standards these days?

There holding out for 60% of the total market share.

 

[superpunk]

The guys who work at gasoline producing plants make a product that their employers then turn around and sell, they are making gasoline companies millions upon millions. I don't see those guys holding out for a larger percent of the profits. They are given a specific salary and work with that despite the fact that gasonline corporations made millions more this year than they did last year.

Those gasoline workers aren't the product. They help put the actual product out there, but they are not the product. Football players are the "product." We essentially buy them, through tickets to come watch them, or merchandise sales, etc. I don't know about you,but I've never paid 120 bucks to watch some stiff make gasoline, LOL.

Owners paid millions of their own dollars to buy the francises. They should advertise that I will pay you this amount of money to come play for my team, gurantee that money and keep all other monies period. Even the worst paid NFL player makes more money for half a years work than I make in 5 full years of work. As said before in this thread, sorry if I don't feel sorry for these cry baby millionaires. All it's going to mean is more money coming out of the fans pocket to go see a game anyways.

I don't know why people always try to compare their salaries to NFL salaries. Sure, we'd all love to be paid millions to play a game we love, but we're not skilled enough. Most people are paid based on a few things.

(a) Skill level
(b) How easily replacable you are
(c) demand for your services
(d) Difficulty of job.
(e) Profits generated by worker

NFL players are highly skilled, extremely hard to replace, in huge demand, have a difficult job, and generate enormous profits. They in turn get paid very well. It's pretty simple economic stuff.

 

[aikemirv]

Those gasoline workers aren't the product. They help put the actual product out there, but they are not the product. Football players are the "product." We essentially buy them, through tickets to come watch them, or merchandise sales, etc. I don't know about you,but I've never paid 120 bucks to watch some stiff make gasoline, LOL.



I don't know why people always try to compare their salaries to NFL salaries. Sure, we'd all love to be paid millions to play a game we love, but we're not skilled enough. Most people are paid based on a few things.

(a) Skill level
(b) How easily replacable you are
(c) demand for your services
(d) Difficulty of job.
(e) Profits generated by worker

NFL players are highly skilled, extremely hard to replace, in huge demand, have a difficult job, and generate enormous profits. They in turn get paid very well. It's pretty simple economic stuff.

Yep!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Those gasoline workers aren't the product. They help put the actual product out there, but they are not the product. Football players are the "product." We essentially buy them, through tickets to come watch them, or merchandise sales, etc. I don't know about you,but I've never paid 120 bucks to watch some stiff make gasoline, LOL.

If I understand the dynamics of this situation, the players are demanding 60% of the total revenue of all NFL clubs combined. Not 60% of the things that they generate revenue on directly. The problem is that you have 6 or 8 owners who are doing things in an intelligent way. They are running there business profitably. You've got 24 teams who are not generating enough profit to sustain a 60% share equally. Another word, according to these teams (if I understand this correctly) they aren't making enough money to satsify this request and still stay in business. How does this factor into the whole, they are the product thing?

What's being forced here is the fact that because the other 24 can't cut the 60% share, they must turn around and throw it back onto the 8,or so, large revenue teams to make up the difference. How is this fair? This is America, land of the better mouse trap and all that. If your doing things better and smarter, you should be able to enjoy the benifits of that through increased profits. Under this scenario you can't do that because you gotta make up for Bidwell down in Az who doesn't care if the league sinks or swims so long as he's making his profit margin.

I'd have one question. If Jerry invested in a new stadium and sunk his own capital into the stadium, would the other owners bail him out if the stadium deal didn't work out and he didn't increase revenue but rather lost some? If he couldn't pay off the morgage on the new stadium, and went into defaut, would the other owners come to his aid or would they let him be forced into a situation where he would have to sell the team?