PFT: Solving the philosophical debate over player pay

[WoodysGirl]

Posted by Mike Florio on March 20, 2011, 12:37 PM EDT

At the core of the current labor dispute isn’t the question of how much money the owners will take off the top or how much the players will share in any amounts that exceed the league’s obviously conservative revenue projections. The real debate centers on whether and to what extent the players will continue to get roughly 50 cents of every dollar that passes through the cash register as the NFL continues to enjoy annual growth in total revenues.

If the players and owners operate as partners, the answer is easy. Yes, a 50-50 split is fair and appropriate.

If the owners are the bosses and the players are the workers, the bosses eventually are going to wake up and say, “We can get away with paying these guys a lot less than 50 cents on the dollar.”

Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/20/solving-the-philosophical-debate-over-player-pay/

 

[Hypnotoad]

Easy answer: When someone sues the NFL for the superbowl's seating issue, the players are not liable for damages. Therefore, players are not partners but employees.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I guess where I find fault is the idea that the owners have an epiphany and think they can "get away' with paying the players a lot less.

I can think of no company where the worker makes fifty cents on the dollar.

None.

I also do not understand the position of envy toward the owners, other than we have become a society of envy.

A man starts a business to fulfill several personal needs. One is to earn.

The players have an avenue wherein they can capitalize on their athletic talents and are reciprocated in proportion for their gift in regard of position, draft status, league achievements and negotiating those into a long term contract.

I believe more Americans need to stop whining about the haves and become one.

That includes the players.

 

[Muhast]

Easy answer: When someone sues the NFL for the superbowl's seating issue, the players are not liable for damages. Therefore, players are not partners but employees.

And the players don't pay for the pension of retired players, the owners due.

The players don't chip in for brand new stadiums, the owners do.

The players don't pay for each other's healthcare, the owners do.

The owners are clearly the employer, there is very little to show they are "partners".

 

[RS12]

I guess where I find fault is the idea that the owners have an epiphany and think they can "get away' with paying the players a lot less.

I can think of no company where the worker makes fifty cents on the dollar.

None.

I also do not understand the position of envy toward the owners, other than we have become a society of envy.

A man starts a business to fulfill several personal needs. One is to earn.

The players have an avenue wherein they can capitalize on their athletic talents and are reciprocated in proportion for their gift in regard of position, draft status, league achievements and negotiating those into a long term contract.

I believe more Americans need to stop whining about the haves and become one.

That includes the players.

And I can think of no other business where the employees/ partners are the entire product. None, other than professional sports. The whole risk taking arguement is over played for the owners. Name me one other business that has a huge guarenteed revenue stream, rights fees. If you cant make a profit running an NFL team than sell it.

 

[Hypnotoad]

And I can think of no other business where the employees/ partners are the entire product.

They are clearly not partners in the business/legal sense of the word, in the team sense sure they are partners - they help each other out and they work togther.

Why can't you think of something were the employees are the entire product? Have you heard about the service industry? Marketting, Real Estate, Entertainment, Hospitality, Financial Services, Travel, Tourism, etc? Those are all sectors where the employees are the products.

 

[Muhast]

They are clearly not partners in the business/legal sense of the word, in the team sense sure they are partners - they help each other out and they work togther.

Why can't you think of something were the employees are the entire product? Have you heard about the service industry? Marketting, Real Estate, Entertainment, Hospitality, Financial Services, Travel, Tourism, etc? Those are all sectors where the employees are the products.

You forgot strip clubs

 

[Solution]

You forgot strip clubs

I prefer the term, "gentlemen's club".

 

[theogt]

Easy answer: When someone sues the NFL for the superbowl's seating issue, the players are not liable for damages. Therefore, players are not partners but employees.

In likely every case, the owners aren't personally liable either. That is, unless they choose to be, which would be incredibly stupid.

 

[casmith07]

In likely every case, the owners aren't personally liable either. That is, unless they choose to be, which would be incredibly stupid.

It would be hilarious to see the owners try to use joinder on the players.

 

[Hypnotoad]

In likely every case, the owners aren't personally liable either. That is, unless they choose to be, which would be incredibly stupid.

That Superbowl XLV class action lawsuit over the ticket fiasco sued NFL, the Dallas Cowboys, and Jerry Jones. Three parties were accused.

A lawsuit against the NFL (a nonprofit corporation defined as a 'Business Leagues') would probably ask all 32 teams to share in the legal costs.

 

[Randy White]

And the players don't pay for the pension of retired players, the owners due.

Not true. Benefits ARE part of the " 50 % " package.

The players don't chip in for brand new stadiums, the owners do.

WRONG. Players pay 1 BILLION dollars a year for that, plus other expenses.

The players don't pay for each other's healthcare, the owners do.

Not true. That, too, is a benefit that's included in the 50% package

The owners are clearly the employer, there is very little to show they are "partners".

Wrong. As per the CBA, the players' revenues are directed tied to the league's revenues, which makes them partners. They also share in the league's costs to the tune of 1 BILLION dollars off the top, and the owners want to increase that figure.

 

[theogt]

That Superbowl XLV class action lawsuit over the ticket fiasco sued NFL, the Dallas Cowboys, and Jerry Jones. Three parties were accused.

You can file a lawsuit against anyone. Doesn't mean they're liable. It's pretty common to add more parties than are liable for various reasons.

A lawsuit against the NFL (a nonprofit corporation defined as a 'Business Leagues') would probably ask all 32 teams to share in the legal costs.

Any lawsuit against the NFL is going to be immaterial and covered by insurance. The cost of that insurance is probably covered in the revenue deductions. In other words, the players pay for it.

 

[Muhast]

Not true. Benefits ARE part of the " 50 % " package.



WRONG. Players pay 1 BILLION dollars a year for that, plus other expenses.



Not true. That, too, is a benefit that's included in the 50% package



Wrong. As per the CBA, the players' revenues are directed tied to the league's revenues, which makes them partners. They also share in the league's costs to the tune of 1 BILLION dollars off the top, and the owners want to increase that figure.

Can you show me any evidence for this? I've looked online for comfirmation and havn't been able to validate any of what you said.

From what I read, the owners pay the bulk of stadium cost, followed by the city and private investors. I don't see anything about the players contributing.

Same goes with players contributing toward medical benefits for other players.

Or players paying any portion of the retired players pension.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, as you could very well be right, but I can't find anything confirming what you said.

 

[Hypnotoad]

You two make it sound like the owners should be thankful that the players are generous enough to give them 1 billion of the owners money back to go towards expenses. And thus attribute every expense as being paid by the players!

The players demand a percentage share of the revenue, but only pay a static number for expenses. They share equally in the revenue but not the expenses.

The owners want an adjustment to the expense number which was agreed upon years ago. The NFLPA knows for damn sure that the revenue numbers are up, but they fight so hard to keep that expense figure at 1 billion. The current CBA was agreed upon in 1993. The cost for producing a stadium are up from 1993, the cost of healthcare is up form 1993, the cost of players salary is up from 1993. Why should the amount of expenses remain 1 billion, a number agreed upon in 1993?

 

[RS12]

They are clearly not partners in the business/legal sense of the word, in the team sense sure they are partners - they help each other out and they work togther.

Why can't you think of something were the employees are the entire product? Have you heard about the service industry? Marketting, Real Estate, Entertainment, Hospitality, Financial Services, Travel, Tourism, etc? Those are all sectors where the employees are the products.

Huh? People dont pay to watch other people perform these jobs. Maybe musicians, where since they are the product, they take the biggest cut too.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Huh? People dont pay to watch other people perform these jobs. Maybe musicians, where since they are the product, they take the biggest cut too.

You said 'And I can think of no other business where the employees/ partners are the entire product.', i explained the entire service industry you are paying for employees doing a job. Examples:

If I am buying a house, I want to find a good real estate agent. I find the right talent to do that job well. I pay to watch that person do their job.

If I want to save for retirement, I want to find a good financial adviser. I find the right talent to do that job well. I pay to watch that person do their job.

If I was an NFL owner trying to win a championship, I want to find a good football player. They find the right talent to do that job well. I pay to watch that person do their job.

 

[CCBoy]

You can file a lawsuit against anyone. Doesn't mean they're liable. It's pretty common to add more parties than are liable for various reasons.

Any lawsuit against the NFL is going to be immaterial and covered by insurance. The cost of that insurance is probably covered in the revenue deductions. In other words, the players pay for it.

This points to why the NFL has gone down the road that they have. Their insistance of a reforming of a Union as a requirement for their previous CBA was facilitated by the player's greed in eyeing a larger piece of the pie.

Myself, I am very curious how the court will address the arena of the draft, and how it will be reflective in other sports venues, such as the NBA and MLB.

Then there is compensation for present contractual damages that may be added to a renegotiation for a future agreement. It is getting costly for the owners to discard the cost of the industry and assume an organizational equality for purposes of dividing gross revenues.

Do they collectively clean up their businesses or just pin ball to a solution?

 

[theogt]

You two make it sound like the owners should be thankful that the players are generous enough to give them 1 billion of the owners money back to go towards expenses. And thus attribute every expense as being paid by the players!

The players demand a percentage share of the revenue, but only pay a static number for expenses. They share equally in the revenue but not the expenses.

The owners want an adjustment to the expense number which was agreed upon years ago. The NFLPA knows for damn sure that the revenue numbers are up, but they fight so hard to keep that expense figure at 1 billion. The current CBA was agreed upon in 1993. The cost for producing a stadium are up from 1993, the cost of healthcare is up form 1993, the cost of players salary is up from 1993. Why should the amount of expenses remain 1 billion, a number agreed upon in 1993?

Either the players share in expenses or they don't. If they don't, then the owners' demand to share in additional expenses is pretty odd.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Huh? People dont pay to watch other people perform these jobs. Maybe musicians, where since they are the product, they take the biggest cut too.

How about writers of novels.

Ever think of the cut of the cover price between writer and publisher? Writer gets in most cases 14-17% of the cover price unless he's Stephen King or John Grisham.

Writer creates the entire work, but doesn't capitalize like you would think.

And musicians have live events which creates their wealth. But they own their product. Yet still cut up the pie for the recording with the record companies.

And as a caveat, they own the songs they write for a finite time and then they either buy them back in a catalog or they watch someone else own their work.

Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog.

There are many examples of the worker creating a product but doesn't get the lion share of the revenue.

So explaining this away like the players are the end-all be-all ignores that without the owners who create the desire for the product, the players would be working at jobs like you and me.

And if the auto industry taught us anything, owners and unions are not symbiotic if the unions demands so much it cripples the product's profitability.

Ready for a bail-out of the league when the owners cannot keep the doors open because the labor demands too much?

As ridiculous as that might sound, unions have a way of sucking the life out of a company by ridiculous demands.

In this case the players are making a shate load of money and they now are acting like they want the golden parachute.

Start your own league then.