• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Which Side Are You On?

Which side of the NFL labor battle are you on?

  • Owners - they own the teams and how much money they make is their business

    Votes: 18 78.3%
  • Players - they are the talent, without them there are no games

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Total voters
    23
The more I read and hear about this pissing contest, the more I think Smith and Goodell should be canned. Then we start all over.

If Upshaw and Tags were still running the show this would have been over a long time ago.

This is the most honest and accurate thing I have ever read, and couldn't agree more.

In my honest opinion, Paul Tagliabue was not only the greatest commissioner of any sport in my lifetime, but probably top 2 or 3 all time as well.
 
This is the most honest and accurate thing I have ever read, and couldn't agree more.

In my honest opinion, Paul Tagliabue was not only the greatest commissioner of any sport in my lifetime, but probably top 2 or 3 all time as well.


Not to get off on a tangent, but David Stern is better. Stern is the best commissioner of all time. Period.

But I also agree about Goodell and Smith. Goodell I've never liked. It is not surprising to me that the players feel afronted by him. He just seems like an ass to me.

Smith is playing this poorly as well, and going to lose my support soon if he isn't willing to negotiate.

(That last sentence is a warning to DeMaurice Smith, who I know loses sleep at night over my support)

Man, I am cranky this morning.
 
Not to get off on a tangent, but David Stern is better. Stern is the best commissioner of all time. Period.
I don't follow the NBA at all, I'm a college basketball fan myself, but this statement shocks me. All I have heard for years is how bad Stern is ruining the league. Everyone blames him for the loss of revenue and the league being run into the ground. I've heard this from fans and sportscasters numerous times.

Like I said, I don't follow the NBA, so I don't know. It just surprised me to hear someone say Stern is the best, when I hear nothing but negativity about him.

Just for ****s and giggles, google the two following terms....

1. David Stern sucks
2. Worst commissioners in sports history

Based on every single thing listed under those two searches, I am even more confused by your assertion of Stern being the best commish of all time.
 
Really? David Stern? He couldn't hold Tags' jock strap! But while we might argue over the best commissioner of all time, I think we can all agree that Goodell sucks the sweat off a dead man's junk. TERRIBLE.
 
1. David Stern sucks
2. Worst commissioners in sports history

Based on every single thing listed under those two searches, I am even more confused by your assertion of Stern being the best commish of all time.


I don't really follow the NBA either, but this is the general consensus I get from every fan I know who does follow.
 
Those fans are uninformed. I don't want to derail this thread, but Stern has brought the league back from the nadir of the early 2000's by curtailing tatoos, fighting, etc, everything the sponsors and ticket buyers detested about the league. He has done a remarkable job.

And yes, to return to the topic at hand, couldn't agree more about Goodell. Donkey's balls sweat. Or whatever you said.
 
Goodell is definitely a bucket of ball sweat, I don't think that's something anyone would disagree on.
 
Getting back to the topic at hand...

This is a tweet from Jeremy Jarmon:

DoubleJJ90 Jeremy Jarmon
Wow I just called my masseuse in VA...there office was informed to not see any players until the lockout ends. That Is some absolute...!!!!


Sigh. The union (or whatever it's calling itself now) needs to clamp down on these morons. Social media provides an interesting new wrinkle regarding public opinion in these labor disputes.
 
Getting back to the topic at hand...

This is a tweet from Jeremy Jarmon:

DoubleJJ90 Jeremy Jarmon
Wow I just called my masseuse in VA...there office was informed to not see any players until the lockout ends. That Is some absolute...!!!!


Sigh. The union (or whatever it's calling itself now) needs to clamp down on these morons. Social media provides an interesting new wrinkle regarding public opinion in these labor disputes.


Wait, what is wrong with that tweet?
 
He's freaking out because he can't get a massage? Really? I get it may be medically necessary or whatever, but it still seems a but much. Kind of like the Obama vacation thing, just best not to put that perception out there.
 
Ah, I have pretty much the opposite reaction to that. Seems super petty for the teams to cut players off from necessary services like that. Ridiculous, even.
 
Ah, I have pretty much the opposite reaction to that. Seems super petty for the teams to cut players off from necessary services like that. Ridiculous, even.

Agreed. However, I think the general public reaction, when people have been unemployed for several years now is to fault the players for being insensitive.
 
I'm 60% for the players and 40% for us fans. My reasons for the latter should be obvious. However my reasons for the former take into account some things I think some of you might have missed...or perhaps don't care about.

First, many of you have rightly pointed out how much the players make compared to the average Joe. However in some ways that's not entirely relevant. The reason is that the players and owners live in an entirely different compensation universe than we do. For example, how many average Joes pay an agent 40%? Therefore the more relevant point IMO is whether the percentage of revenues the players get is fair. I don't remember what percentage they're getting but I do remember it bring overly fair to them.

However that exposes the flaw in the idea that the owners shouldn't have to open their books. That is, how are the players to really know if they're getting what both sides have agreed to? As someone many of you will remember once said, "trust, but verify". Remember also that the owners agreed to that percentage in exchange for the concession of a salary cap from the players.

Which brings me to the final and most important reason I'm mostly on the players' side. The NFL is a monopoly. So if the players don't like the terms there isn't another option for them in the same line of work.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the owners position. However if you want to whine about going broke with billions in revenue and taxpayers $ on the table you're going to have to prove it in my book. If the owners want to have their cake and eat it too, then let the league deal with an uncapped salary structure and the govt. antitrust lawyers then.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Yusuf06 - How is the NFL a monopoly? Not trying to be smart with you or anything....there is the AFL, CFL, and UFL that the players could take their talents to. Granted, it is not ideal, but the players could go to those three leagues and do their job. The drawback is a significant cut in pay and less exposure.
 
Yusuf is correct. "significant" doesn't begin to describe the salary difference between the NFL and the rest of the leagues. Not even Peyton or Brady would get anywhere close to their salaries.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Yeah, I understand that their salaries would not be close. The average AFL salary is around 217,000 a year.

I have read a little more about monopolies on the interwebs.....I think I agree. So, how come these other leagues have not challenged the NFL's power?

Are sports regulated differently than regular business? I assume the answer is no. Or, does the fact that multiple teams compete against each other for a player's services void the rules of monopoly?

Sorry if I am sounding ignorant here.
 
Yeah, I understand that their salaries would not be close. The average AFL salary is around 217,000 a year.

I have read a little more about monopolies on the interwebs.....I think I agree. So, how come these other leagues have not challenged the NFL's power?

Are sports regulated differently than regular business? I assume the answer is no. Or, does the fact that multiple teams compete against each other for a player's services void the rules of monopoly?

Sorry if I am sounding ignorant here.
Although the NFL is technically a business, it is in reality a conglomeration of 32 separate businesses under the shield of one name.

To my knowledge, that is why the NFL does not fall under the antitrust laws that have nailed other companies in the past.
 
Yeah, I was kind of thinking that as well after I wrote that post.
 
Although the NFL is technically a business, it is in reality a conglomeration of 32 separate businesses under the shield of one name.

To my knowledge, that is why the NFL does not fall under the antitrust laws that have nailed other companies in the past.
OK, so I looked it up and if I'm understanding it correctly what you say above is only partially correct. Having 32 teams operating as one business is what would make them subject to antitrust law but evidently the league was exempt due to the old collective bargaining agreement. Once the CBA ended, so did the league's exemption. However it was the league that ended the CBA, not the players.

From the article linked to above:

The CBA extension negotiated in March, 2006, came after the start of the league year was pushed back twice. The CBA was set to expire after the 2006 season, but owners wanted to avoid entering an uncapped year, which would have been the case in 2006.

The sea change in the agreement was that rather than having the players share in only designated gross revenues (DGR), which were essentially television money and ticket sales, now all revenue, national and local, was to be included. Also included in this agreement was a mechanism for the owners to receive cost credits; money that would be taken off the top of all revenue before the remainder was shared with the players on a 59.6-percent basis to cover salary and benefits. In 2008 and 2009, the last two years of a salary cap, those cost credits totaled slightly more than $1 billion.

The new deal had a term of seven years. However, because the owners would have to subsequently agree to a supplemental revenue sharing plan where high-revenue teams would pay out money to lower-revenue teams, the owners had included in the CBA an option for either side to opt out of the final two years (2011 and 2012) by November, 2008.

So anxious were the owners to opt out, they notified the NFLPA of their intention in May, 2008, after just two years of the new terms. At that time, as has become clear, they also began plans for a lockout, renegotiating contracts with their broadcast partners, and pressuring them to include language that would pay the owners their entire $4.4 billion of TV money in 2011 even if no games were played. They also hired Bob Batterman, who had counseled the National Hockey League during its lockout of the players...

...Consistently, the league claimed costs had outpaced revenue. At a league meeting last March in Orlando, Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson told his fellow owners that we have "to take back our league."

At the same time, commissioner Roger Goodell consistently championed for an 18-game regular-season schedule, despite the physical toll the current schedule takes on its players.

But, the bottom line was still money. The NFL's goal in taking back their league was to want another $1 billion taken off the top of the revenue before the rest would be shared with the players. The NFL asked for that in mid-2009. The NFLPA's response then, and ever since, was "Why?"

To agree to such a large reduction, which would have led to each team saving, on average, $18.6 million, the NFLPA quickly said, "Show us the books."
Why? Well probably because the NFL doesn't want to have to disclose some of the same accounting/nepotism shenanigans that baseball owners used to squeeze tax breaks out of local governments to build new stadiums. Of course these same tactics would also come in handy to decrease labor costs as well by claiming a bogus decrease in profitability.

So the Reader's Digest version is this. The league wanted out not only because the players were unwilling to double the $1B exemption from their revenues without proof from the owners that there was a need for it, but also because the more profitable team owners weren't willing to share revenues with the less profitable ones.

Obviously the latter has nothing to do with the players. Were it not for that, the owners might not have opted out of the current CBA. So my take is that the owners of the high revenue teams wanted to avoid having to pay the owners of the less profitable teams and are trying to get the players to take the hit instead of the league. So now that I've read this, my ratio has changed. I'm 70% for the players and 30% for the fans now.

If I remember correctly the NFL owners, having seen the escalating salaries in MLB, decided that they couldn't/wouldn't operate without a salary cap. So again, if the league wants to keep its books under wraps, I guess that's their prerogative as private business owners. Fine. But then there's also no reason the players should be willing to accept a salary cap. After all, what the players gave up was the option to let a free market determine how much they get paid in exchange for a set percentage of revenues. That's why I said earlier that the owners want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
Yusuf06 said:
First, many of you have rightly pointed out how much the players make compared to the average Joe. However in some ways that's not entirely relevant. The reason is that the players and owners live in an entirely different compensation universe than we do. For example, how many average Joes pay an agent 40%?

I think sports agents' commission is 4%, not 40%.

EDIT: Players would be paying around 40-50% in taxes, and if the agent's commission were 40%, they'd be left with only 10-20% of their paychecks at the end of the day. No way that's right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top