Requiem to a Bad Man: Say what you want about Upshaw . . .

[Big Weirdo]

I don't think that's the holdup at this time. I think that the discussions are centering around "cash over cap" and small-revenue owners vs big-revenue owners. I think that if they limit cash over cap then the union would want a bigger piece of the pie because there's less money to go around.

Just got done reading the latest rumor mill on PFT and they're actually saying what you're saying. The NFL and NFLPA have resolved any issues they have. It's all about the owners at this point. The article says they're arguing over the extent to which revenue sharing will be expanded.

www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

(I know a lot of people don't like them but read the article and take what you will from it.)

[JimmiJo]

Don't you wish you could. I'd rather be an owner deciding if I should buy an island or another jet.

It sounds like you resent people who earn a lot of money?

[goldenster95]

Very poor post. You said it yourself, his job is to protect the interests of his union members. How is 10 million LESS a year, less parity and a worse off league good for his union members? The fact is, hes been offered WELL above what the union EVER had before. Why was it good enough in recent years but now its no longer good when its an even better offer? Yet he still wont compromise, one tiny bit. Negotiation is between 2 parties. It requires 2 to compromise. The owners have. The owners also have all the risk, and all the liability, the players dont.

The object of a union is to get a FAIR WAGE. The NFL owners are offering a huge percentage increase over what has ever been seen before. Id call that a fair wage plus some. The point of a union is not to get its guys fired because teams cant afford the players.

Whoa.

First of all, the fact that the players haven't had it much better off before is a red herring in this exchange. So what if they have, if in fact that's true. If it is, you can say the exact same thing for the owners. Indeed, in such a scenario, is it really "fair" for the players to sit back and watch while their efforts beget unprecedented profits for ownership? Shouldn't they be entitled to a little more of the pot than what the owners are offering?

Second, how is the union getting people fired? It may be hard for some of their members this season, but the long run effects, especially if the union ends up disclaiming interest will potentially be huge for them.

I just don't get your points.

[goldenster95]

Funny story. I was watching NFL Network this week... and they were doing a profile for a player over the stretch of 6 days. At one point, the player looks into the camera and says "Because of the NFL, I have the opportunity for generational wealth".

And we're talking about a career choice with a life span of 4 years on average.

I think you need to get some perspective... we're not talking about crumbs here.

It is crumbs when you take a look at the big picture. How much are the owners raking in as opposed to how much the average guy is gonna make. That split will always be big, but the question is really one of degree.

As to that player you're talking about, who was he? Can you really say that he was representative? And the key word in the quote you offered is "opportunity." Sure, anyone can have an "opportunity" for anything where millions are at stake. An undrafted rookie like Antonio Pierce could've looked into that same camera in 2001 and staked a claim for riches based on the "opportunity" Marty gave him. So too could anyone playing the DC Lottery, which also promises grand riches for those who make the cut. But like the lottery, for every average NFL player that boasts of an opportunity to financially secure his life with but a few years of service, there are far too many others that simply crash and burn. Life for most in the NFL isn't the bling-bling that the glamour driven media makes it out to be. And that's what we seem to miss.

[goldenster95]

Sorry man. Even those guys in the NFL who only work for 4 years have it better than most in this country. If they work for minimum and only minimum salary with no bonus and no playoff experience while appearing in an average of 4 pre-season games they will make $2.07 million. That is not chump change, my friend and not something I am going to cry over. Most of those guys will also leave college debt free due to full rides.

I know how many decades (yes, decades) it would take me to earn that much at my current rate of pay (well above the average in this country) and frankly I don't want to work that long. Not to mention that it took 10 years to pay off my college debt. I work a longer week and I work more weeks.

Seriously man, who are you kidding. If they invest even half smartly during those 4 years in the NFL there is no reason they can't see well over $100K in interest per year and live off that for the rest of their lives, education or no. And while we are on that subject, if they don't leave college with an education it is their own fault and no one elses. Period.

These guys have the best of it right now. I will not feel sorry for them and I will not make Upshaw out to be a hero. He is just another labor union goon trying to wring money out of management when there is already a scarey amount of money there for "labor". And before you slap me around for not understanding unions I'll let you know I was a card carrying member of one for 3 years. Some of the worst money I ever spent was joining that union.

Sure, there is a cap. It is in the players best interests as well as the owners and don't let anyone tell you different. Every player I have heard interviewed in the last week with half a brain has been vocally in favor of the cap. It makes teams competitive. Every team. It is the basis for making this league the model of how sports should work in the country. I don't hear anyone arguing for baseball's system where the difference between the top payroll and the bottom payroll is nearly twice what the cap was per team this last year in the NFL. Do you?

Get real... This is greed. Period.

Hardly. First of all, there's a difference between greed and fairness. It's far from greed when employees ask for a fair share of what they help their employers earn. The flip side is also true. If the employers are tanking, it's more than appropriate for them to go to the table to ask for some of that money back. It's not greed in that case, it's called reality.

As for the investing point, that simply misses the issue. Again, we're talking about fairness and a legitimate return on what employees can take home. Whatever that may be, the employer return will still exponentially eclipse what the employees' take will be. And it should be that way. But we're really talking a matter of degree here. And that's the rub in this case.

Finally, think about who those NFL players are and what they'd do with that money. First, they'd probably buy a house. All the money they'd get during their average four year tenure wouldn't be able to buy them anything worth a damn in most neighborhoods, and I'm talking if they spent every dime of that money without a single cent taken out for taxes. Setting that aside, if they could buy something for themselves, most of the guys we're talking about come from pretty poor backgrounds and will use that money to help out their relatives. In all, the money might get them a good start, but it won't last worth a damn if they can't the most of their dollar when they're in the league. And that's the real point here.

[NEMO]

When you look at the big picture, all were talking about extremely wealthy owners arguing with extremely wealthy players on who gets to share an extreme amount of money. And its starting to piss me off. I love the NFL, I love sports, but I hate how money has taken over the whole buisness. Players are not the ones getting taken advantage of in this situation, it is the fans. We are paying a hundreds of dollars to spend and afternoon in an overcrowded building with 90,000 other people who are also wondering "Why did I just waste a days pay to watch a damn football game".

Obviously by being on this website (and having the best name you could possibly own besides maybe 'Coach Janky Spanky') . I spend just as much time and money on the Redskins. And if the NFL went on strike I would not know what to do with myself, let alone my Sundays. But please do not come on the website and make a sob story for some professional athlete who is only making a half million dollars instead of a million dollars. It makes you sound like a fool.

Yes, I would rather see the money in the players hands than in the owners but the Unions job is to make sure that its workers are not being taken advantage of, Not to see how rich he can make everybody by forcing a non-capped year. If he wanted to do his job he should be worried about other things. For example players health. It seems like every month an ex-player dies under the age of 50 or a lineman colapses on the field because of a heart problem.

The people involved should be ashamed that they let it get this far. They are worried about getting the 'right deal' and the 'best figures' and not about the game that they love to play. It is disgraceful.

Its all about the :2cents:

[Neophyte]

Hardly. First of all, there's a difference between greed and fairness. It's far from greed when employees ask for a fair share of what they help their employers earn. The flip side is also true. If the employers are tanking, it's more than appropriate for them to go to the table to ask for some of that money back. It's not greed in that case, it's called reality.

Hey, you are the one who brought up the guys of the short careers, the average of 4 years. You want fair? No problem. They get $2.07 million for years of special teams play, bench warming and scout team work in practice. We are talking about guys who play less than 10 plays a game in many cases. The guys who are really producing make more of that fair share.

As for the investing point, that simply misses the issue. Again, we're talking about fairness and a legitimate return on what employees can take home. Whatever that may be, the employer return will still exponentially eclipse what the employees' take will be. And it should be that way. But we're really talking a matter of degree here. And that's the rub in this case.

Again, so? Business owners should get more. They take the business risk and they invest the money to get it done. Look at Snyder. He started every bit as poor as many of the players and while they were getting free hand outs going all the way back to high school due to god given athletic talent, Snyder was busting his butt to get ahead and did so well that by the age most players ending their careers he was buying his boyhood team. Now he should have give up more of the profits (and I think you may be grossly overestimating the net profits of most teams) to the players?

Finally, think about who those NFL players are and what they'd do with that money. First, they'd probably buy a house. All the money they'd get during their average four year tenure wouldn't be able to buy them anything worth a damn in most neighborhoods, and I'm talking if they spent every dime of that money without a single cent taken out for taxes. Setting that aside, if they could buy something for themselves, most of the guys we're talking about come from pretty poor backgrounds and will use that money to help out their relatives. In all, the money might get them a good start, but it won't last worth a damn if they can't the most of their dollar when they're in the league. And that's the real point here.

What the players do or do not do with this money is not a part of this discussion. It has no place here just as what I do with my paycheck has no place in a discussion of my paycheck with my employer. It is irrelevent to the arguement. If they keep it all, give it all away or spend it all on chinese take out makes no difference.

It is called living within your means and they need to learn it too.

[Peregrine]

Theres a reason that you dont get the points Goldenster. They are simple and make sense.

Nobody EVER before this season contended NFL players were not getting a fair wage. They dont have the liabilities owners have, they dont have the costs, they didnt build the team. They are some of the highest paid employees anywhere. You maintained that they are sitting back watching the owners take all the profits. HELLO? They get a PERCENTAGE of the profits. The more the NFL makes, the more they make, directly proportional. Thats why the union made the CBA like that. If the NFL grows by 10%, the players get a 10% raise. That is a fair wage.

So now the NFL is raising the percentage that they will recieve per year by a substantial margin. One to the tune of 320 million dollars over normal operations. This is better than any deal that players have had by far. It is more than a fair wage, like the one they have been getting. If the union does not accept the offer, they refuse a fair wage, they get their players cut, any player who signs a contract now gets less than he wants, ALL under the assumption an uncapped year will mean money for everybody. Which because of basic economics, may not be the case. Esepecially minimum players who then will get less than minimum, the very players the union was built to protect.

Its simple really. The problem is your version of fair wage is hanging out the employer who did all the work, to dry. If they were getting a fair wage before, and its a percentage of all revenue(47%) and now they are getting a huge percentage increase(58.5), then how can you POSSIBLY say they are not getting more than a fair wage? Talk about greed.

[SkinsLover]

Sorry man. Even those guys in the NFL who only work for 4 years have it better than most in this country. If they work for minimum and only minimum salary with no bonus and no playoff experience while appearing in an average of 4 pre-season games they will make $2.07 million. That is not chump change, my friend and not something I am going to cry over. Most of those guys will also leave college debt free due to full rides.

Myself, Im not sure which side I stand for. I think both have positives and negatives. That said.

I am SURE that whatever you do in your life to make a living you dont have linebackers and safetys like Arrington and Taylor pounding you to the grass for hours straight. Week after week. Year after year. Every single play anyone could break a leg, an arm or their neck God forbid. Any play could end their season or their career, and for a lot of them its the only thing they have known their whole life.

Now if i had a job like that, where after five years, I am not guaranteed certain money from my contract...BUT I am guaranteed that I will live in pain for the rest of my life. I damn well better be paid for it.

The reason I am so passionate about this is because I met Reggie White completely by accident in the Detroit airport back in May of 2001. He was sitting in our gate, actually flew on our coach flight to Milwaukee airport. On the way to baggage claim I was feeling brave and introduced myself (I know like he cared LOL) and thanked him for the great years of football he played and what he meant to the sport. Thanked me, shook my hand, declined taking a pic of him, he didnt want everyone to start coming up to him. But all I remember as we walked to baggage claim was how much of a struggle it was for him to get up and walk normally. Every step he took was in pain. Made me really sad about the sport I feel so passionately about. Just my 2 cents.

[James Moss]

Anyone who has ever asked for a raise can relate. The scale may be different, but the principles are the same.

I once had an owner tell me I was “holding a gun to his head” when I asked for a 2nd raise within a year. I told him that accusing me of holding a gun to his head is to imply that I am not worth what I am asking. I told him, I’m not robbing him and if he felt that way, he didn’t have to pay me. It’s a choice. He made the right choice and gave me what I wanted.

If you are confident that what you offer is worth the money then you go get it. In my opinion the union should get what they are asking—or something very close to it.

[wskin44]

This is one of the better discussions regarding this dispute. There are two underlying factors that are dictating the nature of the conflict between players, the rich owners and the less rich owners. The failure to address the underlying issues seems to leave them at a stalemate.

The first is the refusal of the NFL to allow guaranteed contracts. Baseball and Basketball players sign contracts for X number of years and they know that they will earn that money over the life of the contract. No huge bonuses are required because every dollar is guaranteed to be paid in due course.

The NFL won't sanction guaranteed contracts so some owners get around it by paying big signing bonuses. But using this loophole creates more trouble than it solves. It gives cash rich owners an advantage (the so called "Cash over Cap" issue). The problem right now is that the discussion is focused on patching up the loophole so that it is not quite as big rather than fixing the underlying problem.

If owners allowed multi-year guaranteed contracts like other sports, the cash over cap issue and the advantage that gives to richer owners would go away.

The second issue is the equitable sharing of revenue. Small market owners make a solid case that the overall popularity of the NFL (which drives the revenues of the large market teams) is due in no small part to the competitive balance on the field. Thus it is logical to share revenues between small and large revenue teams. Okay, we can buy that, but the owners have never agreed amongst themselves how to define the relative financial strength of their franchises.

The disagreement revolves around the debt service that many of the higher revenue teams have on their stadiums. The owners have been having serious work sessions regarding this since last summer, but apparently never resolved it. The small market owners, typically with municipally funded stadiums, want to compare franchises based on gross revenue. The large market owners, typically paying for part or all of their stadiums, want gross revenue adjusted for debt expense.

The lack of an agreement on this second fundamental issue between the owners prevents them from solving the revenue sharing issue.

They may be able to resolve all of this before today is over without addressing the underlying faults in their system, but it will be a solution that just continues to patch over the real issues.

[jbooma]

good points all through that post. People are flaming Upshaw for doing his job.

then that means he is doing a great job, he only cares about the players and if they get what they want with him taking the heat then it is job accomplished

[ewokninja]

It sounds like you resent people who earn a lot of money?

No, not at all. Just trying to bring some perspective to the discussion. Why are so many people blaming the union, when he's just doing his job and trying to get the best deal for his players?

The small-revenue owners are trying to get the best deal for themselves by freeloading off the big-revenue owners without having to do any extra work and I think they deserve a large part of the blame.

Besides, some people think that just because the numbers are large for the players as compared to their wage slave salaries that the players should be happy even though the owners are making astronomical amounts of money on their labor. We should really understand how big the pie is before we say that the players should be happy with the crumbs.

[Neophyte]

Myself, Im not sure which side I stand for. I think both have positives and negatives. That said.

I am SURE that whatever you do in your life to make a living you dont have linebackers and safetys like Arrington and Taylor pounding you to the grass for hours straight. Week after week. Year after year. Every single play anyone could break a leg, an arm or their neck God forbid. Any play could end their season or their career, and for a lot of them its the only thing they have known their whole life.

Now if i had a job like that, where after five years, I am not guaranteed certain money from my contract...BUT I am guaranteed that I will live in pain for the rest of my life. I damn well better be paid for it.

And the relative danger for NFL players compared to the pay off does not even compare to so many other jobs in this country as to make this arguement fairly funny. We can start with anyone serving in the military where they risk their lives on a daily basis and make peanuts. From there we move up to such jobs as coal miner, fisherman, policeman and fire fighter.

Football is a hazardous job, sure. I get it. I also know the Wilbur Marshall is on the players disability plan and is doing pretty well financially on it. At least according to the article posted a while back.

The point here is that everyone knows the risks, especially the players. They still choose to play. It is all risk reward. Period. And right now their reward is well worth the risk.

Add to it the fact that they don't face any of the "dangers" most of the rest of us deal with everyday at work. Downsizing...NFL rosters have mandated number of positions. Outsourcing...can't have players in India now can we? Bankruptcy...when was the last time you heard of an NFL team going under? Hostile takeover...yeah, right. Not in a league where the other owners have to approve any team sale.

Sure, they can loose their jobs to someone younger and cheaper for salary cap reasons but you know what, so can anyone in America and the vast majority of us did not get some signing bonus up front.

Sorry, if you expect me to feel sorry for the poor players you are going to have to come up with a better arguement than that. No one is making them play and they already get a bigger percentage of the profits of their companies than most of us in the corporate world.

[hiswadeness]

I can't relate to the players or the owners problems. Greed is greed on both sides. These guys have problems I wish I had.

[CaliforniaSkin]

Let's clear up a few points here. First if a player were to play four years starting in 2003 and ending in 2006 and have received minimum salary all four years his tatal compensation would have been 1.19 million before taxes (225k minimum rookie salary in 2003, 305 min one credited season 2004, 380 min two credited seasons 2005, 460k three credited seasons 2006). And this is assmuming that he didn't get cut and bounce around at all missing some paychecks like many borderline players. Now that's still good money, but it's not really set for life money. Especially since that player does not likely have the skills recquired for another high paying job. Figure he takes home 8 to 9 hundred thousand after taxes. It'll buy a nice home but is hardly enough to pay for the rest of his life.

Second, the owners are NOT (or at least were not with their 56.2% offer) offering the players a substantial pay raise. If, as has been widely reported, designated gross revenue is 87% of the total and the players were gettting 65.5% of that (2005's salary cap percentage according to the existing CBA) then the players were already getting close to 60% of total revenues. Of course all of those numbers vary depending on how much the local revenues are compared to total revenues. Additionally, teams often spend significantly over the cap. The 'skins do it every year. The owners (at least some of them) now want to limit or eliminate that. This will lower player compensation. The salary cap figure is just a bookeeping number. So if the cap is to become an even harder cap, then the players want assurances that their compensation will not decrease as a result.

Third, the last time there was a labor-management battle in the NFL, the players won - big-time. In 1987 the owners tried to break the union by using scabs. And the union did indeed decertify. They played for several years without a contract and took the owners to court. They won. Free agency was forced upon the owners by an anti-trust court. The owners then came back to the bargaining table and we ended up with the current CBA. The only thing that makes a salary cap legal at all is union approval. No union, no salary cap. So the players hold the legal leverage. (As a side note, without a union, the owners cannot legally lock the players out without terminating their contracts. Because NFL contracts are not guaranteed owners can choose to terminate all contracts, but failing that, lockouts are illegal when there is not a union involved)

So, with all that in mind, Upshaw is working to get the best possible deal for the players. The owners are working to get the best deal for themselves. I think one of the biggest problems is that the owners cannot agree amongst themselves. All sides are out to make the most money possible. What I do not understand is how the owners are more deserving of the money than the players. If you want to argue free market economics, fine. Then do away with the salary cap (and maybe even all revenue sharing) and let the market work. But why should Upshaw settle for a dime less than he can get. A work stoppage hurts the owners as much as it hurts the players. Sure they have deep pockets, but they cannot legally maintain the players under contract and not pay them. Furthermore, the newer owners have huge debt burdens. They need revenue.

[Neophyte]

Let's clear up a few points here. First if a player were to play four years starting in 2003 and ending in 2006 and have received minimum salary all four years his tatal compensation would have been 1.19 million before taxes (225k minimum rookie salary in 2003, 305 min one credited season 2004, 380 min two credited seasons 2005, 460k three credited seasons 2006). And this is assmuming that he didn't get cut and bounce around at all missing some paychecks like many borderline players. Now that's still good money, but it's not really set for life money. Especially since that player does not likely have the skills recquired for another high paying job. Figure he takes home 8 to 9 hundred thousand after taxes. It'll buy a nice home but is hardly enough to pay for the rest of his life.

Actually, you and I are both wrong. I was high as I forgot the NFL figures years starting at 0 so I added in the 5th year at 540,000 and so my number is high by just over half a million. Your number however does not include the $10K per pre-season game that all players get. Figure 4 games per year and 4 years that is another $160. Hardly cump change by my standards.

And no one said it would pay for the rest of their life but it is enough to get a business off the ground, get a lot of the big things in life handled if invested well (house, children's education and retirement). It is a start at life unlike any of the rest of us get on top of 4 years of free college and most likely lots of help in high school because they were athletically gifted.

And frankly, if they don't have the skillz to get another decent job they have no one to blame but themselves for throwing away the chances given them.

[rdskns n 05]

And the relative danger for NFL players compared to the pay off does not even compare to so many other jobs in this country as to make this arguement fairly funny. We can start with anyone serving in the military where they risk their lives on a daily basis and make peanuts. From there we move up to such jobs as coal miner, fisherman, policeman and fire fighter.

Football is a hazardous job, sure. I get it. I also know the Wilbur Marshall is on the players disability plan and is doing pretty well financially on it. At least according to the article posted a while back.

The point here is that everyone knows the risks, especially the players. They still choose to play. It is all risk reward. Period. And right now their reward is well worth the risk.

Add to it the fact that they don't face any of the "dangers" most of the rest of us deal with everyday at work. Downsizing...NFL rosters have mandated number of positions. Outsourcing...can't have players in India now can we? Bankruptcy...when was the last time you heard of an NFL team going under? Hostile takeover...yeah, right. Not in a league where the other owners have to approve any team sale.

Sure, they can loose their jobs to someone younger and cheaper for salary cap reasons but you know what, so can anyone in America and the vast majority of us did not get some signing bonus up front.

Sorry, if you expect me to feel sorry for the poor players you are going to have to come up with a better arguement than that. No one is making them play and they already get a bigger percentage of the profits of their companies than most of us in the corporate world.

This is because the unions help protect against down sizing,bankruptcy, hostile take overs and everything else that will endanger the welfare of there members. I think a great deal of people dont realize what the union has done for this country. Do you think any of you would be making the money you are making if is wasn't for the unions??? Do you honestly think with everything you just put into post that your employer cares about you??? Hell no!! If they could find someone cheaper with same skillz you would be gone. Only 17% of the people in the USA are active members of a union, which is pethetic. How many times do we hear about Wal-Mart employees getting the shaft! Or the $8 dollar an hour factory worker... I am so sick of union bashing these are the same people (union members) that brought you the weekends!!!!! Yea do the pro players have better than us? YES... But they have talents and skillz that we dont have either.... The people who just want to sit back from the cheap seats and live off the luarels that union members have fought for hundreds of years are RATS!!!

[goldenster95]

Hey, you are the one who brought up the guys of the short careers, the average of 4 years. You want fair? No problem. They get $2.07 million for years of special teams play, bench warming and scout team work in practice. We are talking about guys who play less than 10 plays a game in many cases. The guys who are really producing make more of that fair share.

First of all, come up with a definition of "fair" before you begin talking about "fair" wages. Second, I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion above, (I'd love to see it), but, once again, come up with a definition of "fair" before you begin talking about how this affects your analysis.

Again, so? Business owners should get more. They take the business risk and they invest the money to get it done. Look at Snyder. He started every bit as poor as many of the players and while they were getting free hand outs going all the way back to high school due to god given athletic talent, Snyder was busting his butt to get ahead and did so well that by the age most players ending their careers he was buying his boyhood team. Now he should have give up more of the profits (and I think you may be grossly overestimating the net profits of most teams) to the players?

Didn't I say that? The question, however, is one of degree. And I think it's more than appropriate to ask for a bigger piece of the pie if you're the union when that business owner is making larger profits over the labor of the employees he has. Conversely, it's also completely appropriate for that same business owner to ask the union to take pay cuts if the business is faring poorly. It works both ways and it's been the heart and soul of collective bargaining for decades.

What the players do or do not do with this money is not a part of this discussion. It has no place here just as what I do with my paycheck has no place in a discussion of my paycheck with my employer. It is irrelevent to the arguement. If they keep it all, give it all away or spend it all on chinese take out makes no difference.

It is called living within your means and they need to learn it too.

And this is a point I made to counter someone else's. But it is always important when you're talking about collective bargaining. A union must always take into account the industry, the nature of its employees, and issues like that. So, it's hardly irrelevant.

[Neophyte]

This is because the unions help protect against down sizing,bankruptcy, hostile take overs and everything else that will endanger the welfare of there members. I think a great deal of people dont realize what the union has done for this country. Do you think any of you would be making the money you are making if is wasn't for the unions??? Do you honestly think with everything you just put into post that your employer cares about you??? Hell no!! If they could find someone cheaper with same skillz you would be gone. Only 17% of the people in the USA are active members of a union, which is pethetic. How many times do we hear about Wal-Mart employees getting the shaft! Or the $8 dollar an hour factory worker... I am so sick of union bashing these are the same people (union members) that brought you the weekends!!!!! Yea do the pro players have better than us? YES... But they have talents and skillz that we dont have either.... The people who just want to sit back from the cheap seats and live off the luarels that union members have fought for hundreds of years are RATS!!!

No one is argueing that unions do not have their place in the history of this country and to do otherwise would be just stupid. However, most unions have long since outlived their relative usefulness. For example, the union I was a member of, the International Association of Mechanics and Aerospace Workers, is directly responsible for Eastern Airlines going under in the late 80s. In fact, you can trace the demise of just about all the airlines that are gone to unions and their distrust of management.

Look at Detroit and the issues that GM, Ford and Chrysler have. Their are loosing market share due to performance and price. Only one of those are the fault of management. The UAW fights any move to close or renovate plants in the misguided belief that management is lying to them and that they are fighting for the servival of the working man. It will be interesting to see what happens if one of those three were to go under.

So you see, far from being the protector against things like bankruptcy and hostile take overs, unions are part of what makes those dangers so real today.

And you are right, my employer does not care about me. They have tried to outsource my job to India 3 times in the last 4 years but can't find anyone over there at any price to replace me. I'm not dumb. I am sure they will keep trying and at some point likely succeed. I am preparing for that. I am also preparing for that by increasing my skill set daily and making it harder to replace me. It is my responsibility to make myself a better a employee. I do not deserve a raise just for doing what I am told and drawing breath for another year. The company really owes me nothing (although I admit this is a tough one for me to swallow sometimes). The deal is that they pay me twice a month for the work I did over the period since my last paycheck. That is the whole deal. Period.

For the record, the union does not care the individual either. They care about the numbers on role sheet because numbers equate to dollars and power for the officers. That is what it is all about, my friend. Get used to it.

[goldenster95]

Theres a reason that you dont get the points Goldenster. They are simple and make sense.

Nobody EVER before this season contended NFL players were not getting a fair wage. They dont have the liabilities owners have, they dont have the costs, they didnt build the team. They are some of the highest paid employees anywhere. You maintained that they are sitting back watching the owners take all the profits. HELLO? They get a PERCENTAGE of the profits. The more the NFL makes, the more they make, directly proportional. Thats why the union made the CBA like that. If the NFL grows by 10%, the players get a 10% raise. That is a fair wage.

So now the NFL is raising the percentage that they will recieve per year by a substantial margin. One to the tune of 320 million dollars over normal operations. This is better than any deal that players have had by far. It is more than a fair wage, like the one they have been getting. If the union does not accept the offer, they refuse a fair wage, they get their players cut, any player who signs a contract now gets less than he wants, ALL under the assumption an uncapped year will mean money for everybody. Which because of basic economics, may not be the case. Esepecially minimum players who then will get less than minimum, the very players the union was built to protect.

Its simple really. The problem is your version of fair wage is hanging out the employer who did all the work, to dry. If they were getting a fair wage before, and its a percentage of all revenue(47%) and now they are getting a huge percentage increase(58.5), then how can you POSSIBLY say they are not getting more than a fair wage? Talk about greed.

Aside from the strident remarks in your post, it's atrociously incorrect. First of all, as I told someone else, define your version of a "fair" wage. Second, your view that the players' take rises with percentage of profits the NFL makes is also far afield. Yes, if the NFL makes more in absolute numbers, so too will the players. That's not the point. The point here is whether or not, as in any collectively bargained context, labor should share more or less in the success of the employer. That's always the issue. Players and others collectively bargained employees almost always have to share in the employer's losses by taking paycuts. Why shouldn't it be true the other way around?

Perhaps the most damning thing you can't see is the fact that the cap is a HUGE concession by the players. You know what a cap is? It's a pre-set budget employers get to maintain on labor costs. How many other employers get to do that? Almost none. Zero. Zilch.

The functional equivalent of this all is if your employer was making a bundle off of your and your co-workers' backs and you came in to ask for a raise, your employer would simply respond, "I'd love to and we have the money to double your wages, but we've got to freeze wages once we hit that certain money mark, which we're at right now."

How you can't see this simple point is completely astounding.

Want to get the flip side of this all?

Get the union to disclaim interest.

Then, you've got no cap.

Happy?

If you can't see this flip side of things, you're simply blind.

[goldenster95]

Let's clear up a few points here. First if a player were to play four years starting in 2003 and ending in 2006 and have received minimum salary all four years his tatal compensation would have been 1.19 million before taxes (225k minimum rookie salary in 2003, 305 min one credited season 2004, 380 min two credited seasons 2005, 460k three credited seasons 2006). And this is assmuming that he didn't get cut and bounce around at all missing some paychecks like many borderline players. Now that's still good money, but it's not really set for life money. Especially since that player does not likely have the skills recquired for another high paying job. Figure he takes home 8 to 9 hundred thousand after taxes. It'll buy a nice home but is hardly enough to pay for the rest of his life.

Second, the owners are NOT (or at least were not with their 56.2% offer) offering the players a substantial pay raise. If, as has been widely reported, designated gross revenue is 87% of the total and the players were gettting 65.5% of that (2005's salary cap percentage according to the existing CBA) then the players were already getting close to 60% of total revenues. Of course all of those numbers vary depending on how much the local revenues are compared to total revenues. Additionally, teams often spend significantly over the cap. The 'skins do it every year. The owners (at least some of them) now want to limit or eliminate that. This will lower player compensation. The salary cap figure is just a bookeeping number. So if the cap is to become an even harder cap, then the players want assurances that their compensation will not decrease as a result.

Third, the last time there was a labor-management battle in the NFL, the players won - big-time. In 1987 the owners tried to break the union by using scabs. And the union did indeed decertify. They played for several years without a contract and took the owners to court. They won. Free agency was forced upon the owners by an anti-trust court. The owners then came back to the bargaining table and we ended up with the current CBA. The only thing that makes a salary cap legal at all is union approval. No union, no salary cap. So the players hold the legal leverage. (As a side note, without a union, the owners cannot legally lock the players out without terminating their contracts. Because NFL contracts are not guaranteed owners can choose to terminate all contracts, but failing that, lockouts are illegal when there is not a union involved)

So, with all that in mind, Upshaw is working to get the best possible deal for the players. The owners are working to get the best deal for themselves. I think one of the biggest problems is that the owners cannot agree amongst themselves. All sides are out to make the most money possible. What I do not understand is how the owners are more deserving of the money than the players. If you want to argue free market economics, fine. Then do away with the salary cap (and maybe even all revenue sharing) and let the market work. But why should Upshaw settle for a dime less than he can get. A work stoppage hurts the owners as much as it hurts the players. Sure they have deep pockets, but they cannot legally maintain the players under contract and not pay them. Furthermore, the newer owners have huge debt burdens. They need revenue.

Great post.

What some here don't see is that the owners here are artificially setting a labor budget for themselves. How often does that occur? If you really want to see greed, get the union to disclaim interest and then go to no cap. Then, the owners would be begging for that 60% figure again. Hell, they'd probably offer 70%.

[NavyDave]

I'll refrain since I know my comments about this being "FAIR" nonsense and how pro football players and those unions shouldnt be compared to regular people and unions will escalate into something political.

[goldenster95]

No one is argueing that unions do not have their place in the history of this country and to do otherwise would be just stupid. However, most unions have long since outlived their relative usefulness. For example, the union I was a member of, the International Association of Mechanics and Aerospace Workers, is directly responsible for Eastern Airlines going under in the late 80s. In fact, you can trace the demise of just about all the airlines that are gone to unions and their distrust of management.

Look at Detroit and the issues that GM, Ford and Chrysler have. Their are loosing market share due to performance and price. Only one of those are the fault of management. The UAW fights any move to close or renovate plants in the misguided belief that management is lying to them and that they are fighting for the servival of the working man. It will be interesting to see what happens if one of those three were to go under.

So you see, far from being the protector against things like bankruptcy and hostile take overs, unions are part of what makes those dangers so real today.

And you are right, my employer does not care about me. They have tried to outsource my job to India 3 times in the last 4 years but can't find anyone over there at any price to replace me. I'm not dumb. I am sure they will keep trying and at some point likely succeed. I am preparing for that. I am also preparing for that by increasing my skill set daily and making it harder to replace me. It is my responsibility to make myself a better a employee. I do not deserve a raise just for doing what I am told and drawing breath for another year. The company really owes me nothing (although I admit this is a tough one for me to swallow sometimes). The deal is that they pay me twice a month for the work I did over the period since my last paycheck. That is the whole deal. Period.

For the record, the union does not care the individual either. They care about the numbers on role sheet because numbers equate to dollars and power for the officers. That is what it is all about, my friend. Get used to it.

Wow, is this off. Yes, unions have their place to protect themselves as an institution. More members, for instance, means more dues (especially if you're in a right-to-work state). As for the airlines and the UAW, gimme a break. If anything, the unions there balked because they'd given so much away in wage and benefits cuts and freezes that they finally had to say no. In fact, if there was any complaint at all with any union, it was that the UAW was in bed with the automakers by giving so much away when the automakers cried poverty.

[goldenster95]

I'll refrain since I know my comments about this being "FAIR" nonsense and how pro football players and those unions shouldnt be compared to regular people and unions will escalate into something political.

Good for you. :laughing:

You won't have to deal with points about owners whining about how their budgets for labor costs are rising just a little. If they really want to whine, take away the cap.

How some people can't see this is really incredible.