Reed Doughty Facebook page - The owners have decided not to continue players health insurance past march 4.

[Koolblue13]

I'm kind of hoping for a lockout. A year without football, might be enough to see some players true colors and allow a lot of casual fans to walk away and bring the NFL back to reality.

[GoCommiesGo]

CBS Sports: Free-spending NFL players aren't ready for looming lockout

These are the stories being told around the NFL. These are the stories that scare the hell out of me for football players.

One backup offensive lineman bought three cars in two months.

A quarterback recently closed on a third home.

This is an old article but I'm absolutely amazed that people making so much plan so poorly.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm kind of hoping for a lockout. A year without football, might be enough to see some players true colors and allow a lot of casual fans to walk away and bring the NFL back to reality.

I just don't understand how players are the bad guys. Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, and Bob Kraft want to pay their players less so they can build bigger stadiums in which they can charge the fans more to attend....and I'm supposed to side with them?

Bob Kraft bought the Patriots for $175 million. According to Forbes, they are worth $1.4 billion today. Why does he need to increase his share of the league revenue again? If he is unhappy, he can sell and walk away with a billion dollars. I will miss him a hell of a lot less than I would miss Brian Orakpo. I've never watched a game to see Bob Kraft.

Seriously, Jerry Jones was just straight up given $425 million dollars by the City of Arlington. But somehow he needs to squeeze the players a little more.

[Koolblue13]

I just don't understand how players are the bad guys. Jerry Jones' date=' Dan Snyder, and Bob Kraft want to pay their players less so they can build bigger stadiums in which they can charge the fans more to attend....and I'm supposed to side with them?

Bob Kraft bought the Patriots for $175 million. According to Forbes, they are worth $1.4 billion today. Why does he need to increase his share of the league revenue again? If he is unhappy, he can sell and walk away with a billion dollars. I will miss him a hell of a lot less than I would miss Brian Orakpo.[/quote']

That's a good point. I'm ultimately on the players side through all of this. The negativity comes from reading a Vick thread.

I'm against the extra 2 games, for a rookie cap and fine with a guarantee for a small amount of years. I also personally hate FA and wish we would go back to the old NFL.

[GoCommiesGo]

Here is the other thing to consider: The NFL is the most popular' date=' highest-revenue generating sports league in the US. And its players are the worst compensated athletes with the least job security - despite facing the greatest physical risks.

If I am the head of NFLPA, I am willing to give back a percentage point or two of revenue for contracts guaranteed for three years.[/quote']

That's an interesting idea, give some job security but give back some money. I wonder how that would go over with the average player? Also I've always been under the impression that most players carry insurance for bodily and career ending injury to offset the potential loss.

[Hooper]

The NFL has never been bigger.

Or more dangerous.

I've long thought the average NFL player was vastly underpaid compared to other sports.

[GhostofSparta]

I also personally hate FA and wish we would go back to the old NFL.

Ok, not to hijack the thread, but this is something I've been wondering about. Free Agency was instituted before I was 10, so it's not like I have any memories of the pre-FA days other than vague memories of the Redskins-Bills SB (sad, I know). How did the NFL and contracts in general work before Free Agency? Did a team own your rights until they cut/traded you or you retired? If you didn't want to play for 15 years in Detriot, did you have to force a trade or just quit the game? How the hell did contract negotiations work other than holdouts (Emmitt Smith) or sitting out a whole year (Riggins)?

[TimmySmith]

I just don't understand how players are the bad guys. Jerry Jones' date=' Dan Snyder, and Bob Kraft want to pay their players less so they can build bigger stadiums in which they can charge the fans more to attend....and I'm supposed to side with them?[/quote']I can see being neutral, but I certainly can't side with the owners. They ultimately control ALL of the revenue, refuse to divulge exactly how much it is, yet complain that it is not enough. They cut the players off, but they certainly do not stop attempting to reap from the fans and the sponsors.

[jflow78]

I don't think you can do a fair schedule with a 17-game season. And you are completely missing the big sticking point which is the share of the revenue between the players and the owners.

The owners feel like they gave too much to the players during the last negotiation.

Here is what you are asking the Players Association to accept:

1. A rookie salary cap.

2. One more game.

3. Less money.

No, the NFLPA has been in favor of a rookie cap, that's for BOTH sides, not one. No vet, which are the large majority of the NFLPA, likes to see some rookie (ala J.Russell) come in, get the richest contract in history and then flop in 4 seasons while most of the vets play their butts off and don't make nearly that much, and the NFLPA is MOSTLY protecting vets, not college players yet to be drafted, so that is a win for both sides. They would also be getting paid more because of the extra game, since they don't actually get paid salary for preseason games, instead, they get paid "per diem" rates based on their time in the league.

So, no, I'm not asking for them to take "less money" because they'd get a regular game check for that extra game, that they normally wouldn't get. The player's only complaint is that they didn't want to have to play another game due to injury concerns, but what have we heard about year after year during the preasons? The exact same issue. I'd be shocked if they wouldn't be willing to play ONE extra game a year, that they would have played as part of the preseason, and get a regular game check for it instead of a vet minimum type of payment.

As for the 17 games per season, it would work out perfectly, since Roj G wants to hold games in England. That way, each team could play in England once a year, no one would have to sacrifice the 8 games they play at home, season ticket holders wouldn't have to give up a home game either, and we would have winners and losers instead of lots of .500 teams.

I don't see the bad here. I do understand the money the owners don't want to have to pay, and that was the reason the previous CBA was voided. This isn't about that, because that deal hasn't been in affect since last season.

[Koolblue13]

Ok, not to hijack the thread, but this is something I've been wondering about. Free Agency was instituted before I was 10, so it's not like I have any memories of the pre-FA days other than vague memories of the Redskins-Bills SB (sad, I know). How did the NFL and contracts in general work before Free Agency? Did a team own your rights until they cut/traded you or you retired? If you didn't want to play for 15 years in Detriot, did you have to force a trade or just quit the game? How the hell did contract negotiations work other than holdouts (Emmitt Smith) or sitting out a whole year (Riggins)?

I was pretty young as well and don't know any of the intricacies, but players stayed with their teams and the money wasn't ridiculous.

You also had your power house teams and when any of them played each other, it was usually epic. Now, every team is pretty much the same, with the same talent. You rarely see a team continue to dominate, because most players seem to jump ship for the pay day after a great season. They say "any team could come from anywhere and be the SB champ" now, because there isn't much difference in teams, like there use to be.

Just my opinion, but the NFL was much better before the big sell out.

[jflow78]

Here is the other thing to consider: The NFL is the most popular' date=' highest-revenue generating sports league in the US. And its players are the worst compensated athletes with the least job security - despite facing the greatest physical risks.

If I am the head of NFLPA, I am willing to give back a percentage point or two of revenue for contracts guaranteed for three years.[/quote']

How many of those other sports have 53 guys on each team? That's why they're not compensated like in the MLB or NBA. When you only have to pay 12 players, you can certainly afford to pay each of them 50 million dollar contracts. In the NFL there are too many people for that to EVER happen. If that's what the NFLPA is complaining about, then they are fighting a fight that would sink the ship. There's no way a football team can afford to play it's players like those other sports.

[GhostofSparta]

How many of those other sports have 53 guys on each team?

And only 10 home games with which to generate the revenue to pay those 53 guys?

[jflow78]

I just don't understand how players are the bad guys. Jerry Jones' date=' Dan Snyder, and Bob Kraft want to pay their players less so they can build bigger stadiums in which they can charge the fans more to attend....and I'm supposed to side with them?

Bob Kraft bought the Patriots for $175 million. According to Forbes, they are worth $1.4 billion today. Why does he need to increase his share of the league revenue again? If he is unhappy, he can sell and walk away with a billion dollars. I will miss him a hell of a lot less than I would miss Brian Orakpo. I've never watched a game to see Bob Kraft.

Seriously, Jerry Jones was just straight up given $425 million dollars by the City of Arlington. But somehow he needs to squeeze the players a little more.[/quote']

I don't understand why anyone on this forum is bothering to take a side. We have no clue what the books look like for players OR owners. I know that, according to Forbes magazine the Miami Dolphins and the Detroit Lions both lost money last season. That's not the case for the majority of NFL teams, but if there are teams losing money, then there is a problem. I know Jerry Jones just spent a ridiculous amount of money on a huge stadium (which has been a disaster so far, IMO), but just because a handful of teams are doing that doesn't mean every team is.

Everyone can give anecdotal stories about this owner or that owner and how they're being greedy and wasting their money. Heck, just look at our team, AH stole 100 million from the owner for doing next to nothing. It goes both ways, but there's really no way for any of us to know what the inside story is here.

In reality, the truth probably lies in the middle, and that's why, at some point they'll get over themselves and sit down and figure out a deal that both sides can live with.

---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 03:48 PM ----------

And only 10 home games with which to generate the revenue to pay those 53 guys?

Exactly. You can't possibly compare the NFL to baseball or basketball. There's no fair way to compare it to the players OR the owners. It's a useless ideal that doesn't transfer to the NFL.

Personally, I think it's a sham that the greatest sport in the world, with the players who sacrifice the most (in personal health and their future) get paid less than ***** sports like baseball, but that's just the way things will always be, if only because of the logistics. It's just not going to even out.

If they wanted to get paid like a baseball player, they should have played baseball. Since they wanted to play football, they'll get paid like a football player.

Same goes for the owners, if you wanted 30 games a season, then you should have tried to buy a college and made your own basketball team. We're never going to have a realistic expansion over to Europe, and we're never (and SHOULD NEVER) have a 20 game season, purely because of logistics and health.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I'm going to sit down and do that math to see if I can calculate what each NFL player would make if the same number of games and the same team salary totals were applied to the NBA and MLB, because, after looking at things a little, it looks like the NFL players get paid a **** load more than the MLB or NBA players, and if we're talking per game then it's not even close. Of course, the owners are making a ton more money too, but I'd bet it evens out a lot more than people think.

[addicted]

I'm sure that most of the people here who are anti-player and OK with them losing their benefits would sing a different tune if it was THEIR company that decided that they were going to lock them out come March and health benefits would be discontinued. And if they expressed any concern over their OWN families health coverage, I'm sure they would appreciate others coming on and saying "you make enough, just deal with it".

If your going to make some lame analogy like this then at least have the decency to predicate this with some honesty in your posting like

...If you were at a minimum going to earn over 300k per year working and your company decided to lock you out....

Because any comparison between the blue collar workers on this forum with the men blessed with playing a game of football which rewards them so well needs to be considered. Those of us making most likely less then 1/6th of that are going to see right through your little story here and not identify with it. You take the risk when you take the job, that goes for every single one of us and I'm not going to cry over some one making at least 300k having to shell out a little money to cover some insurance to ensure that the league is still going to be in operations in the next 10-20 years.

[jflow78]

If your going to make some lame analogy like this then at least have the decency to predicate this with some honesty in your posting like

...If you were at a minimum going to earn over 300k per year working and your company decided to lock you out....

Because any comparison between the blue collar workers on this forum with the men blessed with playing a game of football which rewards them so well needs to be considered. Those of us making most likely less then 1/6th of that are going to see right through your little story here and not identify with it. You take the risk when you take the job, that goes for every single one of us and I'm not going to cry over some one making at least 300k having to shell out a little money to cover some insurance to ensure that the league is still going to be in operations in the next 10-20 years.

A fairer comparison might be if I were paid half a million to play Halo, and my company locked me out. I would be rabid, even if playing it cost me a couple years off my life every year I worked there. You better believe this computer nerd would be livin' it up.

I'd probably agree to a new contract if I could get a bigger screen, better lumbar support, more time off, and my choice of catering.

[MLiverpool]

I see a 17 game season posted, but that'd mean a team has an odd number of home games (8 home, 9 away or 9 home, 8 away). Since there are inter-conference games, one thing could be to make the winner of the pro bowl have more home inter-conference games. That way the fans would get to see a real game, played for them, not just for stardom. Players who play would be picked, and not just names (though it'd probably be a mix, but potentially would make the game more interesting)...just a random thought...

[addicted]

Although I DO NOT take the players' side, there has been too many inaccurate details in your rants.

The "agreement in 2008" did not call for a lockout. It only said the owners could opt out of the CBA.

Simmer down now.

:helmet:The Rook

Or what? Your going to take a sideways swipe at me like you tried to already captain? Am I supposed to "simmer down now" to someone here who at the same time is not posting the truth? Take your silly SNL quotes and stuff em.

There aren't any inaccuracies in my postings. The truth about the 2008 deadline is any one of us can google search this issue and see this has been ongoing for a long long time, that the issue and ramifications of the decision to opt out of the agreement was made when both sides agreed to this in writing, that the players who are crying for more money are still getting more money then the owners by a very long shot even after they give the owners what they want, and that its up to the players to expect this to happen to them and plan for it. This isn't "news" just that the deadline is approaching quickly. Just like you have to plan for your own families well being, so do they. Why would that be any different? Now you can simmer down or simmer up or whatever "The Rook" wants to do, I don't care. I'm trying to have a discussion here and side with the owners in this. If you want to know what this would be like if the players don't give in to the owners demands then read this:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-01-27-nfl-cba-briefing_N.htm

This is going to affect everyone and the men paying the bills need to ensure they continue to have the ability to put a game we all love on the field. Doing things like limiting rookie salaries, increasing the number of regular season games, will help this situation but the players association doesn't want to give up to that which I thinks wrong. They are paid a kings ransom for what they do, they can play within the rules of the game or get out. No player is bigger then the game and to think that the owners are going to get off Scott free or that this isn't going to hurt them is just stupidity and it's about time that the fans stop taking it on the wallets because these rich babies can't live off of a minimum of 325k a year, poor babies

[GhostofSparta]

If the NFL wants to expand overseas (or here in North America) a 17 game season makes sense as long as each teams plays 1 game at a neutral location like Japan, Mexico, Canada, England, etc. Then certain teams wouldn't be penalized by only having 7 home and 9 away games.

[jflow78]

I see a 17 game season posted, but that'd mean a team has an odd number of home games (8 home, 9 away or 9 home, 8 away). Since there are inter-conference games, one thing could be to make the winner of the pro bowl have more home inter-conference games. That way the fans would get to see a real game, played for them, not just for stardom. Players who play would be picked, and not just names (though it'd probably be a mix, but potentially would make the game more interesting)...just a random thought...

You can either look at my explanation above, or you can read the same one by Ghost of Sparta, directly above.

---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 04:18 PM ----------

Alright, since the, "NFL players get compensated less than any other athlete in the US" reasoning has been popular, I've done some of the math. Here are the numbers I came up with, and mind you, I'm not a statistics major, nor do I claim to be, this is just my best look at the actual numbers:

MLB, each team carries a 40 man maximum roster

Highest salary in the league - Yankees ($206,333,389) pay an average of $5,160,000 per player

Lowest salary in the league - Pirates ($34,943,000) pay an average of $873,575

Highest salary in the league - Raiders ($152,389,371) pay an average of $2,875,271

Lowest salary in the league - Chiefs ($83,623,776) pay an average of $1,577,807

MLB player salaries totaled:

$2,730,601,685

MLB per player (1,200 players) avg:

$2,276,501

MLB avg player per game (162 game regular season):

$14,052

NFL players salaries totaled:

$3,624,115,487

NFL per player (1,696 players) avg:

$2,136,860

NFL avg player per game:

$133,554

One thing people forget frequently is that the NFL's salary cap also includes a salary limit as to how little a team can spend on total salary per season. No other league has that, so this cap works both ways, and actually brings NFL salaries up substantially with some owners who don't like spending money very often (ahem Cardinals).

[addicted]

I just don't understand how players are the bad guys.

Isn't it ironic that right above your post is this

"One backup offensive lineman bought three cars in two months.

A quarterback recently closed on a third home."

The reality is that these players are idiots with there money so they want more. These men go to college just like the rest of us in the hopes of earning a comfortable living yet show the intellegence of children. Who has sympathy for someone who has lots of money and advantages but pisses it away because they are stupid? I don't. So you want to blame the owners eh?

Jerry Jones' date=' Dan Snyder, and Bob Kraft want to pay their players less so they can build bigger stadiums in which they can charge the fans more to attend....and I'm supposed to side with them?

Bob Kraft bought the Patriots for $175 million. According to Forbes, they are worth $1.4 billion today. Why does he need to increase his share of the league revenue again? If he is unhappy, he can sell and walk away with a billion dollars. I will miss him a hell of a lot less than I would miss Brian Orakpo. I've never watched a game to see Bob Kraft.

Seriously, Jerry Jones was just straight up given $425 million dollars by the City of Arlington. But somehow he needs to squeeze the players a little more.[/quote']

It's not nearly this simple. First off the big money team owners have to share revenue with the lesser money making teams. All that money the Pats make by themselves would be fine, yet they have to share it with teams like the Cardnals who don't make anything. In addition these men who own these teams could of course sell them and I'm sure the majority of us would love to see Snyder sell out, but in the big picture why would they? If they can support themselves in a profitable venture then who's to say that's wrong of them to do that? Your basically saying that they aren't giving the players enough money but yet you show how Jerry Jones had to finance his own stadium, the money Arlington didn't cover the cost of that thing. He didn't get the proper support or funding for a new one from the city so he took it upon himself to make a new one. Do you think an owner of a lesser team like the Buffalo Bills is going to do that? Of course not. Instead that man's going to find a sweet spot to move his team to and screw over the fans in the process like what happened in Baltimore. I guess your a fan of that? I'm not.

In addition of the 2.4 billion increase the owners want out of the 9 billion pool the players are already getting more then the majority share of the money as it is. That's why the union is asking to see the books of these teams because they know the current deal is a great one for them now. To the players, its not broken because they are taking the lions share so what's to fix. What is to fix is this. As an owner your expected to get the most money because you own the damn team. That's your right as an owner of a business. You take the risks, you take the shortcomings when they come, you pay for everything because it funnels through you first. So why would anyone complain when they want to make things more fair? The players should be happy with what they get and accept the new deal or else they are going to be out of a job. Trying to gather public support for a pay increase when your making that much money isn't going to fly. They should give in to the owners demands and do it for the game and the fans and stop this nonsense of solidarity because like we see with Reed Doughty if they don't they are going to hurt there own. If the players don't care about the players then why should any of us?

[The Tris]

No one said they weren't giving the players enough money - the issue is the owners are trying to take back more money, from the already worst compensated professional athlete labor force, in the most dangerous sport, with the worst long term benefits.

Show me where the players are asking for MORE money - all we are stating is that the players are already underpaid relative to their peers, and that the owners want to pay them even less.

[jflow78]

Here are the salary stats for the NBA:

NBA, each team carries a 15 man maximum roster

Lakers - $91,400,000 pay an average of $6,093,333 per player

Pistons - $43,600,000 pay an average of $2,906,666 per player

NBA player salaries totaled:

$1,859,001,196

NBA per player (450 players) avg:

$4,131,113

NFL avg player per game (82 game regular season):

$50,379

---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 04:34 PM ----------

No one said they weren't giving the players enough money - the issue is the owners are trying to take back more money, from the already worst compensated professional athlete labor force, in the most dangerous sport, with the worst long term benefits.

Show me where the players are asking for MORE money - all we are stating is that the players are already underpaid relative to their peers, and that the owners want to pay them even less.

Here is the other thing to consider: The NFL is the most popular' date=' highest-revenue generating sports league in the US. And its players are the worst compensated athletes with the least job security - despite facing the greatest physical risks.

If I am the head of NFLPA, I am willing to give back a percentage point or two of revenue for contracts guaranteed for three years.[/quote']

If you look at the statistics I just put out, you can see, the NFL players are definitely not the "worst" compensated athletes in pro sports. That's what I was looking at. I don't care if they are or aren't, I've just heard lots of people say the NFL players aren't paid nearly as much as this or that sport. Apparently that's not true, though, before I looked at the stats, I would have agreed with you.

I understand what the labor agreement was a couple years ago, but since the contract that you're talking about lasted only a couple years, and ended a couple years ago, I can't see how we look at it as the owners robbing the players of THEIR money.

The extra money they're fighting over was put into the 2006 CBA extension and that extension was voided 3 years ago, so it only lasted 2 years, and it's been 3 years since the players were getting that money. So, currently, they're not fighting over THAT money, according to most people here, IF they're not looking to get compensated more.

[GhostofSparta]

No one said they weren't giving the players enough money - the issue is the owners are trying to take back more money, from the already worst compensated professional athlete labor force, in the most dangerous sport, with the worst long term benefits.

Show me where the players are asking for MORE money - all we are stating is that the players are already underpaid relative to their peers, and that the owners want to pay them even less.

And if the players agreed to an 18 game season with a similar payscale to what they have now (roughly paid the same per game, just 2 more games at that same pay rate) they'd be close to the tops per game. But when you play less than half the games of the next closest sport, your salary will suffer a tad.

Alright, since the, "NFL players get compensated less than any other athlete in the US" reasoning has been popular, I've done some of the math. Here are the numbers I came up with, and mind you, I'm not a statistics major, nor do I claim to be, this is just my best look at the actual numbers:

MLB, each team carries a 40 man maximum roster

Highest salary in the league - Yankees ($206,333,389) pay an average of $5,160,000 per player

Lowest salary in the league - Pirates ($34,943,000) pay an average of $873,575

Highest salary in the league - Raiders ($152,389,371) pay an average of $2,875,271

Lowest salary in the league - Chiefs ($83,623,776) pay an average of $1,577,807

MLB player salaries totaled:

$2,730,601,685

MLB per player (1,200 players) avg:

$2,276,501

MLB avg player per game (162 game regular season):

$14,052

NFL players salaries totaled:

$3,624,115,487

NFL per player (1,696 players) avg:

$2,136,860

NFL avg player per game:

$133,554

One thing people forget frequently is that the NFL's salary cap also includes a salary limit as to how little a team can spend on total salary per season. No other league has that, so this cap works both ways, and actually brings NFL salaries up substantially with some owners who don't like spending money very often (ahem Cardinals).

Here are the salary stats for the NBA:

NBA, each team carries a 15 man maximum roster

Lakers - $91,400,000 pay an average of $6,093,333 per player

Pistons - $43,600,000 pay an average of $2,906,666 per player

NBA player salaries totaled:

$1,859,001,196

NBA per player (450 players) avg:

$4,131,113

NFL avg player per game (82 game regular season):

$50,379

[USS Redskins]

NFL Minimum salary is $325,000 - the average is over $700,000... . They can afford health insurance on their own.

Boo freaking hoo.

[The Tris]

Quote Originally Posted by The Tris View Post

No one said they weren't giving the players enough money - the issue is the owners are trying to take back more money, from the already worst compensated professional athlete labor force, in the most dangerous sport, with the worst long term benefits.

Show me where the players are asking for MORE money - all we are stating is that the players are already underpaid relative to their peers, and that the owners want to pay them even less.

Quote Originally Posted by Lombardi's_kid_brother View Post

Here is the other thing to consider: The NFL is the most popular, highest-revenue generating sports league in the US. And its players are the worst compensated athletes with the least job security - despite facing the greatest physical risks.

If I am the head of NFLPA, I am willing to give back a percentage point or two of revenue for contracts guaranteed for three years.

No where is that asking for more money.