Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I see your point...but I think it COULD manifest itself over a longer period and more gradually. If there are too many Haynesworth-type signings and the NFL continues to make more and more money (inflating the salary cap), can't you see a time in the not-so-distant future when the owners don't believe that $100M+ contracts should be handed out? . Name one industry with a highly specialized labor force where labor costs went DOWN over time. If you can come up with one example without a unique factor - like overseas competition, I will be impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Here's a quick tidbit... Here's what the NFL said it will lose in revenue if there is a lockout: $120 million in March, the cumulative figure grows to $350 million in August and $1 billion if the lockout ends right before the season. Then it's another $400 million per week in lost revenue once the regular season starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Name one industry with a highly specialized labor force where labor costs went DOWN over time. If you can come up with one example without a unique factor - like overseas competition' date=' I will be impressed.[/quote']I have no idea, but I don't think anything I wrote in my last post was ridiculous. At some point, if big contracts continue to blow up in owners' faces, they are going to pare them down some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homercles82 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Name one industry with a highly specialized labor force where labor costs went DOWN over time. If you can come up with one example without a unique factor - like overseas competition' date=' I will be impressed.[/quote']The problem isn't just that it is a highly specialized labor force but that there tends to be an issue with not performing up to their abilities once they receive the high end contract. I have no issue with a team, say the Redskins, paying a big time player a huge contract. What I have an issue with is that player seemingly not wanting to do their job after getting a big payday. I can see from the owner's viewpoint too of that money being wasted and wanting to protect themselves from blowing that wad of cash on a player. There needs to be a provision for a maximum amount of money guarenteed. Say, a maximum percentage of the contract can be guarenteed. There may be a stipulation like this already that I am not aware of. Not that my opinion matters but if there is a lockout I probably will move on and spend my money on NCAA football, more hockey and maybe some UFL games with the new team in Virginia. Spend my money elsewhere. It is annoying to see millionaires and billionaires argue over money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The problem isn't just that it is a highly specialized labor force but that there tends to be an issue with not performing up to their abilities once they receive the high end contract. I have no issue with a team, say the Redskins, paying a big time player a huge contract. What I have an issue with is that player seemingly not wanting to do their job after getting a big payday. I can see from the owner's viewpoint too of that money being wasted and wanting to protect themselves from blowing that wad of cash on a player.There needs to be a provision for a maximum amount of money guarenteed. Say, a maximum percentage of the contract can be guarenteed. There may be a stipulation like this already that I am not aware of. You can't eliminate all risk in contracts. Heck, how many times has a big star signed a huge contract and then been rendered ineffective by injury? The owners just need to take a player's character into account when laying out the big money. Look at the Haynesworth debacle - the guy's dubious work ethic was well-known before the 'skins handed him all that cash, yet they still did it. Is that the player's fault, or the owner's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homercles82 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You can't eliminate all risk in contracts. Heck, how many times has a big star signed a huge contract and then been rendered ineffective by injury? The owners just need to take a player's character into account when laying out the big money. Look at the Haynesworth debacle - the guy's dubious work ethic was well-known before the 'skins handed him all that cash, yet they still did it. Is that the player's fault, or the owner's? Both. They invested in him and he lacked the conscience to earn his money, and our owner, well did what he usually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You can't eliminate all risk in contracts. Heck, how many times has a big star signed a huge contract and then been rendered ineffective by injury? The owners just need to take a player's character into account when laying out the big money. Look at the Haynesworth debacle - the guy's dubious work ethic was well-known before the 'skins handed him all that cash, yet they still did it. Is that the player's fault, or the owner's? Whose fault it is really doesn't matter. What matters is the perception the owners will have of giving out $100M contracts moving forward. If owners are less likely to do so, then the total amount of player compensation could fall over a 5- or 10-year period. I have no basis for this opinion, it's just a theory I have...something that's POSSIBLE but wouldn't necessarily constitute collusion to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Whose fault it is really doesn't matter. What matters is the perception the owners will have of giving out $100M contracts moving forward. If owners are less likely to do so, then the total amount of player compensation could fall over a 5- or 10-year period. I have no basis for this opinion, it's just a theory I have...something that's POSSIBLE but wouldn't necessarily constitute collusion to me. I really wasn't addressing your contentions, only those of Homercles, who thought some protection was needed for owners, to prevent stars from landing huge guaranteed contracts and then proceeding to underachieve and not earn thier money. I don't think that's necessary. As for your contentions, while I could see owners not handing out so much $$ in a single contract, I doubt player compensation as a whole will ever go down. Football teams field the biggest roster in major sports, and it's abundantly clear to any smart owner/GM that depth matters very, very much in the NFL. This year's Packers are a prime example - they lost a ton of guys, but because they had good depth, they are world champs. I think teams will still spend at or near the cap in order to win, but the smart teams will just spread the money around better. One elite, superstar player (even a QB) is near worthless without a supporting cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 That's a good point...I guess owners would just spread the money around to increase the quality of the depth in my scenario...especially if they end up expanding the rosters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 NFL owners already have the biggest safety net in all of professional sports - no contracts are guaranteed. You now want them to have MORE protection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgeh Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 But as you previously posted, the owners want to go to the 18 game season, in order to (in theory) grow the overall revenue pot. Thus, even if the players' percentage was smaller, the actual amount itself would not be (or at least not MUCH smaller). Thus, you can't really say they'd have a 27 percent pay cut without knowing how much revenues would be over an 18 game season. Working longer for the same money is a pay cut in terms of how much you get paid per game. If you work more, you expect to get paid more, not the same, and certainly not less. I don't think an 18 game season would be good for the sport. There are more than enough injuries as it is and I like to watch the best players, not their backups pushed into service because the #1 guy is injured. Expanding the squads to cope with more matches is effectively just filling out the roster with people who in earlier times wouldn't be good enough to play, the kind of players who at the moment are on the pitch for 2 - 3 quarters in the pre-season and then gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 NFL owners already have the biggest safety net in all of professional sports - no contracts are guaranteed. You now want them to have MORE protection? Some parts of contracts are guaranteed' date=' so that's not entirely true. But you're right that the structure of the contract protects owners more than in most pro sports. ---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 01:11 PM ---------- Working longer for the same money is a pay cut in terms of how much you get paid per game. If you work more, you expect to get paid more, not the same, and certainly not less. Again, we don't know how much larger the overall league revenues would be for an 18 game season, so it's hard to know if a player's per game check would be bigger, smaller, or about the same. I don't think an 18 game season would be good for the sport. There are more than enough injuries as it is and I like to watch the best players, not their backups pushed into service because the #1 guy is injured. Expanding the squads to cope with more matches is effectively just filling out the roster with people who in earlier times wouldn't be good enough to play, the kind of players who at the moment are on the pitch for 2 - 3 quarters in the pre-season and then gone. Personally, I'm not a fan of the 18 game season either. I'm only discussing it because the owners are pushing for it and it's on the table, but I don't actually want to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Judging from some of the statements he's made I think NFLPA president DeMaurice Smith is going to **** everything up for everyone. I just get the feeling he is more concerned with "winning a case" than coming to an agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail_Skins Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Did they ever say why they were called off? Maybe someone had a case of the runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 We do know that two additional games have lower marginal value to both the owners and players. The only real question would then be if that marginal value is less than 0. We also know that the owners would be taking on less additional risk (which lowers the expected value of the additional revenue). That is, if a player would make 1.8M in a 18 game schedule and 1.6M in a 16 game schedule, is the extra 200K he makes less the additional risk he incurs is worth the loss of time that he could have used to do something else?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Did they ever say why they were called off? Maybe someone had a case of the runs. Albert Haynesworth?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Did they ever say why they were called off? Maybe someone had a case of the runs. Haynesworth isn't a player's rep though. ---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 01:57 PM ---------- Albert Haynesworth?? Damn...you win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Damn...you win! Hahaha. By seconds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Judging from some of the statements he's made I think NFLPA president DeMaurice Smith is going to **** everything up for everyone. I just get the feeling he is more concerned with "winning a case" than coming to an agreement. Of course. This isn't Gene Upshaw. This is a young ambitious attorney that will use law as his weapon, thus making this a completely and utterly waste of time from a negotiating standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 We do know that two additional games have lower marginal value to both the owners and players. The only real question would then be if that marginal value is less than 0. We also know that the owners would be taking on less additional risk (which lowers the expected value of the additional revenue). That is, if a player would make 1.8M in a 18 game schedule and 1.6M in a 16 game schedule, is the extra 200K he makes less the additional risk he incurs is worth the loss of time that he could have used to do something else?. I don't think there will be any loss of time. From what I've read of the proposed 18-game season, 2 preseason games would be dropped, so the overall season would be just as long as now, only the preseason would be shorter and the regular season longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.