WP: NFL owners want guarantees no other business provides (by Sally Jenkins)

[zCommander]

Can they allocate some of those funds to get better refs!!!

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Destino brings up an interesting argument worth listening to...

It really does make you wonder as to who's being fair here...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That's a red herring. NFL will never be MLB as long as the tv money is split equally.

Since you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the economics of the two leagues' date=' I will explain it to you. The Yankess are the Yankess because of the Yes Network. The Yankees make $70 million of YES, the Nationals make $25 million of MASN. Even if every other dime was split evenly, the Yankees would always end with $45 million extra dollars. Which is what allows them to get an ARod and a Sabathia. Which allows them to charge more for seats and so forth. Which makes it more expensive for other teams to operate.

There is no indication that the NFL is going away from this revenue sharing model or away from a salary cap. They simply want to lower player costs.[/quote']

Good points.

I am rooting for the owners since all I truly care about is getting football back and I think the owners winning would cause that to happen earlier. If the players win, it would almost have to be in a long, drawn-out battle.

[RFKFedEx]

Since you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the economics of the two leagues

You can go ahead and side with the players and their union. I'm sticking with the owners.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Good points.

I am rooting for the owners since all I truly care about is getting football back and I think the owners winning would cause that to happen earlier. If the players win, it would almost have to be in a long, drawn-out battle.

I want football back too, but - at the end of the day - I don't need to see Jerry Jones and The Owner getting 27 percent richer for no real damn good reason.

---------- Post added February-17th-2011 at 11:30 AM ----------

You can go ahead and side with the players and their union. I'm sticking with the owners.

I don't like siding with socialist, welfare queens like the NFL ownership.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I want football back too' date=' but - at the end of the day - I don't need to see Jerry Jones and The Owner getting 27 percent richer for no real damn good reason.[/quote']

I understand that...but the players aren't exactly scraping by either. To me personally, it all boils down to getting my football back as soon as possible. If someone educated me as to how the players winning this pissing contest would make that a reality, I'd side with them. Unfortunately for them, they are temporary cogs in the NFL. The franchises and, by extension the owners, are more permanent. Assuming other players would eventually want to make a lot of money playing football for a living, the NFL would live on without the current players.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I understand that...but the players aren't exactly scraping by either. To me personally, it all boils down to getting my football back as soon as possible. If someone educated me as to how the players winning this pissing contest would make that a reality, I'd side with them. Unfortunately for them, they are temporary cogs in the NFL. The franchises and, by extension the owners, are more permanent. Assuming other players would eventually want to make a lot of money playing football for a living, the NFL would live on without the current players.

The current players are good. The players who would replace them are not.

Do you watch Redskins' games for Chris Cooley or for Dan Snyder? Who is a bigger factor in who wins a game? Who "risks" more for your entertainment?

It's easy for fans to say, "Well. F this. I'll watch the UFL or college football or Arena Football instead." There's a problem with that argument, though. The players in those leagues aren't very good, and it become abundently clear after a few minutes.

If the NFL vanishes for a year, I'll be pissed but I'll get more reading done on the weekends, I guess. It's not like any other league is going to satiate my desire for the league.

The other thing is, I don't care about the actual riches of either party. I'm viewing this the same way I would a negotiation between coal miners and Don Blankenship or auto workers and the Ford Family. If Ford was teetering on bankruptcy and the auto workers were demaning a raise, I would sign with the owners. If Ford had record profits and was trying to slash salaries, I would side with the workers.

No one has yet given me a logical reason why Jerry Jones needs to slash his payroll by 27 percent while increasing his workers hours by 12 percent. I need a better answer than "He wants more money."

[joe]

Sally Jenkins is an idiot.

Owners pony up billions (PV) to buy their teams. If they run into financial turmoil, like in baseball and the NBA, they lose their investment. They deserve to get compensation due their risk. If players don't like it, they can go somewhere else. They don't HAVE to play in the NFL. Its the reality every one else has in their life; the players are whining about it. The Players need the NFL more than the NFL needs the players. The owners should bust this fake union, offer a fair wage, and I'm sure all these college players whose choice is a 40k job or making millions in the NFL will still populate the ranks on the NFL in a few years and the game will be just as good as ever. And perhaps ticket prices will come down.

Sorry but you are absolutely positively wrong. Sally Jenkins is spot on.

The owners want to grow the league which translates to the financing of new stadiums. They believe that they can no longer extort money from the taxpayer for new stadiums, so they want to take it out of the pay for the players. And they want expanded games, which will mean expanded rosters without any additional cost to them because the salary cap will shrink so each player gets less money.

I had always thought that the beauty of the NFL was that the owners and players were in a true partnership, symbiotic relationship. Like Sea turtles and nurse sharks they helped each other to the benefit of both. Baseball and basketball never got this and in the end the owners of those franchises lose because their player costs are out of wack with reality. I mean have you looked at baseball salarys over the past 20 years and what Pujols is asking for! 20 years ago, the highest paid player made something like 2 or 3 mil. That has now increased to 33 mil. Football kept It’s salaries pretty much in check, except for someone like Snyder who did not get it, but interestingly enough, now may have.

The players and owners worked together to grow the game and it worked for so many years. Now they want to set back the clock to the 60's. 50 years is a long time. I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about the chances for a season in 2011.

BTW, as an aside. I love the quote in Jenkins column from Rozell’s, wife about she never met an owner who did not think he was two players away from a super bowl. That is Snyder all over.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The current players are good. The players who would replace them are not.

Very true...but in the long-term' date=' the good players would fill out the rosters again. It's not like the top 6,000 players will always be at odds with management. It's a very, very temporary issue.

Do you watch Redskins' games for Chris Cooley or for Dan Snyder? Who is a bigger factor in who wins a game? Who "risks" more for your entertainment?

The player...in all cases. However, look at it another way...ten years ago I tuned in to watch Brad Johnson, Stephen Davis, Michael Westbrook, and Steven Alexander...five years ago I tuned in to watch Mark Brunell, Clinton Portis, Santana Moss, and Chris Cooley...in five years I'll be tuning in to watch a new QB, RB, WR, and TE combination. I'm not saying that the NFL can survive without any players, just that, by the nature of this league, the team ALWAYS transcends the players...and the turnaround constant as it is.

It's easy for fans to say' date=' "Well. F this. I'll watch the UFL or college football or Arena Football instead." There's a problem with that argument, though. The players in those leagues aren't very good, and it become abundently clear after a few minutes.[/quote']

I agree...that really isn't my argument. That tends to be the argument of those who say that a lockout or strike would leave us with other options. I'm saying that I feel like I need the NFL...but since the NFL has always been more about teams than players, I think it can survive even if this crop of players didn't ever return (which, for the record, I obviously don't believe is even a possible outcome of this).

If the NFL vanishes for a year, I'll be pissed but I'll get more reading done on the weekends, I guess. It's not like any other league is going to satiate my desire for the league.

The other thing is' date=' I don't care about the actual riches of either party. I'm viewing this the same way I would a negotiation between coal miners and Don Blankenship or auto workers and the Ford Family. If Ford was teetering on bankruptcy and the auto workers were demaning a raise, I would sign with the owners. If Ford had record profits and was trying to slash salaries, I would side with the workers.[/quote']

I understand that...I don't think you are "wrong" in who you're siding with. I think it's natural to side with labor in these cases and I don't think the players are out of line in what they want. Put it this way, if the resolution had to occur by a certain date either way (let's say they went to judge for a hearing), I'd want the players to win. However, since that's not the way this is going...I believe the owners winning accomplishes my admittedly selfish goal of wanting as normal a 2011 season as possible.

No one has yet given me a logical reason why Jerry Jones needs to slash his payroll by 27 percent while increasing his workers hours by 12 percent. I need a better answer than "He wants more money."

I haven't heard one either...but then again, I'm not too up to speed on all the finances of the situation. To be honest, until the owners can demonstrate that they are NOT turning a large profit, they deserve the negative perception they are getting.

[doctorshockalu]

I'm not siding with either side. In this economic climate where we have at least 15% unemployment how can they really threaten a lockout because they can't agree on their billions of dollars. Both sides get no sympathy for me because they make more in one year than 90% of fans in their lifetime. I am a diehard football fan but if they lockout next year because they can't cut a deal I am done with the NFL. Same thing happened with MLB.

It seems most of the owners and the players are missing the bigger point. Fans give them the billions of dollars in revenue so maybe they should be negotiating with the fans in mind.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm not siding with either side. In this economic climate where we have at least 15% unemployment how can they really threaten a lockout because they can't agree on their billions of dollars. Both sides get no sympathy for me because they make more in one year than 90% of fans in their lifetime. I am a diehard football fan but if they lockout next year because they can't cut a deal I am done with the NFL. Same thing happened with MLB.

It seems most of the owners and the players are missing the bigger point. Fans give them the billions of dollars in revenue so maybe they should be negotiating with the fans in mind.

See, that feels good to say, but who really does that. Compared to someone lesser off, no one should ever want more money or a raise. Is it selfish of me to want more when there are plenty of people doing worse?

These guys generate a lot of money for what they do (both the players and the owners) so I don't have a problem with both sides wanting to feel like they are being treated fairly. That money ($9B) is there...and it's not like they are going to chop off $4B to go to the fans or something. So, don't both sides have a right to try to get what they consider a fair piece of it?

[Bang]

Sally Jenkins is an idiot.

Owners pony up billions (PV) to buy their teams. If they run into financial turmoil, like in baseball and the NBA, they lose their investment. They deserve to get compensation due their risk. If players don't like it, they can go somewhere else. They don't HAVE to play in the NFL. Its the reality every one else has in their life; the players are whining about it. The Players need the NFL more than the NFL needs the players. The owners should bust this fake union, offer a fair wage, and I'm sure all these college players whose choice is a 40k job or making millions in the NFL will still populate the ranks on the NFL in a few years and the game will be just as good as ever. And perhaps ticket prices will come down.

Right.

The players need the NFL more than the NFL needs the players.

Hey, go watch the CFL.

Tell me how much you like it. Tell me how awesome the level of competition is.

That's what you'll get if the NFL doesn't need it's players.

You'll get ****.

And by the sound of it, at least one fan is OK with that.

Owners pony up that much money because having the best players in the world playing in their league has increased the value of teams to that price.

They don't pay that just for kicks or because that's what the sticker says.

I;m not sure how that is hard to understand. Teams are valuable because of the players. Players are not valuable because of the owner.

Remove the owners, and new owners will replace them. And the talent on the field stays the same.

Remove the players, and new players will replace them. And the talent on the field will suck.

You pay your money to see the players. TV Pays the money to show the players.

Without players, there is no game. With inferior players, the game suffers immensely

Who needs who now?

~Bang

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

One thing that I have not really seen addressed is that the owners have had a huge percentage of their profits subsidized since the mid-90s with local and state governments contributing billions to the pie. If you owned a computer company and the city council bought you a state of the art manufacturing plant and research facility and then charged you no taxes on the activity within it, your company's value would skyrocket for no reason other than the fact that tens of millions of dollars had just been given to you out of thin air.

The owners know that the values of their franchises are grossly inflated and that in the next 20 years, they are going to need to foot the bill themselves for any expansions or upgrades to their physical plant.

But the problem for them is that they can't explicitly say this. Because then they would be admitting that the source of their wealth is government handouts.

Over the last five years, the City of Arlington just flat out gave Jerry Jones around half a billion dollars. Just ****ing gave it to him. So, bully for him that his franshise is worth $1.8 billion now, but he didn't earn it. It was largely a gift of the taxpayers.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Right.

The players need the NFL more than the NFL needs the players.

Hey, go watch the CFL.

Tell me how much you like it. Tell me how awesome the level of competition is.

That's what you'll get if the NFL doesn't need it's players.

You'll get ****.

And by the sound of it, at least one fan is OK with that.

~Bang

I don't think you're right. You'll get **** for a year or so until the NFL replenishes itself with the top available players again. The NFL contains about 1,700 players at any one time, right? Even if every current player disappeared, do you think the top 1,700 players in the world would never migrate back to the league with billions of dollars to hand out?

I guess I don't get the CFL/AFL arguments in this case. To me, it would be a very, very temporary talent dip. Even then, fans in the US are so married to their teams, that they would tune in (in the short term) to watch CFL players wearing their team's uniform.

[Destino]

I don't think you're right. You'll get **** for a year or so until the NFL replenishes itself with the top available players again. The NFL contains about 1,700 players at any one time, right? Even if every current player disappeared, do you think the top 1,700 players in the world would never migrate back to the league with billions of dollars to hand out?

I guess I don't get the CFL/AFL arguments in this case. To me, it would be a very, very temporary talent dip. Even then, fans in the US are so married to their teams, that they would tune in (in the short term) to watch CFL players wearing their team's uniform.

You are acting like the NFL owns the rights to rookies. They don't. They are very firm on a rookie salary cap.... the other league would only have to offer the rookies more and the NFL would be caught in a bidding war for it's own survival. In fact it wouldn't have to be "more" money just better contracts in general that aren't made up of funny money. It's not hard to imagine a league set up that is MILES ahead of the NFL in terms of appeal to players. Just look at the NBA or MLB and you'll see far better situations for players. The NFL lags way behind and they are about to cancel a season because they want to make it even worse.

Also again, I love the skins... if the NFL becomes division II pro football the redskins immediately are put in my personal history book. Something maybe I'll spend 25 bucks for a ticket to see rarely when I'm feeling nostalgic. The league with the best players wins.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You are acting like the NFL owns the rights to rookies. They don't. They are very firm on a rookie salary cap.... the other league would only have to offer the rookies more and the NFL would be caught in a bidding war for it's own survival. In fact it wouldn't have to be "more" money just better contracts in general that aren't made up of funny money. It's not hard to imagine a league set up that is MILES ahead of the NFL in terms of appeal to players. Just look at the NBA or MLB and you'll see far better situations for players. The NFL lags way behind and they are about to cancel a season because they want to make it even worse.

But, when push comes to shove, the NFL has the most money to spend on players. It's not even close. So, if there was a lack of talent in the league at any point, the owners could easily decide to make it an attractive option to come to the league. They could pay them more than any other league. They can offer them 100% of their games being televised. At this point, there is NO competition for the NFL and it would take longer than the life of this labor dispute for one to be established and challenge it.

[nelsonal]

$9.3B total revenue for 2010

$1.0B -> owners

$8.3B to be split b/w players and teams

$4.98B -> players pool

$3.32B -> owners pool

Players total = $4.98B (this is on top of salaries)

Owners total = $4.32B

4.32B/32=135

Each team gets $135M from the revenue sharing system. For a team like Buffalo, they might be turning a couple Mill in profit each year. Ralph Wilson is not making as much from football as his star players. Think about that.....

That's not all that uncommon in businesses where talent is rare and the businesses capital is fungible (in the NFL's case it's money). Top investment bankers as a group make far more than the owners of the bank (compensation is 50% of revenue profit is generally 10-20%). The guy who brings the hardest thing to replace to the table generally gets the lion's share of the money.

[Bang]

But, when push comes to shove, the NFL has the most money to spend on players. It's not even close. So, if there was a lack of talent in the league at any point, the owners could easily decide to make it an attractive option to come to the league. They could pay them more than any other league. They can offer them 100% of their games being televised. At this point, there is NO competition for the NFL and it would take longer than the life of this labor dispute for one to be established and challenge it.

At this point you're right, there is no competition.

But really, if the NFL decided to fire them all and replenish over a few years.. I think there's plenty of people out there who have been looking for a way to directly compete with the NFL. Having all of their players will definitely help. The NFL isn't the only collection of people with deep pockets. There's others.

and as far as drafting new talent goes.. if the new league has the majority of fired NFL players,, they'd make a hheck of an ambassador to the young guys coming out of school. "You want to go play for them? They fired all of us. How about you come play with us,, we're the best players in the world anyway.".. I think that could sway minds.

The only hitch in that plan would be the tradition of the NFL's franchises. The new teams logos and everything would not have the same instant recognizability as NFL teams do.

But if a TV network stepped up ,and the new league was able to stay solvent for a few years.. I think the talent gulf between them and the replacement players would be HUGE... and people would gravitate to the better game.

In terms of all of this labor dispute, I think the owners have the upper hand, but I do not believe they have the only hand. And I do not believe they would be wise in taking a stance of "we don't need you as much as you need us".

I think it's a mutual relationship. They need each other.

~Bang

[JPCreativelab]

At this point you're right, there is no competition.

But really, if the NFL decided to fire them all and replenish over a few years.. I think there's plenty of people out there who have been looking for a way to directly compete with the NFL. Having all of their players will definitely help. The NFL isn't the only collection of people with deep pockets. There's others.

and as far as drafting new talent goes.. if the new league has the majority of fired NFL players,, they'd make a hheck of an ambassador to the young guys coming out of school. "You want to go play for them? They fired all of us. How about you come play with us,, we're the best players in the world anyway.".. I think that could sway minds.

The only hitch in that plan would be the tradition of the NFL's franchises. The new teams logos and everything would not have the same instant recognizability as NFL teams do.

But if a TV network stepped up ,and the new league was able to stay solvent for a few years.. I think the talent gulf between them and the replacement players would be HUGE... and people would gravitate to the better game.

In terms of all of this labor dispute, I think the owners have the upper hand, but I do not believe they have the only hand. And I do not believe they would be wise in taking a stance of "we don't need you as much as you need us".

I think it's a mutual relationship. They need each other.

~Bang

i agree, i think the college prospects would go where the talent is. some will go for money, but the money and talent could possibly be in the same place.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Bang/Meast,

It's certainly feasible, but it just seems very unlikely and based on a lot of ifs (if a bunch of rich guys can get together and if they can book stadiums and if a TV network is willing to roll the dice). Not to mention, it's based on something that I don't see happening (all NFL players being permanently banned from the NFL).

I think you're right that they both need each other...I was just commenting on the simple fact that, in today's landscape, the players actually do need the NFL more than the NFL needs the players.

[panel]

I'm not siding with either side. In this economic climate where we have at least 15% unemployment how can they really threaten a lockout because they can't agree on their billions of dollars. Both sides get no sympathy for me because they make more in one year than 90% of fans in their lifetime. I am a diehard football fan but if they lockout next year because they can't cut a deal I am done with the NFL. Same thing happened with MLB.

It seems most of the owners and the players are missing the bigger point. Fans give them the billions of dollars in revenue so maybe they should be negotiating with the fans in mind.

The average NFL player is paid $750,000 a year, the average income of a full time worker in the US is $44,000. The average person does make more in their lifetime than player makes a year. The owners on the other hand is a different story. The value of the Redskins has increased $200 million in the past 10 years alone, that doesn't even include the profit that they have brought in over that time. The average person will not make more than an owner makes in a year.

[PortisBetts]

That 131 million looks great and greedy, until you factor in all of the EXPENSES that need to be covered with that money. Things like loans that the owners had to take out to buy the team in the first place, salaries for everyone (not even including players) like the folks who work at the stadium, the parking lots, security, etc. on game day, maintenance to upkeep the fields and the stadiums/centers, insurance payments, advertising, the PR crew, the FO crew, etc. And don't forget that every penny of that money is taxed. Let's not pretend that they get to just put all of that 131 million in the bank and drink champagne to celebrate it.

I think the key here is for people to stop assuming who is in good shape financially and who isn't. There really is more than one side of the story, but that is all that Jenkins has offered in her article.

Not really. This is without considering things such as parking, concessions, and all of the other things that owners make money off of that do not go into the split. They are STARTING with $131 million, but they clearly are making more throughout the year. For owners to claim poverty is ridiculous.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Not really. This is without considering things such as parking, concessions, and all of the other things that owners make money off of that do not go into the split. They are STARTING with $131 million, but they clearly are making more throughout the year. For owners to claim poverty is ridiculous.

Are they though?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Are they though?

The Redskins average yearly PROFT is around $100 million.

So, why do they need a bigger cut of the shared revenue?

For the record, the Bengals and the Cardinals have a yearly profit of around $25 million. And they are run by stupid old men who only have control of the team because of their dads.

The Steelers make around $19 million per. But Dan Rooney behaves like George Bailey when it comes to squeezing his fan base.

The only teams who seem to struggle year to year are the Dolphins, Lions, and Raiders. And obviously, those teams are run by stable, visionary leaders.

But that's only half the story. The poor pitiful Jaguars can't sell out and don't make very much money. I feel bad for the owner.

Except the cost of the team in 1993 was $208 million and its current value is around $800 million. And the fact that if the Jags move to LA in the next three years, the value of the franchise will probably be in the $1.2 billion range. Is $1 billion a good return on a $200 million investment over 20 years?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The Redskins average yearly PROFT is around $100 million.

So' date=' why do they need a bigger cut of the shared revenue?[/quote']

I've addressed your points previously...I'm not saying the owners NEED more of anything. But I also haven't read anything where they are claiming poverty or say that they "need" it. Granted, it's greedy, but couldn't they be doing this just because they WANT it?