Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

My take on the CBA


tibbidoe

Recommended Posts

It sort of makes me feel like a weakling on the playground.

There are two bullies arguing over how best to split my lunch money, and I’m standing quietly by, tugging nervously on the bottom of my “GO BULLIES” t-shirt, waiting to see the outcome.

That’s the feeling I get when I look at the current situation with the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Lacking say in how the teams are actually ran, which players are added or dropped, or how much tickets and other team related merchandise costs, we fans have the power to decide the ultimate success or failure of the NFL and all sports leagues. But until enough people decide together to exercise that power, it means nothing.

The owners’ unwillingness to show their books seems pretty telling to me. My opinion is that there is not a team in the league that does not make at least SOME money. But I would guess that there are owners who feel that they aren’t making ENOUGH money.

And as far as the players, I’d wager that there are a number who live the ‘rockstar’ lifestyle and are either completely broke or darn close to it. Others likely spend and invest their money wisely and have set themselves up to live well, after their playing days are over. Either way, it is up to the individual how to spend their money and deal with the outcome, positive or negative, as it happens.

Both sides do, or should, have other means of making a living, so that football isn't their only way of making a living and caring for their families.

None of this affects us as people, yet we still foot the bill for these people and celebrate it passionately.

In the end, we should have at least a seat at the table to decide how our collective lunch money is spent.

But since we don’t, and never will, have a voice in contract talks like these, here is my take on how to get it all over with and have the offseason up and running as it normally would be.

$9 billion in revenue

Owners’ currently get $1 billion off the top

($31.25 million per team)

Then a 60/40 split of remaining $8 billion

($4.8 billion to players, $3.2 billion to owners)

Total spilt equals $4.8 billion to players, $4.2 billion to owners

($131.25 million per team)

My outsiders’ suggestion to get it done

Owners would get $1.5 billion off the top

($46.875 million per team)

Keep the 60/40 split on remaining $7.5 billion

($4.5 billion to players, $3 billion to owners)

Total split equals $4.5 billion to players, $4.5 billion to owners

($140.625 million per team adds $9.375 million each from the currently expiring CBA)

Expanding to 18 games

This one I’m having trouble with. There are too many variables for me to come to a logical (in my opinion) scenario on this. Player compensation is the main thing, but there’s also the IR rules, practice squad size, etc.

Rookie wage scale

Contracts for rookies in rounds 1-4 would be 4 years, rounds 5-7 would be three years.

#1 pick gets $30-40 million over the 4 years. (actual number is debatable)

(If it were $30 million, it would be a $7.5 million total average, with signing bonuses and guaranteed money included)

From there, find a reasonable formula to stagger contracts down to a rookie minimum for players drafted in rounds 5-7. The 5-7 wage should be applied to all UDFA players as well.

For extended and re-worked contracts, the total would be based on the new contract. If the total due for the new contract is more than what was paid on the old contract, then only the difference would be taken out. If the total is less than what was originally taken out, no money would be taken from the new contract, but none would be given back to the active player.

Retired player benefits

I don’t know how the previous agreement was set up to assist the retired players, but here are my ideas on how it COULD be done.

.005% of all money generated would go to retired player benefits.

($45 million)

Players and owners would split the responsibility 50/50. (.0025% paid by each side)

($22.5 million each)

($703,125 per owner)

.0025% of every new and existing player contract would be dedicated to the benefits.

Percent of existing contracts would be based on remaining figures (years/money) on the contract.

The total from each new contract would be deducted when it is signed and approved.

Payment from the owners would be due on the first day of the new NFL year.

The players’ portion would be paid immediately into an account accessible only by the NFLPA for dispersal to retired players and overhead.

I realize that I’m just an average person without the inside knowledge of exactly how fair or unfair these options are. I just believe something around 50/50 is fair enough.

Without the owners, there are no teams. Without the players, there isn’t the level of entertainment that we’ve grown accustomed to. But without the fans, there is no NFL, no NBA, no NHL and no MLB.

The main focus for these negotiations should be how best to get it done so as not to upset the people who keep this golden goose alive. The fans are really the only ones who matter. These guys need to keep that in mind.

Otherwise, who is going to buy all of those “GO BULLIES” t-shirts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently : Total spilt equals $4.8 billion to players, $4.2 billion to owners

($131.25 million per team)

You suggest: Total split equals $4.5 billion to players, $4.5 billion to owners

($140.625 million per team adds $9.375 million each from the currently expiring CBA)

So if they go to an 18 game schedule, the players would be playing more games for less money.

This is one of the main issues the players are arguing in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. That's one of the parts I really couldn't come up with an suggestion for. I know it's a huge sticking point. That's why I'm not thinking they should just take this and say "Hey! It's all done". There are some holes in the ideas, I know.

But honestly, what would be a fair way to work it, or should they just not go to the extra 'meaningful' games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of this affects us as people, yet we still foot the bill for these people and celebrate it passionately.

In the end, we should have at least a seat at the table to decide how our collective lunch money is spent.

Ummmm, what company operates like this. They are selling a product. If you have an issue with it don't buy it. That's a risk they are taking with the lock out. But history shows we'll be back after a short period of stamping our feet and shouting at the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmm, what company operates like this. They are selling a product. If you have an issue with it don't buy it. That's a risk they are taking with the lock out. But history shows we'll be back after a short period of stamping our feet and shouting at the moon.

If this were Coke or Pepsi, I'd agree with that line of thinking, If Coke were to go away for a year because of labor issues, I'd just drink Pepsi, because I have that option, and not think twice about it. Football is a little different I think. I didn't grow up rooting for Coke and hating Pepsi fans.

Football is entertainment, and as owners and entertainers, they have an obligation to the fans. As a business that wants to continue their enormous success, it's their job to keep us happy. And yes, I do think the fans should have some sort of a voice, especially when they're arguing over OUR money and threatening to shut down operations over it.

That whole "take it or leave it" bit can go right out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this whole **** is ridiculous and is such greed....I mean these guys play football for a living....it is a ****ing sport....I love watching it and I know it is entertainment, but these guys are so way overpaid it isn't funny. I mean the people that matter in society such as teachers and public workers. I think there is just way to much me me me going on and not looking at the whole picture...come on man this is crazy... if anything the players should be getting more of the money not the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense to anyone in particular, but I am getting sick of the opinions that FANS need a seat at the table or they are somehow splitting OUR money. Yes, we buy tickets and merchandise, but I believe that the networks give them much more money than we do. We're not the little wimpy kid watching two bullies argue over our money...we're just fans of a sport and we'll be back to watch the sport when it resumes (if it goes on hiatus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense to anyone in particular, but I am getting sick of the opinions that FANS need a seat at the table or they are somehow splitting OUR money. Yes, we buy tickets and merchandise, but I believe that the networks give them much more money than we do. We're not the little wimpy kid watching two bullies argue over our money...we're just fans of a sport and we'll be back to watch the sport when it resumes (if it goes on hiatus).

...and the networks get there money from advertisers who pay them for how many people (guess who?) that watch their network? that's right...us the fans again who are also paying the cable/satellite companies for access to their networks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the networks get there money from advertisers who pay them for how many people (guess who?) that watch their network? that's right...us the fans again who are also paying the cable/satellite companies for access to their networks.

So, paying $50 per month for cable (even though you could watch the games on local networks) is the same to you as networks handing out billions of dollars or advertisers paying millions for ads? I don't think so. In the end, we pay a very small percentage of the money over which they are arguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, paying $50 per month for cable (even though you could watch the games on local networks) is the same to you as networks handing out billions of dollars or advertisers paying millions for ads? I don't think so. In the end, we pay a very small percentage of the money over which they are arguing.

Sorry but you are absolutely wrong. Consumers pay 100% for all entertainment. Without consumers nobody makes a dime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the networks get there money from advertisers who pay them for how many people (guess who?) that watch their network? that's right...us the fans again who are also paying the cable/satellite companies for access to their networks.

You are a consumer of a product. Just because you pay for a product doesn't give you any rights to make any decisions on that product and how it will be produced. Your ability to make decisions on said product are limited to A) voicing your displeasure/pleasure about said product or B)ceasing to purchase that product. That's it. This is one of those opportunities. If you feel you've had enough...leave and find another hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but you are absolutely wrong. Consumers pay 100% for all entertainment. Without consumers nobody makes a dime.

So you believe that we contribute all $9B that they are splitting? That's your stance?

I get the cliche that without fans, there is no NFL...but it's figurative. We aren't literally putting $9B in their pockets every year.

I looked it up and it appears that more than $20B was being paid to the NFL by NBC, CBS, Fox, and ESPN through 2013. Do you honestly believe that all of that comes out of our pockets with our monthly subscriptions to cable or satellite TV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you believe that we contribute all $9B that they are splitting? That's your stance?

I get the cliche that without fans, there is no NFL...but it's figurative. We aren't literally putting $9B in their pockets every year.

I looked it up and it appears that more than $20B was being paid to the NFL by NBC, CBS, Fox, and ESPN through 2013. Do you honestly believe that all of that comes out of our pockets with our monthly subscriptions to cable or satellite TV?

Yes. I believe it does. Every penny, whether directly or indirectly, pays that $9B.

The reason NBC, FOX, etc. pay that money is because they want people watching their broadcasts and seeing commercials on their channels. They get their money to spend on the NFL from companies that want to advertise on those channels. They want to advertise on those channels because they want people to consume their products and what group of people watches more TV than sports fans?

EVERYTHING comes back to the consumer. From the NFL to Ford to Sprite. Every company that makes a product does so with the intent of making money off of the customer. If every person on the planet stopped smoking, the tobacco industry would go away, just like any other business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently : Total spilt equals $4.8 billion to players, $4.2 billion to owners

($131.25 million per team)

You suggest: Total split equals $4.5 billion to players, $4.5 billion to owners

($140.625 million per team adds $9.375 million each from the currently expiring CBA)

So if they go to an 18 game schedule, the players would be playing more games for less money.

This is one of the main issues the players are arguing in the first place.

I haven't got a raise in about 4 years. The cost of food, gas, insurance, etc. sure hasn't been stagnant either. I may not be making less, but my paycheck definately buys less than it did 4 years ago. Welcome to the real world.

I'd also like to point out that if you add all the time the starters play in the preseason games, it adds up to almost 2 games worth of time. The starters would only play an extra couple quarters total over the entire season if 2 of the preseason games were made into regular season games, not 2 entire games as the players would want you to believe.

I am not saying that I am pulling for the owners in this case either. The owners/players just need to get it done. Heck, I'd prefer for both of them to take a cut and make it more affordable for the common people to go to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you believe that we contribute all $9B that they are splitting? That's your stance?

I get the cliche that without fans, there is no NFL...but it's figurative. We aren't literally putting $9B in their pockets every year.

I looked it up and it appears that more than $20B was being paid to the NFL by NBC, CBS, Fox, and ESPN through 2013. Do you honestly believe that all of that comes out of our pockets with our monthly subscriptions to cable or satellite TV?

Yes. Every penny. Where the hell do you think it comes from, the trees?

And at the same time that doesn't mean we have any more of a vote than our dollars. We aren't entitled to anything more than entertainment in exchange for money. So yeah it's bogus that the owners get the TV Contract money without actually playing, but it wont last that way forever. They won't get paid for a product they aren't producing forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently : Total spilt equals $4.8 billion to players, $4.2 billion to owners

($131.25 million per team)

You suggest: Total split equals $4.5 billion to players, $4.5 billion to owners

($140.625 million per team adds $9.375 million each from the currently expiring CBA)

So if they go to an 18 game schedule, the players would be playing more games for less money.

This is one of the main issues the players are arguing in the first place.

No, because revenue would go up. The players would be playing more games for the same percentage of the pie. That slice of the pie, however, would grow based on a larger revenue base.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Every penny. Where the hell do you think it comes from, the trees?
Yes. I believe it does. Every penny, whether directly or indirectly, pays that $9B.

The reason NBC, FOX, etc. pay that money is because they want people watching their broadcasts and seeing commercials on their channels. They get their money to spend on the NFL from companies that want to advertise on those channels. They want to advertise on those channels because they want people to consume their products and what group of people watches more TV than sports fans?

EVERYTHING comes back to the consumer. From the NFL to Ford to Sprite. Every company that makes a product does so with the intent of making money off of the customer. If every person on the planet stopped smoking, the tobacco industry would go away, just like any other business.

Again...to both of you...I realize that if we all turned our backs on the NFL, the league would eventually fail. But we don't LITERALLY pay $9B per year to the league. The money comes from networks who make money off of ads who HOPE to make money off of us. But for you to say that because you buy a Sprite and Sprite happens to run commercials on Sunday afternoons, you are passing that money to Dan Snyder's pocket...I just don't get it.

Again, we watch the games and, because of that, networks pay big bucks to the owners. I understand that correlation. We still don't make up the $9B that is being discussed in these negotiations. People who DON'T watch the NFL also buy those products who run ads and subscribe to cable and satellite providers. So, we may be integral to the survival of the league...but it's not OUR money. That's all I've been saying. The other point I've been making is that they aren't obligated to give us a seat at the table. That is ridiculous too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again...to both of you...I realize that if we all turned our backs on the NFL, the league would eventually fail. But we don't LITERALLY pay $9B per year to the league. The money comes from networks who make money off of ads who HOPE to make money off of us. But for you to say that because you buy a Sprite and Sprite happens to run commercials on Sunday afternoons, you are passing that money to Dan Snyder's pocket...I just don't get it.

Again, we watch the games and, because of that, networks pay big bucks to the owners. I understand that correlation. We still don't make up the $9B that is being discussed in these negotiations. People who DON'T watch the NFL also buy those products who run ads and subscribe to cable and satellite providers. So, we may be integral to the survival of the league...but it's not OUR money. That's all I've been saying. The other point I've been making is that they aren't obligated to give us a seat at the table. That is ridiculous too.

I agree. It isn't a direct payment from my bank account to the NFL. But as a consumer, every dollar I spend goes to a company. Companies spend money on commercials to get people to buy their products. Why else would a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl cost $3M? Millions and millions of people watching means more people buying, otherwise they wouldn't spend that money.

And it's true. People who don't watch sports do buy these same products. And I'd guess that companies are more than happy to get the money they do spend. But obviously the money they spend to advertise to the sports fan is justified by the money they make back in sales.

Also, "a seat at the bargaining table" was probably the wrong way to put it. I just think there could/should be a way to keep costs reasonable so as not to price out the average fan. I don't have a huge amount of disposable income, but I love my teams just as much as the next guy. I try to hit a game a year, and each time it gets harder. Once the cost is completely out of my range, I'll stop going. It'd be nice to keep it close enough that I could take that one game a year for myself.

I understand that my financial situation isn't the NFL's problem, but I doubt that I'm the only one with this kind of issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big question that I have about a lock out is how its effect on the economy will be....the economy is rocky already....and a lot of jobs are on the line dealing with the NFL from stadium workers to advertising to merchandise sales.

There really aren't.

---------- Post added February-23rd-2011 at 06:18 PM ----------

Yes. I believe it does. Every penny, whether directly or indirectly, pays that $9B.

The reason NBC, FOX, etc. pay that money is because they want people watching their broadcasts and seeing commercials on their channels. They get their money to spend on the NFL from companies that want to advertise on those channels. They want to advertise on those channels because they want people to consume their products and what group of people watches more TV than sports fans?

EVERYTHING comes back to the consumer. From the NFL to Ford to Sprite. Every company that makes a product does so with the intent of making money off of the customer. If every person on the planet stopped smoking, the tobacco industry would go away, just like any other business.

So, I should be involved in any labor negotiations at UPS?

---------- Post added February-23rd-2011 at 06:19 PM ----------

I haven't got a raise in about 4 years. The cost of food, gas, insurance, etc. sure hasn't been stagnant either. I may not be making less, but my paycheck definately buys less than it did 4 years ago. Welcome to the real world.

NFL revenues have double over the last decade.

I don't get the argument that because you aren't making any money, no one should be making any money.

What upsets me the most is, how did I become the capitalist here all of a sudden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, "a seat at the bargaining table" was probably the wrong way to put it. I just think there could/should be a way to keep costs reasonable so as not to price out the average fan. I don't have a huge amount of disposable income, but I love my teams just as much as the next guy. I try to hit a game a year, and each time it gets harder. Once the cost is completely out of my range, I'll stop going. It'd be nice to keep it close enough that I could take that one game a year for myself.

I understand that my financial situation isn't the NFL's problem, but I doubt that I'm the only one with this kind of issue.

I see your points now. I was simply addressing your original ones. The fact is, fans can easily and passionately follow the NFL free of charge. It costs nothing additional to watch every regional and national broadcast (assuming you would pay for local channels with or without football) and there is no obligation for any fan to buy any of the products being advertised during the games.

My only points were that we do NOT foot a large part of the $9B bill and really don't have any claim to the negotiations. As to your point about attending games, I agree...it has become ridiculously expensive to do so. I don't actually enjoy that experience as much as I used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...