Yahoo Sports: Goodell sends letter to players, bypasses NFLPA

[VRIEL1]

Clearly a PR move but one I agree with. I guess I'm one of the few who thinks the offer is not that bad. I presume the players are getting almost everything they are asking for except one thing..... and when you getting almost everything you want you have to give up something. The "something" in this case happens to be the owners showing their books.

But as others have said.... I too thought the NFLPA was disbanded. So basically there is no Union. The players had a choice.... don't disband and keep trying to come to an agreement or disband, effectively disolving the Union so technically there is no Union right now, and let the courts decide. I presume individual players can agree with the owners, stick together and let the courts decide, or start a new Union.

I think it's obvious the NFL and Owners are hoping the players individually decide the offer was good and either split up the players or force the players to agree to the offer.

I think my problem is I have yet to see the players ideas, concerns, or issue's with the offer. When the players decided to disband the NFL/Owners came out and showed the public what the offer was and they said they felt it was fair but were willing to talk about it. The Union/Players came out and said it was hogwash. Then I thought the Players said the offer was not the same that was extended to them. Then when "ProFootballTalk" presented what the players claimed was extended to them.... it honestl looked the same to me. I didn't see any differences in the two. So basically the main issue, or the only issue, or the issue thats got the Players up in arms is the fact the Owners refusing to show their books. Or so I presume.

I think since the Owners are being asked to show their ticket sales, and show their vending profits, and show their jersey profits, and show their T.V. deals as well as any and all other income then it should only be fair that the players include their money making adventures outside of actually playing football. Any T.V. sponsorship, commercials, shoe sales, book sales, whatever should be incorporated into the total revenue as well then split the money 50/50.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

I think since the Owners are being asked to show their ticket sales, and show their vending profits, and show their jersey profits, and show their T.V. deals as well as any and all other income then it should only be fair that the players include their money making adventures outside of actually playing football. Any T.V. sponsorship, commercials, shoe sales, book sales, whatever should be incorporated into the total revenue as well then split the money 50/50.

I like that.

[Laron Burgundy]

..

Since McDonald's doesn't own a monopoly of the fast food industry, there's not much of a debate. It's a false analogy.

You could also say the nfl doesn't own a monopoly on the sports industry. Really depends on how broad you want to look at something. Or you could say McDonald's owns a monopoly on the big mac industry, just as the nfl owns a monopoly on american football played under their certain set of rules. We can go back and forth on the analogy for days, point is the nfl is clearly one company with several franchises and not 32 competing companies, so they aren't excluding players from fair marketing of their services. These players have every right to be hired by the nfl, or join another league. It would be one thing if these players' wages were far under what they were worth, as in what a true monopoly does, but does anyone actually think players don't get paid enough besides the players, agents, and lawyers who represent the players?

[worstSeat]

In other Words...

I'm sorry, does this guy not have a secretary worth their salt? How much does he make each year? Or is "Words" a legal term?

Why should the owners open their books up to their employees? I just cant grasp that concept.. I should ask my boss to see hios books and find out how much he is making.. IO just cant relate to this demend... If the players dont like their job walmart is hiring.... Knock it off and lets see some footbvall

Because this isn't a real business with competitive alternatives. If you can get a job with someone else, there will be a fair wage out there if you can't find one with your current employer. When you have a monopoly, you hold all the cards. When someone says your salary is capped because all the bosses say so, you've got a cartel.

Only MLB players get fair market value of our major sports.

[Laron Burgundy]

I think since the Owners are being asked to show their ticket sales, and show their vending profits, and show their jersey profits, and show their T.V. deals as well as any and all other income then it should only be fair that the players include their money making adventures outside of actually playing football. Any T.V. sponsorship, commercials, shoe sales, book sales, whatever should be incorporated into the total revenue as well then split the money 50/50.

Good point. I think Reggie Bush made something like 70-100 million on tv commercials his rookie year, far exceeding his actual nfl contract. People may say the owners sell concessions and other items because of the players, but players are making tens of millions in commercials because they play in an environment that the owners provide for them, yet the owners don't demand any part of that.

[Hitman21ST]

Only MLB players get fair market value of our major sports.

A-Rod making $33,000,000 and Jeter making $22,600,000 this year is fair market value?

Albert Pujols about to ink a 10-year, $300,000,000 is fair market value?

[worstSeat]

A-Rod making $33,000,000 and Jeter making $22,600,000 this year is fair market value?

Albert Pujols about to ink a 10-year, $300,000,000 is fair market value?

I believe you're slowly catching on, yes.

Ever overpaid for a used car? That's what the free market allows. When one side is guaranteed not to overpay, the other side is getting screwed. Nobody forced the MLB owners to pay that much. They have nobody to blame but themselves for driving up the salaries. It's what those players are worth on a fair market (and with the "luxury tax", even MLB players aren't really getting what they're worth).

The NFL isn't fair. It exploits labor. As insane as it sounds, Warren Sapp might not have been "right" in 2003, but he sure had a good point.

[IrepDC]

[/color]

Good point. I think Reggie Bush made something like 70-100 million on tv commercials his rookie year, far exceeding his actual nfl contract. People may say the owners sell concessions and other items because of the players, but players are making tens of millions in commercials because they play in an environment that the owners provide for them, yet the owners don't demand any part of that.

You are talking about a very small percentage of players though. One or two players on each team has endorsement deals like that. That's less than 5% of the league.

---------- Post added March-21st-2011 at 03:25 PM ----------

I think some people missed post #57 which provided a link to the players response to the letter.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6236556

[CaliforniaSkin]

A-Rod making $33,000,000 and Jeter making $22,600,000 this year is fair market value?

Albert Pujols about to ink a 10-year, $300,000,000 is fair market value?

I think a lot of people seriously misunderstand what "fair market value" means. It doesn't mean what you or anyone else thinks something is "worth." It is the price on the open market. So yeah, A-Rod, Jeter and Pujols are all quite obviously market value. That's what teams are willing to pay them, thus that is their market value. A salary cap is a way to fix prices pure and simple.

Now I think a cap is a good idea because it helps maintain competitive balance and keeps us from a system like baseball, or, far worse, something like Premier League Soccer (where only 3 clubs have won a title in 15 years). But if you want to argue free market you simply have to be on the player's side. They are not the ones who want to restrict the market - the owners are.

In 2005 before the current CBA which the owners claim is so terrible, player costs were $3.32B out of $6.49B or 51.2%. In 2009 (last year of the cap) player costs were $4.5B out of $8.8B or 50.7% according to figures obtained by the AP from the independent auditor both sides agreed upon during mediation. In other words, player costs were actually slightly lower a percentage of revenue. The ownership claim that player costs were 70% of incremental revenue is only if you don't count the $1B offset (which wasn't in the previous CBA). In other words, if you don't count money not spent on players, the percentage of money spent on players went up. Well, duh.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6243567

[worstSeat]

I think a lot of people seriously misunderstand what "fair market value" means. It doesn't mean what you or anyone else thinks something is "worth." It is the price on the open market.

Thank you. There's a reason we have anti-competitive laws on the books.

In 2005 before the current CBA which the owners claim is so terrible, player costs were $3.32B out of $6.49B or 51.2%. In 2009 (last year of the cap) player costs were $4.5B out of $8.8B or 50.7% according to figures obtained by the AP from the independent auditor both sides agreed upon during mediation.

And the "out of" numbers ($6.49 and $8.8 billion) are what, just TV revenue, right? I mean, you could give players 100% of the TV revenue and still make [Edit: okay, gross], what, 90,000 seats X $150 a ticket X 10 games = $135,000,000 before you've sold your first $8 beer or $80 jersey.

Under the last CBA, you could reasonably argue that labor was getting screwed. Under the new deal, sheesh.

[CaliforniaSkin]

Thank you. There's a reason we have anti-competitive laws on the books.

And the "out of" numbers ($6.49 and $8.8 billion) are what, just TV revenue, right? I mean, you could give players 100% of the TV revenue and still make [Edit: okay, gross], what, 90,000 seats X $150 a ticket X 10 games = $135,000,000 before you've sold your first $8 beer or $80 jersey.

Under the last CBA, you could reasonably argue that labor was getting screwed. Under the new deal, sheesh.

No, both numbers are total revenue - TV, tickets, naming rights, licensing - the whole thing. The players are currently getting more than 100% of TV revenue. I'm not sure labor was getting screwed under the old deal (the owners weren't either) but it's not the players who have opted out. From a business perspective I think both sides were doing very well. It just appears that the owners want to do better and I just don't see the justification.

Keeping the books closed is suspicious especially given how fast and loose they've been with the numbers. Just one example - Snyder has a private jet that cost in the ballpark of $40M. The operating expenses are well into the millions annually. How much of that cost does he count as business expense? And is it reasonable to ask the players to take less in salary because more owners and coaches want to fly corporate rather than just take a first class flight?

[Destino]

A-Rod making $33,000,000 and Jeter making $22,600,000 this year is fair market value?

Albert Pujols about to ink a 10-year, $300,000,000 is fair market value?

Yes. Obviously.

[cphil006]

I think a lot of people seriously misunderstand what "fair market value" means. It doesn't mean what you or anyone else thinks something is "worth." It is the price on the open market. So yeah, A-Rod, Jeter and Pujols are all quite obviously market value. That's what teams are willing to pay them, thus that is their market value. A salary cap is a way to fix prices pure and simple.

Now I think a cap is a good idea because it helps maintain competitive balance and keeps us from a system like baseball, or, far worse, something like Premier League Soccer (where only 3 clubs have won a title in 15 years). But if you want to argue free market you simply have to be on the player's side. They are not the ones who want to restrict the market - the owners are.

In 2005 before the current CBA which the owners claim is so terrible, player costs were $3.32B out of $6.49B or 51.2%. In 2009 (last year of the cap) player costs were $4.5B out of $8.8B or 50.7% according to figures obtained by the AP from the independent auditor both sides agreed upon during mediation. In other words, player costs were actually slightly lower a percentage of revenue. The ownership claim that player costs were 70% of incremental revenue is only if you don't count the $1B offset (which wasn't in the previous CBA). In other words, if you don't count money not spent on players, the percentage of money spent on players went up. Well, duh.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6243567

In a way fair market value could mean the owners will offer 1 million dollars to the best players... if these current players don't want to play for that chump change, there is someone out there who will. That's why many jobs go overseas, because people over there will work for less. Fortunately, there are plenty of people HERE in the UNITED STATES who would play football for less money than the current players in the NFL... including the people on this message board.

If the current NFLers don't want to play for the money the owners offer... then the owners will find people who will play for that amount.

Obviously, if it's only $4 a year, no one will do it... so they'll pay whatever they can to get someone to play.

I get a salary, but if I don't like it, I can quit and they can find someone else who would work for that money.

THAT is fair market value.

---------- Post added March-22nd-2011 at 08:51 AM ----------

A-Rod making $33,000,000 and Jeter making $22,600,000 this year is fair market value?

Albert Pujols about to ink a 10-year, $300,000,000 is fair market value?

It seems the NFL players created their own salary bubble that is going to burst.

Baseball might not be far behind. Small market team cannot compete in MLB, so when the win the World Series, it's all the more impressive.

---------- Post added March-22nd-2011 at 08:53 AM ----------

No, both numbers are total revenue - TV, tickets, naming rights, licensing - the whole thing. The players are currently getting more than 100% of TV revenue. I'm not sure labor was getting screwed under the old deal (the owners weren't either) but it's not the players who have opted out. From a business perspective I think both sides were doing very well. It just appears that the owners want to do better and I just don't see the justification.

Keeping the books closed is suspicious especially given how fast and loose they've been with the numbers. Just one example - Snyder has a private jet that cost in the ballpark of $40M. The operating expenses are well into the millions annually. How much of that cost does he count as business expense? And is it reasonable to ask the players to take less in salary because more owners and coaches want to fly corporate rather than just take a first class flight?

The law has no grounds to tell the owners how much to pay the players as long as it is above minimum wage.

Remember, owners have to pay for stadiums... and that can cost a billion dollars now. If the owners make less money, they may ask the TAX PAYERS to pay for a stadium, which is sometimes done.

---------- Post added March-22nd-2011 at 09:07 AM ----------

--

There are lots of companies that share profits voluntarily, but that's not the point. The courts have allowed the NFL to operate in a way that would be illegal in other industries. For example, when they created the college draft, they created a closed market.

Imagine yourself as super bright graduate of MIT being drafted by XYZ Co. with no right to bargain with other companies for the best compensation package. You would argue that it should be against the law; and you would be right. It is against the law... except in major league sports.

Since the courts have allowed the NFL a special advantage over the players, the union will argue that fairness dictates that its members should be able to trust the aggregate numbers offered by the league as the basis for negotiations. If the NFL offers an aggregate number as the basis for a negotiation, they have tacitly granted their willingness to share profits. So, if they are bargaining in good faith, they should have no reason to balk at allowing the union's financial advisor to see the books.

You are naive if you think this has anything at all to do with improving things for the fans. This is about greed. This is about Management and Labor being equally infected with greed. If we have equal rights as Americans, then we have an equal right to be greedy in our economic system.

The players choose to enter the NFL knowing full well they could play for any of the teams. That is how they enter it. It's like choosing to work for compnay XYZ and they tell you where (location) and department you have to work for. I know some people don't think of the NFL as one business, but with shared revenue it is kind of like the company of McDonalds with different franchisees. The owners of each seperate building/location pays a franchise fee. Some revenue is shared. If the players don;'t like the NFL(McDonalds) they can leave (retire) at any time and go work in the Arena (Hardees) or CFL (Burger King) and the NFL will find someone willing to work for the millions they are still offering.

Remember... the owners have to pay for stadiums... which can cost $1 billion. Unless... you think the Tax Payers should foot the bill?

---------- Post added March-22nd-2011 at 09:11 AM ----------

..

Since McDonald's doesn't own a monopoly of the fast food industry, there's not much of a debate. It's a false analogy.

wow, very short-sited... Not so... ever hear of Arena? Arena 2? UFL? CFL? They don;'t pay as much, but the NFL is still offering more money than what they do... What industry do you consider the NFL.

The owners can't raise prices beyond what the public is willing and able to pay for the entertainment it receives. So, if NFL prices are already at their limit (and they probably are, a bigger share for the players would mean a smaller share for the owners. raising prices would be counter-productive.

The players can't play for more money than what the owners are willing to play them... as long as it's above minimum wage.

[sideshow24]

I sure wish NFL players cared as much about the profit to pay ratio of the average worker as we seem to care about theirs. And for those who say their job is dangerous and their life span is shorter, go talk to a coal miner.

[CaliforniaSkin]

In a way fair market value could mean the owners will offer 1 million dollars to the best players... if these current players don't want to play for that chump change, there is someone out there who will. That's why many jobs go overseas, because people over there will work for less. Fortunately, there are plenty of people HERE in the UNITED STATES who would play football for less money than the current players in the NFL... including the people on this message board.

If the current NFLers don't want to play for the money the owners offer... then the owners will find people who will play for that amount.

Obviously, if it's only $4 a year, no one will do it... so they'll pay whatever they can to get someone to play.

I get a salary, but if I don't like it, I can quit and they can find someone else who would work for that money.

THAT is fair market value.

No, it isn't. Not by any definition any economist would recognize. Markets are not one sided.

You're completely missing the point. Free Market has a definition. A market with constraints on prices is definitively not a free market. A salary cap is, also by definition a constraint on the market. It is collusion among employers to fix the price of labor. A market with price fixing is not a free market (defined as among other things, a market without price fixing).

There are 32 employers, not one. London Fletcher is employed by the Washington Redskins, not the NFL. If Jim Irsay wants to offer Peyton Manning $1M to play quaterback and Manning doesn't want to take it, Irsay is certainly free to hire someone else to play QB. But Manning is also free to offer his services elsewhere. In a free market, Dan Snyder would be free to offer him $2M or $200M. The market value would be what Manning gets when all 32 teams are free to bid on his services without any limit beyond their ability to stay in business. THAT is a free market.

What Irsay is not allowed to do is collude with other owners to limit wages. If he does not only is very obvious that there is not a free market (by any definition an economist would recognize) but it would be in violation of the Sherman Act.

It seems the NFL players created their own salary bubble that is going to burst.

Baseball might not be far behind. Small market team cannot compete in MLB, so when the win the World Series, it's all the more impressive.

A salary bubble? Really? How did you see this bubble? Was it that revenues are at an all time high? Or maybe the fact that the franchises that are paying the players have had massive increases in value?

An economic bubble is characterized by high volume trade at prices considerably in variance with economic value. So if we were seeing a 'salary' bubble, we'd expect to see salaries outstripping revenues and franchise values dropping (because expected profitability would be negative - owners would be paying prices in excess of the value of labor). However, we're seeing the opposite. Revenues & franchise values are soaring. Even operating income as reported by Forbes is at an all time high.

The players percentage of NFL revenue actually dropped from 56.5% in 2000 to 50.6% in 2009 (the last year of the cap). Given that player salaries actually haven't even kept pace with revenue growth, how are you defining that as a bubble? I

The owners want more money - by their own admissions they are operating profitable businesses. That is not however a definition of a bubble that anyone would recognize. The claim is that some franchises are struggling - so that while average profit has increased, there are a number of teams that see profits dwindling. This is likely true (more later) but it isn't because players have seen any growth in their share of revenue.

The law has no grounds to tell the owners how much to pay the players as long as it is above minimum wage.

The law doesn't tell owners how much to pay players. The law does tell owners they can't collude to lower wages. It is antitrust legislation, specifically the Sherman Act and it's been on the books for 120 years.

Remember, owners have to pay for stadiums... and that can cost a billion dollars now. If the owners make less money, they may ask the TAX PAYERS to pay for a stadium, which is sometimes done.

In fact, public financing has averaged 54% for the 11 new stadiums build since 2002. And that's not including the literally billions in tax incentives given by municipalities. So the public pays for stadiums more than the owners do.

The players choose to enter the NFL knowing full well they could play for any of the teams. That is how they enter it. It's like choosing to work for compnay XYZ and they tell you where (location) and department you have to work for. I know some people don't think of the NFL as one business, but with shared revenue it is kind of like the company of McDonalds with different franchisees. The owners of each seperate building/location pays a franchise fee. Some revenue is shared. If the players don;'t like the NFL(McDonalds) they can leave (retire) at any time and go work in the Arena (Hardees) or CFL (Burger King) and the NFL will find someone willing to work for the millions they are still offering.

The NFL is NOT one business. This is a settled matter of law. The NFL recently tried to challenge it in American Needle v. NFL. The Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that the NFL was not a single entity but rather 32 separate businesses (albeit operating as a joint venture in some respects).

NFL teams do not share all revenue. The NFL divides revenue into two types: shared and retained. Shared revenue is split equally among the 32 teams and consists primarily of national broadcast rights fees augmented by a share of ticket revenue (roughly 1/3 of away games), local non-network media income and licensing. Retained income comprises of roughly 2/3rds of ticket revenue, luxury suite revenues, stadium naming rights, sponsorships, concessions, parkings, and any local broadcast revenue. For big market teams such as the Redskins and Cowboys, it is highly likely that retained revenue is significantly higher than shared revenue.

THAT is the elephant in the room for the lockout. The NFL as a whole is doing very well. However, much of the growth in revenue has been in retained income. So some teams (think Redskins, Cowboys, Patriots, Giants) are doing VERY well while others are not. What has changed isn't the player's percentage of revenue, it's the percentage of revenue that's shared.

Remember... the owners have to pay for stadiums... which can cost $1 billion. Unless... you think the Tax Payers should foot the bill?

Why? All 32 teams have stadiums, why do owners have to pay for new ones? They want new stadiums to generate more revenue and, ultimately, profits. Nothing wrong with that, but if owners want to make an investment in new stadiums why should anyone else pay for them? It might or might not be a good idea to build new stadiums but that's a business decision. Owners aren't entitled to new stadiums by virtue of owning a team.

wow, very short-sited... Not so... ever hear of Arena? Arena 2? UFL? CFL? They don;'t pay as much, but the NFL is still offering more money than what they do... What industry do you consider the NFL.

Come on. The UFL and Arena league aren't in the ballpark. That'd be like saying if Chevy, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Suburu, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo, Land Rover, Jaguar & Hyundai all colluded to fix prices, "ever heard of Kia? "It doesn't cost as much but what industry do you consider Kia?"

There are 32 major league football teams. The question isn't about the league. The issue is whether the 32 separate businesses that make up the joint venture of the NFL are allowed to unilaterally fix prices.

The players can't play for more money than what the owners are willing to play them... as long as it's above minimum wage.

No. The players can't play for more money than an owner is willing to pay them. The important part of that sentence is the singular. The owners can't collectively fix prices; it's called the Sherman Act. The Salary Cap is legal if and only if it is part of a CBA (the Sherman Act provides an exemption for collective bargaining).

[Conn]

I sure wish NFL players cared as much about the profit to pay ratio of the average worker as we seem to care about theirs. And for those who say their job is dangerous and their life span is shorter, go talk to a coal miner.

Why would they care as much about the pay of the average worker as they do their own?

And actually, most fans seem to be of the "they get paid more to play a game than I make in a lifetime, so I don't give a ****" variety...its really only the very informed (and opinionated) "message board" fans that don't feel that way, in my experience. And that includes me.

[Destino]

I sure wish NFL players cared as much about the profit to pay ratio of the average worker as we seem to care about theirs. And for those who say their job is dangerous and their life span is shorter, go talk to a coal miner.

How many coal miners could play profootball? How many football players could become coal miners? Welcome to the free market.

[CaliforniaSkin]

How many coal miners could play profootball? How many football players could become coal miners? Welcome to the free market.

Seriously. That's what gets me about this debate. It seems like folks are anti-player because they're anti-union (all unions). I can only assume for political reasons. I'm an manager with an MBA; hardly a union organizer. But if you're gonna argue free market, then pay attention to what markets are and do.

[Oldfan]

Seriously. That's what gets me about this debate. It seems like folks are anti-player because they're anti-union (all unions). I can only assume for political reasons. I'm an manager with an MBA; hardly a union organizer. But if you're gonna argue free market, then pay attention to what markets are and do.

It isn't just the posters in this thread. I've had this discussion a few times with family and friends who rail about the high salaries of today's athletes. I ask them if they would take less than market value when they sell their home and then explain the connection.

But, there's also an anti-union bias. Ordinary working stiffs who ought to be pro-union in most battles, invariably side with management. I'm not sure why. Personally, I've gone both ways. I'm on the side with the least power. I want to see balance.

[bigricky3469]

I wish my company would give us those types of benefits

[cphil006]

No, it isn't. Not by any definition any economist would recognize. Markets are not one sided.

You're completely missing the point. Free Market has a definition. A market with constraints on prices is definitively not a free market. A salary cap is, also by definition a constraint on the market. It is collusion among employers to fix the price of labor. A market with price fixing is not a free market (defined as among other things, a market without price fixing).

There are 32 employers, not one. London Fletcher is employed by the Washington Redskins, not the NFL. If Jim Irsay wants to offer Peyton Manning $1M to play quaterback and Manning doesn't want to take it, Irsay is certainly free to hire someone else to play QB. But Manning is also free to offer his services elsewhere. In a free market, Dan Snyder would be free to offer him $2M or $200M. The market value would be what Manning gets when all 32 teams are free to bid on his services without any limit beyond their ability to stay in business. THAT is a free market.

What Irsay is not allowed to do is collude with other owners to limit wages. If he does not only is very obvious that there is not a free market (by any definition an economist would recognize) but it would be in violation of the Sherman Act.

A salary bubble? Really? How did you see this bubble? Was it that revenues are at an all time high? Or maybe the fact that the franchises that are paying the players have had massive increases in value?

An economic bubble is characterized by high volume trade at prices considerably in variance with economic value. So if we were seeing a 'salary' bubble, we'd expect to see salaries outstripping revenues and franchise values dropping (because expected profitability would be negative - owners would be paying prices in excess of the value of labor). However, we're seeing the opposite. Revenues & franchise values are soaring. Even operating income as reported by Forbes is at an all time high.

The players percentage of NFL revenue actually dropped from 56.5% in 2000 to 50.6% in 2009 (the last year of the cap). Given that player salaries actually haven't even kept pace with revenue growth, how are you defining that as a bubble? I

The owners want more money - by their own admissions they are operating profitable businesses. That is not however a definition of a bubble that anyone would recognize. The claim is that some franchises are struggling - so that while average profit has increased, there are a number of teams that see profits dwindling. This is likely true (more later) but it isn't because players have seen any growth in their share of revenue.

The law doesn't tell owners how much to pay players. The law does tell owners they can't collude to lower wages. It is antitrust legislation, specifically the Sherman Act and it's been on the books for 120 years.

In fact, public financing has averaged 54% for the 11 new stadiums build since 2002. And that's not including the literally billions in tax incentives given by municipalities. So the public pays for stadiums more than the owners do.

The NFL is NOT one business. This is a settled matter of law. The NFL recently tried to challenge it in American Needle v. NFL. The Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that the NFL was not a single entity but rather 32 separate businesses (albeit operating as a joint venture in some respects).

NFL teams do not share all revenue. The NFL divides revenue into two types: shared and retained. Shared revenue is split equally among the 32 teams and consists primarily of national broadcast rights fees augmented by a share of ticket revenue (roughly 1/3 of away games), local non-network media income and licensing. Retained income comprises of roughly 2/3rds of ticket revenue, luxury suite revenues, stadium naming rights, sponsorships, concessions, parkings, and any local broadcast revenue. For big market teams such as the Redskins and Cowboys, it is highly likely that retained revenue is significantly higher than shared revenue.

No one said the share all revenue, they share a large portion of revenue... it's still revenue sharing. Just like one business with many franchise owners. I agree with the Supreme Court in certain aspects that it is seperate businesses, but as owners, I feel if they want to all do common things for the good of their own league (key words: their own league) then they should be allowed. If someone does not like it, don't participate in it, go form another "league", What's next the NFL gets forced to add teams, add franchises even if they don't want to expand.

What hte SUpreme Court actually said was the NFL "can" be considered 32 seperate businesses when it comes to selling jerseys and caps. Nothing about wages.

That also doesn't make sense because it's for "NFL-licensed" products, not individual team license.

Although.... MLB has broad-anti-trust protection....

I just don't see how a court is going to settle this and tell how much of revenue has to be paid towards players.

THAT is the elephant in the room for the lockout. The NFL as a whole is doing very well. However, much of the growth in revenue has been in retained income. So some teams (think Redskins, Cowboys, Patriots, Giants) are doing VERY well while others are not. What has changed isn't the player's percentage of revenue, it's the percentage of revenue that's shared

So, there is going to be a judge that decides the % of revenue that must go to the players? Who's a judge to say

Why? All 32 teams have stadiums, why do owners have to pay for new ones? They want new stadiums to generate more revenue and, ultimately, profits. Nothing wrong with that, but if owners want to make an investment in new stadiums why should anyone else pay for them? It might or might not be a good idea to build new stadiums but that's a business decision. Owners aren't entitled to new stadiums by virtue of owning a team.

How do they have those stadiums. They were either paid for by tax payers (for the owners who couldn't afford it), or they are still paying for it. And you ask, "Why?" Go ask NY why they just spent $1.1billion and go ask Jerry Jones why he spent $1 billion on a stadium and he wants more money to pay for that. It's a treat to the people that make it all happen: the fans. The more cut the players get, the less the owners get... and that means certain things such as stadiums will be paid for by taxes because some cities are stupid. IT's happened... a lot.

Come on. The UFL and Arena league aren't in the ballpark. That'd be like saying if Chevy, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Suburu, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo, Land Rover, Jaguar & Hyundai all colluded to fix prices, "ever heard of Kia? "It doesn't cost as much but what industry do you consider Kia?"

Come on? How do you consider if something is "in the ballpark" as you mention? I'll say it again. If a player (employee) doesn't like what the owner (employer) is paying them, they can find another job... it is there "right" to choose not to work for a particular company or choose a different career.

Here's the issue: are they really separate businesses? Are 20 McDonalds seperate businesses? McDonalds is one large company. WIth many IBOs. To a degree, but the NFL has revenue sharing. If they are truly separate businesses then they wouldn't have to share revenue. I know some court just ruled about the merchandise thing, but that's up for appeal. If the NFL gets cornered and some judge says they are all separate, I could see the teams doing what they have to do to make it one NFL business with 32 shareholders.

---------- Post added March-23rd-2011 at 11:00 AM ----------

It isn't just the posters in this thread. I've had this discussion a few times with family and friends who rail about the high salaries of today's athletes. I ask them if they would take less than market value when they sell their home and then explain the connection.

But, there's also an anti-union bias. Ordinary working stiffs who ought to be pro-union in most battles, invariably side with management. I'm not sure why. Personally, I've gone both ways. I'm on the side with the least power. I want to see balance.

Market value and this business aren't as cut and dry. What's the market value for a football player? In the NFL it's different that what the CFL is offering.

Think about this: What's the market value for an owner who created the league? SHouldn't they get more of a cut?

[icbmayday]

Please just get it done

[Oldfan]

...Market value and this business aren't as cut and dry. What's the market value for a football player? In the NFL it's different that what the CFL is offering.

The market value of an individual NFL can only be determined when he is free to offer his services to the highest bidder among the 32 NFL teams. If he is not free to do so, then it's not a free market.

Think about this: What's the market value for an owner who created the league? SHouldn't they get more of a cut?

The concept of market value doesn't apply to the owner.

[cphil006]

The market value of an individual NFL can only be determined when he is free to offer his services to the highest bidder among the 32 NFL teams. If he is not free to do so, then it's not a free market.

The concept of market value doesn't apply to the owner.

What are the courts going to do? Tell the owners they have to give a certain % to the players?

Is it always "highest bidder"? Not necessarily. Players have signed for less than the highest bidder. You said "individual NFL". Is that like the league is one business?

I'll continue to say it. The employees can work somewhere else if they don't like what they are being offered.

[CaliforniaSkin]

double post