Why are people against the players on this?

[HailGreen28]

Many will forget, yes, but many won't. I'm not going to games this year because of this crap, and there are a lot of other people who have just said, "**** it, I'm not throwing my money earned during triple-digit days to a bunch of millionaires and billionaires acting like babies."

I still cannot believe that the NFLPA didn't know what was coming and, after nearly 24 hours, still can't give it an up or down vote.

DeMaurice Smith is the worst thing to happen to the NFL since the Dallas Cowboys.

I disagree. Sometimes, "let me think about it and get back to you", is an effective negotiating tactic.

'Course, sometimes it's being a jerk or not serious, too. Just saying.

[JimboDaMan]

This is why there is still a hold out...... The owners have givin alot from what I have heard, but it still isnt enough for the players. They already have so much, but it isnt good enough. Right now in this situation the owners have a deal out on the table, and the players are not taking it. That is putting the players in more of a position of power right now then the owners. I dont think that is right

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 04:12 PM ----------

The players decertified first........ Befor the owners lock them out

What have the owners "given"? Take a look at the existing CBA, and the one the owners are proposing, and identify the places where the owners have given to the players. It ain't much.

About the decertification - where are you going with that? The players decertified to gain leverage because the owners were going to lock them out. Who did what first is meaningless.

[Crazy Levi]

This is why there is still a hold out...... The owners have givin alot from what I have heard, but it still isnt enough for the players. They already have so much, but it isnt good enough.

That's not true man.

The owners are TAKING. Not giving. This deal will be worse for the players than the last one.

The players can "think about it" this weekend if they want. Again, it's their right as Americans. I'm glad they are exercising it.

[skins2victory]

What have the owners "given"? Take a look at the existing CBA, and the one the owners are proposing, and identify the places where the owners have given to the players. It ain't much.

I havent seen anything in writing, but I have been watching NFL network about the situation...... There is going to be less days of pratice, there is going to be no more 2 a days........ The players are going to be making way more....... The retierd player benifits are going to be way more........ There is going to be more things for players safety......... From what I have heard the players have gotten alot more this go around.......... But obviously it still isnt enough or the players would be getting ready for trainning camp right now, instead they are in meetings trying to find ways to get more, when they already have so much.

[The Curious One]

Hello Everyone

This is my first post, I've been lurking for a few weeks but this thread made me want to post.

I'm not against or for either side. Both sides have good arguments. The problem that I have is that the fans pay both sides their salaries and the profits.

The players put their bodies and health on the line to entertain us, the fans. Comparing them to Police, Firefighters, or Military is comparing apples to oranges. Are any of those groups fairly compensated? Maybe not; that is not the issue here.

The players wanting to be properly compensated for putting themselves on the line to entertain fans is a completely different thing. Because its not really to entertain that they do it. Some love the competition, and game, some love the fame, some love the fortune. Some love all three, I'm sure. But to let the owners earn billions off of them is not fair.

It's well known and often stated that the NFL is a business - the business is a business to make money. It's not a non-profit organization.

For the owners to expect the players to take the risks they take without fair compensation and benefits is just plain greedy. I guess I am on the side of the players after all. But I have the feeling that the players are also greedy.

Hail and Fare Well!

[texasthunder]

Here is the proposed 2011 CBA

http://es.pn/nNutZK

[JimboDaMan]

I havent seen anything in writing, but I have been watching NFL network about the situation...... There is going to be less days of pratice, there is going to be no more 2 a days........ The players are going to be making way more....... The retierd player benifits are going to be way more........ There is going to be more things for players safety......... From what I have heard the players have gotten alot more this go around.......... But obviously it still isnt enough or the players would be getting ready for trainning camp right now, instead they are in meetings trying to find ways to get more, when they already have so much.

Correct in part, wrong or misleading in part. The owners gave in on some non-monetary issues. The reduction in practice days, OTAs, etc might actually save the owners a bit of coin, not having to have certain staff at the fields so many days. Not much, but it certainly ain't costing them anything. Player safety - again much is non-monetary, and the rest is not only a pittance in cost but universally recognized as the right thing to do. Retired player benefits are going to substantially increase, yes. But a large part of that will be financed by the rookie salary cap, not by owner concessions.

And now - players will be making way more? Where did you get that? The player percentage of total revenue is going down, not up. That's what the lockout was all about.

<edit>"was" Listen to me, "was"! That should read, that's what the lockout is all about.

[skins2victory]

Hello Everyone

This is my first post, I've been lurking for a few weeks but this thread made me want to post.

I'm not against or for either side. Both sides have good arguments. The problem that I have is that the fans pay both sides their salaries and the profits.

The players put their bodies and health on the line to entertain us, the fans. Comparing them to Police, Firefighters, or Military is comparing apples to oranges. Are any of those groups fairly compensated? Maybe not; that is not the issue here.

The players wanting to be properly compensated for putting themselves on the line to entertain fans is a completely different thing. Because its not really to entertain that they do it. Some love the competition, and game, some love the fame, some love the fortune. Some love all three, I'm sure. But to let the owners earn billions off of them is not fair.

It's well known and often stated that the NFL is a business - the business is a business to make money. It's not a non-profit organization.

For the owners to expect the players to take the risks they take without fair compensation and benefits is just plain greedy. I guess I am on the side of the players after all. But I have the feeling that the players are also greedy.

Hail and Fare Well!

Great first post........

What I say to that is....... Yes the players put themselves on the line everyday, they could be seriously hurt. But they are not forced to play in the NFL, it is there choice to play this game. Its like being in the military, right now you could make money over seas in the military, but to go along with that you could be killed. No one in the millitary is forced to go over there as of now, it was a choice of theres, we all love them for it, we need people to protect are great country, but it is there choice to do so. If you dont want to go overseas to be shot at, you dont have to.

[Destructis]

I disagree. Sometimes, "let me think about it and get back to you", is an effective negotiating tactic.

'Course, sometimes it's being a jerk or not serious, too. Just saying.

Silence can be a powerful weapon. It's like a relationship. If you are all up in a womans business 24/7, you are considered clingy. If you are quiet sometimes, they will come to you.

[skins2victory]

Correct in part, wrong or misleading in part. The owners gave in on some-monetary issues. The reduction in pracice days, OTAs, etc might actually save the owners a bit of coin, not having to have certain staff at the fields so many days. Not much, but it certainly ain't costong them anything. Player safety - again much is non-monetary, and the rest is not only a pittance in cost but universally recognized as the right thing to do. Retired player benefits are going to substantially increase, yes. But a large part of that will be financed by the rookie salary cap, not by owner concessions.

And now - players will be making way more? Where did you get that? The player percentage of total revenue is going down, not up. That's what the lockout was all about.

On the revenue aspect for the players...... Its all what I have heard from watching the news, it could be false, but I have heard that the players will get a much bigger percentage of the revenue from the deal at hand....... much bigger

[NewCliche21]

I disagree. Sometimes, "let me think about it and get back to you", is an effective negotiating tactic.

'Course, sometimes it's being a jerk or not serious, too. Just saying.

I've gotten the feeling over the course of this entire cluster**** that Smith's ego has gotten in the way of a **** ton of "breakthrough" moments.

A negotiator is supposed to find a solution to a problem that benefits her/his side and be compensated accordingly. A therapist is supposed to do the same thing.

The good ones do it quickly and effectively while the greedy ones who are in it for themselves do it slowly and intentionally exacerbate the problem to reap their own rewards. Smith is the latter.

[JoeSkins]

Look into US Labor Laws. It is their LEGAL RIGHT.

There is no right to collectively bargain. American citizens enjoy the privilege of collective bargaining in some instances, and do not in others. Congressional staffers being barred from unionizing and the recent changes to Wisconsin state employee packages demonstrates this point.

[Burgold]

What have the owners "given"?

If nothing else, moving the floor of the cap was a big move for the players. Having the minimum being that close to the ceiling means more players will get more money. Also, the idea that if by then of the year, they don't meet that magic salary number every member of the team gets to split it as a dividend is pretty sweet too.

[JoeSkins]

If nothing else, moving the floor of the cap was a big move for the players. Having the minimum being that close to the ceiling means more players will get more money. Also, the idea that if by then of the year, they don't meet that magic salary number every member of the team gets to split it as a dividend is pretty sweet too.

As a bit of an aside, I'm not even sure I like required spending minimums. The Eagles probably weren't hitting that mark (working off percentages) when they were going to NFC Championships every year. I understand it as a "bargaining football" between the parties, but from a football standpoint it seems unjustified to force this on teams that can be competitive without it.

[JimboDaMan]

On the revenue aspect for the players...... Its all what I have heard from watching the news, it could be false, but I have heard that the players will get a much bigger percentage of the revenue from the deal at hand....... much bigger

Possibly, details are kind of fuzzy. But that would mean the owners engineered a months-long lockout in order to force the players to accept....more money?

From what I read, the players would get a little less than half the revenue under the new proposal. Wiki claims under the old CBA the players got 59.5%. I'm a little suspicious that maybe that number doesn't take into account that under the old agreement the owners got $1B off the top, before the players got their cut. Even if that's true, and I don't know that it is, that leaves the players getting about 54% of the take under the old CBA. That's some good coin, but it's a lot less than the "a little less than half" that I hear described for the deal the owners ratified yesterday.

[Fred Jones]

A lot of new benefits in this CBA for players. The owners could have avoided giving up so much if they had taken a different stance from the beginning. Time for the players to make it happen.

[JimboDaMan]

If nothing else, moving the floor of the cap was a big move for the players. Having the minimum being that close to the ceiling means more players will get more money. Also, the idea that if by then of the year, they don't meet that magic salary number every member of the team gets to split it as a dividend is pretty sweet too.

Hadn't thought of that, its a good point. Although I don't know what the old floor was, not do I know how many teams were below 89% of the cap. I know Philly and until recently Zona were pretty tight with a buck, maybe the Bills too. But I'm not sure they were way under 89%.

<edit>Re-reading your post, maybe you were referring to the league-wide floor rather than the individual team. In which case, 99% is pretty nice for the players. After two years it drops to 95% for the remaining 8 years. That's a nice number too. But I don't know how it compares to the floor under the old CBA. More importantly, I don't know how it compares to what the owners actually spent (because if they raised a floor they never dropped to they might not have given anything).

[cjbrown]

This is what I do not get. Suppose I had a boss and his income was based primarily on my talent, there is very little risk of loss of investment. Suppose that Boss and 10 of his partners made 1 billion dollars off my talent, and paid me 10 million. Although I am paid well, I am generally being exploited. Someone with power takes the majority of the money for doing almost no work except hiring lawyers to sell me.

Why would anyone begrudge the 10 million dollar man getting a FAIR portion of the wealth his talent generates. Regardless of the millionaire vs. billionaire argument, most players will not play long, be injured and will not remain millionaires, Those that have long careers will likely die earlier and have severe physical and mental handicaps. The owners suffer none of this do little work and remain rich.

I like football too, but principals are more important that entertainment.

[RedskinsInFebruary]

This is what I do not get. Suppose I had a boss and his income was based primarily on my talent, there is very little risk of loss of investment. Suppose that Boss and 10 of his partners made 1 billion dollars off my talent, and paid me 10 million. Although I am paid well, I am generally being exploited. Someone with power takes the majority of the money for doing almost no work except hiring lawyers to sell me.

Why would anyone begrudge the 10 million dollar man getting a FAIR portion of the wealth his talent generates. Regardless of the millionaire vs. billionaire argument, most players will not play long, be injured and will not remain millionaires, Those that have long careers will likely die earlier and have severe physical and mental handicaps. The owners suffer none of this do little work and remain rich.

I like football too, but principals are more important that entertainment.

I just skipped to the last page of comments in this thread, to see what the comments were ironing out to. 17 pages of comments and this has to be explained to people? Wow....

Nicely done by the way.

[daveakl]

This is what I do not get. Suppose I had a boss and his income was based primarily on my talent, there is very little risk of loss of investment. Suppose that Boss and 10 of his partners made 1 billion dollars off my talent, and paid me 10 million. Although I am paid well, I am generally being exploited. Someone with power takes the majority of the money for doing almost no work except hiring lawyers to sell me.

Why would anyone begrudge the 10 million dollar man getting a FAIR portion of the wealth his talent generates. Regardless of the millionaire vs. billionaire argument, most players will not play long, be injured and will not remain millionaires, Those that have long careers will likely die earlier and have severe physical and mental handicaps. The owners suffer none of this do little work and remain rich.

I like football too, but principals are more important that entertainment.

You are basically saying that the owner makes 10 times more then the employee's. We know this to be false as the owners get right around a 50/50 split with the players.

Also, saying that an owner does little work to remain rich is very far from the truth. Owning two small businesses is crazy hard, I cannot imagine owning a NFL team is little work.

[rockfan7224]

This is what I do not get. Suppose I had a boss and his income was based primarily on my talent, there is very little risk of loss of investment. Suppose that Boss and 10 of his partners made 1 billion dollars off my talent, and paid me 10 million. Although I am paid well, I am generally being exploited. Someone with power takes the majority of the money for doing almost no work except hiring lawyers to sell me.

Why would anyone begrudge the 10 million dollar man getting a FAIR portion of the wealth his talent generates. Regardless of the millionaire vs. billionaire argument, most players will not play long, be injured and will not remain millionaires, Those that have long careers will likely die earlier and have severe physical and mental handicaps. The owners suffer none of this do little work and remain rich.

I like football too, but principals are more important that entertainment.

Playing football is a choice. I would assume that these individuals know the risks they are taking by getting into the game. No one is holding a gun to their heads,If this employee does not like the risks, the employee can choose to not work at this establishment.

I don't understand why people are acting like the NFL is basically indentured servitude.

[tomwvr]

Errr...you can't "compair" these two situations, because while the Wal-Mart workers aren't smart enough or organized enough to bargain collectively, the NFL players are. And, Working at Wal-Mart is not a skilled position, and requires little more than a heartbeat. In effect, "anybody can do it." You certainly can't say that about football. You might be able to pull any 70-year old coot off the street to be a "greeter," good luck finding a new starting QB with that kind of ease.

So it's a completely different ballgame and a complete fallacy to "compair" these situations.

That is utter bull - I manage a grocery store - I want to see the people here work in a deli slicing meat on a slicer for 6-8 hours a day, bag grocerys for the same time , or stock 15-20 skids of grocery each night - working RETAIL is HARD work. I see people that have done this for 30 years with cronic health issues due to working on hard floors their whole life.

And the people that work for me are unionized!! They dont get health care for life, they dont get 10% raises a year, they dont get signing bonuses.

[worstSeat]

The main reason im against the players is because they get paid enough to play a sport that any of us would jump up and do for free. They also just waste the money on toys anyways and fail to invest into there future after football.

You really can't be against people who are getting paid what they're worth. You have to be against people being worth so much as a principle, and I'm not.

And, honestly, NFL players aren't being paid what they're worth.. The only league paying close to market value for players is MLB, and even there the luxury tax means that players on luxury tax teams are watching much of their worth doled out to other teams.

Why should we be in favor of a deal where owners can't lose money? Owning a team is, usually, forever. Being a player isn't. I hope they hold out the entire season if it gets them and those who come after a legitimately fair deal.

[Pedro]

Also, saying that an owner does little work to remain rich is very far from the truth. Owning two small businesses is crazy hard, I cannot imagine owning a NFL team is little work.

Dan, Jerry, Al etc think owning an NFL franchise is great. Do what you want, don't win and still make money. Not exactly comparable to normal business, say theme parks

[cjbrown]

You are basically saying that the owner makes 10 times more then the employee's. We know this to be false as the owners get right around a 50/50 split with the players.

Also, saying that an owner does little work to remain rich is very far from the truth. Owning two small businesses is crazy hard, I cannot imagine owning a NFL team is little work.

Note the owners get 1 billion off the top for expenses. Their 50% is split among far fewer people. The revenue from some merchandising, parking and other sources is excluded from the split with players. Also Forbes calculated that over 25 years time the value of teams rises by about 25% a year. At a value of 1 billion dollars the owners get an additional 250 million of unsplit value generated by players talent. The revenue generated is far from a 50/50 split. and even if it was. The player's talent is what is being sold. This is not an assembly line where the worked did not generate the design. The inherent value is the player's talent.