A couple good labor pieces from PFT

[slats]

On the labor situation, Domonique Foxworth hits the nail on the head

Posted by Mike Florio on July 25, 2010 9:16 AM ET

Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, a player whom many expect to eventually succeed Kevin Mawae as president of the NFL Players Association, recently spoke with a group of reporters at Capitol Hill. (For Redskins fans in the crowd, HogsHaven.com has a version that includes some comments about coach Mike Shanahan, who originally drafted Foxworth five years ago.) As transcribed by Aaron Wilson of the Carroll County Times, Foxworth summarizes the financial aspect of the situation in a way that the union should print on bumper stickers.

"Let's take it from them."

It's perfect. It's beautiful. Sure, the owners won't agree. But the two sides are disagreeing on pretty much everything. At a time when the two sides are developing talking points, Foxworth finally has come up with something that the union can use to best attack the league's position.

Here's the broader context. Foxworth was asked to explain why he believes that a lockout will occur. And here's what Foxworth said: "They can get more money and we can get less money. Instead of bickering about how to split up the money, it's more advantageous and galvanizing for them to say, 'Let's take it from somebody else.' Instead of fighting with Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones over revenue sharing, it's, 'Let's take it from them.'"

That last line is the key. As we explained in the wake of the release of the Packers' annual financial report, the union has failed (to date) to push the connection between unshared revenues and the league's effort to shrink the players' piece of the pie. In 2006, the owners agreed to a Band-Aid that 30 of them liked at the time -- but that most of them now abhor. So with the players now receiving their cut based on total revenues, including the stuff the teams don't share, it could be that the permanent fix for the problem of the profits of the low-revenue Bengals being reduced by a salary cap influenced by the high revenues earned by other teams arises not from sharing the unshared revenues but from reducing the labor costs so that the low revenue teams will still earn an acceptable profit.

In other words, "Let's take it from them."

Foxworth also became passionate when responding to a quote that Foxworth says Pats owner Robert Kraft made during a 2009 interview with HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. Foxworth claims that Kraft said the owners are taking all of the risk. We vaguely recall Kraft's comment; it was made within the confines of the financial risks. But the word "risk" gives the players an opening that none of them, to our knowledge, had previously utilized.

Foxworth utilized the hell out of it.

"I'm asking for respect," Foxworth said. "You can't say I'm not taking risks. That type of thing gets under my skin and pisses us off. Who's taking the real risks and who's making the real gains? Robert Kraft is bringing in millions of dollars and he's never had a concussion. He's never tackled anybody. I doubt he's had any knee replacements. It hurts us to hear stuff like that. I would imagine he would rethink it and I hope he doesn't really feel that way. It's impossible to say we're not taking risks. Wes Welker will limp for the rest of his life and will have arthritis. Tom Brady will deal with that for the rest of his life. I want him to look those guys in the eye and say they're not taking risks."

According to the HogsHaven.com version of the interview, Foxworth added on the end, "It's infuriating."

Though this point doesn't have as much pop as "let's take it from them" because Kraft obviously wasn't addressing physical risks, in this game of high-stakes contract poker the slightest slip can be used by the other side. The only real surprise here is that it took the players so long to do it.

But, hey, better late than never. And though Foxworth may be grossly out of touch on a couple of other issues (more on that later this morning), he has done a good job of giving the rank-and-file a quick and easy way to characterize the league's objectives.

Instead of taking it from each other, let's take it from them.

[slats]

When signing players at the top of the draft, NFL is in a no-win situation

Posted by Mike Florio on July 25, 2010 10:17 AM ET

To date, only one first-round pick has agreed to terms, the 24th overall selection in the draft. Amid reports that the Rams and quarterback Sam Bradford continue to work toward a contract at the top of the selection process, the gigantic dollars to be paid out to Bradford and his fellow Powerball winners in the top ten puts the NFL in a precarious position, as it relates to the eventual collusion case that the NFLPA has all but said it will file.

Before going any farther on this one, I need to point out that the inspiration came during a recent radio appearance with our good friends Scott Kaplan and Billy Ray Smith of XX 1090 in San Diego. While I was rambling on about something or other, Kaplan interrupted me with an observation that became the guts of this article. (So, basically, he can interrupt my any time he wants.)

If the teams drag their feet and/or refuse to follow the windfall model that has been applied in past years -- and some league insiders still believe the Rams should take a stand -- the collusion case will be bolstered via additional circumstantial evidence to support an argument that the league consciously, and collectively, has decided to keep dollars in the owners' coffers, and out of the players' pockets.

If, as expected, the teams at the top of the draft fork over big money based on a continuation of the past round-one negotiations, with Bradford getting $45 million or more guaranteed and the rest following in a loose sort of lockstep, the league also will be making the collusion case stronger.

How, you ask? At a time when multiple teams have publicly declared a reluctance to sign players to long-term, big-money deals until the current labor situation is resolved, how in the hell can the teams at the top of the draft justify signing players to long-term, big-money deals?

The same uncertainties that supposedly are keeping the Colts and Pats from signing Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, respectively, to new extensions should be making the Rams think twice about plunking down $80 million on a guy who has yet to take a snap in the NFL -- and whose shoulder snapped on a hit last September from a 230-pound linebacker.

The millions that will be paid to Bradford, Lions defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh, Bucs defensive tackle Gerald McCoy, Redskins tackle Trent Williams and so one will constitute proof positive that teams can sign players to long-term, big-money deals, despite the labor situation, and that, when it comes to veteran players or restricted free agents, the teams largely have chosen not to do so.

Though the Chargers, who are hiding in plain sight behind the supposed CBA uncertainties, don't own a top-ten pick, they traded all the way up to No. 12 to land running back Ryan Mathews. And they'll make him a healthy multi-year offer at a time when they've applied the screws to receiver Vincent Jackson and tackle Marcus McNeill, offering them only the minimum, one-year, six-figure tender that the CBA allows.

Why? Because under the CBA they can.

So why aren't the Chargers doing the same thing to Mathews? The labor deal doesn't require teams to sign rookies to multi-year contracts. The labor deal mandates that only a one-year contract worth the first-year minimum salary of $325,000 be tendered to each draft pick.

Why, then, aren't the Chargers saying that they don't want to sign Mathews to a long-term deal given the CBA uncertainties, offering him instead a one-year contract worth $325,000?

The inconsistency tends to prove that more than a few teams simply have decided not to spend money on veteran players or free agents. Every dollar not spent on a veteran player or a free agent is one more dollar that the owners will have in their pockets if/when a lockout comes -- and one less dollar that the players will have to withstand it.

The logic falls apart as applied to rookies, especially in round one.

Apply the same approach, and the approach would be too obvious. Pay the first-round picks big money, and the approach becomes obvious in a more subtle way.

Either way, Bradford will be getting paid. Manning and Brady won't. In San Diego, Mathews will be getting paid. Jackson and McNeill won't.

Though it may not ultimately rise to the level of provable collusion, it's doesn't take a genius to realize that there's something wrong with this picture.

[Larz]

1 prob

the owners don't need the NFL team they own to make them money, they already have it

and

the players have no other way of making millions a year

so

the owners always hold the cards, and in a game of chicken, will win

[nycdan]

Until the players realize that playing football for pay is a privelege and not a god-given right, this is not going to be resolved. If they aren't happy taking physical risks for only $5M instead of $6M then they have every right to go seek employment elsewhere. The union should absolutely be fighting for player safety, health-care and long-term pensions for disabled players. But fighting over how much of the TV revenue the owners have to shell out in salaries? Nope...sorry...that's where unions cross the line from their original purpose, which was to provide for the safety of its constituents, to their new purpose, which is to fuel their own existence by extorting more and more financial concessions from management.

Am I anti-union? Not when they represent the well-being of their members. But this is simply about the players feeling they are entitled to be equity-partners in the NFL. I just don't buy into that.

If the owners decide they don't want to shell out tens of millions of dollars in guaranteed money to unproven 20-year-old rookies, they have to deal with collusion charges? If a player gets arrested a day after taking a huge signing bonus that he will not ever be able to earn on the field, the NFLPA jumps in to defend him from having to return any of it? It's pretty hard to gain sympathy from the masses when they're fighting tooth and claw to protect there 'rights'.

[JohnnyLV]

The money the players needs to be separated from the revenue that the owners get. They need to agree to the salray caps and minimums for the next 5 or 6 years, institute a rookie salary cap slotted system and increase the minimum salary. They should also look at increasing the revenue they get from their named memoribilia.

If both continue to working off overall revenues and the owners "opening their books" we will likely have no football next year.

[slats]

Nope...sorry...that's where unions cross the line from their original purpose, which was to provide for the safety of its constituents, to their new purpose, which is to fuel their own existence by extorting more and more financial concessions from management.

Am I anti-union? Not when they represent the well-being of their members. But this is simply about the players feeling they are entitled to be equity-partners in the NFL. I just don't buy into that.

Unions have always been about getting the best wages for their members - as they should be. What the hell are you talking about?

If a player gets arrested a day after taking a huge signing bonus that he will not ever be able to earn on the field, the NFLPA jumps in to defend him from having to return any of it? It's pretty hard to gain sympathy from the masses when they're fighting tooth and claw to protect there 'rights'.

more nonsense.

Every NFL contract contains language regarding arrests and any other off-field activity that might result in a player being unable to perform on the field.

[#27TheDominator]

Until the players realize that playing football for pay is a privelege and not a god-given right, this is not going to be resolved. If they aren't happy taking physical risks for only $5M instead of $6M then they have every right to go seek employment elsewhere. The union should absolutely be fighting for player safety, health-care and long-term pensions for disabled players. But fighting over how much of the TV revenue the owners have to shell out in salaries? Nope...sorry...that's where unions cross the line from their original purpose, which was to provide for the safety of its constituents, to their new purpose, which is to fuel their own existence by extorting more and more financial concessions from management.

Am I anti-union? Not when they represent the well-being of their members. But this is simply about the players feeling they are entitled to be equity-partners in the NFL. I just don't buy into that.

If the owners decide they don't want to shell out tens of millions of dollars in guaranteed money to unproven 20-year-old rookies, they have to deal with collusion charges? If a player gets arrested a day after taking a huge signing bonus that he will not ever be able to earn on the field, the NFLPA jumps in to defend him from having to return any of it? It's pretty hard to gain sympathy from the masses when they're fighting tooth and claw to protect there 'rights'.

How wonderful of the owners to afford the players the privilege of playing football! Such unheard of altruism!

[nycdan]

Unions have always been about getting the best wages for their members - as they should be. What the hell are you talking about?

Unions used to be as much about safety and other important issues. Think coal-mining. As they gained power, the focus has shifted to be much more about money. This isn't a new or radical position I'm stating. But if you're defending the right of the NFLPA to demand a share of all league profits, we're just not going to ever agree anyway.

more nonsense.

Every NFL contract contains language regarding arrests and any other off-field activity that might result in a player being unable to perform on the field.

Umm...ever heard of Michael Vick? Or wonder why Pacman got NO signing bonus from the Cowboys in 2008? Or wait...my favorite....the NFLPA filed a grievance against the Giants for trying to get back their signing bonus from Burress because apparently, shooting yourself in the foot with an illegal handgun doesn't obligate you to return it.

Come on...this isn't new stuff. Sometimes the teams do win (Lions vs. Rogers) but it's far from a sure thing.

I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but don't try to cast me as if I'm just making this stuff up.

[slats]

Unions used to be as much about safety and other important issues. Think coal-mining. As they gained power, the focus has shifted to be much more about money. This isn't a new or radical position I'm stating. But if you're defending the right of the NFLPA to demand a share of all league profits, we're just not going to ever agree anyway.

To attempt to suggest that unions haven't been about getting the best wages they possibly can for their members since their inception is disingenuous at best.

And the league has already agreed to share a share of league profits. That's what the salary cap is.

Umm...ever heard of Michael Vick? Or wonder why Pacman got NO signing bonus from the Cowboys in 2008? Or wait...my favorite....the NFLPA filed a grievance against the Giants for trying to get back their signing bonus from Burress because apparently, shooting yourself in the foot with an illegal handgun doesn't obligate you to return it.

Come on...this isn't new stuff. Sometimes the teams do win (Lions vs. Rogers) but it's far from a sure thing.

I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but don't try to cast me as if I'm just making this stuff up.

Far cry from "fighting tooth and claw" for it. It's the job of the union to present it's member's case - right or wrong. In some cases, it's not unlike a public defender. But I see no evidence of the union fighting for contracts that will pay players while they spend time in jail, and I think you're going to have a tough time finding an example of that.

[Bugg]

Until the players realize that playing football for pay is a privelege and not a god-given right, this is not going to be resolved. If they aren't happy taking physical risks for only $5M instead of $6M then they have every right to go seek employment elsewhere. The union should absolutely be fighting for player safety, health-care and long-term pensions for disabled players. But fighting over how much of the TV revenue the owners have to shell out in salaries? Nope...sorry...that's where unions cross the line from their original purpose, which was to provide for the safety of its constituents, to their new purpose, which is to fuel their own existence by extorting more and more financial concessions from management.

Am I anti-union? Not when they represent the well-being of their members. But this is simply about the players feeling they are entitled to be equity-partners in the NFL. I just don't buy into that.

If the owners decide they don't want to shell out tens of millions of dollars in guaranteed money to unproven 20-year-old rookies, they have to deal with collusion charges? If a player gets arrested a day after taking a huge signing bonus that he will not ever be able to earn on the field, the NFLPA jumps in to defend him from having to return any of it? It's pretty hard to gain sympathy from the masses when they're fighting tooth and claw to protect there 'rights'.

Agree 100%. The things the union should fight for are pensions that vest earlier, including some provision for practice squad time, more generous pension benefits, more guaranteed money in contracts and top flight long-term catastrophic healthcare plans.

If the union as here focuses strictly on revenues, they will lose. Each player only has a career that lasts a very short time, so they are more hurt by a work stoppage than the owners. If the players think dumbass "I want mine!" bumper stickers are a great tool, they are fools. They will look even more foolish PR-wise if the economy continues to stink.

[Bruce Banner]

To attempt to suggest that unions haven't been about getting the best wages they possibly can for their members since their inception is disingenuous at best.

And the league has already agreed to share a share of league profits. That's what the salary cap is.

Far cry from "fighting tooth and claw" for it. It's the job of the union to present it's member's case - right or wrong. In some cases, it's not unlike a public defender. But I see no evidence of the union fighting for contracts that will pay players while they spend time in jail, and I think you're going to have a tough time finding an example of that.

I disagree with the bolded part. A union isn't like a defense attorney who is legally required to do everything he can to defend you even if he thinks your guilty. The union is not morally or legally required to question and dispute every single decision the NFL makes.

[slats]

I disagree with the bolded part. A union isn't like a defense attorney who is legally required to do everything he can to defend you even if he thinks your guilty. The union is not morally or legally required to question and dispute every single decision the NFL makes.

You're wrong.

It's a major part of the job of the union to represent the players in any dispute with management. Every fine, suspension, or other disciplinary action in the league comes about only after management has sat down with the player's union representatives. Every single one.

[Bruce Banner]

You're wrong.

It's a major part of the job of the union to represent the players in any dispute with management. Every fine, suspension, or other disciplinary action in the league comes about only after management has sat down with the player's union representatives. Every single one.

I'm right. The union isn't required to file a grievance over every single issue. But they try to go after the NFL almost every chance they get.

[slats]

I'm right. The union isn't required to file a grievance over every single issue. But they try to go after the NFL almost every chance they get.

"File a grievance?" No. But I never said that.

However... Anytime any player has any sort of issue that they feel requires the union to intervene on their behalf, the union is obligated to do exactly that. That's an important part of "union protection." It's what every union member is entitled to when they pay their union dues. If a player kills the union chief's pregnant wife on the internet, it's the union's responsibility to act in that player's best interests in any action the league wants to take against him. It's what they do.

[KSJets]

"File a grievance?" No. But I never said that.

However... Anytime any player has any sort of issue that they feel requires the union to intervene on their behalf, the union is obligated to do exactly that. That's an important part of "union protection." It's what every union member is entitled to when they pay their union dues. If a player kills the union chief's pregnant wife on the internet, it's the union's responsibility to act in that player's best interests in any action the league wants to take against him. It's what they do.

This. I'm a member of a union, probably with a lot more members in it than the NFLPA, and this is pretty much spot on for what my union does. Even if the union doesn't agree with the player's gripe, they still have to represent them.

[dbatesman]

This isn't a new or radical position I'm stating.

Yes, but only in the sense that your position isn't new or radical but rather crudely oversimplified and largely incorrect.

A union isn't like a defense attorney who is legally required to do everything he can to defend you even if he thinks your guilty. The union is not morally or legally required to question and dispute every single decision the NFL makes.

This is completely untrue. Stubborn adherence to broken-windows theory is the difference between strong unions and weak ones, and that particular moral imperative is backed by a veritable mountain of jurisprudence. Barring some procedural issue, unions always grieve first and ask questions later because shriking duty of fair representation is grounds for a lawsuit, a ULP, and possibly decertification.

[bitonti]

people think this is about owners vs union. It's really not. It's owners v owners RE: revenue sharing. They can't agree on what to do, so they can't negotiate in good faith toward a new CBA.

[slats]

people think this is about owners vs union. It's really not. It's owners v owners RE: revenue sharing. They can't agree on what to do, so they can't negotiate in good faith toward a new CBA.

Right. Which is what the first article is all about.

The other point lost here is how the teams can sign first round picks but not their own vets. The Charger example is a sharp one:

Though the Chargers, who are hiding in plain sight behind the supposed CBA uncertainties, don't own a top-ten pick, they traded all the way up to No. 12 to land running back Ryan Mathews. And they'll make him a healthy multi-year offer at a time when they've applied the screws to receiver Vincent Jackson and tackle Marcus McNeill, offering them only the minimum, one-year, six-figure tender that the CBA allows.

Why? Because under the CBA they can.

So why aren't the Chargers doing the same thing to Mathews? The labor deal doesn't require teams to sign rookies to multi-year contracts. The labor deal mandates that only a one-year contract worth the first-year minimum salary of $325,000 be tendered to each draft pick.

First round picks seems be getting signed slower than ever, but it will be interesting to see how those deals are structured when they start trickling in. The owners are collectively hiding behind behind the lack of a new CBA when it comes to signing vets long term. It's the Revis excuse.

Read that Tom Brady might be close to a new deal. I'm sure Revis, Manning, et al, will be watching closely.

[#27TheDominator]

Umm...ever heard of Michael Vick? Or wonder why Pacman got NO signing bonus from the Cowboys in 2008? Or wait...my favorite....the NFLPA filed a grievance against the Giants for trying to get back their signing bonus from Burress because apparently, shooting yourself in the foot with an illegal handgun doesn't obligate you to return it.

Um... it's a signing bonus. You get it for signing the contract. The NFLPA was 100% right in the Plaxico case and they won. I hear bull**** all the time about how players have to live with the contracts they sign, well the owners are free to negotiate or not negotiate a signing bonus into the deal, as you pointed out with Pacman. The Giants weren't trying to get back their signing bonus from Plaxico. They were refusing to pay it. Plaxico had agreed to defer it, at the team's request. The decision was so obvious that the league didn't appeal.

[MadBacker Prime]

I know its been mentioned thousands of times but there is no cap on how much the owners can make. The owners want a salary cap for the players then there should be a cap of sorts for the owners.

There is no other business where the top employees (the players), are told they can only earn a certain amount. If the business does well the players should reap the benefits too.

[Sperm Edwards]

I know its been mentioned thousands of times but there is no cap on how much the owners can make. The owners want a salary cap for the players then there should be a cap of sorts for the owners.

There is no other business where the top employees (the players), are told they can only earn a certain amount. If the business does well the players should reap the benefits too.

This has to be a joke post. The workers do not own the company. The owner owns the company. Be real. No one who owns a valuable (as well as an expensive to run) commodity is going to place a self-imposed limit on the revenue his commodity generates for himself in "I may not make more than ___ dollars" fashion.

They even agreed to a minimum salary for players that goes up with years accrued in the league. Sounds good (and some would say "fair") to those veterans, but then the unintended consequence of that good intention is that it prices some of those very veterans out of their jobs; positions teams can fill with younger players for a lesser amount, and which lesser amount the veteran would have accepted if the league/union allowed them to.

This stuff about not limiting player income unless owner income is also capped is ridiculous. That is, unless the players want to have a portion of their paychecks withheld for league-wide stadium repairs, printing of tickets, sale of PSL's, and lost in-stadium advertising revenue during economic downturns (like, for example, a certain stadium's expected $3-5M/year naming rights having no takers). Somehow I think the union would scoff at that.

The players do not own the teams. The owners do.

However, what the owners are failing to realize here is that while they could hire other workers in the event of a strike, their commodities and the revenues they collectively generate won't be worth 1/10 as much without these particular workers. No one wants to watch a season played solely by guys who didn't or couldn't make real NFL rosters. I would be as inclined to religiously watch bowling for 12 hours every Sunday and then post and then pontificate about it for the balance of the week.

[MadBacker Prime]

^^^^

I could've sworn the players owned the team, they don't??

I was being sarcastic, the point I was trying to make, in a unsuccessful way is that I'm not a fan of the salary cap. For the sole purpose that rides on Max Kellerman's theorym. The jets cater to a larger population, which comes with a a larger fan base, and more money coming in. (as seen in the latest forbes article)

The Jets should be able to spend as much as they want and put a better product on the field because of what I mentioned earlier.

We all know Woody would buy us at least 1 Super Bowl win.

The UPS driver just left, you're right he doesn't own UPS.

[nycdan]

This has to be a joke post. The workers do not own the company. The owner owns the company. Be real. No one who owns a valuable (as well as an expensive to run) commodity is going to place a self-imposed limit on the revenue his commodity generates for himself in "I may not make more than ___ dollars" fashion.

They even agreed to a minimum salary for players that goes up with years accrued in the league. Sounds good (and some would say "fair") to those veterans, but then the unintended consequence of that good intention is that it prices some of those very veterans out of their jobs; positions teams can fill with younger players for a lesser amount, and which lesser amount the veteran would have accepted if the league/union allowed them to.

This stuff about not limiting player income unless owner income is also capped is ridiculous. That is, unless the players want to have a portion of their paychecks withheld for league-wide stadium repairs, printing of tickets, sale of PSL's, and lost in-stadium advertising revenue during economic downturns (like, for example, a certain stadium's expected $3-5M/year naming rights having no takers). Somehow I think the union would scoff at that.

The players do not own the teams. The owners do.

However, what the owners are failing to realize here is that while they could hire other workers in the event of a strike, their commodities and the revenues they collectively generate won't be worth 1/10 as much without these particular workers. No one wants to watch a season played solely by guys who didn't or couldn't make real NFL rosters. I would be as inclined to religiously watch bowling for 12 hours every Sunday and then post and then pontificate about it for the balance of the week.

It's that last paragraph that defines what I struggle with on this issue.

Back in 1982 we couldn't imagine watching NFL football without Fouts and Theismann, Freeman McNeil and Marcus Allen, Lawrence Taylor and Too Tall Jones.

Then in 1987, we couldn't imagine the NFL without Marino, Elway and Montana, Dickerson and Rice, Reggie White and Bruce Smith.

But lo and behold, it's 2010 and all of these players are retired and in the HoF and we have new stars. So what happens if the players all walked out and the owners replaced them.

The first year we'd hate the product. Attendance would be down. Ratings would be down. No argument.

Then there would be a draft of college players we'd all be excited about and things would be a little bit better the next year. Then a little better the year after.

Within five years, we'd all be back and the media would be bored with interviewing the former set of players and covering the endless lawsuits.

I have nothing against the players but I root for the ones who wear Jets uniforms first and a rare few who I like no matter what uniform they wear (e.g. Chad Johnson). Nor do I have any specific affection for the owners (and in fact I have little respect for quite a few) but the bottom line is....

FOR ME over the long term, it's about the team and the league first, the players second.

So forget about the union stuff...some of you doubtless know far more about the details than I do. But at the end of the day, if the players are willing to walk out over share of revenue as opposed to issues like player safety, disability and pensions, then my support goes to the league. 90% of these players will be long gone from the league ten years from now (as will some of the owners no doubt), and I will still be an NFL fan. I still have nothing but great affection for former players like Namath, Klecko and Walker, but it's today's Jets I watch every Sunday in the fall and winter.

[#27TheDominator]

So forget about the union stuff...some of you doubtless know far more about the details than I do. But at the end of the day, if the players are willing to walk out over share of revenue as opposed to issues like player safety, disability and pensions, then my support goes to the league. 90% of these players will be long gone from the league ten years from now (as will some of the owners no doubt), and I will still be an NFL fan. I still have nothing but great affection for former players like Namath, Klecko and Walker, but it's today's Jets I watch every Sunday in the fall and winter.

That's nice, but the owners are ready to lock out for those very reasons. The players can't be expected to roll over and take it because they owners want to cut the cap by 18%. The replacement players in '87 were a disaster. The whole season was a ****ing joke. If the players started a new league with the top players would you keep "rooting for the laundry" or would you watch the best players in the world?

[Sperm Edwards]

It's that last paragraph that defines what I struggle with on this issue.

Back in 1982 we couldn't imagine watching NFL football without Fouts and Theismann, Freeman McNeil and Marcus Allen, Lawrence Taylor and Too Tall Jones.

Then in 1987, we couldn't imagine the NFL without Marino, Elway and Montana, Dickerson and Rice, Reggie White and Bruce Smith.

But lo and behold, it's 2010 and all of these players are retired and in the HoF and we have new stars. So what happens if the players all walked out and the owners replaced them.

The first year we'd hate the product. Attendance would be down. Ratings would be down. No argument.

Then there would be a draft of college players we'd all be excited about and things would be a little bit better the next year. Then a little better the year after.

Within five years, we'd all be back and the media would be bored with interviewing the former set of players and covering the endless lawsuits.

I have nothing against the players but I root for the ones who wear Jets uniforms first and a rare few who I like no matter what uniform they wear (e.g. Chad Johnson). Nor do I have any specific affection for the owners (and in fact I have little respect for quite a few) but the bottom line is....

FOR ME over the long term, it's about the team and the league first, the players second.

So forget about the union stuff...some of you doubtless know far more about the details than I do. But at the end of the day, if the players are willing to walk out over share of revenue as opposed to issues like player safety, disability and pensions, then my support goes to the league. 90% of these players will be long gone from the league ten years from now (as will some of the owners no doubt), and I will still be an NFL fan. I still have nothing but great affection for former players like Namath, Klecko and Walker, but it's today's Jets I watch every Sunday in the fall and winter.

I thought about that scenario as well, that it would only be lousy in the short-term. But there would be damage that the league might not recover from. I don't assume that people will be just as into the league after a half-decade or more of giving the fans garbage. While the talent would return to the league in time, the league's popularity may not. And in that case, it is not in the financial interest of the owners' pockets individually or collectively. That's one of those situations where even if they win, they only win on paper. In terms of dollars, they still lose.

In other words, it's in the interest of both sides to hammer out an agreement.

[slats]

But lo and behold, it's 2010 and all of these players are retired and in the HoF and we have new stars. So what happens if the players all walked out and the owners replaced them.

The first year we'd hate the product. Attendance would be down. Ratings would be down. No argument.

Then there would be a draft of college players we'd all be excited about and things would be a little bit better the next year. Then a little better the year after.

Within five years, we'd all be back and the media would be bored with interviewing the former set of players and covering the endless lawsuits.

What if, instead, all those players formed their own league. With their own draft. There are former players out there who talk about becoming owners all the time. What if there was an alternative to the NFL's new replacement league that featured all of the former NFL's best players? Where would you spend your money then?

That would have to be the NFL's biggest fear.

[Sperm Edwards]

What if, instead, all those players formed their own league. With their own draft. There are former players out there who talk about becoming owners all the time. What if there was an alternative to the NFL's new replacement league that featured all of the former NFL's best players? Where would you spend your money then?

That would have to be the NFL's biggest fear.

I would agree with this, and not simply with players themselves being the only owners. There are a lot of people in this country with a lot of money who would love to own football franchises but the two barriers are:

1) No one is selling an NFL franchise at this time, and when it does occur it is very rare

2) Starting another league is a dead-end with the 1500 best players in the world already signed to NFL rosters. But if these players were now available, I wouldn't be shocked to see a new league formed pretty fast and renting venues until new ones could be built. The NFL owners would be sitting on a giant, expensive pile of nothing.

[Klecko73isGod]

I would agree with this, and not simply with players themselves being the only owners. There are a lot of people in this country with a lot of money who would love to own football franchises but the two barriers are:

1) No one is selling an NFL franchise at this time, and when it does occur it is very rare

2) Starting another league is a dead-end with the 1500 best players in the world already signed to NFL rosters. But if these players were now available, I wouldn't be shocked to see a new league formed pretty fast and renting venues until new ones could be built. The NFL owners would be sitting on a giant, expensive pile of nothing.

Realistically, in order for that to happen, someone would have to have plans in place right now in case of a lockout.

Getting 25 or so billionaires to commit to owning teams in a new league that has never existed before. How much are these new owners going to be willing to pay the players?

They better have committments from TV Networks for big money so they can sign these newly available star football players. These guys aren't going to sign for less money to play for a rival league just because its there.

While it's easy to say that someone could start a new league if there is a lockout, logistically its a completely different story.

[slats]

Realistically, in order for that to happen, someone would have to have plans in place right now in case of a lockout.

Getting 25 or so billionaires to commit to owning teams in a new league that has never existed before. How much are these new owners going to be willing to pay the players?

They better have committments from TV Networks for big money so they can sign these newly available star football players. These guys aren't going to sign for less money to play for a rival league just because its there.

While it's easy to say that someone could start a new league if there is a lockout, logistically its a completely different story.

Recent tries include the WFL and the USFL - neither was a resounding success.

But if there's a general feeling amongst the players that they're getting screwed by the NFL, and you combine that with a lot of quality players all having their contracts expire at the end of 2010 (like Mangold, Harris, Cromartie, Edwards, Holmes... ), as well as the general labor uncertainty surrounding the lack of any agreement between the players and the league...

Well, there might not be any better time than right now to lay the foundation for a new league.

[Klecko73isGod]

Recent tries include the WFL and the USFL - neither was a resounding success.

But if there's a general feeling amongst the players that they're getting screwed by the NFL, and you combine that with a lot of quality players all having their contracts expire at the end of 2010 (like Mangold, Harris, Cromartie, Edwards, Holmes... ), as well as the general labor uncertainty surrounding the lack of any agreement between the players and the league...

Well, there might not be any better time than right now to lay the foundation for a new league.

Again, the basic foundation would have to be getting worked on as we speak.

The NFL has such a stranglehold on the TV networks (which let's face it, drive this whole thing) it would be damn near impossible for someone to set up a league with the necessary financing to steal NFL players.

You'd have to have a group of owners in place with deep enough pockets to commit to paying a core group of the best players more money than they are currently making and will be making under the next CBA who would also be willing to lose money for 3-5 years until the league established itself.

I don't know of many billionaires who would be willing to lose up to half a billion dollars to make something like that work.

[Bx Jet Fan]

If the NFLPA was smart, it would have investigated forming a new league as soon as they signed a new agreement the last time. They should have contacted NBC and looked into them getting a 25% stake in the new league. The players get 50% of everything. Then they get some billionaire to cover the cost of the next years draft.

If the NFLPA took every team en masse and kept them playing in the same city, the NFL would be over as we know it. If NBC broadcast a new league with the same players and the NFL broadcast a bunch of rookies at the same time, the ratings wouldn't even be close. The billionaire covers any shortfall between revenues and the cost of drafting the next year.

[Klecko73isGod]

If the NFLPA was smart, it would have investigated forming a new league as soon as they signed a new agreement the last time. They should have contacted NBC and looked into them getting a 25% stake in the new league. The players get 50% of everything. Then they get some billionaire to cover the cost of the next years draft.

If the NFLPA took every team en masse and kept them playing in the same city, the NFL would be over as we know it. If NBC broadcast a new league with the same players and the NFL broadcast a bunch of rookies at the same time, the ratings wouldn't even be close. The billionaire covers any shortfall between revenues and the cost of drafting the next year.

Do you realize that the NFL's player costs alone run about $4 billion annually?

[Bx Jet Fan]

Do you realize how much CBS and Fox pay in broacast fees to the NFL? I think it's about 1.2 billion a year. Now add in how much the NFL takes in from DirectTV and all the other revenue streams. Now add in all the revenue that comes in from game day revenues. Add in revenues from all the merchandising etc.

The NFL is a money making machine. It's just a matter of figuring out how to divide the pie.

[Klecko73isGod]

Do you realize how much CBS and Fox pay in broacast fees to the NFL? I think it's about 1.2 billion a year. Now add in how much the NFL takes in from DirectTV and all the other revenue streams. Now add in all the revenue that comes in from game day revenues. Add in revenues from all the merchandising etc.

The NFL is a money making machine. It's just a matter of figuring out how to divide the pie.

And you'll be starting a completely new product that doesn't have the NFL's 80-plus years of history and name recognition behind it.

A TV Network is not going to shell out 1.2 billion a year for a brand new league.

In order for this scheme to work the players would have to be getting paid MORE than they are getting or will get in the future. The reality is that nobody's got pockets remotely that deep in the current economic climate.

[MadBacker Prime]

Do you realize how much CBS and Fox pay in broacast fees to the NFL? I think it's about 1.2 billion a year. Now add in how much the NFL takes in from DirectTV and all the other revenue streams. Now add in all the revenue that comes in from game day revenues. Add in revenues from all the merchandising etc.

The NFL is a money making machine. It's just a matter of figuring out how to divide the pie.

It's crazy-

CBS ($3.73B), NBC ($3.6B) and Fox ($4.27B), as well as cable television's ESPN ($8.8B) are paying a combined total of $20.4 billion to broadcast NFL games through the 2011 season for CBS, Fox, and NBC and through 2013 for ESPN.