An excellent article on the scumbagginess of NFL owners.

[Bob]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html

NFL owners want guarantees no other business provides

By Sally Jenkins

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, February 17, 2011; 12:09 AM

I'm not sure why NFL players and fans should pay the estate taxes for Daniel Snyder's children, along with the little Bidwills and Maras. That's one way to think of the current NFL labor dispute. The owners are worried that $9 billion isn't enough revenue growth, and their heirs might someday have to fly commercial. So they're demanding that everybody pony up.

That's really what this is all about. The owners are lucky that the collective bargaining process is so convoluted, and the language of their argument with the players is hard to understand. Because when you peel away the headachy legal terms and expose their real position, it can be summed up very simply: They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions. They think they are owed a living.

They also think your money is actually their money. Or at least, it used to be yours, before you paid it at the box office, paid it at the concessions, paid it in the parking lot, and paid it in countless other ways - from those deplorable "seat licenses" to tax breaks and public funds for new stadiums and renovations, where they can charge you even more.

What are owners really owed in return for their investments? That's what fans must decide, in weighing whose side to support in the impending lockout and labor impasse, which, judging by the belligerent maneuvering of the past week now, likely will last many months and disrupt next season. The core issue is this: Owners resent the fact that a lot of your money is going into the pockets of players, instead of into their own. They contend the players are overpaid, and they are threatening to lock them out as of March 4 if they don't agree to a significant cut. They say this is a necessary step to ensure future profitability.

But in what other industry do business owners act so entitled to make money every year into the limitless future? According to Forbes, the NFL's revenue has increased 43 percent since 2006 to $9.3 billion. Under the current agreement, the first billion goes to the 32 owners right off the top, while players receive a 60 percent split of revenues after that. Now the owners are demanding another billion off the top.

Who exactly is more overpaid? To repeat, the argument is over money that comes out of the fans' pockets. The only question is who should get more of it, the owners or the players that the fans pay to see? After all, they don't pay to see Snyder smoke a cigar, or consult with media advisors.

The owners justify their position by decrying rising "player costs." Player compensation has doubled since 2003, but that's because the wealthiest owners have driven up the market for their stars. Pete Rozelle's wife once observed that, "every owner I ever met thinks he's just two players from winning the Super Bowl."

The cost argument really should be an internal quarrel between the owners. If some of them aren't making enough money, or are even losing money - if some of them built sports palaces and some didn't - whose fault is that? Maybe they don't need a better collective bargaining agreement. Maybe they need a budget.

Yet the owners quite clearly want the players to pick up the tab for some of their excesses - and the fans, too. On Tuesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell made it plain once again that the real driving force behind the owner demands is that they want to free up revenue for "innovation and growth," namely the "costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums." But bigger stadiums may well mean more expenses shifted to the fans.

What's more, they appear to be digging in, judging by their latest actions. Last week; they walked away from a bargaining session; this week; they filed a charge against the players' union with the National Labor Relations Board. One day, they refuse to talk; the next, they accuse the other side of not negotiating; and then, the next say that the season could be in jeopardy if a deal isn't reached soon.

What's really going on? The suspicion here is that the league owners are simply tempted to see if they can do as well in labor negotiations as the NHL did in improving its financial condition with a lockout a few years ago. But there is a big difference between the NFL and the NHL: Hockey is not nearly so profitable, and the lockout and the accompanying risk of alienating their fans were therefore worth it.

As long the NFL is raking in $9 billion and so many owners are clearly making money, it's pretty difficult for them to claim to be on the high ground, or to cry poor.

It's not like they're the airline industry, or even hockey.

So far they have utterly failed to make the case that they are so financially imperiled that players should make sacrifices for them, or fans either. For one thing, they continue to refuse to open their books, presumably because the results could be embarrassing.

Disclosure of their real conditions might reveal just how ungenerous they are with the players they claim to care about. Or it might reveal just how mercilessly hard they are working to strip every dime out of the fans.

The next time a league official claims the players make "outrageous sums," as Goodell does, fans should ask themselves the following questions: How much are owners making? And how much of that is due to government subsidies?

Are teams really in danger of losing money - or do they merely crave unlimited "growth?" Would a new labor agreement work for or against the interest of the ticket-buyers? If the owners win a billion-dollar concession from players, what will they do with the money? Will prices go down?

Do they really need a new deal - or have they been getting a sweetheart one all along?

[Scott Dierking]

All are making money, just some are not making the killing that others are. Therein lies the rub.

Owners are not united on this either.

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

So basically its lose lose for us the fans. Yay.

[Garb]

A rather biased, agenda driven article, no?

Of course owners are trying to maximize their profits....why go into business if that isn't one of your goals? Of course players want to maximize their earnings - why play/work in this industry where your career is quite short?

The biggest problem, if you ask me, is Roger Goodell. That ego-maniac, stubborn money/power hungry Sargent Shultz gone amok. He is clearly an ali of the owners, which alientates the players...and the fans. He is supposed to be a facilitator, an administrator working on behalf of the Brand (NFL) name...not a frickin' dictator. Bleh.

[Scott Dierking]

A rather biased, agenda driven article, no?

Of course owners are trying to maximize their profits....why go into business if that isn't one of your goals? Of course players want to maximize their earnings - why play/work in this industry where your career is quite short?

The biggest problem, if you ask me, is Roger Goodell. That ego-maniac, stubborn money/power hungry Sargent Shultz gone amok. He is clearly an ali of the owners, which alientates the players...and the fans. He is supposed to be a facilitator, an administrator working on behalf of the Brand (NFL) name...not a frickin' dictator. Bleh.

Are you really naive enough to believe that any Commissioner is not a puppet of the owners that hire him?

You could not pay me enough money to to that job.

[Garb]

Are you really naive enough to believe that any Commissioner is not a puppet of the owners that hire him?

You could not pay me enough money to to that job.

Yah, I know....but how OBVIOUS IS THIS GUY?!

Owners are greedy bastards - duh. I go to Pats games and pay $40 to park....I know silly greed. Some owners charge PSL's fees so YOU can pay for THEIR stadium....sound familiar, Jets fans? Players can be greedy bastards too - ever wonder when Revis will hold out again?

I can see both sides. I mean, who are the players to tell the owners how much they can make? Who are the owners to put a cap on what a player can earn? A market has to be set...and without the bullsheet. Bullsheet like Goodell saying he cares about player health...yet is adament about extending the season to 18 games. Goodell saying fans hate pre-season games....when it's paying full price for pre-season games that actually irks them. It's we fans that are the victims here....the article Bob posted got that right.

[Scott Dierking]

Yah, I know....but how OBVIOUS IS THIS GUY?!

Owners are greedy bastards - duh. I go to Pats games and pay $40 to park....I know silly greed. Players can be greedy bastards too - ever wonder when Revis will hold out again?

I can see both sides. I mean, who are the players to tell the owners how much they can make? Who are the owners to put a cap on what a player can earn? A market has to be set...and without the bullsheet. Bullsheet like Goodell saying he cares about player health...yet is adamemnt about extending the season to 18 games. Goodell saying fans hate pre-season games....when it's paying full price for pre-season games that actually irks them. It's we fans that are the victims here....the article Bob posted got that right.

The 18 game season is a really, stupid, stupid idea. I would have to believe that it is a negotiating ploy that was just put in there to show that they eventually pulled something off the table.

It was so hastily and carelessly passed through, it almost seems transparent.

[The Crusher]

Bottom line their will be REAL NFL football next year. Thank God Baby Teh Crusher will be playing High SChool ball. The NFL will never be the same.

[The Gun Of Bavaria]

I think the 18 game season is an idiotic idea, unless you want to see the likes of Sage Rosenfels playing QB for your team by the end of the season.

I think there should be a rookie cap and it should be called "The Gholston Rule". Players who produce on a level deserve to get paid, but coming right out of college, they need to prove themselves.

I think that players should have some sort of financial & health care security due to the nature of the game they play. A base guaranteed minimum & health care in which the time coverage is built upon the time spend in the game.

I think the players & owners are mutually guilty of greed. It's a two way street: If you own a Grocery Store, you should make more money than the guy bagging groceries. When the guy bagging groceries starts bringing customers into the place in droves, you'd better damn well pay him. Owners make money off the back of players.

[Bugg]

Suspect the unwritten stories of thsi coming calamity are the awfulness of the postcareer pensions and healthcare plans, and also the undiscussed battle between the big market owners vs. the little ones. There is a breaking point coming between the Jets, Giants, Skins, Cowboys and the like and the small markets like the Jags, Rams and Packers. The economics are long-term stupid. The former are getting tired of carrying them later. The Packers are a wonderful story for dipsh*ts whoe at up that "publicly owned" nonsense, but if you paid the kind of cash Woody paid for the Jets or Snyder paid for the Skins and the debt service on the new big city stadiums, that quaint happytalk "frozen tundra" bullsh*t is gonna wear thin on the balance sheet.

[Blackout]

I hate these rich aholes

can't wait for some CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE

[Garb]

Speaking of Pensions...what companies actually provide pensions anymore? Are players that played for four years eligible for a pension? I worked at Fidelity Investments for four years....I got squat besides what I, and they, contributed to a 401k plan...and I did not make anywhere close to what an average NFL players makes. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that a four year vet making the league minimum of $500k can't plan for their financial future. And spare me the "young dude who came from nothing, didn't know any better and blew it all on cars" excuse. The NFL tries to educate these men. At what point does personal responsibility come into play?

[shawn306]

This comes from our good friends at the Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148712424300234.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth#articleTabs%3Darticle

The NFL's $1 Billion Game of Chicken

As Revenue Flattens, the Labor Talks Hinge on One Question—Do Modern Sports Leagues Have to Grow to Survive?.

The labor strife now threatening the NFL comes down to something rather simple: The league has run out of new ways to make another quick $1 billion, so it's turning its focus to the biggest piggy bank of all: its own players.

If the NFL can't amend the current labor deal with the players' union to make it more lucrative for ownership, the league plans to lock the players out when the current deal expires in two weeks, even if it jeopardizes next season.

This stance is not only a reflection of the speed at which the NFL has grown in the last two decades with the help of ticket revenues, taxpayer stadium subsidies and broadcast fees, but it also hints at the dwindling opportunities the league has at its disposal to dredge up gigantic new piles of cash (more on that later).

The larger question behind this entire labor fight is a notion that's familiar to investors, but that represents a radical notion in professional sports: the idea that a sports league, like a giant company, must show steady growth over time. And more radically, a slowdown in the rate of growth, even without actual losses, is sufficient grounds to ask labor to make concessions.

In past sports labor disputes, "NBA and NHL owners have claimed they can't pay," said Gabe Feldman, director of the sports law program at Tulane University. "The NFL owners say they don't want to pay."

Today's NFL, which earned a record $9 billion in revenues this season, bears no resemblance to other major U.S. sports leagues that have faced labor Armageddon. Every NFL franchise is, by most accounts, profitable and competitive. The league and the players created a salary cap and solved free agency nearly 20 years ago. As much as NFL team owners want to crush their colleagues on the field, they share nearly 80 cents of every dollar.

As a private business with no publicly traded shares, the NFL isn't judged by its ability to show annual growth. And yet in some ways, its owners may have more riding on annual revenue totals. The one thing NFL owners care most about—the market value of their franchises—can

totals. The one thing NFL owners care most about—the market value of their franchises—can only increase if revenues do. Increased revenues also give prospective NFL owners more confidence that they're making a solid investment as opposed to a vanity purchase.

Consider Woody Johnson's purchase of the New York Jets in 2000 for $635 million. That price looked absurd to many at a time when overall league revenues were about $4 billion. A decade later, NFL revenues have more than doubled. Developer Stephen Ross recently paid $1.1 billion to buy the Miami Dolphins. That made Mr. Johnson's buy look like a steal.

To hit these revenue jumps, the NFL has had an enviable (and arguably serendipitous) run of good luck. Ticket revenues doubled from 1997 to 2007. Television and satellite rights fees blew through the roof, and as the cost of new stadiums grew, taxpayers stepped in to provide nearly $500 million a year, on average, from 1993 to 2005.

Today, ticket revenues have been essentially flat for the past three seasons and given the economy, owners sense they've hit a ceiling (the average ticket costs about $76). With governments at every level facing deficits, the subsidy well is all but dry. (Just one project, Kansas City's Arrowhead Stadium renovation, has received taxpayer support since 2006).

Another season of record NFL ratings should boost revenues from the broadcast networks and satellite provider DirecTV, but not as dramatically. Revenues from media rights increased to $3.8 billion for 2010 from $2.6 billion in 2005—a 46% increase. But between now and 2013, the final year of the new broadcast contracts, fees will only increase $350 million, or about 9%.

Add it all up and the owners are about $1 billion short of the growth in real dollars they were projecting the last time labor negotiations came down to the wire in 2006.

Meanwhile, newer forms of business, like digital media, don't show the obvious potential for huge returns.

Eric Grubman, the NFL's executive vice president of finance, acknowledged that the loss of public funding for stadiums has forced owners to put up more money for "capital costs." He said it's going to be "difficult" to push ticket prices higher, though he is optimistic that broadcast fees will rise.

As for the players, Mr. Grubman said the NFL is interested in having them bear their fair share of the rising costs owners have taken on.

George Atallah, a spokesman for the NFLPA, said players and owners "can work together on new revenue streams, but nothing justifies a lockout."

In recent talks, the players union has called any cut in pay unacceptable.

Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer who has represented the NFL players since the 1980s, says the message he's getting is "now it's time to go after the players."

The NFL has proposed raising more revenue by lengthening the season from 16 games to 18, while cutting preseason games from four to two. The league projects that the shift would add about $500 million, mostly in increased broadcast fees. The players, citing injury concerns, have resisted the idea so far, but could be amenable if offseason workouts are cut, rosters are expanded and postcareer health-care coverage is improved.

With a possible lockout just two weeks away, the $1 billion game of chicken goes on.

Write to Matthew Futterman at matthew.futterman@wsj.com

[Jetsfan80]

I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that a four year vet making the league minimum of $500k can't plan for their financial future. And spare me the "young dude who came from nothing, didn't know any better and blew it all on cars" excuse. The NFL tries to educate these men. At what point does personal responsibility come into play?

For every player who blows money on things they don't need, there are some legit "come from nothing" kids who simply want to buy their parents a house in a better neighborhood. You want to tell those kids they need to open a Roth IRA instead?

[Garb]

For every player who blows money on things they don't need, there are some legit "come from nothing" kids who simply want to buy their parents a house in a better neighborhood. You want to tell those kids they need to open a Roth IRA instead?

Um....two years down the road, put a down payment on your Momma's new house and make the payments for her. Make sure you go back to school and finish your degree. Between that piece of paper and the jock sniffers in coprorate america - you will get a job. Oh, and yah, open up an IRA.

[donboyO]

To Receive a pension you have to play 3 or 4 years, it is very small $470 times years played = monthly amount. Many of these guys are crippled when they turn 50. Shame on people for thinking they are set for life. $350k turns into $175k after taxes. Not that much money in the real world.

[BroadwayJ667]

so immediately before anything else they are guaranteed $31,250,000 annually. (1,000,000,000 / 32)

before taxes of course

[war ensemble]

And I did not realize that "poor" was a state of mind instead of a state of your bank account. Who knew!

Technically being "poor in spirit" would be a state of mind. Poverty can refer to much more than one's physical reality, and I think you're poor for not realizing that.

[Bugg]

Speaking of Pensions...what companies actually provide pensions anymore? Are players that played for four years eligible for a pension? I worked at Fidelity Investments for four years....I got squat besides what I, and they, contributed to a 401k plan...and I did not make anywhere close to what an average NFL players makes. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that a four year vet making the league minimum of $500k can't plan for their financial future. And spare me the "young dude who came from nothing, didn't know any better and blew it all on cars" excuse. The NFL tries to educate these men. At what point does personal responsibility come into play?

When Fidelity requires it's employees to crash into each other at full speed and full force 80 times every Sunday and as many times in practice for months, get back to us. Grant you most young people in general and NFL players in particular are fiscal idiots.Most of us find out that those credit card bills have to get paid sooner rather than later. But that doesn't excuse the owners from physically chewing up and discarding players as employees at will.

[Jetsfan80]

When Fidelity requires it's employees to crash into each other at full speed and full force 80 times every Sunday and as many times in practice for months, get back to us. Grant you most young people in general and NFL players in particular are fiscal idiots.Most of us find out that those credit card bills have to get paid sooner rather than later. But that doesn't excuse the owners from physically chewing up and discarding players as employees at will.

Not to mention, retirement funds that you can't draw from until you're 60 are worthless to NFL players. Many of them need that money much sooner and/or die young.

[Damaged89]

Not to mention, retirement funds that you can't draw from until you're 60 are worthless to NFL players. Many of them need that money much sooner and/or die young.

it's their fault for not planning to die at a more convenient time.

[joebabyny]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html

NFL owners want guarantees no other business provides

By Sally Jenkins

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, February 17, 2011; 12:09 AM

I'm not sure why NFL players and fans should pay the estate taxes for Daniel Snyder's children, along with the little Bidwills and Maras. That's one way to think of the current NFL labor dispute. The owners are worried that $9 billion isn't enough revenue growth, and their heirs might someday have to fly commercial. So they're demanding that everybody pony up.

That's really what this is all about. The owners are lucky that the collective bargaining process is so convoluted, and the language of their argument with the players is hard to understand. Because when you peel away the headachy legal terms and expose their real position, it can be summed up very simply: They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions. They think they are owed a living.

They also think your money is actually their money. Or at least, it used to be yours, before you paid it at the box office, paid it at the concessions, paid it in the parking lot, and paid it in countless other ways - from those deplorable "seat licenses" to tax breaks and public funds for new stadiums and renovations, where they can charge you even more.

What are owners really owed in return for their investments? That's what fans must decide, in weighing whose side to support in the impending lockout and labor impasse, which, judging by the belligerent maneuvering of the past week now, likely will last many months and disrupt next season. The core issue is this: Owners resent the fact that a lot of your money is going into the pockets of players, instead of into their own. They contend the players are overpaid, and they are threatening to lock them out as of March 4 if they don't agree to a significant cut. They say this is a necessary step to ensure future profitability.

But in what other industry do business owners act so entitled to make money every year into the limitless future? According to Forbes, the NFL's revenue has increased 43 percent since 2006 to $9.3 billion. Under the current agreement, the first billion goes to the 32 owners right off the top, while players receive a 60 percent split of revenues after that. Now the owners are demanding another billion off the top.

Who exactly is more overpaid? To repeat, the argument is over money that comes out of the fans' pockets. The only question is who should get more of it, the owners or the players that the fans pay to see? After all, they don't pay to see Snyder smoke a cigar, or consult with media advisors.

The owners justify their position by decrying rising "player costs." Player compensation has doubled since 2003, but that's because the wealthiest owners have driven up the market for their stars. Pete Rozelle's wife once observed that, "every owner I ever met thinks he's just two players from winning the Super Bowl."

The cost argument really should be an internal quarrel between the owners. If some of them aren't making enough money, or are even losing money - if some of them built sports palaces and some didn't - whose fault is that? Maybe they don't need a better collective bargaining agreement. Maybe they need a budget.

Yet the owners quite clearly want the players to pick up the tab for some of their excesses - and the fans, too. On Tuesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell made it plain once again that the real driving force behind the owner demands is that they want to free up revenue for "innovation and growth," namely the "costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums." But bigger stadiums may well mean more expenses shifted to the fans.

What's more, they appear to be digging in, judging by their latest actions. Last week; they walked away from a bargaining session; this week; they filed a charge against the players' union with the National Labor Relations Board. One day, they refuse to talk; the next, they accuse the other side of not negotiating; and then, the next say that the season could be in jeopardy if a deal isn't reached soon.

What's really going on? The suspicion here is that the league owners are simply tempted to see if they can do as well in labor negotiations as the NHL did in improving its financial condition with a lockout a few years ago. But there is a big difference between the NFL and the NHL: Hockey is not nearly so profitable, and the lockout and the accompanying risk of alienating their fans were therefore worth it.

As long the NFL is raking in $9 billion and so many owners are clearly making money, it's pretty difficult for them to claim to be on the high ground, or to cry poor.

It's not like they're the airline industry, or even hockey.

So far they have utterly failed to make the case that they are so financially imperiled that players should make sacrifices for them, or fans either. For one thing, they continue to refuse to open their books, presumably because the results could be embarrassing.

Disclosure of their real conditions might reveal just how ungenerous they are with the players they claim to care about. Or it might reveal just how mercilessly hard they are working to strip every dime out of the fans.

The next time a league official claims the players make "outrageous sums," as Goodell does, fans should ask themselves the following questions: How much are owners making? And how much of that is due to government subsidies?

Are teams really in danger of losing money - or do they merely crave unlimited "growth?" Would a new labor agreement work for or against the interest of the ticket-buyers? If the owners win a billion-dollar concession from players, what will they do with the money? Will prices go down?

Do they really need a new deal - or have they been getting a sweetheart one all along?

Wow, what a terrible article. I have read more unbiased articles on english language North Korean news websites. Ugh.

[#27TheDominator]

Wow, what a terrible article. I have read more unbiased articles on english language North Korean news websites. Ugh.

It's kind of a strange premise. The owners should pay the players more because they shouldn't be guaranteed a profit? Why should the players get all that money if the owners aren't making a profit? The issue isn't the owners making a profit, it's what percentage of the profit they should make. That is why the players want them to open the books before they agree to pulling more money off the top. The owners unfair labor practices claim says the players are asking for records they aren't entitled to, but I don't see how the players aren't entitled when the owners are pulling money (I think the figure is $1B) off the top and claiming they still aren't making enough. This guy should have emphasized that if he wanted to make the owners look bad.

[serphnx]

Hockey has yet to recover from its lockout. It was on the very verge of being considered a major sport along with NFL, MLB and the NBA. It was right there, as the 4th one. Then that lockout happened and many people just gave up on it.

I bet the MLB and NBA are hoping this lockout happens. It seems like there can really be only one king of the mountain, and the lockout has toppled each one in turn, or prevented the last one from being a major player at any rate.

MLB was the first big one, and had their lockout the first. That let NBA step in with Jordan really making it very popular. Then the NBA faltered too. The NFL grew bigger and bigger and now it wants to shoot itself in the foot.

They really don't see how easy it is to lose everything. They are much too arrogant. People will move on and find something else. This country has always done that. Maybe we'll follow soccer like the rest of the world.

[NJ]

I think there should be a rookie cap and it should be called "The Gholston Rule".

If that slug didn't prove out the insanity of unproven bonanza, nothing will.

[NJ]

Maybe we'll follow soccer like the rest of the world.

Birdwatching before Soccer .... then Spelunking .... then Opera .... then Numismatics ... then I'd blow my brains out

[Maxman]

Bob I know you are a writer, is scumbagginess considered to be a legitimate word now? Pretty cool if so.

[Maxman]

Are you really naive enough to believe that any Commissioner is not a puppet of the owners that hire him?

You could not pay me enough money to to that job.

Agree on the first part. Not the second. I would do that job for 200k, lol.

[Maxman]

Speaking of Pensions...what companies actually provide pensions anymore? Are players that played for four years eligible for a pension? I worked at Fidelity Investments for four years....I got squat besides what I, and they, contributed to a 401k plan...and I did not make anywhere close to what an average NFL players makes. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that a four year vet making the league minimum of $500k can't plan for their financial future. And spare me the "young dude who came from nothing, didn't know any better and blew it all on cars" excuse. The NFL tries to educate these men. At what point does personal responsibility come into play?

At the point in time that many of these guys are never physically the same again, they are entitled to a pension imo.

I spent some time talking to Wesley Walker at the football game we played in last week. Listening to him talk about his neck surgery 3 years ago. He was 52 years old then and said the cold weather is not his friend. He talked about Al Toon as well.

Just makes you cringe.

So I think their pension should be even bigger. They are the ones paying the price for this game that we enjoy so much.

[Maxman]

Hockey has yet to recover from its lockout. It was on the very verge of being considered a major sport along with NFL, MLB and the NBA. It was right there, as the 4th one. Then that lockout happened and many people just gave up on it.

I bet the MLB and NBA are hoping this lockout happens. It seems like there can really be only one king of the mountain, and the lockout has toppled each one in turn, or prevented the last one from being a major player at any rate.

MLB was the first big one, and had their lockout the first. That let NBA step in with Jordan really making it very popular. Then the NBA faltered too. The NFL grew bigger and bigger and now it wants to shoot itself in the foot.

They really don't see how easy it is to lose everything. They are much too arrogant. People will move on and find something else. This country has always done that. Maybe we'll follow soccer like the rest of the world.

really good point about the other sports beneffiting from a lockout in the NFL. MLB is probably rooting for it, no doubt.

[donboyO]

At the point in time that many of these guys are never physically the same again, they are entitled to a pension imo.

I spent some time talking to Wesley Walker at the football game we played in last week. Listening to him talk about his neck surgery 3 years ago. He was 52 years old then and said the cold weather is not his friend. He talked about Al Toon as well.

Just makes you cringe.

So I think their pension should be even bigger. They are the ones paying the price for this game that we enjoy so much.

richt on point! Pats fans just do not get in, maybe their mind is warped from their owner's crooked dealings in life

[NYJ37/12]

To Receive a pension you have to play 3 or 4 years, it is very small $470 times years played = monthly amount. Many of these guys are crippled when they turn 50. Shame on people for thinking they are set for life. $350k turns into $175k after taxes. Not that much money in the real world.

dont forget agent gets 10% off the top.

But, I'm not taking sides here. As a business owner myself I would never sign a deal that gives my valued employees 60% of my earnings. The players think this is a partnership, its not. The teams are privately own companies and the players are the employees. Period. If these players feel they are being shafted, find another job. How many of these players could make 10% of what they are making now if they did not play? Very few have degrees. Most of the guys would be making an average living. They choose this job. They need to stop thinking they have a sense of entitlement.

[NJ]

I'm not taking sides here. As a business owner myself I would never sign a deal that gives my valued employees 60% of my earnings. The players think this is a partnership, its not.

I'm not taking sides either, but if your business or product is these players and what they do on a football field and you're splitting 60/40 with them - you're doing pretty well earning 40% on their efforts. Without them as your product, your business is the sound of 1 hand clapping.

[Jetsfan80]

As a business owner myself I would never sign a deal that gives my valued employees 60% of my earnings. The players think this is a partnership, its not. The teams are privately own companies and the players are the employees. Period.

This is not like a regular company where you have employees who sell another product. The employees ARE the product. Period.

[Garb]

At the point in time that many of these guys are never physically the same again, they are entitled to a pension imo.

I spent some time talking to Wesley Walker at the football game we played in last week. Listening to him talk about his neck surgery 3 years ago. He was 52 years old then and said the cold weather is not his friend. He talked about Al Toon as well.

Just makes you cringe.

So I think their pension should be even bigger. They are the ones paying the price for this game that we enjoy so much.

My father worked construction for a very, very long time. He has two plastic knees, a bumb hip and arthritis. Cold weather isn't his friend either. He and Mr. Toon should both buy condos in South Florida.

I understand what you are saying and I agree. But it is hard to sympathize in 1) this economy 2) people with money arguing with people that have even more money 3) if the players cave on the 18 game schedule.