An excellent article on the scumbagginess of NFL owners.

[dbatesman]

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.

No, the economics are long-term brilliant. There's a reason the owners already get a billion off the top. Spoiler alert: it's not free market capitalism.

[joebabyny]

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.

But then the owner is the risk taker who put up the capital and pays the bills before he is paid. If attendance is down and game day revenue is down due to weather/performance/economy the player is still getting his paycheck. Is Tony Romo sharing in Jerry Jones' financial risk in building that new stadium?

[joebabyny]

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

It's no different than any other entertainment industry business, and as far as I know none of them are giving up 40%. Take Hollywood for example. Nobody goes to see a movie based on the movie studio or producer, they go for the actors, who are paid on par with top athletes but not 40% of the revenue. The few high percentage sharing deals there are generally are deals where the actor traded a high salary for a stake in the movie.

[NJ]

But then the owner is the risk taker who put up the capital and pays the bills before he is paid. If attendance is down and game day revenue is down due to weather/performance/economy the player is still getting his paycheck. Is Tony Romo sharing in Jerry Jones' financial risk in building that new stadium?

I hear all that bro ... but why should the entertainment business get 5x the profit margins of any other business? If I'm making lawn sprinklers and have all the other risks (too much rain - nobody's buying sprinklers) that any other business owner has - I'm doing DAMN good to make 10% after everything.

[Maxman]

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.

If your Dad ran a 4.4 things would be different. Same for my Dad.

My point is that ANYONE who plays in the NFL is a very unique talent. And there is enough money being made off their backs that they should be taken care of. We cheer on game day but their pain lingers forever. Long after we have moved on to our newest favorite player.

[Maxman]

But then the owner is the risk taker who put up the capital and pays the bills before he is paid. If attendance is down and game day revenue is down due to weather/performance/economy the player is still getting his paycheck. Is Tony Romo sharing in Jerry Jones' financial risk in building that new stadium?

That would be a very good point IF the owners would open their books. The owners are asking to change the structure but not willing to disclose how profitable their current structure is. If you want someone to share the pain, you better well have said pain well documented.

I fear this is driven by pure greed.

[Garb]

That would be a very good point IF the owners would open their books. The owners are asking to change the structure but not willing to disclose how profitable their current structure is. If you want someone to share the pain, you better well have said pain well documented.

I fear this is driven by pure greed.

Fear? That's a sure bet.

[Klecko73isGod]

Fear? That's a sure bet.

Slap me, I actually agree with Terry.

This is a money grab by the owners.

[T0mShane]

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.

I work in a blue collar industry and I'm fully aware that if God truly does despise me (as I suspect) and I'm still doing this in 15 years, I will have traded my long-term health for a paycheck and a relatively small pension. This is the side effect of working in my industry, as it was in your dad's. In the NFL, physical injury and harm are inherently major elements in their job description, so much so that most guys in the profession don't last five years. We, as fans, in essence pay large sums to watch these guys disable each other. It is not them looking to hold the owners up, it's the owners looking to take money away from the players, as well as add to their injury woes with the expanded schedule. The owners, no doubt taking after every politician alive, are crying poverty right now and want to throw that burden back onto the people that have funded their wastefulness all along. I don't feel bad if Kraft and Woody and Mara and Jerry Jones aren't making as much money as they feel they deserve, especially after gouging taxpayers for new stadiums that 90% of their heavily-taxed fanbase can't even afford to park their cars next to. F*ck the owners. If they're "losing money," let them sell their teams to the 40 or 50 investment groups waiting in line to buy an NFL team. They're liars and schuysters who should never, ever, ever, ever be believed when there's a nickel at stake in any negotiation. I hope this government mediator comes in and laughs in Jerry Richardson's face and advises the players to go get jobs at UPS.

[Maxman]

I work in a blue collar industry and I'm fully aware that if God truly does despise me (as I suspect) and I'm still doing this in 15 years, I will have traded my long-term health for a paycheck and a relatively small pension. This is the side effect of working in my industry, as it was in your dad's. In the NFL, physical injury and harm are inherently major elements in their job description, so much so that most guys in the profession don't last five years. We, as fans, in essence pay large sums to watch these guys disable each other. It is not them looking to hold the owners up, it's the owners looking to take money away from the players, as well as add to their injury woes with the expanded schedule. The owners, no doubt taking after every politician alive, are crying poverty right now and want to throw that burden back onto the people that have funded their wastefulness all along. I don't feel bad if Kraft and Woody and Mara and Jerry Jones aren't making as much money as they feel they deserve, especially after gouging taxpayers for new stadiums that 90% of their heavily-taxed fanbase can't even afford to park their cars next to. F*ck the owners. If they're "losing money," let them sell their teams to the 40 or 50 investment groups waiting in line to buy an NFL team. They're liars and schuysters who should never, ever, ever, ever be believed when there's a nickel at stake in any negotiation. I hope this government mediator comes in and laughs in Jerry Richardson's face and advises the players to go get jobs at UPS.

You work?

[T0mShane]

You work?

I lead a rich and full life. My therapists tell me to repeat that to myself a lot. It makes the anguish fade.

[Maxman]

I lead a rich and full life. My therapists tell me to repeat that to myself a lot. It makes the anguish fade.

I am thinking of going to therapy. The older I get the more willing I am able to admit how f'ed up I m. Can you recommend anyone?

[T0mShane]

I am thinking of going to therapy. The older I get the more willing I am able to admit how f'ed up I m. Can you recommend anyone?

Eric Yellin is outstanding.

[Maxman]

Eric Yellin is outstanding.

I am kind of dating him so it is a little awkward. I will find someone else, no worries.

[NYJ37/12]

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

Football is the product, players are the pawns that can be replaced.

[T0mShane]

Football is the product, players are the pawns that can be replaced.

Tell that to the XFL, CFL, USFL and Arena League...if you can find them.

[PatriotReign37]

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.

I agree 100%

The 18 game thing seemed like a smoke screen from the beginning.

[PatriotReign37]

But then the owner is the risk taker who put up the capital and pays the bills before he is paid. If attendance is down and game day revenue is down due to weather/performance/economy the player is still getting his paycheck. Is Tony Romo sharing in Jerry Jones' financial risk in building that new stadium?

But, Romo is taking risk every time he steps on the playing field. He could suffer a career ending injury any time during the season and Jones would show him the door. All the salary left on his contract would be Jerrys to spend elsewhere.

[PatriotReign37]

Football is the product, players are the pawns that can be replaced.

Yes and no.

If all 53 players are replaced by guys off the street, would you still pay to go watch them play football?

[#27TheDominator]

But then the owner is the risk taker who put up the capital and pays the bills before he is paid. If attendance is down and game day revenue is down due to weather/performance/economy the player is still getting his paycheck. Is Tony Romo sharing in Jerry Jones' financial risk in building that new stadium?

That would be a very good point IF the owners would open their books. The owners are asking to change the structure but not willing to disclose how profitable their current structure is. If you want someone to share the pain, you better well have said pain well documented.

I fear this is driven by pure greed.

It would be a better point if there were actually any risk. The owners get a huge amount of revenue from the television deals and weather/performance/economy don't effect their paycheck either. In 2011 the owners will get $4.4B in television revenue even if there are no games. That's $137.5M per team. **** the owners.

[NYJ37/12]

That would be a very good point IF the owners would open their books. The owners are asking to change the structure but not willing to disclose how profitable their current structure is. If you want someone to share the pain, you better well have said pain well documented.

I fear this is driven by pure greed.

I understand your stance Max, but private organizations do not and should not open their books to their employees. If the only fault of the owners is to maximize their earnings, well, that's exactly why you start your own company.

[NYJ37/12]

Tell that to the XFL, CFL, USFL and Arena League...if you can find them.

Nice try. Those leauges were looking to compete against the NFL, not going to happen, ever. The NFL will always have the best players looking to play for great money. The NFL players union has no leverage and they no it. Players need the NFL, the NFL does not need thease players.

[NYJ37/12]

It would be a better point if there were actually any risk. The owners get a huge amount of revenue from the television deals and weather/performance/economy don't effect their paycheck either. In 2011 the owners will get $4.4B in television revenue even if there are no games. That's $137.5M per team. **** the owners.

I really did not want to take sides here, but it seems I am for the owners, I'm not. Some things said here are biased.

That's a nice figure you put out there, almost like Obama's big budget number. All shock value, no substance.

We'll go with your number of 137.5 per team, before taxes. Now lets add in expenses like salaries, not players but the 100-200 people who work for each team, insurance for those employees, cars, car insurance, property taxes on the facilities, property taxes on the stadium, maintenance, food, overhead, and oh yeah, taxes on that 137.5 in earnings which will give obama back about 60% in that tax bracket. How much does that leave the scumbag owners? There is more to think about then just a big number. Everyone always assumes the owner makes tons of money, my employees are no different. What is forgotten is all the expenses that make the company run, those bills still need to be paid, lockout or not.

[#27TheDominator]

I understand your stance Max, but private organizations do not and should not open their books to their employees. If the only fault of the owners is to maximize their earnings, well, that's exactly why you start your own company.

If you expect the players to accept a cap on their potential earnings because you claim that your expenses are increasing and revenue is decreasing or stagnating you'd damn well better open your books. This isn't your small business where they can go across the street and work for somebody else.

Nice try. Those leauges were looking to compete against the NFL, not going to happen, ever. The NFL will always have the best players looking to play for great money. The NFL players union has no leverage and they no it. Players need the NFL, the NFL does not need thease players.

Never happen? The AFL won that war and really could have destroyed the NFL if Hunt didn't push for the merger. The USFL should have, but the courts ****ed them. The USFL won their case and there is a pretty good chance that the next time the NFL loses a court case (like McNeil's or American Needle) they will be paying some serious damages.

I really did not want to take sides here, but it seems I am for the owners, I'm not. Some things said here are biased.

That's a nice figure you put out there, almost like Obama's big budget number. All shock value, no substance.

We'll go with your number of 137.5 per team, before taxes. Now lets add in expenses like salaries, not players but the 100-200 people who work for each team, insurance for those employees, cars, car insurance, property taxes on the facilities, property taxes on the stadium, maintenance, food, overhead, and oh yeah, taxes on that 137.5 in earnings which will give obama back about 60% in that tax bracket. How much does that leave the scumbag owners? There is more to think about then just a big number. Everyone always assumes the owner makes tons of money, my employees are no different. What is forgotten is all the expenses that make the company run, those bills still need to be paid, lockout or not.

Um... that's just the TV money. TV money with no games being played AND IT MORE THAN COVERS ALL SALARIES FOR THE NFL. Everything else they earn from concessions, parking, tickets, is their's to keep. If the owners are so worried about taxes they shouldn't mind paying some salary, that won't be profit. You listed food up there. Are you ******* kidding? They charge $9 for a sausage sandwich and $8 for a beer, they make money on the food, it isn't subsidized by the television revenue.

The cap comes from the profit. Not from the income. The owners want to cry poverty and say they can't afford to give that big a percentage to the players, well then they have to open the books. Based on the income there is no way the profit is going down. EVERY Knick playoff game earned the team $1M in straight profit. That was years ago (when the Knicks used to make the playoffs) and NFL games have a much bigger audience and parking revenue.

[NYJ37/12]

If you expect the players to accept a cap on their potential earnings because you claim that your expenses are increasing and revenue is decreasing or stagnating you'd damn well better open your books. This isn't your small business where they can go across the street and work for somebody else.

Never happen? The AFL won that war and really could have destroyed the NFL if Hunt didn't push for the merger. The USFL should have, but the courts ****ed them. The USFL won their case and there is a pretty good chance that the next time the NFL loses a court case (like McNeil's or American Needle) they will be paying some serious damages.

Um... that's just the TV money. TV money with no games being played AND IT MORE THAN COVERS ALL SALARIES FOR THE NFL. Everything else they earn from concessions, parking, tickets, is their's to keep. If the owners are so worried about taxes they shouldn't mind paying some salary, that won't be profit. You listed food up there. Are you ******* kidding? They charge $9 for a sausage sandwich and $8 for a beer, they make money on the food, it isn't subsidized by the television revenue.

The cap comes from the profit. Not from the income. The owners want to cry poverty and say they can't afford to give that big a percentage to the players, well then they have to open the books. Based on the income there is no way the profit is going down. EVERY Knick playoff game earned the team $1M in straight profit. That was years ago (when the Knicks used to make the playoffs) and NFL games have a much bigger audience and parking revenue.

Your right. Your also right about my employees, all of whom do not have a college degree but earn 100k per year each, some more, could easily walk across the street for new employment. How difficult would it be for me to find their replacements? About one minute.

[#27TheDominator]

Your right. Your also right about my employess all of whom do not have a college degree but earn 100k per year, could easily walk across the street for new employment.

Right, so you agree with me. You are forced to pay market value (or above). The owners collude to keep salary down with a cap and you expect the NFLPA to sign off and pass the lube?

[PFSIKH]

Nice try. Those leauges were looking to compete against the NFL, not going to happen, ever. The NFL will always have the best players looking to play for great money. The NFL players union has no leverage and they no it. Players need the NFL, the NFL does not need these players.

It is a game of chicken. Will the players capitulate and go back to work so they can maximize their brief max earning potential. Or will the owners cave, especially the owners that are paying back loans for buying the team, new stadium other business endeavors.

The cap comes from the profit. Not from the income. The owners want to cry poverty and say they can't afford to give that big a percentage to the players, well then they have to open the books. Based on the income there is no way the profit is going down. EVERY Knick playoff game earned the team $1M in straight profit. That was years ago (when the Knicks used to make the playoffs) and NFL games have a much bigger audience and parking revenue.

Dom I have to disagree on this. The salary cap is based off of a set percentage of "defined gross revenue from all sources". After the one billion is siphoned off the top for the owners, then the remaining portion is subject to the players percentage.

If the NFL salaries were based off of profit, then we would be watching team full of Maxes on the field.

[#27TheDominator]

It is a game of chicken. Will the players capitulate and go back to work so they can maximize their brief max earning potential. Or will the owners cave, especially the owners that are paying back loans for buying the team, new stadium other business endeavors.

Dom I have to disagree on this. The salary cap is based off of a set percentage of "defined gross revenue from all sources". After the one billion is siphoned off the top for the owners, then the remaining portion is subject to the players percentage.

If the NFL salaries were based off of profit, then we would be watching team full of Maxes on the field.

Of course you are right. What was I smoking? Still, I don't think the latest DGR included all the income, but it emcompasses more than the old CBA. If they were doing it based upon the real profit, I think they'd still get some high quality players, though I heard Max was all over the field in flag.

[Maxman]

I understand your stance Max, but private organizations do not and should not open their books to their employees. If the only fault of the owners is to maximize their earnings, well, that's exactly why you start your own company.

Yes and to that end I have no problem with them not opening their books. They are private, I get that. But if you are going to ask people to do more (18 games) or take less (different cap split) you will have to explain why. That is the part the owners are falling down on.

If the owners wanted to get the fans on their side, all they would have to do is say that prices for the fans are out of control. Pledge something like that, and they would win the PR war. The problem is the owners just want a better cut and prices will stay out of control and continue to grow.

[Maxman]

It is a game of chicken. Will the players capitulate and go back to work so they can maximize their brief max earning potential. Or will the owners cave, especially the owners that are paying back loans for buying the team, new stadium other business endeavors.

Dom I have to disagree on this. The salary cap is based off of a set percentage of "defined gross revenue from all sources". After the one billion is siphoned off the top for the owners, then the remaining portion is subject to the players percentage.

If the NFL salaries were based off of profit, then we would be watching team full of Maxes on the field.

My team made it to the Championship game and lost last weekend. A lot like the Jets, lol.

[NYJ37/12]

Yes and to that end I have no problem with them not opening their books. They are private, I get that. But if you are going to ask people to do more (18 games) or take less (different cap split) you will have to explain why. That is the part the owners are falling down on.

If the owners wanted to get the fans on their side, all they would have to do is say that prices for the fans are out of control. Pledge something like that, and they would win the PR war. The problem is the owners just want a better cut and prices will stay out of control and continue to grow.

If they go to 18 games the players should be paid two extra game checks. They should not be free games.

[NYJ37/12]

Right, so you agree with me. You are forced to pay market value (or above). The owners collude to keep salary down with a cap and you expect the NFLPA to sign off and pass the lube?

It was tongue in cheek. If 100k is market value for uneducated people I am disconnected from reality. My people make that much because they have all been there 20 plus years. If they ever left they would take a 50% pay cut at the least. Same with the NFL players and they know it.

If the owners need to open their private books to prove they are taking a hit, then the players need to prove why they need more money. When a player walks into a Bentley dealership and drops 250k on a 2nd or 3rd car, how is it he "needs" more money?

There is definitely some things the players need to fight for such as after care when they are done playing and insurance benefits until the end of their life. Seeing the owners books is not a battle they should fight.

And by the way, running a big business is no different then running a small one. When your company is not doing as well, you either let people go or start cutting salaries. There is no need to prove that to any employee at any level of business.

[#27TheDominator]

It was tongue in cheek. If 100k is market value for uneducated people I am disconnected from reality. My people make that much because they have all been there 20 plus years. If they ever left they would take a 50% pay cut at the least. Same with the NFL players and they know it.

If the owners need to open their private books to prove they are taking a hit, then the players need to prove why they need more money. When a player walks into a Bentley dealership and drops 250k on a 2nd or 3rd car, how is it he "needs" more money?

There is definitely some things the players need to fight for such as after care when they are done playing and insurance benefits until the end of their life. Seeing the owners books is not a battle they should fight.

And by the way, running a big business is no different then running a small one. When your company is not doing as well, you either let people go or start cutting salaries. There is no need to prove that to any employee at any level of business.

The NFL is completely different from any small business and you mentioned why in your prior posts. Do you know why there are no other viable football leagues? It's because the NFL violates antitrust laws. The only reason they get away with things like the draft and limiting free agency is because of the CBA. They want the NFLPA to sign off on that, but they don't want to provide any proof that it is necessary. That's why they are going to have to open the books or the NFL is going to face huge changes.

Whether a player buys a Bentley is completely irrelevant. They don't get paid for what they need. They are supposed to get paid what they are worth and if there weren't a cap and there weren't limits on where they could go and if they could demand guaranteed contracts they would make more money. Do you think the owners need more money? What for? So Bob Kraft and Woody can buy Liverpool or Kraft can fund the Color Purple.

[Maxman]

It was tongue in cheek. If 100k is market value for uneducated people I am disconnected from reality. My people make that much because they have all been there 20 plus years. If they ever left they would take a 50% pay cut at the least. Same with the NFL players and they know it.

If the owners need to open their private books to prove they are taking a hit, then the players need to prove why they need more money. When a player walks into a Bentley dealership and drops 250k on a 2nd or 3rd car, how is it he "needs" more money?

There is definitely some things the players need to fight for such as after care when they are done playing and insurance benefits until the end of their life. Seeing the owners books is not a battle they should fight.

And by the way, running a big business is no different then running a small one. When your company is not doing as well, you either let people go or start cutting salaries. There is no need to prove that to any employee at any level of business.

I don't think this is about the players wanting more money. Player greed is another issue and is very real. But the owners seem to want to pay less. That is why the season has doubts next to it.

[NYJ37/12]

I don't think this is about the players wanting more money. Player greed is another issue and is very real. But the owners seem to want to pay less. That is why the season has doubts next to it.

I totally agree Max. If the owners want more for less, its flat out wrong. Maybe I'm keeping it to simplistic. I really see it as the owners know they signed off on a bad deal in 06' to keep the peace. Once they realized getting 40% of your business was bad business, they wanted it changed. The players are now accustomed to the 60% and are not willing to go back.