joebabyny Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 As confusing as all of this nonsense is, I still havent heard a particular strong argument for the owners side other than -"they're the boss" And it seems like they've come to an agreement upon the rookie pay scale. Which is really one of the few flaws other than the treatment of retired players. Well technically in this country that's really the only argument they need. The players have other leagues and other choices. Everybody pretends that owning an nfl franchise is just a license to print money, and that there are no risks involved to the owners. Well, from what I have read and seen of interviews, Jerry Jones might disagree. Heck, the Bills are now playing home games in another country and Jax has like half their stadium seats sitting under tarps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 They aren't sitting there demanding a 50/50 revenue share. And yes, a lot of big name actors do get points on the film, but these are on the net, not gross, and they don't get to see all the studios books to confirm that. The studios manipulate those numbers to make the net look much smaller. The problem with you're trying to equate the film industry to the NFL or any other professional sports league is that the film industry isn't a closed universe monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 The problem with you're trying to equate the film industry to the NFL or any other professional sports league is that the film industry isn't a closed universe monopoly. And for that, the USFL was awarded 1 dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Well technically in this country that's really the only argument they need. The players have other leagues and other choices. Everybody pretends that owning an nfl franchise is just a license to print money, and that there are no risks involved to the owners. Well, from what I have read and seen of interviews, Jerry Jones might disagree. Heck, the Bills are now playing home games in another country and Jax has like half their stadium seats sitting under tarps! Maybe they should try winning some games then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 20th Century Fox is not the equivelent of an NFL team. AND, the film industry is not the equivelent of the NFL. In the film industry, production teams find financiers to put up money for a film and find a studio as distributor to put up other money to cover expenses. The money generated by the movie is used to pay back all those who put up the upfront money. Thereafter, profits are distributed. The NFL, on the other hand, has a ready made revenue stream based squarely on the players performing on the field. Fans aren't buying season tickets to see scrubs. They're going to see NFL players. Fans aren't buying jerseys for scrubs either. I know the technicalities of how hollywood works, i just used a studio name for simplicity's sake. But they are not different. The money is distributed to the people who put up the money, the financial stake holders. As far as the nfl's ready made stream, well, the tv deal money pretty much all goes to the players under the current rev share. Under the current deal, about 2/3 of the nfl's shared revenue comes from tv, and the players get just about 2/3 of the shared revenue. When you start to look at exactly how the shared an unshared revenue in the nfl works, it isn't like the owners are making a killing, especially teams that play in weak attendance conferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Well technically in this country that's really the only argument they need. The players have other leagues and other choices. Everybody pretends that owning an nfl franchise is just a license to print money, and that there are no risks involved to the owners. Well, from what I have read and seen of interviews, Jerry Jones might disagree. Heck, the Bills are now playing home games in another country and Jax has like half their stadium seats sitting under tarps! The first point doesn't make sense because, no, just because they are owners of a sports team doesn't give them the right to do whatever they want. You have to compare it to other pro sports leagues, not to other industries. And I find it comical that you argue that players can go to other leagues. Guess what? Owners don't want that because it would mean they (the owners) would make less money. The players generate the owners money. That's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 The problem with you're trying to equate the film industry to the NFL or any other professional sports league is that the film industry isn't a closed universe monopoly. Hey there is the ufl, cfl, and arena. Yeah it ain't the nfl, but the player has employment choices if he thinks he is being wronged. You can't fault the NFL for having a superior product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Hey there is the ufl, cfl, and arena. Yeah it ain't the nfl, but the player has employment choices if he thinks he is being wronged. You can't fault the NFL for having a superior product. LOL. Why does the NFL have a superior product????? THE PLAYERS If you took all the NFL players and put them in the UFL, what would happen to the NFL???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Maybe they should try winning some games then. Who? The owners? This is the inherent problem with viewing players as partners. If the team does poorly, the owner suffers, and the owner of the team they are playing each week because of gate sharing. But the player gets paid either way. He wants to be treated as a partner when it comes time to split up the money, but i doubt he wants to take the financial burden when the team is in the tank due to poor performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 LOL. Why does the NFL have a superior product????? THE PLAYERS If you took all the NFL players and put them in the UFL, what would happen to the NFL???? Well then the players clearly have that option at their disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 LOL. Why does the NFL have a superior product????? THE PLAYERS If you took all the NFL players and put them in the UFL, what would happen to the NFL???? Why does a superior service company have best in class service? The workers. But that does not mean they get to understand the profit of the company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Why does a superior service company have best in class service? The workers. But that does not mean they get to understand the profit of the company What's your point, Scott? Serious question. Are you saying that if the owners are claiming they "are not profitable enough" and, thus, want to take more money from the revenue pool that they shouldn't have to prove that they are "not profitable enough"??? Are the players simply to take the owners' word for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Well then the players clearly have that option at their disposal. And would the NFL owners want that? Again, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE NFL if that happened??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 What's your point, Scott? Serious question. Are you saying that if the owners are claiming they "are not profitable enough" and, thus, want to take more money from the revenue pool that they shouldn't have to prove that they are "not profitable enough"??? Are the players simply to take the owners' word for it? An employer does not owe the workers the right to access the books. If owners like to cut the piece of the pie that players are entitled to, that is within their rights. The players can take it or leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 An employer does not owe the workers the right to access the books. If owners like to cut the piece of the pie that players are entitled to, that is within their rights. The players can take it or leave it. Okay. The NFL players are merely employees. Why don't the owners take 80% of the money then on a take it or leave it basis??? And if the players did "leave it" as JoeBaby suggests and forms their own league, what will happen to the NFL's revenues??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Okay. The NFL players are merely employees. Why don't the owners take 80% of the money then on a take it or leave it basis??? And if the players did "leave it" as JoeBaby suggests and forms their own league, what will happen to the NFL's revenues??? Everything has a balance. I work for an ESOP company where EVERYONE is an OWNER. Not everyone gets to see the full disclosure of profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Everything has a balance. I work for an ESOP company where EVERYONE is an OWNER. Not everyone gets to see the full disclosure of profit. You're not answering the question. You said, "If owners like to cut the piece of the pie that players are entitled to, that is within their rights." If it is within the owners' rights, why can't they just make the players take 20% and tell them, "take it or leave it"??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 You're not answering the question. You said, "If owners like to cut the piece of the pie that players are entitled to, that is within their rights." If it is within the owners' rights, why can't they just make the players take 20% and tell them, "take it or leave it"??? They could, but it would not be a good business move. Like I said, you have to strike balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 How a team owner makes a buck. From what I have read, this is how a team owner makes a buck, with the whole revenue sharing thing. There are 2 forms of revenue, shared and unshared. Shared money gets split up equally among all 32 teams, so even though one team works very hard to be competitive and market themselves better than the rest, they will get no more money than the worst team. The lion share of that money, about 2/3, comes from the tv deal, where again, no matter how many games you play on national tv or how big or small a market you are in, you get paid out the same. Now, players get just about 2/3 of all shared money, so in essence, the tv money goes to pay the players. The other 1/3 of the shared revenue comes from various sources, like jersey sales. Of the unshared money, not of all that goes to a particular team either. The game day tickets are split 60/40 between the home and away team. This is great for teams like the Jags who can't put bodies in their own stadium but get to play some other big draw teams on the road. Conversely, it suck for teams that play road games at crappy places. The balance of unshared money comes from concession, team shops, etc and using the venue for other events. When you look at how the splits work out, I don't see how the owners are especially greedy here. Currently the owners take 1 billion off the top for expenses like stadium upgrades, etc, which sounds like a ton of money until you realize it is divided by 32 teams and comes to 31 million per team. They want to double that deduction to 2 billion which sounds enormous until you figure the real per team numbers, which would come out to an extra 18.75 million for each team since the team already gets 40 percent of that extra billion. To a team like the Jets, who went halves on a stadium costing 1.6 billion, how can you call them greedy for asking for an extra 18 million a year. In the end, this money will have to come from somewhere, either it is going to be from the revenue the league has already made, or from raising prices on those hot dogs and beer to the fan so that the players can keep their crazy salary cap growing each season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 They could, but it would not be a good business move. Like I said, you have to strike balance. Why wouldn't it be a good business move? The owners would be taking in $7.2 billion rather than $4 billion on a 50/50 split. How is that not good business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Why wouldn't it be a good business move? The owners would be taking in $7.2 billion rather than $4 billion on a 50/50 split. How is that not good business? Because in any good business transaction there should be balance. The League operated over 60 years without even reporting revenues to players. Imagine that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetfan13 Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 I can't believe no-one has touched on this point yet. Joe Baby, Brad Pitt wasn't in The Titanic, silly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Because in any good business transaction there should be balance. The League operated over 60 years without even reporting revenues to players. Imagine that Yep and for 60 years there was very little fair or balanced about the way the league operated. Probably plenty that wouldn't have stood up in a court of law either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I can't believe no-one has touched on this point yet. Joe Baby, Brad Pitt wasn't in The Titanic, silly... lol, got me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Yep and for 60 years there was very little fair or balanced about the way the league operated. Probably plenty that wouldn't have stood up in a court of law either. Owners have made the investment, owners assume the risk, they get to call the structure of payment. and btw, they are anti-trust exemptions, which allow the NFL to exist and operate as they want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 lol, got me That actually earned you a stamp on your man card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 That actually earned you a stamp on your man card. And it earned jetfan13 a neg rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Owners have made the investment, owners assume the risk, they get to call the structure of payment. and btw, they are anti-trust exemptions, which allow the NFL to exist and operate as they want The only exemption is on the TV deal. The NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption like baseball. That's why the owners are afraid of decertification. That will subject them to an antitrust lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 The only exemption is on the TV deal. The NFL doesn't have an antitrust exemption like baseball. That's why the owners are afraid of decertification. That will subject them to an antitrust lawsuit. Yes, their anti-trust is more limited than baseball's. But, they do have the right to offer employees whatever they want. What is fair, is another matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Because in any good business transaction there should be balance. The League operated over 60 years without even reporting revenues to players. Imagine that LOL and there was no free agency then either. Yeah that's a good model to follow. Also, why are you evading the question? Why don't the owners take 80% ? They're the employer. They assume the financial risk. They could just hire scab players and rake in $9 billion a yr, right??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Yes, their anti-trust is more limited than baseball's. But, they do have the right to offer employees whatever they want. What is fair, is another matter Then again, why not take 80%? Why do they need "balance" with employees??? According to you the owners have the right to do whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Owners have made the investment, owners assume the risk, they get to call the structure of payment. and btw, they are anti-trust exemptions, which allow the NFL to exist and operate as they want Not even close. If they don't have a CBA there will be a ton of things tossed by the court. Start with the draft. Move on to "restricted free agency". Continue with the salary cap. Yes, their anti-trust is more limited than baseball's. But, they do have the right to offer employees whatever they want. What is fair, is another matter They don't have the right to offer employees whatever they want, but that's not on the players. It's on the owners. The salary cap keeps them from offering employees whatever they want. If they could they would be paying everybody like Albert Haynesworth. It's not just what is fair, it's what they can get away with and IMO it's not as much as some of them think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 LOL and there was no free agency then either. Yeah that's a good model to follow. From this fan's perspective, the League was the most interesting then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 First of all, who says they are partners? How are they not partners? They are sharing the money as it increases every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 They don't have the right to offer employees whatever they want, but that's not on the players. I meant in terms of % of cut of revenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.