NFL Lockout

[Revalos]

Wow, have several major popular revolutions, a blossoming civil war, and 2 large scale disasters in the past few months and all of a sudden we all forget about what is really important in life: NFL Football.

I've been reading up on the upcoming court case and I'm still in the dark. I thought if the lockout happened we're pretty much done, but is there still hope?

[Anebriated]

There will be football in 2011. Bottom line is the bottom line, neither side can afford to let 9 billion dollars go to waste.

The worst part about all this to me is that the owners and players will be slightly affected by all this but should it actually become a lingering issue it will trickle down to the stadium workers, the bar owners, etc. The scariest thought of the entire lockout to me: NO FANTASY FOOTBALL! OMG

[ZeP]

We won't lose any games, just the offseason activities will be all fucked up.

[DoctorUnne]

As others have said they still have until about November to come to an agreement before they'd cancel the entire season. If they reached in agreement in October or early November they'd play a shortened season. They're going to continue to negotiate from now until then in an attempt to find a solution.

However, there's a very real chance there won't be a season this year. The owners have been preparing for that possibility for three years already, ever since they voted to terminate the old CBA. That's why they negotiated the condition into their new TV deals that they'd be paid under a lockout (unfortunately that plan backfired). Each of the 32 teams has also been forced to save enough cash so that they could survive not just one but TWO missed seasons while still being able to upkeep their stadiums, pay team staff, etc. In the past the players have called the owners' bluff and because the owners weren't financially prepared to have a lockout the cohesion among all 32 owners necessary to have a successful lockout fell apart. This time they won't let that happen.

The players WILL have to make concessions in allowing the owners to deduct certain expenses before splitting League revenue with the players. The way the formula worked under the old CBA players received approximately 60% of gross revenue without any deductions. Players have reaped enormous benefits over the last ten years from incremental revenue generated by all the new stadiums that have come online, but more and more the public is not contributing to building these stadiums, which means they are largely debt financed and have high ongoing capital expenditures. Gross revenue (and hence the salary cap) is increasing rapidly, but profit growth for the League is stagnating, and any business owner would do what he can to right-size the cost structure and position the business to grow in the future.

To take an example of how the old system creates perverse incentives, consider the following example. Let's say the Giants currently have a stadium concessions deal with Aramark that pays them $2 million per year. That is, Aramark runs the operation, collects all the revenue, pays all the costs, and just pays the Giants a $2 million annual fee. The players would get $1.2 million of that and the Giants would pocket $800 thousand. Now let's say the Giants realized that they could run concessions themselves and thereby capture the profit that Aramark was taking before. Let's say if they ran the business themselves they would generate $10 million in gross revenue but have to pay $5 million in expenses (food, employees etc.). Now the way it should work is the players should get $3 million of that $5 million profit, the Giants should get $2 million, which is much better than the $800 thousand they're making currently and everyone would be happy. However, the players instead get $6 million because they get paid off the gross, and now the Giants are looking at a LOSS of $1 million if they were to take this operation in house. The end result is teams are doing a lot more of these outsourcing deals when they could make more overall money by bringing some of these operations in house and there would be a larger pie for everyone to share.

I'm not saying the owners won't be willing to compromise or that a deal won't be reached before the start of the season, but the media has a lot of things wrong (not really their fault because the NFL and NFLPA aren't very forthcoming about the true components of the negotiation). Yes both the owners and players are filthy rich and yes it would suck for the fans (customers) but that's how business works. The owners are in a MUCH better position than the players financially to weather a work stoppage, which means that if it comes to that they will end up getting a better deal. The question is whether that better deal is more lucrative in the long run to make up for the damage done by one missed season and the potential long-term damage to the popularity of the sport.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think people making a minimum of the salaries listed below have little room to complain, but if the market will support it, I suppose more power to them. Show them the money...



Credited Seasons 2008 2009 2010


0 $295,000 $310,000 $325,000
1 $370,000 $385,000 $400,000
2 $445,000 $460,000 $475,000
3 $520,000 $535,000 $550,000
4-6 $605,000 $620,000 $635,000
7-9 $730,000 $745,000 $760,000

10+ $830,000 $845,000 $860,000

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_minimum_salary_a_player_can_earn_in_the _NFL#ixzz1GmjUtJqU

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Oh, and I don't give a rats ass if they strike or not. I'd actually like it if they did strike and then got replaced with scrubs to see some new/different talent, hopefully without the list of felonies our current batch of NFL players have.

[Ardwen]

Didnt Peterson just equate those salaries to slavery last week?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

$325k minimum is slavery? I wonder what my salary equates too...

[LMingrone]

And they have already paid (have to pay) all the networks their money. NFL football will happen. WFAN is talking about the Players' Union holding their own draft. LOLOL. People with PSLs in New York will riot.

[Drew]

$325k minimum is slavery? I wonder what my salary equates too...

Actually I believe Peterson has a 48 million dollar contract which he called "modern day slavery". If that's the case, point me to masta!



My prediction: We will miss no regular season football games. We will miss regular season NBA games.

[NocturnalRob]

Oh, and I don't give a rats ass if they strike or not. I'd actually like it if they did strike and then got replaced with scrubs to see some new/different talent, hopefully without the list of felonies our current batch of NFL players have.
SHANE FALCO!

[WRoss]

I think people making a minimum of the salaries listed below have little room to complain, but if the market will support it, I suppose more power to them. Show them the money...



Credited Seasons 2008 2009 2010


0 $295,000 $310,000 $325,000
1 $370,000 $385,000 $400,000
2 $445,000 $460,000 $475,000
3 $520,000 $535,000 $550,000
4-6 $605,000 $620,000 $635,000
7-9 $730,000 $745,000 $760,000

10+ $830,000 $845,000 $860,000

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_minimum_salary_a_player_can_earn_in_the _NFL#ixzz1GmjUtJqU

Also the number of years you play with a team effects your salary. Might just be a Cardinals thing but my buddy is about to start his 4th season and is likely to get cut if he doesn't perform in the offseason.

[Latrinsorm]

The end result is teams are doing a lot more of these outsourcing deals when they could make more overall money by bringing some of these operations in house and there would be a larger pie for everyone to share.Well, everyone except Aramark, anyway.
I think people making a minimum of the salaries listed below have little room to complain, but if the market will support it, I suppose more power to them. Show them the money...To what extent do you factor in the long term health risks associated with playing football? That is, how much would you want to be paid if you had reason to believe your job would result in you being dead by 60? 50? 40?

[Ardwen]

how many people in far far more dangerous jobs make considerably less money, say oh Coal miners, high rise steel workers, etc etc etc

[NocturnalRob]

how many people in far far more dangerous jobs make considerably less money, say oh Coal miners, high rise steel workers, etc etc etc
How athletically gifted do you have to be to mine coal? I'm pretty sure they could train monkeys to do it. Try teaching a monkey how to run a Double Smash. Let me know how that goes.

[WRoss]

How athletically gifted do you have to be to mine coal? I'm pretty sure they could train monkeys to do it. Try teaching a monkey how to run a Double Smash. Let me know how that goes.

So....want....to....make...a....racial....joke....

[Ardwen]

and how many athletes get ridicuous levels of special treatment thruoghout their lives, sports illustrated just did an artice on it, if an average person did a tenth as much as these some of these entitled fools did they'd be in jail. Sorry but being an very avid sports fan, even I dont think the salaries atheletes get are warranted. Although it could go the other way, NCAA atheletes do indeed get screwed on a daily basis.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

SHANE FALCO!

Awesome movie, even if Canoe was lead man.

[LMingrone]

and how many athletes get ridicuous levels of special treatment thruoghout their lives, sports illustrated just did an artice on it, if an average person did a tenth as much as these some of these entitled fools did they'd be in jail. Sorry but being an very avid sports fan, even I dont think the salaries atheletes get are warranted. Although it could go the other way, NCAA atheletes do indeed get screwed on a daily basis.

I don't think they should make that much money either. They make companies (Networks, shoe companies, clothing, Coca Cola, etc..) much, much more money. If I was able to pump out a bajillion marketing dollars sitting at a computer all day, I'd expect to make some good loot in return.

[Latrinsorm]

Certainly the NCAA is worse in every way and really a disgusting farce, yes. I would much rather see college sports reformed than rich players becoming slightly more rich if I could choose between those two options.

That being said, the NFL owners are still wrong and the NFL players are still right. I'm all for coal miners also unionizing and getting the portion of the profits they deserve. I don't think I can demand that coal be as profitable as football, though.

[LMingrone]

Did you see the new 30 for 30 documentary about the Fab Five? It's sick how universities make millions off of "kids" then make them face the fed. The best part was when Chris Webber walked by a store and couldn't afford to buy his own jersey.

[Ardwen]

in no other industry can the workers get away with demanding an equal or greater share of the profits, do you think the cashiers at walmart are entitled to half the profits of the company? the clerks at 7 eleven? Just because someone can run fast, hit hard or throw great doesnt make them any better then the average guy/gal, it just gives them better odds to get rich. Pay the players half the revenue but make them share it with every single other person a team needs to actually play the game, I bet not one player would sgree that the people working the stadium deserve a share too.

[LMingrone]

A Walmart cashier can be replaced. Peyton Manning cannot.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

How athletically gifted do you have to be to mine coal? I'm pretty sure they could train monkeys to do it. Try teaching a monkey how to run a Double Smash. Let me know how that goes.

Wait, are you arguing that the level of expertise a top end coal miner needs (or high rise steel worker) is less than that needed by a top end athlete? I'm oversimplifying, but isn't it all essentially physical labor with knowledge of how to do things mixed in (i.e. dig here, brace this, if canary dies, run - or run right, follow lead block, stiff arm, block here, pass there, etc)?

A football player is nothing more than a modern day gladiator sans the swords and lions.

And as far as the argument that a NFL player will have a higher mortality or long term health risks... well is it possible that being 6'6" and weighing in at 300+ lbs might have something to do with it? You are a numbers man Latrin, what's the life expectancy of a person with those stats, compared to a person with those stats who plays football?

Oh, and what about the FANS?! THE HUMANITY!

http://benmaller.com/2010/12/nfl-fans-life-expectancy-shortened-because-of-player-tossed-snowball/

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

A Walmart cashier can be replaced. Peyton Manning cannot.

And the equivalent of a Wal-Mart cashier wouldn't be Peyton Manning. And I disagree anyway, because no one is irreplaceable.

[NocturnalRob]

A football player is nothing more than a modern day gladiator sans the swords and lions.
What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

[Ardwen]

Yet he will be replaced, every single player is replaced eventually. Most athletes are delusional if they think they are better then the average, hell most of them will be broke within a decade of making their millions. Too bad many of they dont use theiur chance at a great college education and actually learn a damned thing.

[LMingrone]

That wasn't my point. People pay to be entertained. I don't jump up and down and cheer when someone hands me a beer or a hotdog. I respect the people that work those jobs. I LOVE them actually.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

ROFL. I honestly have no idea where I was going with that.

Whatever it was, I was thinking more along the lines of this guy...
http://www.aboutfilm.com/movies/g/gladiator1.jpg


and not this one.

http://www.dealbreaker.com/images/entries/gladiator.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

in no other industry can the workers get away with demanding an equal or greater share of the profits, do you think the cashiers at walmart are entitled to half the profits of the company? the clerks at 7 eleven? Just because someone can run fast, hit hard or throw great doesnt make them any better then the average guy/gal, it just gives them better odds to get rich. Pay the players half the revenue but make them share it with every single other person a team needs to actually play the game, I bet not one player would sgree that the people working the stadium deserve a share too.I wouldn't say they are better, I would say their skills are more indispensable. The relative popularities of the WNBA and AFL suggest that American consumers have less tolerance for inferior sport abilities than inferior checkout abilities.

I would also say that the current system has been viable for the past however many years. No franchise has folded, to my knowledge no one has seriously advocated contraction. Certainly there could have been some problems down the road, but unlike Wal*Mart or 7-11 the NFL has been staggeringly profitable for both sides. If the owners want to say they are in dire straits, but that they can't show anyone their actual finances and we should just trust them, that is hard to swallow.
And as far as the argument that a NFL player will have a higher mortality or long term health risks... well is it possible that being 6'6" and weighing in at 300+ lbs might have something to do with it? You are a numbers man Latrin, what's the life expectancy of a person with those stats, compared to a person with those stats who plays football?It is possible (and a fact) that being an oversized human being is generally bad for your long-term health. It is unlikely that the health risks caused by being an oversized human being include chronic traumatic encephalopathy - it is very likely that is the result of repeated head trauma, such as that commonly found in football.

I can't give you a number for years. Because we're dealing with such small sample sizes and such terrible injury reporting, it's conceivable that such a number will never be available. I can tell you that the effect is real, dramatic, and pervasive. I heard a stat from the other day that of the 21 football players whose brains were autopsied by the Sports Legacy Institute, 20 had CTE.

[Ardwen]

I dont think they should have to show anyone their finances, they arent a public company, private business except sports teams apparently have no requirement to share their financials with people, one team Green Bay is publically owned, it does share financials and its numbers are down year by year for several years,

[LMingrone]

its numbers are down year by year for several years,

[citation needed]

Oh. Here you go. http://www.totalpackers.com/2010/07/14/green-bay-packers-increase-net-profits-to-5-2-million/. This is before their Superbowl profits.

NET

[WRoss]

Yet he will be replaced, every single player is replaced eventually. Most athletes are delusional if they think they are better then the average, hell most of them will be broke within a decade of making their millions. Too bad many of they dont use theiur chance at a great college education and actually learn a damned thing.

Yes, but the NFL players are also highly skilled. So skilled that they represent the highest paid skilled worker in the nation. So skilled that the owners simply can't replace them. So highly paid that most of them can afford not to work for years. And the ones that can't can be replaced by collegiate athletes if this does go on for years. Now can the owners afford the overhead and salary wages for a year, or years without profit? Can they handle the media pressure (besides Jerry)? I honestly have mixed feelings about all of this and don't even know where to begin.

[Latrinsorm]

I dont think they should have to show anyone their finances, they arent a public company, private business except sports teams apparently have no requirement to share their financials with people, one team Green Bay is publically owned, it does share financials and its numbers are down year by year for several years,It's not a matter of should, it's a matter of rhetoric. If they don't want to tell the public anything about their finances, fine. They just shouldn't then expect anyone to believe their story, especially in the era of million dollar commercials, hundred dollar seats, and ten dollar beers.

[Parkbandit]

It's not a matter of should, it's a matter of rhetoric. If they don't want to tell the public anything about their finances, fine. They just shouldn't then expect anyone to believe their story, especially in the era of million dollar commercials, hundred dollar seats, and ten dollar beers.

IT'S NOT FAIR!!!

[Ardwen]

Alot of teams can and do lose money for years, sometimes quite intentionally to either gain draft position or the ability to relocate

[LMingrone]

If you think they are actually losing money you are stupid. Just because they say they are doesn't mean shit.

[Latrinsorm]

IT'S NOT FAIR!!!...what? I'm talking about a prudent level of suspicion. If the players' contracts were as secret as the owners' finances, I would say to be suspicious of them too, but as SHM demonstrated you can find those in about 10 seconds.

[Ardwen]

Thinking consitantly bad teams are highly profitable is at best foolish, how many owners are billionaires? To about half of them the NFL is their hobby, most people dont much care if the profit at a hobby.

[TheEschaton]

Ralph Wilson is a multi-billionaire, and the Bills haven't been to the playoffs since last millenium.

[Ardwen]

Jumping to the NBA for a moment, Does one person think the LA Clippers have ever been profitable? At least the other loser type temas have fans of the historical type, Pirates and Indians from baseball for instance.

[LMingrone]

Jumping to the NBA for a moment, Does one person think the LA Clippers have ever been profitable? At least the other loser type temas have fans of the historical type, Pirates and Indians from baseball for instance.

Yes. I won't link to Forbes because of ads. Yes, the Clippers make money.

[Latrinsorm]

I have no way of knowing how profitable an NBA team is. The Sonics consistently had average to above-average attendance figures, but supposedly they were hemorrhaging money and simply had to move to a much smaller market and take on bigger contracts... profit.

The Clippers turn out to have surprisingly good attendance, considering they're the Clippers. 20th last year, 22nd the year before, on pace to be above average this year for obvious reasons, as recently as 2007 they were 11th. Apparently there just isn't anything to do in LA.

[Ardwen]

Maybe you get free clippers tickets with your lakers tickets, and the lakers people donate them to the needy

[LMingrone]

I thought your point was that the Clippers lose money, not how they actually make money.
(They partially own the arena.)

[Ardwen]

All packers profits actually are reinvested in the team or staium or whatever, and yes they made money this yer, down on a consistant basis again, due primarily to player salaries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/sports/football/28packers.html?_r=1

[LMingrone]

You realize "The Packers' report" is not factual? Cooking books is fun. The jersey sales alone cover that.

What losing money might look like (and yes I realize profits are trending down. But your point was they are losing money. This also doesn't include the $ they raked in before and after the Superbowl.):
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/01/28/sports/28packersg/28packersg-popup.jpg

[DoctorUnne]

About 25% of NFL teams are indeed unprofitable, including JAX, DEN, OAK, DET, MIN, SF, SEA and STL. GB is not one of them. The reason the owners won't share their books is because a) they don't need to and b) if they did the NFLPA would point out that there are many teams which are highly profitable and that therefore the problem is a revenue sharing problem, not a player salary problem. They would be missing the point, which is what I stated earlier about revenue growth vs. profit growth.

[LMingrone]

Do you really think they are not in the +? I think you mean NET profit, which is still in the millions. The Lions suck, that's why the best running back ever quit. You think the team stuck around for twenty years... while losing money, was because it's cool to own a team?

And you're also saying they have a right to cry over lost money, but not have to share how they are losing it. Wahahahahahahha.

"We're going broke! NO! We won't show you the books, just believe us!." Sounds familiar.

[AnticorRifling]

Wait are we talking income or profit?

[NocturnalRob]

Wait are we talking income or profit?
We talkin' 'bout PRACTICE!

[DoctorUnne]

I'm talking cash flow, pre taxes. Basically cash operating profit (EBITDA) less debt service costs less capital expenditures. I used to work as an analyst for the NFL so I know the numbers. Forbes isn't even close to accurate. There are some teams that are indeed extremely profitable, like WAS, NE, HOU, PHI and DAL. If the owners showed their audited financials the NFLPA would just say fix your revenue sharing problem you don't need money from us. While it's true revenue sharing needs to be fixed, the League as a whole is still flatlining or declining in profitability. And the owners realized they need to fix the system and they have the power to do so. They're certainly not winning the PR battle but its not like the players come off looking like saints either. New owners are willing to pay more and more exorbitant prices for teams (eg Ross and MIA) but the greater fool theory won't last forever. If you added up the Forbes valuations for every team the NFL would be valued at about 50x EBITDA which is absurd. Now you can certainly argue that since some owners are so rich already they don't run their franchise to maximize profits so the true underlying earnings potential is much higher. If I were the NFLPA that is the argument I would be making.

[LMingrone]

Players make mad money. We (I) get that. They are making other people more mad money. Your fix is to cook books better?

[DoctorUnne]

Ummm did I say I have a fix? I'm only describing the situation and saying that what the owners are doing in trying to improve their cost structure is justified in my opinion. Their books aren't cooked - if they were the owners would have no problem showing them to the union now would they? Each club has a full set of audited financials.