What is a fair profit for an NFL owner?

[Patler]

You really seem to struggle with this whole issue Patler, and seem a little defensive when others strongly take the side of the players?

Struggle with this? No way, not at all. I have a very clear understanding of the concepts and what I would do as an owner or as a player. How am I being defensive??? Just trying to discuss the exact issue that is the stumbling block in the negotiations, how much the owners make relative to the players.

When did I get defensive? I have refrained from comment about the strike/lockout for several days, for the most part. Posted some links to a few articles before that, and summarized some impressions I had gotten from reading a lot about it. I do think the players have wanted to decertify from the get-go, but so what? That has nothing to do with being pro-player or pro-owner. After all, the players are pro-player and they decertified.

I am just trying to do what one does in a negotiation like this. The players have suggested that the owners make too much. The owners have said they need more money. In the end, if the players get to see the owner's books, and I suspect they will, it will come down to discussions about how much Jerry Jones and everyone else did or didn't make from owning their teams. I'm just trying to open a discussion about what people think an owner should make relative to the players. From that, we can build a discussion. It's exactly the discussion that the players want.

You have tried to draw parallels to other types of businesses/companies being in similar (strike/lockout) situations, but I think what you have to remember is that the NFL operates outside the regular rules, and even laws of corporate america. Hence the anti-trust exemption. For example, what business other than pro sports could force all of their employees to stand in a line while the only employers available to them got to pick where they went?

I did??? When? Refresh my recollection please. I don't recall drawing any such parallels. If I did, it sure wasn't a major issue in my mind, because I don't recall doing it. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, or I have completely forgotten comments I may have made for the purposes of promoting a discussion.

I agree with Lurker's reply, that there is no 'fair' profit. It's not quantifiable, and while you are correct that all business should operate in a manner to maximize profits, that's just not necessarily how major leagues sports operate. There are no shortage of owners out there that care little or nothing of profits, as long as they get to sit in the owner's box, watch the games, and say 'mine.'

I recently read a book about hockey, and it's owners. It talked about how normally shrewd businessmen make ridiculous decisions when it comes to running their team.

Listen, I wasn't the one who raised this issue. The players are the ones who did. The owners said said they need more money. The players have suggested they make too much already. I am just trying to start a discussion about the issues raised by the parties.

If I were in the negotiating room (and I have been) I would be doing much the same thing. There is a point to all of this.

So what if some sports owners don't care if they make a profit? That has nothing to do with these negotiations. Should the players be getting a high enough % so that all owners are in that boat? If the players see the books and determine that the average owner makes $100M/year, should they ask for more, or should they say "That's fair."? If the average owner makes $5M, should the player capitulate?

I know very well this is not like a typical business, but so what?