Fans suing owners?

[Guiness]

Interesting article on public financing of NFL stadiums, and the thinking that NFL owners 'owe' fans a season.

Americans are pretty lawsuit happy. A class-action in the offing here?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-housing-plan-owners-get-the-keys-fans-get-the-bills/2011/03/15/ABVOyCY_story.html


By Sally Jenkins, Tuesday, March 15, 2:36 PM


If the NFL owners want a fight over money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-lockout-april-6-hearing-scheduled/2011/03/14/ABdmHxV_story.html), they can have one. The minute they announced they couldn’t live on their cut of $9.3 billion in revenue and locked out the players, threatening to cancel next season, they revealed their feudal-lord natures. They overreached. Instead of worrying about player salaries, they should worry about fans who are sick of being treated like serfs.

Here’s a good question: What right do owners have to padlock stadiums (http://primary.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-players-and-owners-reach-labor-impasse-decertification-and-lockout-to-follow/2011/03/11/ABwxNYR_story.html)that taxpayers helped pay for?
The NFL owes fans a season. Why? Because the fans paid for it, that’s why, and this isn’t 13th-century France, and a season ticket package is not a wheat levy. They paid for it with outrageously priced seat licenses, as well as bond issues for stadiums, tax abatements, and sweetheart leases, not to mention all kinds of gratis services from cities and counties, right down to free snow removal.
If the fans don’t get a fair return on the public funds and favor lavished on owners, here’s what they should do: sue. That’s right. Attorneys general in every state that houses an NFL team should draw up suits to force the league to play, or repay what they owe us.
“The NFL needs to immediately stop soliciting season ticket payments, asking people to pay on the chance there will be a season,” says Brian Frederick (http://sportsfans.org/about/executive-director/), executive director of the Sports Fans Coalition (http://sportsfans.org/), a lobby and watchdog group dedicated to protecting spectators’ interests. “They get access to tremendous capital and the interest on it, and state attorneys and local governments should immediately start looking into the issue in terms of the amount of money they’ve invested in these stadiums, and making sure their investment is protected.”

It’s time to change the way we do business with the NFL. You don’t have to pick a side in the owner-player quarrel over revenues to arrive at that conclusion. If nothing else, the current labor strife has finally alerted us to some truly rapacious practices by the owners.
They collect welfare, and treat it like a birthright. They use public facilities to enrich themselves, hostage-take whole cities for every subsidized dollar they can get, and then cry socialism at the suggestion they have any community responsibility. Among other things, they are profoundly ungrateful.
Their world view was summed up the other day by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones: “I just spent a billion dollars on a stadium, and I didn’t plan on not playing football in it,” he said.
Now, that’s a funny thing for Jones to say, because as it happens, he doesn’t actually own Cowboys Stadium. The city of Arlington does. And Jones didn’t spend a billion dollars to build it. Arlington taxpayers passed a bond issue and wrote him a check for $325 million. City sales tax increased by one-half a percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent, all of which may hurt the local economy. Jones is merely a tenant, with a lease.
Virtually every one of the league’s 31 stadiums was built or renovated with the assistance of public money, about $6.5 billion worth, according to the Sports Fans Coalition. And that doesn’t include the indirect subsidies, the infrastructure improvements, municipal services, gift-revenues, and foregone property taxes, which can push the cost of hosting an NFL team 40 percent higher.
There have been 11 new stadium constructions since 2002, and public funding for them averaged 54 percent, $295.3 million per project. Frequently the funding came in the form of tourism taxes, such as Arlington’s, which can further burden a community, making businesses less competitive and suppressing revenue and growth. In some places, such as Philadelphia, which helped construct Lincoln Financial Field for Jeffrey Lurie, the debt has helped make the city a credit risk, which makes it difficult to issue new bonds for things it urgently needs.
When you look at it that way, the owners have some nerve shutting down.
“We’ve asked, as fans and taxpayers, if money goes into a stadium, then shouldn’t we have an equitable stake in the team?” Frederick says.
It wasn’t enough that Cincinnati Bengals owner Mike Brown got 95 percent public financing for Paul Brown Stadium, which cost $455 million. The Bengals also got a sweetheart 27-year lease that said they didn’t have to pay rent after 2009. Taxpayers cover maintenance, and most of the yearly operating costs. The bill for 2009 came to almost $9 million. Meantime, the Bengals get to keep the naming rights, and revenue from advertising, tickets, luxury suites, concessions, and most of the parking. All of which makes them one of the most profitable teams in the league — with a 4-12 record.
According to stadium watchdog Neil deMause, author of “Field of Schemes (http://books.google.com/books?id=zkLqMf1vhwQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Neil+DeMause+field+of+schemes&source=bl&ots=xtnragg_84&sig=ks5GZok8mrmWTgJpQ_iGUQFX7fE&hl=en&ei=keV_Tdu2AZKK0QGYtM2GCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false),” the Bengals also have a draconian “state of the art” clause. “Cincinnati has a list of things that have to be installed if other teams get them, like, ‘a holographic replay,’ ” deMause says. The St. Louis Rams have a similar clause.
Obviously, NFL owners don’t realize how good they’ve had it. Nor do they recognize how they look and sound to the rest of us when they rake in huge revenue but cry poor.
All of which should cause us to reassess our municipal relationships to the league. There is nothing inherently wrong with spending some public money for our entertainment — owners do make significant investments in their teams, and some of them may deserve help with long-term expenses and obligations. But that doesn’t mean we should fling hundreds of millions of government funds to preferred wealthy individuals, just so they can repay us with price gouging, and a shutdown.
Where is it written that owners are entitled to the lion’s share of revenues from structures we help build and support? The next time an NFL owner comes to a city and demands public financing, these should be the terms: The municipality should get a portion of the concessions, naming rights, and stadium advertising revenue, and 100 percent of the parking fees. If the owner protests, the mayor should tell him fans are sick of paying for Lurie’s private bowling alley, and Stan Kroenke’s vineyards, and not getting a vote.

[rbaloha1]

$6.972 billion paid by the public toward $13.146 billion in total construction costs of NFL stadiums since 1990.

As per Sports Illustrated. The public financed 53% of stadium construction costs. I would agree with the $1 billion deduction if the owners paid for 100 per cent of the construction costs.

Maybe the lawsuit is legit. Again its in the owner's best interest to propose a legit offer.

[wpony]

all they would have to do is like they did the last time and play games with nobodys , infact they were fun to watch and those players really wanted to play it showed in there games. Were they as good as nfl players no but they were very entertaining and they had a lot of heart.

[3irty1]

I found some scabs:
http://alexanderjmasson.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/lingerie-football-league.jpg

[wpony]

now that looks like some nice heart:) and oh never mind LOL

[mraynrand]

$6.972 billion paid by the public toward $13.146 billion in total construction costs of NFL stadiums since 1990.

As per Sports Illustrated. The public financed 53% of stadium construction costs. I would agree with the $1 billion deduction if the owners paid for 100 per cent of the construction costs.

Maybe the lawsuit is legit. Again its in the owner's best interest to propose a legit offer.

In this scenario, if the owners either pay back for the public investment or if the owners paid for the whole thing, do they get a cut from every business that profits from the games being played near their stadium? Hotels, bars, rental cars, whorehouses - do they all have to give a cut of their filthy money to the owner who exploited them? Do these businesses have to discount their products and services? Or do owners have to discount the tickets? Who should decide?

P.S. how would you determine whether a business profited - and by how much? Shouldn't a state official trained in greed recognition have to rule on each business? By what standard?

[rbaloha1]

In this scenario, if the owners either pay back for the public investment or if the owners paid for the whole thing, do they get a cut from every business that profits from the games being played near their stadium? Hotels, bars, rental cars, whorehouses - do they all have to give a cut of their filthy money to the owner who exploited them? Do these businesses have to discount their products and services? Or do owners have to discount the tickets? Who should decide?

P.S. how would you determine whether a business profited - and by how much? Shouldn't a state official trained in greed recognition have to rule on each business? By what standard?


Owners could have sidestepped all these issues if they agreed to renew the previous contract.

[mraynrand]

Owners could have sidestepped all these issues if they agreed to renew the previous contract.

Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the questions. Players could have sidestepped all these issues had they accepted the leagues offers.

[sharpe1027]

Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the questions. Players could have sidestepped all these issues had they accepted the leagues offers.

If the owners were in such a dire financial situation, why were they still spending more than they had to on player salaries?

[Smidgeon]

If the owners were in such a dire financial situation, why were they still spending more than they had to on player salaries?

Many of them weren't in the uncapped year. There were at least three teams that were beneath the former cap floor. I wish I could find the breakdowns I've read, but I can't at the moment.

[sharpe1027]

Many of them weren't in the uncapped year. There were at least three teams that were beneath the former cap floor. I wish I could find the breakdowns I've read, but I can't at the moment.

3 out of 32 is many? So there are only 3 owners that could correctly value the business side of payroll and profits? Seems most of the owners were "overspending" despite not having enough profit. If they are the ones overspending, why should we feel bad about their lousy profits?

[Smidgeon]

3 out of 32 is many? So there are only 3 owners that could correctly value the business side of payroll and profits? Seems most of the owners were "overspending" despite not having enough profit. If they are the ones overspending, why should we feel bad about their lousy profits?

I didn't say many were under the former salary floor. I said many weren't "spending more than they had to". I said three were under the salary floor.

Now, you and I probably have a different definition of what "spending more than they had to" is, but I think another year or so of no salary floor and cap would lead to two extremes: the spendalots and the spendalittles. It takes time to shed big salaries. The teams still want to be competetive, and the Snyders and Jones (and Thompson's of this last year) are willing to pay good money if it leads to a trophy. On the other hand, the Bucs were below the former floor and had a 10 win season. I think that will lead to other teams trying it too. Just my opinion.

[bobblehead]

$6.972 billion paid by the public toward $13.146 billion in total construction costs of NFL stadiums since 1990.

As per Sports Illustrated. The public financed 53% of stadium construction costs. I would agree with the $1 billion deduction if the owners paid for 100 per cent of the construction costs.

Maybe the lawsuit is legit. Again its in the owner's best interest to propose a legit offer.

Since this is a partnership, shouldn't the players have to pony up in any lawsuit that the owners lose? Hell, if an owner kills someone driving drunk the players are liable under normal "partnership" rules.

[rbaloha1]

Since this is a partnership, shouldn't the players have to pony up in any lawsuit that the owners lose? Hell, if an owner kills someone driving drunk the players are liable under normal "partnership" rules.

I am sorry but this makes absolutely no sense to me. Could you please state more clearly. What partnership are you referring to the public and the owners?

[sharpe1027]

I didn't say many were under the former salary floor. I said many weren't "spending more than they had to". I said three were under the salary floor.

Now, you and I probably have a different definition of what "spending more than they had to" is, but I think another year or so of no salary floor and cap would lead to two extremes: the spendalots and the spendalittles. It takes time to shed big salaries. The teams still want to be competetive, and the Snyders and Jones (and Thompson's of this last year) are willing to pay good money if it leads to a trophy. On the other hand, the Bucs were below the former floor and had a 10 win season. I think that will lead to other teams trying it too. Just my opinion.

Yep, but the fact that some owners are willing to spend more simply means that the players are valued that high on the free market. The true worth of a player is determined by the highest bidder. How is inflated player salaries anyone's fault but the people that agree to pay the salaries. Players try to get as much money as they can and owners try to give out as little as possible. The teams salary figures have by-and-large not been set by the CBA as they spend more than they are required. What justification do the owners have for their own inability to understand that if they pay players more they have higher expenses?

[Bossman641]

Yep, but the fact that some owners are willing to spend more simply means that the players are valued that high on the free market. The true worth of a player is determined by the highest bidder. How is inflated player salaries anyone's fault but the people that agree to pay the salaries. Players try to get as much money as they can and owners try to give out as little as possible. The teams salary figures have by-and-large not been set by the CBA as they spend more than they are required. What justification do the owners have for their own inability to understand that if they pay players more they have higher expenses?

A short-sided way of looking at it.

Let's not forget the owners are by and large competitive people and want to win. Not only could this competitiveness bring out their willingness to spend more, they also grow the franchise worth by having a successful team. As the owners see it, what is kicking in an extra $5-10M in a very strange uncapped year when the possible payoff is a SB and seeing the value of the franchise increase.

It would take more than 1 year before you would start to see teams purposefully decrease player salaries significantly.

[bobblehead]

I am sorry but this makes absolutely no sense to me. Could you please state more clearly. What partnership are you referring to the public and the owners?

The players and owners silly. I have seen it argued that this is some sort of a partnership and the players weren't mere employees. That they are entitled to a certain % of the profits.

If that is the case, if their business partners (the owners) get sued, the players should have to come out of pocket and pay a certain % of the bill no?

[mraynrand]

If the owners were in such a dire financial situation, why were they still spending more than they had to on player salaries?

Maybe to win a Championship?

[Tarlam!]

In terms of player spending there are examples of where it has worked out great (Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, - paying your own, Charles Woodson, Julias Peppers - UFAs) and plenty where the players just sucked (Albert Haynsworth).

Now, take a Player like Bert when he went to NY; his jersey sales led the market, same happened when he went to the Vikes. And, there's no denying his season with them increased the revenue for both of those franchises significantly.

So, players like Manning, Brady and Woodson put you in the running for a deep playoff run (extra revenue) and help sell a tonne of merchandise and a player like Peppers is pretty good to build a DL around and make your team competitive.

What I like a lot about TT's approach is he seems to be an accurate value definer coupled with an outstanding judge of character.

[mraynrand]

Many of them weren't in the uncapped year. There were at least three teams that were beneath the former cap floor. I wish I could find the breakdowns I've read, but I can't at the moment.

That's the thing - not all owners are equal. For some, the team is a plaything, for others it's everything. Some want to throw everything they can to win a championship, while others aren't that involved. Some want to make money off it - grow the franchise and sell it. Some think they are watching football on TV up in their luxury box and ask their grandchildren to change the channel to "Days of Our Lives." One owner is embalmed. It's not easy to put every owner in the same basket.

[sharpe1027]

A short-sided way of looking at it.

Let's not forget the owners are by and large competitive people and want to win. Not only could this competitiveness bring out their willingness to spend more, they also grow the franchise worth by having a successful team. As the owners see it, what is kicking in an extra $5-10M in a very strange uncapped year when the possible payoff is a SB and seeing the value of the franchise increase.

It would take more than 1 year before you would start to see teams purposefully decrease player salaries significantly.

Then that is a business decision based upon future growth and they still cannot complain about not making short term profits.

[sharpe1027]

Maybe to win a Championship?

So why complain about profits if they are more concerned about a championship. It was their choice.

[mraynrand]

So why complain about profits if they are more concerned about a championship. It was their choice.

Maybe the owners who are complaining about lack of profits aren't the same owners as those willing to spend everything for a championship.

[Patler]

If the owners were in such a dire financial situation, why were they still spending more than they had to on player salaries?


Many of them weren't in the uncapped year. There were at least three teams that were beneath the former cap floor. I wish I could find the breakdowns I've read, but I can't at the moment.


3 out of 32 is many? So there are only 3 owners that could correctly value the business side of payroll and profits? Seems most of the owners were "overspending" despite not having enough profit. If they are the ones overspending, why should we feel bad about their lousy profits?

One uncapped year hardly indicates much. Teams still had long term contracts to deal with. The fact that 3 of 32 (or whatever the # is) had payrolls less than the former floor is very significant, in my opinion.

[mraynrand]

Then that is a business decision based upon future growth and they still cannot complain about not making short term profits.


Sure they can. Because a lack of short term cash is a problem. So is opening the floodgates to unsustainable player salary increases. From what I'm reading, it's a pretty tough business to gage what player pay amounts are optimal, especially since the owners and the team situations are all so different. But the proposed salary increases by the owners seemed like a reasonable starting point that should have been negotiated in earnest.

[Smidgeon]

Maybe the owners who are complaining about lack of profits aren't the same owners as those willing to spend everything for a championship.

Maybe they're just complaining that it's becoming decreasingly possible to both pursue a championship via paying good players and show a decent profit.

[Patler]

Owners could have sidestepped all these issues if they agreed to renew the previous contract.

Comments like this are confusing. There was no expired CBA to renew. If the owners had been satisfied with the last CBA, they would have allowed it to run its full term of a couple more years and would not have opted out early. They wouldn't even be facing the issue yet.

However, had they let it run to 2012, wouldn't the players have likely asked for more in a new CBA? Wouldn't the owners have asked for other changes? When is an expired CBA ever simply "renewed"? There are always terms to negotiate and change. Each side has issues they want considered.

If you are suggesting that the owners should simply capitulate to the players demands, why shouldn't the players capitulate to the owners instead?

[swede]

Maybe they're just complaining that it's becoming decreasingly possible to both pursue a championship via paying good players and show a decent profit.

Advantage Green Bay.

[rbaloha1]

Comments like this are confusing. There was no expired CBA to renew. If the owners had been satisfied with the last CBA, they would have allowed it to run its full term of a couple more years and would not have opted out early. They wouldn't even be facing the issue yet.

However, had they let it run to 2012, wouldn't the players have likely asked for more in a new CBA? Wouldn't the owners have asked for other changes? When is an expired CBA ever simply "renewed"? There are always terms to negotiate and change. Each side has issues they want considered.

If you are suggesting that the owners should simply capitulate to the players demands, why shouldn't the players capitulate to the owners instead?

In order to prevent the player's litigation the owners should have renewed with slight tweaks -- rookie wage scale and a better retirement system.

[Lurker64]

In order to prevent the player's litigation the owners should have renewed with slight tweaks -- rookie wage scale and a better retirement system.

If the league is really so dissatisfied with the last CBA (which remember, the president of the NFLPA admitted was unbalanced in favor of the players) they would have had to ask for more than a few tweaks. Particularly since fully half of the tweaks you list are things that the players want and not the owners want.

Ultimately, it's the players who appeared to want to have their cake and eat it too. Since they wanted to reduce offseason programs, reduce OTAs, limit padded practices, lifetime medical coverage, a pension increase for retired players, increase post-career benefits and programs, and yet all of these things cost money and they were unwilling to to actually make financial concessions for any of this.

Generally in labor negotiations offers of the form "we will cut your pay but increase your benefits" are at least seriously considered. An offer to increase benefits by management should be greeted with some concessions by labor.

[rbaloha1]

If the league is really so dissatisfied with the last CBA (which remember, the president of the NFLPA admitted was unbalanced in favor of the players) they would have had to ask for more than a few tweaks. Particularly since fully half of the tweaks you list are things that the players want and not the owners want.

Ultimately, it's the players who appeared to want to have their cake and eat it too. Since they wanted to reduce offseason programs, reduce OTAs, limit padded practices, lifetime medical coverage, a pension increase for retired players, increase post-career benefits and programs, and yet all of these things cost money and they were unwilling to to actually make financial concessions for any of this.

Generally in labor negotiations offers of the form "we will cut your pay but increase your benefits" are at least seriously considered. An offer to increase benefits by management should be greeted with some concessions by labor.

More blah blah blah. I am going on strike from this board.

[Lurker64]

More blah blah blah. I am going on strike from this board.

Don't worry, it will be a minimal loss.

[rbaloha1]

Don't worry, it will be a minimal loss.

Please set up the picket line.

[Scott Campbell]

Owners could have sidestepped all these issues if they agreed to renew the previous contract.


You're misinformed. The owners opted out of the current agreement which was initially set to run through 2012.

[rbaloha1]

You're misinformed. The owners opted out of the current agreement which was initially set to run through 2012.

I know.

[Patler]

In order to prevent the player's litigation the owners should have renewed with slight tweaks -- rookie wage scale and a better retirement system.

So you are suggesting that the owners should have opted out of the existing CBA to give the players even MORE? The rookie wage scale doesn't save the owners any money, it just distributes the money differently. "Better retirement" implies increased cost.

Hardly a reason for the owners to have opted out of the existing agreement.

[swede]

The more I think about it, Patler, I think you have the best take.

Politically, legally, psychologically... it all comes down to how much money you think owners deserve to make. If you believe their profits need to be limited by common sense and fairness you are probably siding with the players,

[Patler]

The more I think about it, Patler, I think you have the best take.

Politically, legally, psychologically... it all comes down to how much money you think owners deserve to make. If you believe their profits need to be limited by common sense and fairness you are probably siding with the players,

Not sure if your comment was cut off, because it ends with a ",". Are you suggesting that the owners profits are not limited today? That they make an unfair profit?

[rbaloha1]

So you are suggesting that the owners should have opted out of the existing CBA to give the players even MORE? The rookie wage scale doesn't save the owners any money, it just distributes the money differently. "Better retirement" implies increased cost.

Hardly a reason for the owners to have opted out of the existing agreement.

The rookie scale saves tremendous money (ie Matthew Stafford, Bradford, Alex Smith, etc.) by eliminating GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES.

Money saved by implementing a rookie scale (including bonuses) can be allocated towards an improved retirement system and more money for owners. Both need significant tweaking to provide a more equatable system.

[Patler]

The rookie scale saves tremendous money (ie Matthew Stafford, Bradford, Alex Smith, etc.) by eliminating GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES.

Money saved by implementing a rookie scale (including bonuses) can be allocated towards an improved retirement system and more money for owners. Both need significant tweaking to provide a more equatable system.

All rookie monies, including GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES count toward the salary cap. There was no discussion of lowering the salary cap in relation to the money saved on GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES. The very simply fact is that the money saved on GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES, will simply go into the pockets of the veteran players, and that is what was intended.

They are simply taking from Peter and paying to Paul. Net effect, no money saved.

[rbaloha1]

All rookie monies, including GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES count toward the salary cap. There was no discussion of lowering the salary cap in relation to the money saved on GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES. The very simply fact is that the money saved on GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES, will simply go into the pockets of the veteran players, and that is what was intended.

They are simply taking from Peter and paying to Paul. Net effect, no money saved.

Bonuses are pro rated over x years. The money saved can be divided amongst players and owners. Whatever the split the owners recoup some money. YOUR STATEMENT IS ONLY VALID IF THE GREEDY PLAYERS DEMAND ALL SAVINGS GO TO THEM WHICH IS WRONG.

[Patler]

Bonuses are pro rated over x years. The money saved can be divided amongst players and owners. Whatever the split the owners recoup some money. YOUR STATEMENT IS ONLY VALID IF THE GREEDY PLAYERS DEMAND ALL SAVINGS GO TO THEM WHICH IS WRONG.

Well, the players already have by the salary cap floor that has been in place.

yes, bonuses are pro-rated over years, but the appropriate portion counts against the cap each year. The cap has a floor and a ceiling between which all teams must fit. A rookie's contract is no different than a veterans contract in how it impacts the salary cap.

The owners like the limits on high 1st round payouts because it reduces the risk of excessive "dead money" for a player who flops, and it frees money for use with established veterans. Any money saved on a rookies contract will simply go to a veteran or two who is re-signed instead. The teams still have to meet the salary cap floor.

It's really no different than FA signings. Just as many teams are realizing that the most expensive FAs can be a risk, the league has learned that having a top 10 draft pick can be more of a cap burden than a roster advantage for the player taken. The wage scale simply lessens that risk.

[sharpe1027]

Sure they can. Because a lack of short term cash is a problem. So is opening the floodgates to unsustainable player salary increases. From what I'm reading, it's a pretty tough business to gage what player pay amounts are optimal, especially since the owners and the team situations are all so different. But the proposed salary increases by the owners seemed like a reasonable starting point that should have been negotiated in earnest.

Sure it is a complex business. I would expect that most multi-billion dollar businesses are complex. I am not saying that they shouldn't negotiate. My point is that the argument that owners are losing money because the players are greedy ignores that the owners have the final say in any contract. If the business is too complex for them, maybe they should invest their money elsewhere.

[Lurker64]

The rookie salary structure is not attractive to the owners because it saves them money, it doesn't. Same cap, same floor. The rookie salary structure is attractive to the league because it's pro-competitive, and the more competitive the league can be the more attractive (and valuable) the product is.

Salaries for high first round picks had grown to the point where if you have a high pick and you miss, you are devoting significant resources towards the cap towards a relatively useless players. So a team picking first overall who misses on the first overall pick, will find themselves picking high again, which will result in more money sunk towards a player of uncertain prospects. This illustrates itself in how we get several of the same teams picking towards the top of the first round consistently. The first overall pick was supposed to be a benefit, but with escalating rookie salaries it actually became a penalty. Keep in mind that the rookie salary structures proposed by both the league and the NFLPAs constituted a large reduction for the first 12 or so picks, a minor reduction for the next 12 or so picks, and virtually no reduction for anybody else. The difference between the NFLPA and the NFL's initial rookie wage scale proposals on the #50 pick? Roughly $50,000 over the length of the contract.

This is also why the rookie salary structure could potentially survive an antitrust challenge. Since the American Needle decision does recognize that the NFL needs to act collectively in order to further competition, which is precisely what the rookie salary structure serves to do.

[Jimx29]

Just as reported:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Cleveland-Browns-fan-sues-NFL-in-attempt-to-end-?urn=nfl-wp583

of course, it would make more sense if Cleveland had a professional football team