A Game in Flames by Sports Illustrated

[rbaloha1]

Tidbits

"I do not think we've got your attention," Jones said to the players, several of whom recounted the incident to SI. "You clearly don't understand what we're saying, and we're not hearing what you're saying. So I guess we're not hearing what you're saying. So I guess we're going to have to show you to get your attention.... If Jones's intention was to intimidate the players, he failed.

"I think everyone in the room thought it was overly dramatic almost hilarious...Jones's action, however help convince the players that the owners were serious ABOUT SHUTTING DOWN THE GAME IF THE UNION DIDN'T ACQUIESCE TO THEIR CORE DEMAND: AN INCREASE IN THE "EXPENSE CREDIT" THE AMOUNT THE OWNERS TAKE OFF THE TOP BEFORE SHARING REVENUES WITH PLAYERS. Arrogant Slave Owner

"Decertification allows us to negotiate and get a deal in place while we continue to play," said Colts center Jeff Saturday another executive committee member. "What we don't want to happen is, the owners lock us out and we have to wait six months before we can decertify and file the lawsuits...."

TO EXPLAIN THEIR INSISTENCE ON TRANSPARENCY, PLAYERS POINT TO A SEPARATE 1992 ANTI TRUST LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE NFL. IN THAT CASE, ROGER NOLL, A STANFORD ECONOMICS PROF, TESTIFIED THAT THE LEAGUE'S $1.3 BILLION IN REVENUE WAS "SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTATED" BECAUSE THE OWNERS' ACCOUNTING METHODS. FOR INSTANCE, EAGLES OWNER NORMAN BRAMAN REPORTEDLY PAID HIMSELF A SALARY OF $7.5 MILLION IN 1990 AND RECORED IT UNDER GENERAL EXPENSES INSTEAD OF PROFIT. AGAINST THAT BACKDROP THE PLAYERS FOUND IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE NFL'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE CREDITS WITHOUT FIRST SEEING The TEAMS' DETAILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Peter King's Prediction: The games will be played while Brady, et al. v NFL continues. But nothing is certain. As one lawyer involved in the dispute said late in the week, "Its unlikely we'll lose games, but so much of that is out of our hands now."

[gbgary]

i'm assuming the "jones" in question is jerry. he's such an ass!

[woodbuck27]

" TO EXPLAIN THEIR INSISTENCE ON TRANSPARENCY, PLAYERS POINT TO A SEPARATE 1992 ANTI TRUST LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE NFL. IN THAT CASE, ROGER NOLL, A STANFORD ECONOMICS PROF, TESTIFIED THAT THE LEAGUE'S $1.3 BILLION IN REVENUE WAS "SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTATED" BECAUSE THE OWNERS' ACCOUNTING METHODS. FOR INSTANCE, EAGLES OWNER NORMAN BRAMAN REPORTEDLY PAID HIMSELF A SALARY OF $7.5 MILLION IN 1990 AND RECORED IT UNDER GENERAL EXPENSES INSTEAD OF PROFIT. AGAINST THAT BACKDROP THE PLAYERS FOUND IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE NFL'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE CREDITS WITHOUT FIRST SEEING The TEAMS' DETAILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. "

That seems logical to me.

[Patler]

" TO EXPLAIN THEIR INSISTENCE ON TRANSPARENCY, PLAYERS POINT TO A SEPARATE 1992 ANTI TRUST LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE NFL. IN THAT CASE, ROGER NOLL, A STANFORD ECONOMICS PROF, TESTIFIED THAT THE LEAGUE'S $1.3 BILLION IN REVENUE WAS "SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTATED" BECAUSE THE OWNERS' ACCOUNTING METHODS. FOR INSTANCE, EAGLES OWNER NORMAN BRAMAN REPORTEDLY PAID HIMSELF A SALARY OF $7.5 MILLION IN 1990 AND RECORED IT UNDER GENERAL EXPENSES INSTEAD OF PROFIT. AGAINST THAT BACKDROP THE PLAYERS FOUND IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE NFL'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE CREDITS WITHOUT FIRST SEEING The TEAMS' DETAILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. "

That seems logical to me.

On the other hand, that was something that happened 20 years ago under a very different set of circumstances. With the salary cap now tied to revenues, there is a lot more transparency now than there was in 1992. Can there be games played with the numbers? Of course. Are they likely to be significant in view of the $9 billion pie? Probably not. A few million here or there isn't going to make a big difference.

If the player's lack of trust is based on a 20 year old situation, I think it is unfounded. If it is based on some things that have occured more recently I am more sympathetic.

[RashanGary]

Patler, you don't know what you don't know because it's not transparent. Just open the books. If it's no big deal to them, they should just open them so a deal can get done. Especially if it's only a few dollars like you suggest.

You have to admit, if the Players refuse to work out a deal without transparency, the owners are choosing this by not opening the books.

[Patler]

Patler, you don't know what you don't know because it's not transparent. Just open the books. If it's no big deal to them, they should just open them so a deal can get done. Especially if it's only a few dollars like you suggest.

You have to admit, if the Players refuse to work out a deal without transparency, the owners are choosing this by not opening the books.


...or, you could say:

"You have to admit, if the owners refuse to open their books, the players are choosing this by refusing to work out a deal without it." :lol:

Generally, whenever a stalemate occurs it is because both sides are insisting on something the other side finds unacceptable, and if you believe their public proclamations, that is the situation now. However, I am not convinced that the real issues for each are as they express publicly.

[RashanGary]

Patler, I'm with you about 90% of the time, but on this one I don't agree. Clearly the players have been deceived before. In the words of George Bush, "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, well, I'm not going to get fooled twice, hehe."

For you to think having the books open is not important to the players and that there is some hidden agenda. . . I'm not following your logic at all. There are ways to negotiate core issues. There is no way to negotiate what they don't know.

[RashanGary]

Another interesting thing came out of the above story is how if the players wanted to litigate, they had a window, otherwise it could have been a 6 month process with no pay. If that's true, their haste to break away from the negotiating table while their window was still open makes a lot more sense.

Once it became apparent the owners were not going to negotiate in good-will, they were in a rush to get the process started so they could play the season while a long term deal gets worked out.

[Patler]

I could list all kinds of indicators why it seems more likely to me that it was the players who were not negotiating in good-faith, that they stonewalled the process. But this has been discussed at length before. Nothing has happened recently that is likely to change your mind or mine. In my opinion, the players are exactly where they wanted to be and intended to be. In my opinion they would not have settled, regardless of what the owners did short of a complete capitulation on every issue. But that's OK, it was an avenue open to the players that they chose to follow.

[RashanGary]

These owners are used to getting their way. I do think the players feel their best shot is in court. You make it sound like they're bad guys because they want to work out the best deal possible. We'll find out. It's nice to know there is a way to play while the court process goes on. That shows a lot more sensibility on the players part. Now it will be up to the owners if they want to force a lockout or play while court goes on.

I think the owners are fuming and do NOT want court because it doesn't help them. They tried to portray it like court meant no season, but court just means they show their cards.

The players are getting what they want. It angers the owners, but it is sensible. Wait and see.

If the owners want to lock it out and lose billions, fine. I doubt they'll push it that far. More likely they'll take teh temp deal, go to court and work through it that way.

[Patler]

JH - Then why do you make it sound like the owners are bad guys because they want to work out the best deal possible for them? It works both ways, it always does.

[sharpe1027]

The problem the owners have is that if they don't open their books they look like they are hiding something. If they do open their books, you can be certain that the players will hire a bunch of expensive accountants just to look for anything that will look band publicly, and when the find any error (and what billion dollar business is without mistakes?) they will run screaming to the media.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[ThunderDan]

The problem the owners have is that if they don't open their books they look like they are hiding something. If they do open their books, you can be certain that the players will hire a bunch of expensive accountants just to look for anything that will look band publicly, and when the find any error (and what billion dollar business is without mistakes?) they will run screaming to the media.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I would happily be hired to audit the NFLs books. How do I get on that list?

IF the books are opened for the players, I would hope the players don't do that unless something is really "bad" in the books. The players need to act like they want to get the deal done. Creating drama and running to the media by either side just creates hard feelings and makes the deal harder to sign.

Jerry Jones' quote is exactly what the owners need to avoid. AP's quote is exactly what the players need to avoid. The reality is both parties will be working together if not this season next, so there is no reason to make this a combative situation verses a collaborative one.

[Smeefers]

There not being a season doesn't really hurt the current players. These guys have been paid at a minimum a couple hundred thousand dollars already in their career. They don't need the season to survive. They could probably go a couple years without football before the minimum wagers in the NFL would even start to feel the pinch. The owners on the other hand have a responsibility. A responsibility to pay people, like the coaches and the front office, the maintenance crew, and a whole slew of other bills like water, electricity and taxes. If they don't keep up revenue, people start loosing their jobs. Quickly. The players can moan about how unfair it is, but they have absolutely no problem screwing the maintenance guy out of 45,000 a YEAR job so he can up his profits a couple hundred thousand a game.

So don't give me this righteous indignation about how the big bad owners are screwing over the poor defenseless players. The players are playing the game just like the owners are. Both sides have to come to the table to talk. And it's not like the owners are without fault either. The last person to stop getting paid is going to be the owner. They *could* open their books. Whether or not they open them or not though is irrelevant. The owners have a right to make profit, just like the players have a right to not work unless they get paid what they think they deserve. I can not come into my job in order to pressure by boss to pay me more and so can they.

Every action has consequence. Neither the players nor the owners are immune from the consequences of their actions, no matter how they try to place the blame. Blame, after all, normally lies with those willing to place it.

[sharpe1027]

I would happily be hired to audit the NFLs books. How do I get on that list?

IF the books are opened for the players, I would hope the players don't do that unless something is really "bad" in the books. The players need to act like they want to get the deal done. Creating drama and running to the media by either side just creates hard feelings and makes the deal harder to sign.

Jerry Jones' quote is exactly what the owners need to avoid. AP's quote is exactly what the players need to avoid. The reality is both parties will be working together if not this season next, so there is no reason to make this a combative situation verses a collaborative one.

And I had hoped that it never got to where it is currently at, but here we are. :)

Personally, I have little doubt that the players would gladly point out any perceived problems to justify their position the court of public opinion. For example, the players are bringing up a 20 year old example of what one owner did even though it probably isn't even possible to do the same thing under the current CBA. I see no reason to believe that the players wouldn't use anything they would get from the opened books.

[Guiness]

On the other hand, that was something that happened 20 years ago under a very different set of circumstances. With the salary cap now tied to revenues, there is a lot more transparency now than there was in 1992. Can there be games played with the numbers? Of course. Are they likely to be significant in view of the $9 billion pie? Probably not. A few million here or there isn't going to make a big difference.

If the player's lack of trust is based on a 20 year old situation, I think it is unfounded. If it is based on some things that have occured more recently I am more sympathetic.

I don't see what's changed.

It's tied to revenue. What is the revenue, outside of the bits that are well known, like the TV contract? How transparent is something like stadium attendance or concession revenue? How do you account for Snyder selling $25 standing room only tickets to lobbyists (he was making that money back elsewhere...)?

Nope. My feeling is that the situation hasn't changed much in 20 years. I think it's possibly the same or worse, and the last contract the owners offered leads me to believe it more. Everything I've seen, and the owner's negotiators are claiming it was a good deal, nearing or better than the one the owners opted out of. That tells me the players have called the owner's bluff, and the owners do NOT want to show their cards because it will be bad for them.

[RashanGary]

JH - Then why do you make it sound like the owners are bad guys because they want to work out the best deal possible for them? It works both ways, it always does.

They're not bad because they want a good deal. I didn't like their statements in the media trying to portray the players as unreasonable. I didn't like their deceiving tactic of offering partial info, having it audited and then telling the public all about it, like the players just didn't care to see the new, wonderful, helpful info after they agreed not to talk to the public about negotiations.

It seems to me they're more manipulative and I don't like that part of it.

The way they talk to the players in the meetings even.

I don't know if it's logical, I don't know if it's completely true or not, but I do know that I don't like the owners as much as teh players. The players strike me as regular every-guys. The owners strike me as borderline sociopathic white collar criminals. Maybe not criminals, but back stabbing, ruthless people who will fleece you and not care in the least bit that they manipulated you to do it.

[swede]

They're not bad because they want a good deal. I didn't like their statements in the media trying to portray the players as unreasonable. I didn't like their deceiving tactic of offering partial info, having it audited and then telling the public all about it, like the players just didn't care to see the new, wonderful, helpful info after they agreed not to talk to the public about negotiations.

It seems to me they're more manipulative and I don't like that part of it.

The way they talk to the players in the meetings even.

I don't know if it's logical, I don't know if it's completely true or not, but I do know that I don't like the owners as much as teh players. The players strike me as regular every-guys. The owners strike me as borderline sociopathic white collar criminals. Maybe not criminals, but back stabbing, ruthless people who will fleece you and not care in the least bit that they manipulated you to do it.

Wow.

To me the situation is like a teenager refusing to believe mom and dad can't afford to buy him a car without being allowed to look at his parents' bank accounts. Even if you let him look he'd have no patience for things such as contingency funds and retirement savings. He'd see enough dollars to get him a car and letting him look at the bank accounts would accomplish nothing.

This analogy has almost nothing to do with my having a teenage son.

[Guiness]

IF the books are opened for the players, I would hope the players don't do that unless something is really "bad" in the books. The players need to act like they want to get the deal done. Creating drama and running to the media by either side just creates hard feelings and makes the deal harder to sign.


Ya. Because NFL players are known for their spectacular displays of restraint and professionalism.

[Guiness]

There not being a season doesn't really hurt the current players. These guys have been paid at a minimum a couple hundred thousand dollars already in their career. They don't need the season to survive. They could probably go a couple years without football before the minimum wagers in the NFL would even start to feel the pinch. The owners on the other hand have a responsibility. A responsibility to pay people, like the coaches and the front office, the maintenance crew, and a whole slew of other bills like water, electricity and taxes. If they don't keep up revenue, people start loosing their jobs. Quickly. The players can moan about how unfair it is, but they have absolutely no problem screwing the maintenance guy out of 45,000 a YEAR job so he can up his profits a couple hundred thousand a game.

So don't give me this righteous indignation about how the big bad owners are screwing over the poor defenseless players. The players are playing the game just like the owners are. Both sides have to come to the table to talk. And it's not like the owners are without fault either. The last person to stop getting paid is going to be the owner. They *could* open their books. Whether or not they open them or not though is irrelevant. The owners have a right to make profit, just like the players have a right to not work unless they get paid what they think they deserve. I can not come into my job in order to pressure by boss to pay me more and so can they.

Every action has consequence. Neither the players nor the owners are immune from the consequences of their actions, no matter how they try to place the blame. Blame, after all, normally lies with those willing to place it.


I think that's way off Smeefers. It's the players who will feel the pinch first. They're accustomed to that paycheck, have comitments to meet as well, and have no other way of earning even 1/4 (1/10th?) of what they earn in the NFL. If they haven't squirled away some funds, they're screwed. Remember Barry Bonds petitioning to have his child support reduced during the baseball strike?

The owners are businessmen, have dealt with the ups and downs of the economy, budgeting, and have other revenue streams. They'll feel a pinch, but it won't be fatal.

[LP]

The players strike me as regular every-guys.

Sure they are. Just like that quarterback that wore the number 4 was/is.

[Smidgeon]

I don't know if it's logical, I don't know if it's completely true or not, but I do know that I don't like the owners as much as teh players. The players strike me as regular every-guys. The owners strike me as borderline sociopathic white collar criminals. Maybe not criminals, but back stabbing, ruthless people who will fleece you and not care in the least bit that they manipulated you to do it.

Something to consider from Vic today:

"While keeping an eye on this CBA negotiations, I have tried to analyze it with a “what would Vic say?” approach. While it is certainly about the money for both sides, I think it is also safe to say the majority of owners genuinely care about the players they employ, and for their well-being.

Vic: There is no doubt in my mind they care about their players. I can cite example after example. I can tell you about a defensive back from a school in Texas who came to the team I was covering legally blind in one eye. His career was not successful but prior to releasing him the team directed him to an eye-and-ear hospital that performed a procedure that restored his sight in that eye. When he was released, he had perfect vision. I can also tell you that some years ago, when I was doing the Jaguars team newspaper, I received a handwritten letter from Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt, who had read a feature story I did on linebacker Lonnie Marts. Hunt cared enough to share his thoughts with me on Marts. These are warm-hearted men in what can often be a cold-hearted business."

[Smeefers]

I think that's way off Smeefers. It's the players who will feel the pinch first. They're accustomed to that paycheck, have comitments to meet as well, and have no other way of earning even 1/4 (1/10th?) of what they earn in the NFL. If they haven't squirled away some funds, they're screwed. Remember Barry Bonds petitioning to have his child support reduced during the baseball strike?

The owners are businessmen, have dealt with the ups and downs of the economy, budgeting, and have other revenue streams. They'll feel a pinch, but it won't be fatal.

If I don't squirrel away some funds and I lost my job I'd be screwed too. It's called living within your means. If I don't have a job and can't afford my house, guess what? I get an apartment. It's not like they haven't had a chance to prepare for this and get their finances in a row. Owners on the other hand have people depending on their wealth and income to support their families. An owner immediately feels the pinch because they are constantly spending and they have to spend because it's supporting other jobs. I'm not saying that the owners don't have a much much better cushion, what I'm saying is that when an owner stops spending money it affects entire careers of people. When a player stops spending money, maybe they don't go out and buy a new car this year. The players have no where near the expenses that the owners have.

If i quit working, I would have to severely limit my lifestyle.
If the owner of my company stopped getting revenue in, everyone in the company would have to severely limit their lifestyle. That is a much heavier burden to bear.

[RashanGary]

Vic: There is no doubt in my mind they care about their players. I can cite example after example. I can tell you about a defensive back from a school in Texas who came to the team I was covering legally blind in one eye. His career was not successful but prior to releasing him the team directed him to an eye-and-ear hospital that performed a procedure that restored his sight in that eye. When he was released, he had perfect vision. I can also tell you that some years ago, when I was doing the Jaguars team newspaper, I received a handwritten letter from Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt, who had read a feature story I did on linebacker Lonnie Marts. Hunt cared enough to share his thoughts with me on Marts. These are warm-hearted men in what can often be a cold-hearted business."

This is a good point. I remember when teh Packers released Terrence Murphy and Jeremy Thompson. In both cases, they felt horrible to do it. I think Terrance Murphy came back as an intern a couple years ago and I know in both cases they had all of their medical stuff cleared up before they left.

I buy that 80% of the owners are great guys and want a deal to get worked out.

Maybe this isn't some big bad fight of bad (or dumb) men. Maybe this is a really tough negotiation where the players feel they're better off in litigation and the owners feel their better off bargaining. Maybe the chips just have to fall.

I still think not showing the books and leading the public to believe they tried to was bunk, but whatever. We'll see how it shakes out. Jerry Jones threat shows how weak they are. I don't think people in strong positions feel the need to threaten.

[Guiness]

If I don't squirrel away some funds and I lost my job I'd be screwed too. It's called living within your means. If I don't have a job and can't afford my house, guess what? I get an apartment. It's not like they haven't had a chance to prepare for this and get their finances in a row. Owners on the other hand have people depending on their wealth and income to support their families. An owner immediately feels the pinch because they are constantly spending and they have to spend because it's supporting other jobs. I'm not saying that the owners don't have a much much better cushion, what I'm saying is that when an owner stops spending money it affects entire careers of people. When a player stops spending money, maybe they don't go out and buy a new car this year. The players have no where near the expenses that the owners have.

If i quit working, I would have to severely limit my lifestyle.
If the owner of my company stopped getting revenue in, everyone in the company would have to severely limit their lifestyle. That is a much heavier burden to bear.

Outright expenses, no. But in a relative term, as in what %age of their income is 'spoken for' I think many players are hand to mouth.

[RashanGary]

I'm w/ guiness here, smeef. Owners are billionaires. They can last a year better than most players. Most players are not Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Most players probably have a million or two in the bank account compared to a billion or two.

Knowing they can make a temporary deal while they litigate makes me feel much better. The owners are going to be pissed and threaten not to play, but in the end, 4.5 billion dollars for each side says they'll play. I feel more comfortable after reading this than I have since the beginning.

I think the owners are going to lose this court case. They'll agree to a one year patch with the players, the game will go on and the long term CBA will be worked out in court.

[Guiness]

I'm w/ guiness here, smeef. Owners are billionaires. They can last a year better than most players. Most players are not Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Most players probably have a million or two in the bank account.

I don't think they've got a million or two. Have you seen this?
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14874371/more-alleged-creditors-suits-raise-bryant-tab-to-over-850k
Bryant, who is closer to the top then the bottom of the pay scale, is in debt. Remember when Grady Jackson had his furniture repossessed?

[Smeefers]

I don't think they've got a million or two. Have you seen this?
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14874371/more-alleged-creditors-suits-raise-bryant-tab-to-over-850k
Bryant, who is closer to the top then the bottom of the pay scale, is in debt. Remember when Grady Jackson had his furniture repossessed?

Just because a select few can't handle thier finances doesn't mean most of them can't. If they were responsible with thier money, they wouldn't get into those situations. They have nowhere to point the finger at but themselves and I refuse to feel sorry for people who waste fortunes.

JH, I think you're missing my point. The owners themselves will be fine for years and years, but what of the people on the business side who work under them? No season means no job. It's a lot harder on a man when he looses a 50 k a year job than when a player looses a 500k a year job.

[RashanGary]

Just because a select few can't handle thier finances doesn't mean most of them can't. If they were responsible with thier money, they wouldn't get into those situations. They have nowhere to point the finger at but themselves and I refuse to feel sorry for people who waste fortunes.

JH, I think you're missing my point. The owners themselves will be fine for years and years, but what of the people on the business side who work under them? No season means no job. It's a lot harder on a man when he looses a 50 k a year job than when a player looses a 500k a year job.

That probably is a factor for many of the owners. If they really do act out of that type of good will, I would hope the players act similarly and they come to a deal. The mistrust is deep though. I like the short term fix idea with court deciding the long term CBA. There are a handful of owners that I'd bet are crooked and the players lawyers have plenty of motivation to bring this to court. It might just have to get solved by a judge and that might not be a bad thing.

[prime311]

I think the safe assumption, which holds true for pretty much any business everywhere, is that employees will be paid as little as their bosses think they will take. Considering that there is almost no way that any reduction in employee compensation will result in savings passed on to joe schmo, I can't help but side with the players on this one.

[prime311]

This is a good point. I remember when teh Packers released Terrence Murphy and Jeremy Thompson. In both cases, they felt horrible to do it. I think Terrance Murphy came back as an intern a couple years ago and I know in both cases they had all of their medical stuff cleared up before they left.

I buy that 80% of the owners are great guys and want a deal to get worked out.

Maybe this isn't some big bad fight of bad (or dumb) men. Maybe this is a really tough negotiation where the players feel they're better off in litigation and the owners feel their better off bargaining. Maybe the chips just have to fall.

I still think not showing the books and leading the public to believe they tried to was bunk, but whatever. We'll see how it shakes out. Jerry Jones threat shows how weak they are. I don't think people in strong positions feel the need to threaten.


Exactly right there. Also say what you will about the owners caring about the players, I'm sure they care more about their own families and succession and wouldn't hesitate to pay players 100$/game if they could. Caring is relative.

[swede]

How much cough syrup can you get for $100?

[RashanGary]

bad post

[RashanGary]

bad post 2

[swede]

Smeefers and I had a similar conversation at work...Conservatives will sell human life up a creek if it means the companies are more profitable.

You work for a left-wing think tank?

[RashanGary]

He's a conservative and I'm a mod/liberal. He's pro owner, I'm anti. It lead to a political discussion.

[RashanGary]

bad post 3

[ThunderDan]

Just because a select few can't handle thier finances doesn't mean most of them can't. If they were responsible with thier money, they wouldn't get into those situations. They have nowhere to point the finger at but themselves and I refuse to feel sorry for people who waste fortunes.

JH, I think you're missing my point. The owners themselves will be fine for years and years, but what of the people on the business side who work under them? No season means no job. It's a lot harder on a man when he looses a 50 k a year job than when a player looses a 500k a year job.

Per a 2009 article, 78% of all NFL players are bankrupt or in financial distress within 2 years of retiring. It's not as uncommon as you think.

[Smidgeon]

Just because a select few can't handle thier finances doesn't mean most of them can't. If they were responsible with thier money, they wouldn't get into those situations. They have nowhere to point the finger at but themselves and I refuse to feel sorry for people who waste fortunes.

JH, I think you're missing my point. The owners themselves will be fine for years and years, but what of the people on the business side who work under them? No season means no job. It's a lot harder on a man when he looses a 50 k a year job than when a player looses a 500k a year job.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Just because a select few can't handle thier finances doesn't mean most of them can't. If they were responsible with thier money, they wouldn't get into those situations. They have nowhere to point the finger at but themselves and I refuse to feel sorry for people who waste fortunes.

JH, I think you're missing my point. The owners themselves will be fine for years and years, but what of the people on the business side who work under them? No season means no job. It's a lot harder on a man when he looses a 50 k a year job than when a player looses a 500k a year job.


I agree wholeheartedly.
+1

[Patler]

Per a 2009 article, 78% of all NFL players are bankrupt or in financial distress within 2 years of retiring. It's not as uncommon as you think.

Do you happen to recall what was required to be an "NFL player" in this study, or what was required for "retiring"? Do you remember if it included individuals who may have been around for only a year or two, then disappeared from the NFL scene? I can easily understand how a player who played a year or two at minimum wage, who likely has no degree and no particular job skills, might have a difficult time finding a job the first two years after ending his NFL career.

I wonder what the stats would be for drafted players who sign a second contract. Players who lasted for 5 or 6 years at least. If a very large percentage of players like that (who would have made several million $) are bankrupt just a couple years after ending their careers, something is really wrong with the culture of being a player. It would not necessarily surprise me, however.