World's Most Boring Thread: The CBA

[sharpe1027]

My point was simply to point out that there's mathematically far more to this than just 9% versus 18%. Anyone who says one or the other is oversimplifying. I don't care who gets what slice of the pie. I just want to be able to follow my team instead of being stuck watching NASCAR because there is no football on.

There is a basis point (total revenue) from which the current system operates. The proposal results in an 18% loss in what players would receive relative to the basis point. I disagree that it is much more complex "mathematically" just because the basis point changes once a year. Maybe we just have a different threshold of simple?

[sharpe1027]

As for the 4.5% versus 9%, the owners are asking for 18% being reallocated to costs and 9% being shouldered by each side.

I had not heard this. Their proposal would make more sense if their percentage was also reduced. Of course, it would still benefit the owners more than the players as these cost were traditionally payed for by owners. I would assume that this was understood by both sides when the current agreement was signed.

[get louder at lambeau]

I just commented on this story at PFT. Florio's confusing himself by overcomplicating the math. He says the players' take would go from $4.2 bil to $3.42 bil. Now divide the latter by the former- 81.4%- an 18.6% decrease. Ta da. His own numbers prove his whole premise is stupid.

I think you might be confusing yourself by undercomplicating the math. Your viewpoint seems a bit myopic, it assumes that revenues remain constant from year to year, which is highly unlikely.

Revenues next year are projected to decrease, if that happens to be the case the players net "take" would be less (and could be far less) than the 18% they are claiming.

I didn't find Florio's premis stupid, in fact, I got a great deal from it.

His premise is that Smith was lying by saying it would be an 18% reduction in their total slice of the pie, and he claimed it would be more like 9%. He is wrong. Totally. Completely. He fucked up the math and came to an incorrect conclusion.

Any expected rise in revenue is not material to the discussion at all. They are talking about percentages here, Retail. As in, a percentage of whatever the total revenue of any year may be, regardless of the total pie being larger or smaller in any given year.

Me myopic or you? Maybe you should know what you're talking about before you throw that term around.

That's only 18.6% if you use the players wage as a starting point. If you look at it in terms of the overall amount (so instead of using 3.42 as the 100% mark--which you did by using it as the denominator in the equation--use the 8 billion that he referenced earlier as being 100%), it's a reduction of 9.75%: (4.2 / 8) - (3.42/8). What this means is that the players are getting 9.75% less of the overall pie. But the relative decrease is 18.6%. So while you're not wrong in that regard, you aren't right either in your overall point.

That 9.75% number is not relevant here. THat's the problem.

The thing Florio is questioning is Smith saying the players would be taking an 18% pay cut. Which they would. The 9.75% is just a misleading way to look at it, as it has no bearing on the actual numbers, and is incorrect to apply here. That's like if I said that I was going to decrease your slice of the pie from 10% to 5% you'd only be getting a 5% decrease, where in reality it would be a 50% decrease for you. I am 100% right.

I would agree with you on that last point if there wasn't a yearly increase to player salaries.

We could also put it another way to demonstrate why which denominator used is so important.

In 2009, the salary cap was $128 million per team. That means a max of (128x32=4096) $4.096 billion allocated to player salaries alone. In 1994, the salary cap was $34.6 million per team. With 28 teams in 1994, the total amount to the players was (34.6*28=968.8) $969 million. If we use that as the denominator, the players have had a (4096/969=4.227) 422.7% increase in player salaries during the free agency era.

So while someone can look at the relative decrease of 18.6% the owners are asking, I can also look at the relative increase of 422.7% that the players have gained in the last (2009-1994=15) 15 years.

That's an increase of [422.6%^(1/15)=1.496] 49.6% per year for player salaries. An investment that returns 49.6% per year consistently for 15 years is unheard of. Cost of living increases are only 4% per year on average. Which means that the player pool has grown 45.6% per year over inflation.

So while 10%-5% is a 50% decrease, if there's a 50% raise that happens before that, 15%-10% is only a 33% decrease. That's why the 9.75% is relevant. It's because it takes into account the growth of the sport. In this case, the oversimplification (because I really don't want to calculate the correlation of the percentages) is that 45.6%-18.6% is still an increase of 27%. Yearly. Also, if I understand the argument right, it isn't that the owners want their 9% for profit. They want more money freed up to develop the sport, to fund stadiums, to increase brand and sport awareness--all which makes the NFL as a whole more profitable and continues the increased salaries the players receive.

The 9.75% number is just as independent of year to year growth as the 18% number. You're confused.

Your 9.75% number was based on static numbers just like the 18% number- They just reflect different viewpoints. 18% is the change in the PLAYERS' SHARE of total share of revenue from the players perspective, which is the valid number here, as it was what Smith claimed and what Florio disputed. Your 9.75% number is change in players' share as expressed as a percentage of total revenue. Both are completely independent of year to year change in total revenue.

On that day, Executive Director De Smith harped on the allegation that the league wants the players to take an "18 percent pay cut."

That is based on the proposed reduction of the players' current piece of the pie, and it's accurate as stated, IMO. Their total pay per year is based on a percentage of total revenue, not based on a static number. If they were to play under the proposed CBA, as opposed to the previous CBA that would have been in place if the owners had not recalled it, the difference is an 18% pay cut, regardless of the total revenue for any given year. Not a year to year pay cut, but an old CBA to new CBA pay cut. I think that's where the misunderstanding is coming from. Year to year increases in total NFL revenue is not the issue here- how much of that total the players get is.

IF you buy the owners' line that it will be better for the players if they give up a larger share of total revenue, then you're just plain naiive. If it was, there would be no argument between teh NFL and NFLPA at all.

[Smidgeon]

My point was simply to point out that there's mathematically far more to this than just 9% versus 18%. Anyone who says one or the other is oversimplifying. I don't care who gets what slice of the pie. I just want to be able to follow my team instead of being stuck watching NASCAR because there is no football on.

There is a basis point (total revenue) from which the current system operates. The proposal results in an 18% loss in what players would receive relative to the basis point. I disagree that it is much more complex "mathematically" just because the basis point changes once a year. Maybe we just have a different threshold of simple?

See, that's the thing. If you use total revenue as the basis point, the players are only losing 9% under the proposal. If, however, you use the proportion the players are currently getting as the basis point, then they're losing 18%.

[sharpe1027]

See, that's the thing. If you use total revenue as the basis point, the players are only losing 9% under the proposal. If, however, you use the proportion the players are currently getting as the basis point, then they're losing 18%.

No. You are getting confused. Both numbers use total revenue as the basis point, the are just describing two different things. Since we are talking specifically about the players change in salary. Relative to the basis point and comparing one CBA to another, it is an 18% reduction and NOT a 9% reduction. Make sense?

[Smidgeon]

As for the 4.5% versus 9%, the owners are asking for 18% being reallocated to costs and 9% being shouldered by each side.

I had not heard this. Their proposal would make more sense if their percentage was also reduced. Of course, it would still benefit the owners more than the players as these cost were traditionally payed for by owners. I would assume that this was understood by both sides when the current agreement was signed.

Well, actually the argument is that these costs are not all things that were traditionally paid for by the owners. The example I posted about stadiums being more privately funded than previously is one example.

The other side of it is the argument that the costs have grown at a faster pace than the revenues. In which case though the costs have been traditionally shouldered by the owners, their revenues are taking a hit that the players' revenues aren't. So in effect it's a redistribution.

[Smidgeon]

See, that's the thing. If you use total revenue as the basis point, the players are only losing 9% under the proposal. If, however, you use the proportion the players are currently getting as the basis point, then they're losing 18%.

No.

Care to explain?

[sharpe1027]

If they were to play under the proposed CBA, as opposed to the previous CBA that would have been in place if the owners had not recalled it, the difference is an 18% pay cut, regardless of the total revenue for any given year. Not a year to year pay cut, but an old CBA to new CBA pay cut. I think that's where the misunderstanding is coming from. Year to year increases in total NFL revenue is not the issue here- how much of that total the players get is.

This.

[Smidgeon]

That is based on the proposed reduction of the players' current piece of the pie, and it's accurate as stated, IMO. Their total pay per year is based on a percentage of total revenue, not based on a static number. If they were to play under the proposed CBA, as opposed to the previous CBA that would have been in place if the owners had not recalled it, the difference is an 18% pay cut, regardless of the total revenue for any given year. Not a year to year pay cut, but an old CBA to new CBA pay cut. I think that's where the misunderstanding is coming from. Year to year increases in total NFL revenue is not the issue here- how much of that total the players get is.

IF you buy the owners' line that it will be better for the players if they give up a larger share of total revenue, then you're just plain naiive. If it was, there would be no argument between teh NFL and NFLPA at all.

I agree that the numbers exist in relativity.

As for your second to last paragraph, no it isn't that simple. Even if that's what the owners really mean (and I'm not convinced that's what they do, just playing devil's advocate), an argument would still exist between the two sides. Business negotiations are complicated things that make even the most insignificant detail a heated disagreement. And since "it will be better for the players" is such a vague argument that can't be proven since it depends on unrealized future growth, even a pure motive will be questioned and prodded.

[Smidgeon]

If they were to play under the proposed CBA, as opposed to the previous CBA that would have been in place if the owners had not recalled it, the difference is an 18% pay cut, regardless of the total revenue for any given year. Not a year to year pay cut, but an old CBA to new CBA pay cut. I think that's where the misunderstanding is coming from. Year to year increases in total NFL revenue is not the issue here- how much of that total the players get is.

This.

9% relative to total revenue
18% relative to the revenue the players are currently receiving under prior CBA

Don't get total revenue confused with allocated share.

[sharpe1027]

Is it correct that the players would receive 18% less under the new CBA than under the existing CBA?

Answer: Yes.

[Smidgeon]

Is it correct that the players would receive 18% less under the new CBA than under the existing CBA?

Answer: Yes.

But not on the basis of total revenue like you declared earlier.

Percentages and proportions are all relative. Every single time. That's why the owners can claim 9% and the players claim 18% and both be right. They're both using different starting points.

[sharpe1027]

Is it correct that the players would receive 18% less under the new CBA than under the existing CBA?

Answer: Yes.

But not on the basis of total revenue like you declared earlier. Percentages and proportions are all relative. Every single time.

Actually either both the numbers are "on the basis of total revenue," or neither is, depending on how you look at it.

I am guessing that by this point you are trying to prove me wrong rather than trying to decide whether Florio was correct or not. I refuse to take the bait, what I said is correct.

Player salary change = ((Total revenue) X (New CBA%))/((Total revenue) X (New CBA%))

Total revenue drops out of the equation completely (XY/XZ) = Y/Z

(Old CBA%)/(New CBA%) = (41%)/(50%) = 82% of original .... or 18%.

So, what the total revenue actually is or is not (unless it is zero) makes no difference to the statement at issue.

Is it correct that the players would receive 18% less under the new CBA than under the existing CBA, irrespective of what the total revenue might be?

Answer: Yes.

[Smidgeon]

I am guessing that by this point you are trying to prove me wrong rather than trying to decide whether Florio was correct or not. I refuse to take the bait, what I said is correct.

First, keep your opinions on my motives to yourself. Your opinions are unfounded seeing as you've never met me and have no idea how I process through ideas.

What I said was correct as well. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean my math was wrong.

As to whether Florio was correct or not, he was only half right, but he wasn't all wrong. Relative to total revenue, the portion shouldered is 9%. Relative to existing salary, the pay cut would be 18%. Both are true statements.

[get louder at lambeau]

What I said was correct as well.

Not this part-

That's why the 9.75% is relevant. It's because it takes into account the growth of the sport.

Sorry to be an ass, but it's not.