Stay Granted: Lockout On Til June, Breakthrough Reported

[Fritz]

Bobblehead wrote: "Lets face reality, you guys don't actually want a true free market for the labor of players, you want greedy owners to be forced to pay what you think is "fair" for the talent. You want the previous CBA continued even though the union decertified. You want the owners to be forced to follow anti trust rules, but at the same time follow rules negotiated for the benefit of the league (players and all) as a whole. In short, you want them to follow the rules that you think are fair, but not the ones that harm the employees. Got news for you, they didn't create the NFL (or any business) under altruistic intentions. They do it for money."

Why does everyone have such a problem with the players banding together to bargain, but very few people seem willing to acknowledge that the owners have banded together, too? Why is that okay?

You all want a real free market economy? Okay, let's have no players union. Let's let players decide when they want to go to work for their paychecks - and let's let them try to get a job with any owner they want to. And the owners can pay as much or little as they want to for players. Oh, and there's no single TV contract. Each team can negotiate its own contract and keep the revenue. After all, the owners' current TV contract system is as close to Marxism as anything I've ever seen - from each according to ability, to each according to need. Oh, and if it's a real free market, then no taxpayer handouts for stadiums.

So Cam Newton or Jake Locker or any player can negotiate with any or as many teams as he'd like, and can sign for whatever the two sides can agree to. The players could work anywhere they want - no draft, cuz it's going to be like the "real world" so many of you like to talk about when complaining about how easy the players have it. And of course, no salary cap would be imposed - why let the owners work together and make rules together if you don't want the players to?

Then how would the NFL look?

I absolutely do not understand why so many people pretend the owners are operating under free market rules when they're not even close to that.

[packrat]

Rules are what keep the NFL competitive. Without a salary cap, and without shared revenue, no Green Bay Packers. TV would not pay much for the Green Bay market and team doesn't have rich owners who could compete with the owners in the New York or San Francisco market. It the NFL was no longer competitive, with a couple of teams dominating every year because they were the only ones that could afford the superstars, NFL would become less popular and TV revenue would decline and all players would be worse off as there would be less money to pay them. As a practical matter, as arrogant and irritating as the owners are, someone has to finance and organize the league. Without owners, the players, starting as college grads with no money and with their short career spans aren't going to be able to create a league with stadiums and the organizational structure needed to maintain the NFL.

[Tony Oday]

Owners are Evil White Conservatives that must be destroyed and their wealth redistributed...DUH!

The Green Bay wouldnt be competative argument is bullshit. Now if you said Buffalo I would agree!

I hope the players go broke and have to crawl back to their employers. They have been treated with kid gloves their entire lives and have received whatever they have wanted, well you petulant little kids time to go into time out and maybe get grounded! The people really hurt by this are the Business staffs of NFL teams.

[ThunderDan]

First, I disagree with the entertainers. Hundreds of thousands of guys could act in "two and a half men" but only a handful have created the show and write it.

You are wrong, I could play OT in the NFL....poorly. What if I started a 5' 10" and under league? Could a guy 6' sue me to play? Is it my LEAGUE or my FRANCHISE. If its a league you must allow me to set rules to make the league successful. Limiting guys by their height would seem to be an anti trust issue the way the courts have ruled so far.

You have said in the past that you own an accounting firm. What if the employees found a judge that said you had to allow them 59% of your profits? You wouldn't like it I'm betting. Whats that you say? You can find other accountants? The NFL can find other players and the talent difference would barely be noticeable to the naked eye. Moreover, within 4-5 years the top players would again be in the league.

Lets be honest, if you are going to treat the NFL as a full fledged free for all there will no longer be a draft. There will be no minimum salary. There will be no rules governing what can or can not be put into a contract. Hundreds of players will lose a TON of money while a few stars will make more. Greedy owners will make MORE money and pay LESS in total salaries than they do now. Star players will get MUCH better health care than lesser players.

The thing that kills me about the liberals position in all this is that they somehow want the best of both worlds. They want a system where the OWNERS have to play by certain rules, but the players do not. In the end, either BOTH sides have to agree to a CBA or there will be NO rules. If there is no CBA then you can't possibly intelligently argue that somehow the owners should still be required to pay any more than they choose. Bottom of the roster guys will have minimum contracts with team options as far as the eye can see. No roster size limits. A guy like Tramon who had limited interest coming out will NEVER get paid. They will be forced to sign an exclusive contract with whichever team offers them a shit lifetime deal. On the other hand guys like Ryan Leaf will still get millions.

Lets face reality, you guys don't actually want a true free market for the labor of players, you want greedy owners to be forced to pay what you think is "fair" for the talent. You want the previous CBA continued even though the union decertified. You want the owners to be forced to follow anti trust rules, but at the same time follow rules negotiated for the benefit of the league (players and all) as a whole. In short, you want them to follow the rules that you think are fair, but not the ones that harm the employees. Got news for you, they didn't create the NFL (or any business) under altruistic intentions. They do it for money.

What needs to happen is that the (not)union and the owners need to get together and work our a deal. If the players decide to attempt hardball they WILL LOSE. If we go free for all again and the league begins fielding scabs, many talented players will return in a hurry. Within a season we will forget about the guys who are still on strike. We will be cheering for "hehateme". Spencer Havner Jerseys will fly off the shelf. We won't recall Tony Gonzalez. Guys coming out of college with the prospect of making 100k to play LT or 14k to flip burgers won't fret long over choosing which way to go. Another league may or may not open to compete with the NFL, but we won't associate with the NJ Generals the way we do with the NY Giants. Face it, the owners have created a product we demand.....Charles Woodson is and will be replaced.

I've tried to answer twice but I keep getting timed out.

What it comes down to is this. I will not pay for a shitty product. As much as you think I would keep my season tickets if you played in the NFL you are wrong. If the product put on the field is bad I will drop my tickets, even at the mighty Lambeau field.

What is with this "liberal" crap? The NFL is a government protected industry. The players are asking for more of a free market capitalistic style of employment. The owners are trying to keep the status quo.

And who is this "you guys"? When have I ever stated what I want out of this?

I have done enough work with mergers/labor negotiation as a CPA that I realize how good deals are made. What the NFL and NFLPA are doing right now is counter-productive. Both sides are waiting for the courts to hopefully put them in a stronger postion. Neither side wants the judge to deside what is going to happen in the future. Both sides are posturing to make the other look bad. Trust me the NFLPA doesn't want a completely free market industry but they are using it to taint the owners.

As for what I want, I want the owners and players to sit down and agree to a new CBA. IF the owners can show a reason for an additional $1,000,000,000 addback I am all for it. I like the NFL and how it runs. I don't want a free market system.

Don't lump me with "you guys" again.

[mraynrand]

I like the NFL and how it runs. I don't want a free market system.

I agree with the first, and disagree with the second. The First doesn't have to be at the expense of the second, so long as the NFL is one business entity. Let the players be free to form or join another league. Let cities and stadiums be free to sign one team from league A and/or league B. IF the owner builds his own stadium, the government should have nothing to say about it. Screw anti-trust. If one league is dominant, it's up to the other leagues to find a way to be competitive - like the AFL did. But within a league, you have to have rules that ensure reasonable competition or the product - competitive football, where any team has a chance to win - will suck, as we know from countless examples. You also have to find a way to keep owners happy who fork out a ton of their own money to improve the product and you need to pay the top talent, because without it, the quality of what you see on the field will diminish rapidly. The players should collectively bargain, but should tell the entrenched unions to go to hell.

[Lurker64]

I think what we mean when we say "we don't want a free market system [in football]" is that we recognize that things like the draft, the franchise tag, the salary cap/floor, and restricted free agency are good for the game in contrast to an NFL where there everybody without a contract (including college football players) is a free agent and teams can spend as much or as little as they want.

If the USFL, the XFL, and the AFL want to try to compete with the NFL, that's entirely fine by me.

[SkinBasket]

IF the owners can show a reason for an additional $1,000,000,000 addback I am all for it. I like the NFL and how it runs. I don't want a free market system.

Why should they have to show a reason? And if you believe they should, why shouldn't the players be forced to show the owners their accounting to demonstrate a "need" or "reason" for the massive increases in pay they've seen every year?

FWIW, the "reason" you're looking for is that the owners are running a business. A business exists to make profit.

[Tarlam!]

Why should they have to show a reason? And if you believe they should, why shouldn't the players be forced to show the owners their accounting to demonstrate a "need" or "reason" for the massive increases in pay they've seen every year?

FWIW, the "reason" you're looking for is that the owners are running a business. A business exists to make profit.

It is incomprehendable to me that this needs continual championing. It is so painfully obvious, as is the benefit of revenue sharing, drafting, salary caps/floors and all the tools to ensure some type of parity. I live in a country where one of three - four clubs will win the soccer title over the next 100 years. It is fucking boring. Insanely boring! They have other tools to keep it somewhat interesting and there is no denying interational soccer is fantastic. But club soccer on a country level is pathetic.

TT took 6 years to build a champion, but started with a fucking great QB. He and MM were one interception away from a visit to the big dance three years earlier! That type of success is unheard of in soccer - barring one exception. A German team Kaiserslautern won the championship after gaining 1st league status in the same season. Sort of a "last to first" story. It was about 10-12 years ago and was a sensation. It won't happen again in my lifetime and probably not my son's, if I measure how often that's happened in the history of the league.

To Rand's point; The system you suggest exists! There are no laws prohibiting leagues from operating like the AFL. It's a cost issue. One needs billions to compete with the NFL. And fraankly, as a fan, I want all the talent in one league. That may be selfish and communistic, but, I'm honest about it.

[mraynrand]

To Rand's point; The system you suggest exists! There are no laws prohibiting leagues from operating like the AFL. It's a cost issue. One needs billions to compete with the NFL. And fraankly, as a fan, I want all the talent in one league. That may be selfish and communistic, but, I'm honest about it.

That's why I see no need for antitrust exemptions or considerations. But I disagree with the billions. You have to generate a product the fans want to see. You'd need mega bucks to compete for college players, but that's assuming you wanted to go head to head. Many businesses succeed because they create/fill a niche and use that as a wedge to grow, not through exact duplication.

[mraynrand]

I think what we mean when we say "we don't want a free market system [in football]" is that we recognize that things like the draft, the franchise tag, the salary cap/floor, and restricted free agency are good for the game in contrast to an NFL where there everybody without a contract (including college football players) is a free agent and teams can spend as much or as little as they want.

If the USFL, the XFL, and the AFL want to try to compete with the NFL, that's entirely fine by me.

OK

[sharpe1027]

The players and most fans seem to think that if a judge ends the lockout that somehow we will return to the previous CBA....that is not the case, the owners voided the CBA and the players decertified. It has zero bearing on the future. This is nothing like a collusion of all the top accounting firms. The CFL, arena, USFL, XFL all tried to compete with the NFL. Again, this is where a fundamental disagreement occurs. I don't view the 32 teams as competitors trying to win market share. They are ONE league trying to own market share.

I don't know what fans or players you are talking about, but that doesn't seem to be the case on this thread. I said "top" accounting firms, not "all" accounting firms. Just like the CFL, there would be shittier accounting firms trying to compete. Perhaps you don't understand the analogy because you are talking about market share. The player's suit is about their salaries, just like my analogy is about the accountant's wages. Market share does not seem relevant.

As far as the true free market....no, posters want the courts to decide the rules of the market instead of the owners. My argument is anything but straw. The players (and many posters) want it both ways. No lockout, but still a collective bargaining session. It simply can't happen. Either you are a union and can be locked out and then bargain, or you are not and you have a free for all. Only 2 choices. We are not a union, but owners must negotiate with us as a whole entity (union) but not have any of the benefits of us NOT being unionized. Fun deal if you can swing it.

If they come to an agreement, can't they do pretty much what they want? The union will reform and the court case will be dropped. What makes you think otherwise?

I also agree that both sides will lose in the short term, but long run, the owners will crush the union should it become ugly. Furthermore, I always think the players are justified in asking for more. I simply disagree as to them being able to somehow force the owners to pay a certain amount.

I don't understand how they can be justified asking for more, but they can't get a "certain amount." What do you mean? If they are asking for more, then they are asking for a certain amount.

The owners are also justified in asking for more. That is called free market. Do I think minimum wage would be fair? Talk about setting up straw man arguments. Minimum wage in the NFL right now breaks down to over 8k an hour. If you are elite its more like 300k an hour.

I have never disagreed in principle to the players asking for more. I disagree with the whole sham of decertifying and using the courts to get it instead of negotiating.

You seem to not understand the point of saying minimum wage, it was to show that we all agree that the players should get paid well since they are the product and that there is some point at which they aren't getting paid enough. What makes your opinion on how much right and someone else's wrong?

[bobblehead]

A lot of points to address.

First, I don't mind the players negotiating, but they decertified and are using the courts....while at the same time attempting to negotiate. You simply can't have it both ways. If you are a union, your negotiations are bound by certain rules. If you are not a union you lose the right to collectively bargain. You can't decertify and use the courts rulings based on you not being a union as leverage in collective bargaining. Its simply not legal.

Second, I LIKE the system with the union agreeing to certain things that grow the pie. I do NOT want a free for all. I also have stated several times that I think there is a fundamental flaw in saying the 32 owners are competing and must follow anti trust regulations within their league. The NFL is the company, not the cowboys. The NFL sets the rules to grow the pie just like any franchisee.

Third, I DO understand the point about the players getting paid well to entertain us....and they are. NO ONE is trying to make the fledging millionaires get on food stamps. The point at which they are not getting paid enough is the exact point that they won't play in the NFL for the money offered....not one dollar more or less. It is NOT some arbitrary number that you think is fair, and that is my point about ME playing LT. I won't get paid much because you wont' pay me much to watch me. I wont' get paid millions because its a hazardous job, because it takes years off my life, or because its fair. I will get paid shit, because no one will pay to see a 5'10" left tackle and therefore the owners won't pay me to play it.

Fritz, the owners can band together because they represent the NFL corporation. If this wasn't the case, then they could not legally lock out anyone, and the workers from several different companies could not be unionized and negotiate en masse with all the companies. This is why the courts botched it in the past. Furthermore, if this were truly a "free market" where each team could negotiate TV contracts and such, then I would be allowed to enter said market with my team and compete....I am not, because the NFL is the company, not the dallas cowboy joneses. I also can not walk into Dan's accounting firm and begin "competing" with his accountants without his permission because its HIS company. To summarize, the owners are partners in the NFL (if this was NOT the case, then the players would have to unionize and strike (or get locked out) against each team idividually and standards would be negotiated on a team by team basis instead of an industry basis. GM doesn't have the exact union contract that Chrysler does after all).

Dan, I never said you would pay for a shitty product. I have stated many times that without an agreement, everyone loses money. My main point though is that the league will survive without the current players, however the owners will still turn a nifty profit (albeit a much smaller one) which is why its best for both sides to "get 'er done".

So, to try and make my whole point short and sweet:

The players as a union can NOT PLAY as leverage for as long as they wish. I will never say different. They will be and should be well compensated for laying it on the line for us. The owners can LOCK THEM OUT for leverage for as long as they wish. I will never say different. They should make the lions share of the profit for risking their capital and creating the demand. I will never say different. The players can NOT use the courts for leverage AS A UNION. 95% of the players will lose out if they go the court route which is why we know its a sham. The league will lose out and the fans will lose out. Long term 100% of the players will lose out. Tom Brady can leave the union and sue, and it may help him today if the courts continue to view the NFL as 32 competing businesses, but it will hurt EVERY player to come after him as the league loses popularity and money.

These are my main points. My other points are not that important. Yes, I think the owners can use scabs and crush the players, but that makes everyone a loser long term. Yes, it is my OPINION that the players get too much of the pie as things are right now. BUT, if the lockout continues, one side will blink....it will be the players before its the owners. Ultimately the owners have risked money to make money. The players perform and risk nothing for the dollars. I ALWAYS side with the risk takers, the innovators and the creators over employees because its those people that make the world go round.

Throughout history poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded - here and there, now and then - are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of society, the people slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck".

Excerpts from the notebooks of Lazarus Long (written by Robert Heinlein).

You can hate owners, Bill Gates, Sam Waldon, Steve Jobs and anyone else who improved your life if you wish. You can despise that they got really rich while enriching your life.....but you will still watch the NFL, use Windows 7, listen to your iPod, and price match your groceries all the same. You will want to bring them down....but not the things they created to make your life better. Me, I'm simply shrugging.

[sharpe1027]

A lot of points to address.

First, I don't mind the players negotiating, but they decertified and are using the courts....while at the same time attempting to negotiate. You simply can't have it both ways. If you are a union, your negotiations are bound by certain rules. If you are not a union you lose the right to collectively bargain. You can't decertify and use the courts rulings based on you not being a union as leverage in collective bargaining. Its simply not legal.

So, they come to an agreement, reform the union and then sign a collective bargaining agreement. Even the courts seem to recognize that this is an option since they are encouraging the mediation efforts. Why do you think otherwise?

You can hate owners, Bill Gates, Sam Waldon, Steve Jobs and anyone else who improved your life if you wish. You can despise that they got really rich while enriching your life.....but you will still watch the NFL, use Windows 7, listen to your iPod, and price match your groceries all the same. You will want to bring them down....but not the things they created to make your life better. Me, I'm simply shrugging.

Who despises them for getting really rich? You seem to have this view about what everyone else thinks, but I for one don't think you have a good bead on what most posters are trying to say. Can you point to why anyone is despising people for making lots of money?

It is interesting to note that neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs designed Windows 7 or the iPod, the most significant thing they did to make all their money was develop a business/marketing plan that put a premium cost on Windows 7 and the iPod so that they are more expensive for us all to buy. Smart moves that brought in a lot of money that allowed for more investment in other innovations, but just maybe they aren't as irreplaceable as all that.

[Guiness]

First, I don't mind the players negotiating, but they decertified and are using the courts....while at the same time attempting to negotiate. You simply can't have it both ways. If you are a union, your negotiations are bound by certain rules. If you are not a union you lose the right to collectively bargain. You can't decertify and use the courts rulings based on you not being a union as leverage in collective bargaining. Its simply not legal.

So, they come to an agreement, reform the union and then sign a collective bargaining agreement. Even the courts seem to recognize that this is an option since they are encouraging the mediation efforts. Why do you think otherwise?

That seems like the pink elephant in the room to me as well.

Not a union, being encouraged to collectively bargain...with no one representing the players to sign a theoretical agreement they come to.

What? Reform the union? Well, wasn't it really there all along then...especially if they were bargaining as a unit???

[Lurker64]

I think everybody realizes that the NFLPA is still operating as union. They just want to avoid saying this where the NLRB might hear them.