Was the last CBA really so bad for the players?

[mraynrand]

Newhouse received the significant bump in 2013 income due to achieving playing time requirements in 2011 and 2012. Like it or not, he was the starter during those years, and logged a heck of a lot of playing time. Perhaps he wasn't as good as fans wanted, but apparently during those years he was better than any alternatives on the roster.

He filled the job and was paid because of it.

So what? So he 'filled the job' and got paid? Good for him, at least he's somewhat adept at gaming the system. I would hope he's good at something. He's a lousy player and made 2.6 mil for it. There's a crapload of money to be made in the NFL, and a lot of guys are scoring for doing not so much, including owners, agents, announcers (I'm talking about you Matt Millen), and pathetic excuses for football players like Newhouse.

Entertainment industry is flooded with cash, and that means some really poor performers are making way more than they should. Madonna gets millions to screech for an hour an a half, and then gets paid even more to 'sing' on stage and record albums.

[Guiness]

Previous CBA: 52.? % of Total Revenues
Current CBA: 47-48% of Total Revenues

Cleaners, meet the players.

The totals mean nothing. Their percentage of the increased revenue is the important marker. You could say this: I do believe they went to a tiered system to determine which revenues would count toward calculation, so the bigger TV deals could swing the percentage higher. However, it was designed to keep the player revenue total below 49% for the life of the deal.

Feel sorry for them? Nope.

Did they get routed? Yep.

Especially after the concussion settlement, at worst, was in line with some estimates and at its best, beat most estimates of cost.

I agree with you on this one.

The players are getting a smaller piece of the pie. More than they were getting, but less than they would have under the old deal. It's not like overall revenues went up because of the new CBA, they probably increased by the same amount as they would've regardless.

[Guiness]

Entertainment industry is flooded with cash, and that means some really poor performers are making way more than they should. Madonna gets millions to screech for an hour an a half, and then gets paid even more to 'sing' on stage and record albums.

Maybe, but MIA is getting sued $16million for their 2 minutes on stage with her

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/nfl-suing-singer-mia-16-million/story?id=22968420

[mraynrand]

Maybe, but MIA is getting sued $16million for their 2 minutes on stage with her
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=22968420

The NFL should have Kidd Kidd do the next halftime show - and then they could make 32 mil.

[Patler]

The players did well in a couple aspects; minimum salaries went up immediately by $50K, and that covers about half the players in the league. So, while the top rounds of the draft may have lost money, the bulk of the rookies and younger players generally got very good raises. Even quite a few older vets got raiases.

Secondly, the minimum cash spend went up significantly. Prevents some teams from gaming the system.

A change in the % # is relatively meaningless without a detailed analysis of what it is applied to, and how quickly that might now grow. If the new revenue split enables the owners to increase revenues more quickly, the players might end up with a smaller percentage of a much bigger pie, and end up with a larger $ amount in their pockets.

[Guiness]

The players did well in a couple aspects; minimum salaries went up immediately by $50K, and that covers about half the players in the league. So, while the top rounds of the draft may have lost money, the bulk of the rookies and younger players generally got very good raises. Even quite a few older vets got raiases.

Secondly, the minimum cash spend went up significantly. Prevents some teams from gaming the system.

A change in the % # is relatively meaningless without a detailed analysis of what it is applied to, and how quickly that might now grow. If the new revenue split enables the owners to increase revenues more quickly, the players might end up with a smaller percentage of a much bigger pie, and end up with a larger $ amount in their pockets.

True that you have to look at what it is applied to. I think the players got a larger % of the TV money and gave up a % of a team's local revenues? So it depends on where the areas of growth are.

As far as the minimum spent, I'm not sure we've seen that in play yet. As pointed out, it doesn't apply to a given year, but over several (5?) years. The Bills and Browns were quite a bit under in 2013. Buccaneers and Chargers reportedly $10M under. Supposedly they have to make it up in later years? If the cap continues to climb, spending $10M in 4 or 5 years is not the same as spending it now.

Also worth watching will be what happens when the first wave of players from the 2011 draft as the rookie contracts as they come up. Not the first rounders that aren't busts, but the mid-rounders. Do they see their second contract, or are the new crop of cheaper rookies ever more attractive?

aside: I was looking a Carolina's 2011 draft. The only player they have left is Newton, all the others were released! Their other picks are with, in order, Cowboys, Broncos, out of league, out of league, Bears, Orlando Predators and Colts! Sweet Jesus, and we complain about some of the Packers poor picks!

[Noodle]

Previous CBA: 52.? % of Total Revenues
Current CBA: 47-48% of Total Revenues

Given the no-risk proposition that is an NFL franchise for an owner, I have always found it hard to understand why the players should receive anything less than 50% of revenues. If just for symbolic reasons, it should be no less than players 50.1, owners 49.9.

The pool of money is what it is. Would you rather see the money going to guys like Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, Malcolm Glazer, Bob Kraft, and Jim Irsay (average period of all NFL owners is north of 20 years), or the players with their average career-span of 6 to 7 years?

[smuggler]

Depends. Some owners actually contribute to society and charity. Most players do not. Would be nice if it were Players 45, Owners 45, Charity 10 though

[denverYooper]

Depends. Some owners actually contribute to society and charity. Most players do not. Would be nice if it were Players 45, Owners 45, Charity 10 though

That's some fuzzy math.

Some is not exclusive of many.
Many is not exclusive of some.
Most is a different kettle of fish.

You could also say that "some" players contribute to charity and society or that "many" players do so, and even that "many" more players than owners contribute. Woodson and Rodgers are prime examples of the "some", or even the "many", depending on how you slice that one.

I'd be willing to bet that proportionately more owners contribute to "charity" and "society" and that it is "often" more a function of better wealth management than most players.

[smuggler]

That's what I was getting at. In that vein, from an outsider's perspective, it might be better if the owners won in the CBA. But I admit it's pretty damn vague.

[woodbuck27]

The players did well in a couple aspects; minimum salaries went up immediately by $50K, and that covers about half the players in the league. So, while the top rounds of the draft may have lost money, the bulk of the rookies and younger players generally got very good raises. Even quite a few older vets got raiases.

Secondly, the minimum cash spend went up significantly. Prevents some teams from gaming the system.

A change in the % # is relatively meaningless without a detailed analysis of what it is applied to, and how quickly that might now grow. If the new revenue split enables the owners to increase revenues more quickly, the players might end up with a smaller percentage of a much bigger pie, and end up with a larger $ amount in their pockets.

Did anyone here ever receive a $50 K$ raise in any year of their career?

Ok then ..... put it into a proper perspective.

NFL players suffering? They are if they cannot bank their money or use the windfall from playing days for their future.

Look at the divorce rate for retired NFL players; that's telling.

[mraynrand]

That's some fuzzy math.

Some is not exclusive of many.
Many is not exclusive of some.
Most is a different kettle of fish.

You could also say that "some" players contribute to charity and society or that "many" players do so, and even that "many" more players than owners contribute. Woodson and Rodgers are prime examples of the "some", or even the "many", depending on how you slice that one.

I'd be willing to bet that proportionately more owners contribute to "charity" and "society" and that it is "often" more a function of better wealth management than most players.

Whu?