I can see why the union rejected that. It’s too limited a scope. The union’s asked for 10 years of data not 5, and I think they should get that… albeit audited by an independent firm, with team names redacted.

 

i do not agree with this statement at all.

 

It depends on if it's a partnership or an employer/employee relationship. An employee should not have the right to force the owner to show the books, a partner should have that right.

 

The first thing I think when I see that offer is, no 2010? Of course not 2010. It was the first year without a salary cap and if they showed the books it would give the NFLPA the evidence they need to prove their collusion case.

 

I gaurantee you if the owners just said "Screw it, 10 more years of the deal we had previously" the players would fall over themselves accepting. This lockout threat is coming 100% from the owners. They backed the union and players into a corner thinking they could bully their way to a better deal (like the owners really need more money ...) but the Union fought back. They won't roll over and die and accept the first bone the owner's may toss.

No reason NOT to provide financial data in this case. The union would be happy with status quo, it is the owner's who are going after more of the pie.

 

i DIG IT MAN..YALL DIG IT?, CAUSE I KNOW YOU DIG IT MAN...

Who am I?

 

An NFL player is no different than any other company employee. They have certain rights, of course, but the owners get to decide compensation. If the employee doesn't like it they can find a different career.

Unions should make sure that workers are working in the safest environment possible for that particular field. They should ensure that the employees are FAIRLY compensated for their work. Unions shouldn't be involved in employee pay raises. If an NFL player wants to make more money he can do a few things:

A) Play harder

B) Try to get more endorsements

C) Get a part time job

D) Buy his own NFL team

 

Wrong.

 

Wrong.

 

Very Very Wrong

 

Very very very wrong.

(I have more very's so you're more wrong)

 

Do you also believe in fairies and unicorns?

 

Sure, I'm conversing with the former right now. ;)

 

all valid points, and ones I very much agree with. The only problem is that the players have more leverage than your average professional working in the non-sports job. not like there's a ton of star NFL talent-level players waiting to take the place of the current ones if the union players didn't play next year. both sides need each other if they want to continue to make multi-billion dollars every year.

But, based solely on principle, I have zero sympathy for the players side in this argument. The only thing I think the players deserve, beyond what the owners are already given is a really good pension plan to take care of them after their bodies breakdown. You play 3 years, then get lifetime medical coverage, unless you can get medical coverage with a non-NFL job.

 

If true, why don't the owners fire all the players, just like how Ronald Regan fired all the air-traffic controllers? By your logic, they could just fire all the players and hire new ones. Surely all 32 teams could find 53 guys who can play football, right?

And you need to bone up on your labor law. The bit I bolded is just plain wrong as well.

 

All the players want is fairness. Without their talent, the owners don't have an NFL. Either pay up or suit up players with inferior talent. That was done in 1987, and no one wants to go there again.

 

Exactly. If an NFL player is "just like any other company employee", then the owners should just fire them all and hire new guys who will play for $100,000/year. The owners could hire all new players. See, isn't the invisible hand awesome?

 

Name one employee anyone knows in any form of business and tell me if he receives 60% of his employers revenue. NFL players are in no shape or form the same as the normal employee as we know it.

 

They aren't. They work in a monopolized industry. How many employees can you say that about?

 

Find a different career, or a different employer?

Oh wait, the owners collude, so thats not really possible.

 

Here's the deal. If I work for a company, and they pay me a salary or by the hour. I could care less what they make, it is absolutely none of my business.

On the other hand, if I work for a company on a percentage of revenue, less expenses, I have to know, and an entitled to know, where each and every dime comes from, as well as where it goes.

Otherwise, I am a fool for working under that premise.

 

That's what these idiot players don't get.
They want all the perks of being a business partner but they want none of the responsibilities.

If the players want to be partners, fine, then part of their proposal better be accepting a share of all costs of running the organization.
Stadium cost, travel, equiment, team promotion costs, etc, etc.

In my opinion their positions are absurd.

 

Agree completely.
I have zero sympathy as well.
These players are already being paid MORE than fairly and they are granted Millions in pay raises every single time a contract comes up. Their pay structure and rate of pay increase is absurd already quite frankly. They will argue that the sports fields work outside of the normal rules of economics but it does not. In the end the fans are taking it in the rear and that affects the average consumer.
Professional sports which owe it's success to the public in turn shows ZERO care about those very consumers. THey just keep demanding.

I'm a fan of the Dolphins organization.
I'd root for them no matter who's playing for us.
If there was a lockout I'd welcome scab players and enjoy it just as much.
In fact there is a part of me that would like to see it happen.

 

US Postal Service.

 

Are you joking? The players gave the owners a FRAKIN Billion dollars, off the top in the last CBA, to cover the expenses you mention before the revenue was split. How the hell was that absurd and /or not careing for the costs?

Now, the owners want double that, and the players are saying show me the costs have doubled, which the owners have yet to do.

A little research is a good thing.

 

What do the owners bring to the table exactly? Have they done anything to improve the quality of the sport?

 

Circular logic. Without the owners the players don't have teams to play for.

The fact remains, the players are the employees and the owners are the employers. The OWNERS know that they need to pay more to get more. What owners don't? Why do you think you can get a burger from McDonalds for $4, but have to pay $20 at some high-end places? However, it's up to the owners to pay and it's up to the players to decide if they want to play for that pay.

Like Ohio mentioned, if the players want to be partners they need to start investing their money in the team and helping out with the expenses.

 

How did the players give something they don't have? Hell, some of them are moving back in with mommy and daddy if they miss one paycheck.

 

Since they own the teams, they bring the sport itself, to the table.

 

They own logos. And they own the government's protection from competition. Take away one of those, and you won't see most of those 32 owners still in business.

 

robble, robble...

 

I'm sorry what? Arena Football league? UFL? And who can forget the XFL which was created by those who were spurned by the NFL? The NFL does not have antitrust protection, that is baseball. and even then I don't think they can prevent a new league. They, the NFL have an exemption from the Sports Broadcasting act of 1961 so they can negotiate the media contracts as one whole unit, not individually as would be required under antitrust laws.

All of your arguments in this thread is wrong. There is no monopoly. UFL< Arena, XFL.

 

The NFL is 32 businesses colluding together to eliminate competition. I can't own a football team if the other teams collude not to play against me. Them forming a coalition of 32 businesses is anti-competitive.

 

Ricky Bobby!!! Shake n Bake

 

But you can start your own league.

 

And you can use that same argument to justify monopolies or cartels.