NFL Lockout: College Fallout

[uodux1212]

Why doesn't more of the pie go back to the fans? Like instead of paying 5-6 bucks for a hot dog or 6-9 bucks for a beer,etc....

Exactly... The more money the players demand/get the higher ticket/concessions/parking/t-shirts prices are going to go up. Fans pay out the a$$....

[wheaton4prez]

I think we can all agree that athletes in pro sports get compensated ridiculously, but it is the nature of how the entertainment industry is set up. The fact is that professional sports such as the NFL generate ridiculous revenues..so why can't more of the pie go toward the players? Comparing this situation to what police officers/firefighters do just doesn't make sense, it is a shame though.

The comparison that I made makes perfect sense. Many people on the side of the players argue that there is danger and physical damage involved with being a football player, therefore the salaries that they receive are justified. Soldiers, police officers and firefighters face considerably more danger and aren't compensated nearly as much. So, my comparison shows that taking on physical danger does not typically result in the types of salaries that football players receive.

The players already get the majority of the pie. The beef is over a $9 billion revenue pool. Currently, the players get 88% of revenues. The owners want them to take 73% instead.

Look at this: http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/ ... aries/team

According to public statements, their cut would be 18%. To put some perspective on this, we're talking about players, on average, going from getting paid $725,000 to $600,000 per year. Somehow, I think that they would still be able to make ends meet.

I don't sit on one side or the other concerning the CBA, but I do think there are some things that need to be changed. Sure, there are a lot of NFL players making great money, but there are many others that have very short careers. I don't have an answer as to how exactly we should help those players post-retirement, but I don't feel sorry for the owners. Basically, I think each side needs to concede some trade-offs and hopefully mediation works it out. Owners of teams that make less revenue better not be put out in the cold though, that is why I'm not totally against the owners.

Here is how much each team cost the owners: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does ... teams_cost

The owners share of the $9b pool is around $31,250,000 per year. That means that even the least expensive team wouldn't break even with what they paid for it for 19 years. Basically, it's a bad investment that people get into because it's a dream to own an NFL team.

In regard to players having short careers: so what? They should be as grateful that they have the opportunity to make that kind of money to play a game as someone is who wins the lottery. The vast majority of them have had most or all of their college paid for at good schools. They should plan to spend a small fraction of their first years check on finishing their college degree (if they haven't already) upon end of their NFL career and put their education to use like everyone else.

NFL players enjoy the cushiest of situations, short playing career or not.

[L Perry]

I think we can all agree that athletes in pro sports get compensated ridiculously, but it is the nature of how the entertainment industry is set up. The fact is that professional sports such as the NFL generate ridiculous revenues..so why can't more of the pie go toward the players? Comparing this situation to what police officers/firefighters do just doesn't make sense, it is a shame though.

The comparison that I made makes perfect sense. Many people on the side of the players argue that there is danger and physical damage involved with being a football player, therefore the salaries that they receive are justified. Soldiers, police officers and firefighters face considerably more danger and aren't compensated nearly as much. So, my comparison shows that taking on physical danger does not typically result in the types of salaries that football players receive.

The players already get the majority of the pie. The beef is over a $9 billion revenue pool. Currently, the players get 88% of revenues. The owners want them to take 73% instead.

Look at this: http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/ ... aries/team

According to public statements, their cut would be 18%. To put some perspective on this, we're talking about players, on average, going from getting paid $725,000 to $600,000 per year. Somehow, I think that they would still be able to make ends meet.

I don't sit on one side or the other concerning the CBA, but I do think there are some things that need to be changed. Sure, there are a lot of NFL players making great money, but there are many others that have very short careers. I don't have an answer as to how exactly we should help those players post-retirement, but I don't feel sorry for the owners. Basically, I think each side needs to concede some trade-offs and hopefully mediation works it out. Owners of teams that make less revenue better not be put out in the cold though, that is why I'm not totally against the owners.

Here is how much each team cost the owners: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does ... teams_cost

The owners share of the $9b pool is around $31,250,000 per year. That means that even the least expensive team wouldn't break even with what they paid for it for 19 years. Basically, it's a bad investment that people get into because it's a dream to own an NFL team.

In regard to players having short careers: so what? They should be as grateful that they have the opportunity to make that kind of money to play a game as someone is who wins the lottery. The vast majority of them have had most or all of their college paid for at good schools. They should plan to spend a small fraction of their first years check on finishing their college degree (if they haven't already) upon end of their NFL career and put their education to use like everyone else.

NFL players enjoy the cushiest of situations, short playing career or not.

I agree.
I also think there should be a tiered rookie pay scale that could be loaded with performance incintives and the base contract (2 or 3yr) being totally guarantied. A full medical package for retired players is also something that needs to be put into place.

[woundedknees]

Call me chicken, but one of the things that convinced me that football wasn't for everybody was a documentary I saw while still in HS, in the early 1970's.

It showed aging ex-pro football players, especially linemen, and what their daily lives and medical problems were like.

Ironically, the part I thought was particularly nasty focussed on knee problems...

Don't get me wrong. I love the game, and have a huge amount of respect for the men that play it.

I have to agree that some kind of long term health care system for these guys wouldn't be out of line.

[karlhungis]

Why doesn't more of the pie go back to the fans? Like instead of paying 5-6 bucks for a hot dog or 6-9 bucks for a beer,etc....

Because the fans keep paying.

[Duck07]

I also think there should be a tiered rookie pay scale that could be loaded with performance incintives and the base contract (2 or 3yr) being totally guarantied. A full medical package for retired players is also something that needs to be put into place.

This is a big source of debate between the two sides because part of that shared revenue argument also gets into the debate about taking care of all the old guys who've had 20+ surgeries on their knees, back, necks etc and weren't getting those absurd contracts like fat albert haynesworth. Currently you need to be on an active roster for 6 seasons to qualify for full medical and with the avg career lasting only 3, there is some real disconnect between the two sides. I think we are going to see increased rosters and most likely a reduction of the 6 year number for full benefits. Kevin Mawae has been pretty darn vocal about taking care of players, both current and retired so it's going to be interesting because each side has some things they would like to see. Personally, I'm not a fan of the 18 game schedule that the owners are so fond of.

[wheaton4prez]

The owners should offer a similar health deal to what military veterans get. The season should not be expanded. In fact, I think that they should eliminate pre-season games altogether.

But, they should still get the 18% salary cut.

[greenyellow]

The owners should offer a similar health deal to what military veterans get. The season should not be expanded. In fact, I think that they should eliminate pre-season games altogether.

But, they should still get the 18% salary cut.

I think they should leave 2 pre-season games since it allows the coaches to do evaluations on players that are on the bubble for making the roster.

[TheMaehlMan]

Let me put it this way Wheaton: I don't feel sorry for the top-tier owners, but do think that some of the lower revenue teams deserve some help in the new CBA. The Jerry Joneses don't need more of the pie, just like the top paid NFL players don't need more of the pie. I don't think we disagree as much as it seems, I just look at it as if parts of both sides are getting shafted.

[wheaton4prez]

I see what you're saying. I agree. Nobody in the equation deserves sympathy in the sense of not being well off.

I was looking at it more in an economical way. I'm not a fan of lock-outs, slow-downs, pickets, etc. being used to manipulate markets. They're all examples of monopoly acts. The market should dictate prices instead. In other words, the players should be paid the amount that would prevent them from wanting to do some other job instead. Then, the owners could charge prices for the product that are more competitive, expand facilities and possibly teams to meet demand and so on.

The players salaries are so high that you could cut them to 25% and you'd probably still only lose about 1% to other jobs. Their price is inflated by the threat of union action and billionaires personal desire to put up with it so that they can be NFL owners.

[headshottzzzz]

As long as players sacrifice their bodies to create these huge revenues, they deserve as much as they can get. I certainly don't want to demean our firefighters, soldiers, and policemen, or any public servant for the risk they put on their bodies, those types of comparisons don't exactly fit. Firefighters and the like don't create dollars, so naturally they're not going to be getting as much. As long as the fans who love the game will buy DirectTV packages, season tickets, merchandise, etc., there will be tons of money in football. Since the players are basically the engine that creates that kind of money, then why shouldn't they be getting as much as they should, especially when they're routinely subjected to concussions, broken bones, and ligament damage? Not every player is going to make multimillions of dollars per season. Since a lot of these guys don't have college degrees, a lot of them aren't going to have the best wage earnings potential once they leave the league.

You also need to take into consideration the specialization it takes from these players. A lot more people can be policemen or soldiers than can be NFL players. Just by degree of selectivity, professional athletes more or less earn the type of money they receive. Can it be excessive? Absolutely, but I'm not paying their salaries in the same way I pay for a portion of every government worker's salary in my state. If a billionaire considers it a worthy investment to pay highly skilled, specialized individuals a great deal of money, I have no problem with them trying to get more, especially when I get personal enjoyment out of watching them perform.

[wheaton4prez]

As long as players sacrifice their bodies to create these huge revenues, they deserve as much as they can get. I certainly don't want to demean our firefighters, soldiers, and policemen, or any public servant for the risk they put on their bodies, those types of comparisons don't exactly fit. Firefighters and the like don't create dollars, so naturally they're not going to be getting as much. As long as the fans who love the game will buy DirectTV packages, season tickets, merchandise, etc., there will be tons of money in football. Since the players are basically the engine that creates that kind of money, then why shouldn't they be getting as much as they should, especially when they're routinely subjected to concussions, broken bones, and ligament damage? Not every player is going to make multimillions of dollars per season. Since a lot of these guys don't have college degrees, a lot of them aren't going to have the best wage earnings potential once they leave the league.

You seem to make conflicting arguments. You're saying that the players salaries are justified because they sacrifice their bodies. However, other people who sacrifice their bodies don't deserve the same salaries because their industry doesn't make as much revenue? I'm pretty sure that had soldiers not made the sacrifices that they have, there would be no NFL. If no police were available to maintain security, there would be no NFL games to go to.

Also, even the lowest paid player easily makes enough money to set aside for a college degree or head start on a business in addition to living well above the quality of life most others experience. They are in a better position to reach a higher wage than most people.

You also need to take into consideration the specialization it takes from these players. A lot more people can be policemen or soldiers than can be NFL players. Just by degree of selectivity, professional athletes more or less earn the type of money they receive. Can it be excessive? Absolutely, but I'm not paying their salaries in the same way I pay for a portion of every government worker's salary in my state. If a billionaire considers it a worthy investment to pay highly skilled, specialized individuals a great deal of money, I have no problem with them trying to get more, especially when I get personal enjoyment out of watching them perform.

And therein lies the problem that I pointed out. In this case, it is not the owners getting to decide what is a worthy investment as in typical market conditions. Instead, the players union uses its monopoly on football talent to strong arm the entire franchise into yielding to their demands. At the end of the day, you do pay for this in the form of higher ticket prices, expensive hot-dogs, numerous commercial interruptions, higher cable package costs, fewer facility improvements, fewer teams and so on.

The point about selectivity just supports my position that football players should thank their lucky stars that they are blessed with the physical talents to reap the rewards of an NFL career. If being a policeman, soldier or fireman paid the same amount as being an NFL player, those players still wouldn't switch jobs with them.

[L Perry]

headshottzzzz: "they deserve as much as they can get."

I am sure that is the same thing that all the Mortgage Bankers thought/think as well! And so many wonder why...

[Duck07]

I'll point out how many of these nfl players end up flat broke after 1-2 years out of the game. If you can't take 5 million dollars (either before or after taxes) and create for yourself the financial security to live off of, you are a moron. Fiscal responsibility is too much for both players and owners to understand. This is especially true of nba owners, who i'm sure would have at least half of the contracts if you were to make a top 10 "worst contracts ever list."

[greenyellow]

I'll point out how many of these nfl players end up flat broke after 1-2 years out of the game. If you can't take 5 million dollars (either before or after taxes) and create for yourself the financial security to live off of, you are a moron. Fiscal responsibility is too much for both players and owners to understand. This is especially true of nba owners, who i'm sure would have at least half of the contracts if you were to make a top 10 "worst contracts ever list."

I have no sympathy for any players that lose all their money through excessive spending and faulty investments. Getting through at least a rookie contract should be enough to live on for most of your life.