The NFL
Its the owners company, players are not contractors... they are employees (as shown by the link provided in a post above). Just because they sign a contract does not automatically make them contractors.
Players can set their value to whatever they want, this does not mean that they are entitled to the owners profits.
Players can set their value to whatever they want, this does not mean that they are entitled to the owners profits.
The issue isn't the players asking for more, it is the owners wanting to pay less. If they want to pay less, then at least offer guarenteed contracts.
Originally Posted by DSIM
Only if they reside in the City where the stadium is being built. Take Jerry Land... how may Cowboys players do you think live in The City of Arlington, therefore paid taxes from which the stadium was built? Either way, Im willing to bet that it pales in comparison to Jerry's contribution of 1/2 billion(+) dollars. They want equal amounts from profits... try shelling out the cash for Company payroll then.
Originally Posted by DSIM
#1- how do owners operate above the laws?
Originally Posted by DSIM
#2- which employees should get paid more? The football players making millions of dollars a year or the people providing concessions to fans? Its hard to pay people more when the majority of your payroll is taken up by the fellas standing on the sideline on Sundays.
The only way ticket prices go down is if PLAYERS pay goes down. I dont ever see that happening.
The only way ticket prices go down is if PLAYERS pay goes down. I dont ever see that happening.
DSIM - there is quite a bit you're missing out on here.
- They are not employees - they are contractors. Just b/c they are taxed by the IRS as employees doesn't make them employees. If they were, then it'd be considered a Free Enterprise, there wouldn't be a draft, there wouldn't be Franchise and Transition Tags, players could choose who they wanted to work for, there wouldn't be a Salary CAp and all contracts would be guaranteed. Instead, their is a CBA that the NFL operates under, and that CBA entitles the players to profit sharing.
- Secondly, the players aren't asking for more money - the players want nothing new and didn't cancel the previous CBA that was negotiated back in 2006. There is no new money. The money is the same money as last season and has been the same since the new TV deal. The total amount of revenue is $9 billion. The NFL currently receives $1 billion guaranteed off the top that is for costs. The remaining $8 billion is divided between players and the NFL. 60% of the remaining $8 billion goes to the players and 40% to the NFL. That works out to roughly $4.8 billion being paid to the players in salary, retirement, medical, etc. The owners make about $4.2 billion ($125,000,000 per team per year after player payroll is deducted). BTW, that is very common to have 50% or more of income to pay employees. However, the owners make lots of additional money off of their stadiums' advertising, parking, concession stands, etc. Obviously, some teams like the Cowboys will make a lot more money here than other teams like the Packers.
Again, there is no new money. The dispute is over old money.
The owners are the ones who cancelled the CBA early, they are the ones who enforced a lockout and are demanding more of the pie. A lockout is when ownership locks its doors on employees because they cannot afford to make payroll (okay that is oversimplifying but you get the idea). A strike is when employees stop showing up to work en mass because they don't make enough money to feed their families (another oversimplification).
The NFL is not like most of the jobs that people have in this forum. Most of you can be fired by your boss without cause. Most of you do not get a % of business owner's revenue. And, most of you do not put your life on the line as part of your jobs and do not get routinely injured at work that requires surgeries almost every 6 months. The NFL is governed by a collective bargaining agreement. The key word is "collective." In 2006, both the players and ownership unanimously agreed to the terms of the CBA. The most important thing is that the owners and players agreed to split revenue. That makes them "partners" in the purest sense. Also, players are not employees. You guys have to get that out of your heads. They are independent contractors who negotiate terms or agreements for the work they perform. Some agreements favored the owners. For example:
1. Salary cap
2. Franchise tags
3. NFL draft
4. The right to terminate a players contract early
5. No team is obligated to spend full amount of salary cap
Some agreements favored the players. For example:
1. Getting 53% of the $9 billion revenue
2. Free agency
3. Shorter contracts to hit FA sooner
4. better retirement packages
However, in the 2008, the NFL backed out of the CBA (per the CBA, when the owners back out there is not salary cap). That was their right to do so and nobody is disputing that. However, many of you are acting like the players went on strike. This is not the case where players are saying we cannot feed the babies and the babies momma(s). This is the case where the NFL is saying, we can't make payroll or the business will fail.
The players are not saying "we will not play." Rather, the players are trying to get an injunction from the court to allow them to be able to play in 2011. The players are begging to play. Essentially, the players are saying... "if we don't have a CBA in place, it's okay. We will play anyway. Each player will abide by the terms of his contract. And, each team can govern itself. A team can spend as much or as little money as it wants. The game must go on." It's the owners who want a work stoppage. Believe it or not... it's the owners who don't trust each other to do what the players are asking the Court to do. The owners are deathly afraid that if they turn to free enterprise, the NFL will turn into MLB where only the rich get richer. So, no, the players have not manhandled ownership in any way, shape or form.
The owners locked the players out. The owners are saying "we will not pay you." And, even worse, the owners went behind the players back to work out $4 billion from the TV contracts to help them through the lock out. The owners intention was to have plenty of money stashed away to ride them through this storm until the players were forced to agree to a lesser deal. This is the gospel truth and the court stopped the owners from carrying out this underhanded plan. This is a fact. The owners and the owners only opted out of the CBA. The players did not do anything to end the contract. This is simply a fact. I would challenge anybody to provide a link to any article anywhere that indicates that the players attempted to get out of the contract. The players are saying even with or without a CBA, we will play for our individual contracts.
The fact is that the players are skeptical of owners' tales of doom and gloom. Nothing more, nothing less. The NFLPA is only saying, "prove it." In other words, for 18 days the owners told the players that their profits are decreasing so they can't afford to keep paying the players salaries. The players told the owners that they would certainly consider taking less money but that they want to see the audited books before they agree to giving $500,000,000 to the owners in year one, $750,000,000 in year 2, $830,000,000 in year 3 and $1 billion in year 4.
This part is opinion. I don't think the players negotiated in bad faith or negotiated poorly. I think they genuinely want to play football. I just don't think they are willing to cave in because the owners say so. I am a business man. I've had partners in the past where we divided up profits based on % of business ownership. Personally, I liked and trusted my business partners. But, I still looked at the books very carefully. Any of you would too unless you are complete morons.
Also, the players have good reason to be skeptical. I say this because of MLB. I imagine that the NFL owners are not that different from MLB owners who got their hands caught in the cookie jar. There was nothing illegal per se but lots of nepotism and exorbitant spending. In MLB, children and grand children were being put on payroll. Corporate jets and vacations are being included as business expenses, etc. It was embarrassing for MLB when all of this came to the light (especially when they were claiming poverty).
Seriously, wouldn't it effect your opinion if Jerry has all of his grandchildren as Cowboys employees making $1,250,000/year while doing nothing? Or, if Jerry takes a week vacation in some exotic place, racks up a $500,000 bill and writes it off as a business expense because he had lunch with Robert Kraft while he was on vacation? What if Jerry charged his facelifts as corporate expenses? I'm not joking... he probably did!!!
This is the reason that the NFL would not turn its books over to the NFLPA and will fight it every step of the way. Rather, the NFL would turn it over to a third party auditing firm who would only indicate whether the cowboys ever had a decrease in profits in the past 5 years. In other words, the players would never know if the decrease in profits due to getting less money or due to putting more grandchildren on payroll. - Under the old agreement, the owners get a guaranteed $1 billion off the top. Thereafter, the remaining money was split 60% to the players and 40% to the owners. However, that does not take into account individual team's cash flow. Parking, vending, naming rights, advertising, etc that is individual to each franchisee. For example, Invesco paid $120,000,000 for naming rights to mile high. That is not counted in the NFL's books but rather the franchisee's books. Pepsi, coke, allstate, etc pay millions to put their logos inside of stadiums.
Now the owners are claiming financial hardships and asking for another $1b off the top ($2b total) but refuse to offer up their P&L's to prove this financial hardships. This isn't an employee demanding a raise or a share of profits, this is a union and an ownership group negotiation a collective bargaining agreement that goes way beyond anything an "employee" would ever worry about.
I have issues with owners crying poverty because we all know that isn't the case. Jerry Richardson stuck his foot in his mouth when he said something similar. What he apparently failed to remember (or even know) is that any time a negotiating side makes the claim that it is losing money (i.e., operating at a loss) during the course of a collective bargaining session, they are legally required to provide that information to the other side for review. Richardson quickly changed his words to allude to the idea that his profit margins got smaller from year to year as opposed to the Panthers operating at a loss. That "subtle" change in statement allowed him to keep his books closed. - You can take whoever's side you want, but at the end of the day, it's the Owners who are demanding more of the pie, not the players.
Last edited by Head Hunter; Jul 14, 2011 at 01:58 PM.
Originally Posted by Head Hunter
Getting 53% of the $9 billion revenue
This is the only issue I have with all of this. Whether the players are contractors or employees, they are not owners of the company. I fail to understand how a group of employees/contractors can feel that they have the right to more of the profits than the owners of the entity.
They get it because the owners don't want to do a free enterprise and to keep their monopoly out of anti-trust court they work with a Players Association (Union) and use a CBA.
They also fill those stadiums and sell those beers/jerseys and make their billions off the backs of the players. It's a partnership and one that works more often than not.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
