Labor resolution?

by lifelongvike on Jun 23, 2010 11:47 AM CDT

This is a summary of how I believe the present negotiations are going between the owners and players in the NFL bargaining process.

The current contract expires in March.

Players: We like the current contract. Lets extend it

Owners: No, we need you to take less percentage of the revenue.

Players : Oh, really. Like how much cut?

Owners : 18%

Players : Wow. That's substantial. Anything else on your dream list?

Ownerrs: Yes. We want you to pay for a lot of the benefits that we previously had paid and we want you to play two more regular season games each year.

Players: Well, that means that these very special NFL talented players would be taking a step back in pay, benefits, and incurring more injuries each year. This shortens their playing days and thus decreases their pay even more.All this why your recording record profits. How about this:

Lets say that we just forget the revenue sharing. We only ask that you pay a minimum salary like you do now for the bottom players. No salary cap. No salary floor. Benefits stay the same. That way any team can pay any talented player anything they want. The only thing we want is a maximum contract of three years. And of course no Franchise tags, Transition tags, or restrictions on free agency. You owners can go back to spending so much money on players that you will actually lose money each year. You know that is what happened prior to revenue sharing?

Owners: Well we certainly can't pay a big time player large amounts of money for only three years. That doesn't make economic sense. We can't have players just leaving to go to other teams. No. We need to restrict the players ability to just leave.We have to build a team atmosphere you know.

Players: That sounds like you really want the anti- trust exemption you get when you negotiate a labor agreement with a labor union. I think we should negotiate in good faith. You know like lets start with why the present agreement is bad. If everyone is doing well whats wrong with that?

Owners: We are not doing well.

Players: OK, Prove it. Just show us the books that prove that. You know the only books that are open are the Green Bay Packers. They show that you guys are doing really well.

Owners: We don't need you. You need us. We don't show our books to anyone.

Players: Then why are you negotiating at all?

Owners: Look, every sports league is renegotiating. NBA, soccer, all of them. We need you to cut so the game can survive.

Players: Every other league is hurting because the public doesn't watch it. They watch football. Its entertainment. Just like the movies. And because the league has star attractions the stars have to be paid. And so do the other actors. If you believe the League will be as successful without these talented players then I see why you don't want to negotiate.

Owners: Well we won't negotiate from the current contract. We have decided that. So negotiate or don't play.

Players: We can't negotiate when you make no concessions. That's not negotiating at all.

Owners: Ok. No new contract. Nobody plays.

Players: OK. We will decertify the union and then the players will sue you for anti-trust violations restricting a players right to work. We did this last time and you know the law still favors us. As far as we know slavery is still not allowed in the USA. Or maybe you plan on outsourcing to another country?

Owners: We don't need this crap. We will just start over next year. A new draft. New players. Everything. The fans will back us.

Players: Uh, sorry. The draft is the first thing that violates the anti-trust laws. No, you guys are going to have to fight amongst yourselves for players. The rich teams get the best. The poor teams get the crumbs. Hey, you will start to look like baseball. I wonder if that is why baseball is losing fans. Hmmm.

Owners: Well, we are going to move the draft up to February, before the Current CBA expires. Then it will be legal smarty pants. I think were done here.

Players: I really hope were not done here. These kind of problems have caused fans to lose interest in other sports. Why don't we extend the present contract for one more year. Lets put some new deadlines in and start with a different attitude.

Owners: Well we will talk about it but we doubt that the differences among the owners can be worked out to even extend this for one more year.

Players: Well, OK let us know if and when you want to negotiate from the present contract.

Owners: Sure thing. We will call you soon. NOT!

Note from LLV:

Yes , I think this is where it is at. It is not pleasant and it is critical of the owners. I really have tried to see the owner's point of view but I can't see it. Can you? Please tell me where I am wrong in this analysis

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.

Tweet Comment 50 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

These kinds of negotiations should never happen during a recession.

They should just agree to continue the current CBA until the economy turns around, otherwise the owners are freaking out cause they are losing money and the players are freaking out cause they are losing money and nobody is going to find stable middle-ground.

by Bjorno on Jun 23, 2010 11:50 AM CDT reply actions

I would agree if your facts were right.

During this recession the owners have negotiated increases in the TV contracts, a billion dollar Verizon Wireless contract, and had increasing revenues for the league as a whole.
No owner in the NFL has lost money. Those that do face losing money because the current CBA includes revenue sharing among owners. That is the weak teams are partially supported by strong market teams to create parity in the league and among teams.
Part of the problem is that the owners are fighting among themselves as to how to share all the money.
The players have offered an extension. I don’t know if any strings were attached to that extension.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 23, 2010 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Ok, so let me reclairify.

The negotiations will entail one side losing POTENTIAL money that they would have gained under the current CBA, and neither side wants to lose POTENTIAL money.

To an owner, only making $2.5 mil off the team instead of $3mil is losing money.

I didn’t mean that they would be “in the red” so to speak, only that they would not make as much.

by Bjorno on Jun 23, 2010 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off so pompous.

It just doesn’t seem to be a timing thing. Some owners truly want to change revenue sharing between owners and players. Some want things to remain the same. The players can only do what they can do. But I have never heard of a union taking a pay cut in an industry that has increasing revenues and profits. But hey there is a first for everything.

But when both sides have something to lose usually someone finds appropriate middle ground. Hope that is the case here.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 23, 2010 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions

No worries you pompous prick.

Unions are good in moderation. If they cannot see when they are exceeding moderation they start cannibalizing their own industry. It usually has a checks and balances system in place to prevent major issues, but as seen in the auto industry, hard times can cause a downward spiral.

That is not to say that what happened to the auto industry will happen here, only that sometimes the union has to back down.

I think reconfiguring the rookie pay scale, increasing benefits for retired players and a mandatory investment program for players is what the union should be focusing on. Not so much getting more money, but being smarter with the money they already are getting.

I also think that the owners need to understand they are only there because the players are willing to put their lives on the line to make their products successful. Without the players, there are no owners and vice versa.

Revenue sharing is a big issue, but I don’t see how they can really change it unless they don’t mind losing 4-5 teams.

by Bjorno on Jun 23, 2010 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree with some of your points but I think you oversimplified the situation.

The owners do want an 18% cut but if I remember correctly about 10% of that cut is devoted to new stadium development and other initiatives to grow the game. While the players would be making less money due to the cut so would the owners. The idea behind this is that if more of the giant pie is devoted to new stadiums and better infrastructure for the game than more revenue will be created and both sides will get more money as the whole pie increases. Both sides would get a smaller % of revenues off the top but the total revenue should grow faster and essentially both sides get richer.

The owners have negotiated an increase in TV deals but that also benefits both sides as it grows the revenue pie as well. The players get a fixed percentage of the revenues so anything the owners do to bring in more money helps the players get more also.

Right now, there is disinformation on both sides but I have to say so far that Demaurice Smith seems to have a habit of twisting facts and being hypocritical in many of his statements. The NFL isn’t really doing a good job either as they aren’t really explaining their position but rather only pointing out the inaccuracies in Smith’s statements.

I don’t really think either side deserves support as they are both posturing organizations that are lying to the public in the hopes of getting more money for themselves. It’s 32 billionaires vs. 1600 millionaires and the only losers in that fight will be the fans. The owners are a smaller group with more money and more leverage so if there is a winner in this selfish battle it will probably be them.

by CanadianViking on Jun 23, 2010 12:48 PM CDT reply actions

I love this quote. It says it all.

I don’t really think either side deserves support as they are both posturing organizations that are lying to the public in the hopes of getting more money for themselves

I have a hard time buying this theory because the players have said they will extend the current deal. Not really looking for more but rather trying to avoid getting less.

The facts:
New stadiums are expensive because of the luxury boxes which are attached and bring in massive revenue. This revenue is not part of the revenue that the players share with the owners.
Money placed in a new stadium increases the value of a football franchise since it adds equity to the team. The players do not participate in that revenue. ( Exempted from CBA)
So, the money the owners want will not be shared proportionately with the players.

You might be right that both sides are twisting the facts. So far I don’t see evidence of twisting. I see an owners proposal that simply cuts the players.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 23, 2010 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions

I am with the players...I think

Fascinating read. ITs hard to choose who to favor when we are talking millionaires vs billionaires! You can’t really feel sorry for either. I feel really sorry for us fans who continually see increases in ticket prices for the same product. We aren’t talking like cost of living type increases either. Honsetly I am pretty much done with going to football games. I just can’t afford to pay that kind of money. There are so many better things to do with my money and heck I’d rather watch it at home!

by TrevorR on Jun 23, 2010 1:00 PM CDT reply actions

Millionaire v Billionaire

You are correct in that it is hard to feel sorry for these guys. But I still have a soft spot for the guys on the practice squad that make $60,000 per year but do the same work as everyone else on the team.
The 3rd string O-Lineman that makes a minimum $350,000 per year. He doesn’t get much of a signing bonus and when he blows his knee out after two years he is cut and does not get health insurance coverage for his knee. A player must play three years for that benefit. But the player does get a lifetime of previous injury exclusion on any other health policy he buys.

When the owners opted out of the current CBA they quit paying certain pension and health benefits for players and former players. It feels wrong to me.

Deep down I feel the owners have something important to accomplish. Its not about squishing the players or cooking the Golden Goose. But they certainly have not explained what it is they want besides “make more money”. I think it is the fact that people just like you are finding the “home football” experience to be better than Live football. They sense people might quit coming to the games which is their lions share of the profit.
If this is the case I don’t know why they simply just don’t say it. Instead they preach about better stadiums and more expensive live experiences.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 23, 2010 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Sure I feel a little sorry for those guys, BUT just imagine coming out of school and getting paid $60K for your first job. They are still sitting pretty compared to most kids their age. Sure they don’t make the big bucks but they have a chance to and that is more than most kids. Most of those guys have their college degree and something to fall back on too (which the high draft picks seem to not have). There are some sucky rules though…like the healthcare thing you mentioned.

Regarding the stadium experience. Them adding more crap to distract me from the game isn’t going to get me in there…reasonable prices will though. You can’t even take a family of four to a game for under $200 now and that doesn’t include the $5 hot dogs and $6 sodas. They are pricing themselves out of contention for the average Joe and I make more than the average Joe so they are limiting themselves even more. I am as big a football fan as they come but I am not spending too much to fund it…I don’t care either. AT this point, the greed could start to turn me on the sport like it did with baseball in the early 90s. I went about 10-12 years without watching a baseball game after being a HUGE fan when I was kid.

by TrevorR on Jun 24, 2010 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions

I had the same baseball experience

I do watch alittle baseball now but for some reason the game is just not what it once was. It is competitive ( at least this year), entertaining, and “boring”. Most sports fans just don’t have 3 hours to spend watching a slow game. I think Baseballs problems extend far beyond labor issues and salaries.

But on the labor topic. A player on the practice squad gets 1/5th the minimum NFL salary. No health benefits. He does the exact same work as any other player except he is not allowed to suit up for the game. I realize he is basically an apprentice. But his career can end any second. For that there should be some kind of adequate compensation.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 25, 2010 5:56 AM CDT up reply actions

Practice Squaddies

I agree that the guys on the practice squad should receive full health benefits and compensation commensurate with what they were doing. That is, practice squad extras.

But they do NOT do the same work as any other player. They’re not as good as the starting players, they don’t deserve the same pay as the starters. Their NFL career exists on a shoestring, a breath away from rounding up the carts at your local Walmart.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Jun 25, 2010 8:09 AM CDT up reply actions

Ultimately though they are still one play away from being in the bigs. I hear ya, it sucks that they don’t get some of those benefits and the pay is quite meager but they don’t have to be there. They could be working for $30K as ground floor employee of some fortune 500 company. No bonuses. Very little vacation pay. Not full vested in their 401K. Working harder than the big guys making the big money. Really the practice squad closely emulates real life in a way.

On baseball. I agree. My wife is a HUGE baseball fan so its on a lot at my house but I wouldn’t tune in THAT often if it wasn’t for her. I get bored with it. I usually have to do something else while its on…clean up around the house, work on the basement, etc. Funny thing is that when I stopped watching baseball, I lived in WI but cheered for the White Sox and Brewers. When I decided to start watching again, I was living in MN and picked up the Twins as my team. Its nice having ONE team to cheer for with your friends!

by TrevorR on Jun 25, 2010 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions

I have a hard time buying this theory because the players have said they will extend the current deal. Not really looking for more but rather trying to avoid getting less

The point you’re missing is that even with a cut the players make more as total revenue grows. The players in the NHL used this same argument during the past lockout in that sport and ended up making more money under the new system they fought against. A cut isn’t a cut if the system produces more money. If I made $100,000 and payed you 50% you get $50,000. If i make $150,000 and pay you 35% you get $52,500. As an employee doing the same work would you care about the % or the real dollar amount?

It may be heartless capitalism but the owners want a more profitable system and if they get it the players will benefit by proxy. The players are fixated on a percentage rather than the more important # of total revenue. It doesn’t matter if the owners get more money as long as the players do as well.

by CanadianViking on Jun 23, 2010 1:27 PM CDT reply actions

Oops meant this to be a reply to your earlier reply : )

by CanadianViking on Jun 23, 2010 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Ah, this is the question isn't it.

Do the players deserve 52% of future earnings. You tend to believe that this is to much. Revenues have gone up faster than inflation and the players have benefited more than they should have.
The players ,on the other hand, would say, that their performance on the field has caused your revenue to increase. Therefore they should share in the increase. Giving me a $2,500 increase (in your example) is not a fair reward if my efforts created a $50,000 increase.
Private businesses give bonus payments to certain employees for doing this service. The NFL can not do that. It has to be negotiated.

The players do not share in the revenues individual owners get for their investment. Jerry jones luxury boxes are all his. When the NFL sells a new franchise for 1 Billion it is not shared with the players. The revenue that is shared is believed to be earned by the players.
Your suggesting a change which caps the players income. That is a distinct change.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 23, 2010 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

I think neither side can complain much.

I think the issues the owners are trying to advance are less about the players cut and more about keeping revenue high and trying to increase it. My point with the simple math didn’t single the employee out as the cause for my increased earnings as I stated that the job performed was the same. The difference in my example is that I as an owner found ways to make more money and passed some of that along to an employee.

My point isn’t that 52% is too much it’s that the % matters less than the success of the whole business. If player costs cause the NFL as a whole to be less profitable than consequently the league has less money to invest in growing the business through marketing, new stadiums, and exploiting of new revenue streams. It’s better to have 40% of a growing pie than 60% of a shrinking pie is what I’m saying.

The owners are going to make money no matter what. The question is whether they are trying to pad their pockets at the expense of the players or if they are trying to make the system more profitable for both. Most likely the answer is in the middle. The thing I don’t like about the players position is they seem to only see that % without looking at the whole picture. Like the NHL players they seem to be short-sighted in this regard.

You are correct that Jerry Jones gets the money for his luxury boxes alone but is that different than Peyton Manning and Brett Favre keeping the money they get from Sears, Wrangler, and Sony.

I don’t mean to support the owners so much but I’ve seen valid business reasoning behind their position and only inconsistent rhetoric from the players at this point. I think the NFL is awful in areas like discipline, drug-testing, and health insurance for their players but the players union seems to be ignoring these issues even more than the NFL already does. Here’s a quote from Bjorno that says it well.

I think reconfiguring the rookie pay scale, increasing benefits for retired players and a mandatory investment program for players is what the union should be focusing on. Not so much getting more money, but being smarter with the money they already are getting.

by CanadianViking on Jun 23, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions

I do understand what your saying.

But the Owners and Players have decided that the players do not get to share in all of the revenue streams. ( which I agree with). But now the owners simply want to shift more profit on their side of the equation. The players don’t care if the owners make a trillion dollars on their stadiums. It all belongs to the owners. The owners want to cut the players portion of the players revenue. It is just that simple. No smoke, no mirrors.

And as to your second point.

I think reconfiguring the rookie pay scale, increasing benefits for retired players and a mandatory investment program for players is what the union should be focusing on. Not so much getting more money, but being smarter with the money they already are getting.

According to the NFLPA website and articles on the negotiations:

1) The players are not against a rookie wage scale.
2) The union is looking to increased benefits for their players, both former and present
3) The union has instituted a certification of financial planners and made that list available to all players. They encourage all players to use this service.

But to say they should worry about this but not care about how much the players are to be paid over the next x amount of years is hardly realistic.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 23, 2010 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions

The players don’t care if the owners make a trillion dollars on their stadiums. It all belongs to the owners. The owners want to cut the players portion of the players revenue. It is just that simple. No smoke, no mirrors.

This isn’t correct. While you are correct that portions of stadium revenue only go to owners players do receive some of the money that stadiums generate. The owners do want to cut the players portion of revenue but the 18% number is deceiving. There’s an old PFT article that breaks down the proposal and the real # is about 9% when it’s broken down into actual dollars.

This situation isn’t simple and there is plenty of smoke and mirrors from both sides. Goodell and Smith are like rival politicians. Both are advancing their own agendas while speaking in half-truths and hyperbole. If you think either side is being honest you need to read some more articles that aren’t posted on the NFL’s or the NFLPA’s website.

Neither side has done anything more than pay lip-service to the retired players at this point. Health and disciplinary issues also fall way down the list of priorities for either side. Both sides are greedy and primarily concerned with money. I don’t support either side but I’ve seen a little more rational argument and truth from the owners so far. Demaurice Smith talks out of both sides of his mouth too often for my taste. He’s had multiple conflicting statements about the TV deals and he changes his positions frequently.

by CanadianViking on Jun 23, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Here's a link to the PFT post I referenced.

It illustrates that both sides are playing the semantics game.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/24/the-full-unabridged-story-on-the-18-percent-pay-cut-claim/
The real % of total revenue players would get is 42.7% instead of 52%. It’s still a drop but my problem with the NFLPA isn’t that they’re arguing over the drop but that they are misrepresenting the factual #‘s. They also misrepresent the nature of the 5 billion in TV payments in the new deals. I don’t support either side but I’m starting to lean towards the NFL because they are engaging in less of this propaganda BS than the union.

by CanadianViking on Jun 23, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions

I looked at your link.

It says exactly what I think the union is saying. A reduction of revenue from 4.2 Billion to 3.4 Billion is a reduction of 18%. A reduction of 52% to 42% is a reduction of 18%.

Here is what the argument is all about. Presently the owners get the first 1 Billion of revenue to invest back into the business of football. Under their proposal they want the first 2.3 Billion exempted from the players percentage.

I don’t care how one slices it that money will be gone from the players pocket each year since it is subtracted each year.. I’m not saying that the owners couldn’t entice the players to give it up by offering them an incentive such as a different revenue stream. I am simply saying that I have no issue with calling an 18% cut in pay an 18% cut in pay.
The amount the owners propose cutting is presently greater than the minimum wage for an NFL player. Obviously the top players get the lions share of the money. Is it the owners plan to put a salary cap on individual players? That would make plenty available for past players and current players and benefits.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 24, 2010 7:17 AM CDT up reply actions

I like some of your ideas.

A reduction of 52% to 42% is a reduction of 18%.

52-42.7 is equal to 9.3 not 18 no matter what math you use.

I understand that the argument is about the amount taken off the top for reinvestment and cost credits. If this number was going directly into the owners pockets instead of offsetting rising costs and growing the game then I would be on the players side. I would split the middle and have the players take 47% while putting that other 5% into the reinvestment/cost fund. This way both sides give up the same amount of revenue in the hopes of growing the game and overall revenue stream. This would be fair and reasonable.

Your idea of having a maximum individual salary is a good one. The NBA has max-contracts although their system is really screwed up and I believe the NHL has maximum contracts tied to a percentage of the salary cap. The main problem I have with the CBA is that both sides are ignoring the opportunity to improve their system, help retired players, and distribute the player money more evenly.

by CanadianViking on Jun 24, 2010 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Math

CanadianV , We are simply restating the two sides positions.
We can agree that the owners want to take away 60% of 1.2 Billion from the players and put that back into their “game investment fund”. That equates to more than than $350,000 per player.

But math is math. If I make 60 % of $100 and you cut my pay to 50% of $100 I now make $50. A $10 cut is not 10% of my pay. It is 16.6% of my pay. Lets agree that the owners want to cut 60% of 1.2 Billion from the players existing pay and use that money to “grow the game”.

Now I think most people can see the problem the players are having. If my factory employer said " I’m going to cut your pay and use that money to buy a new factory. In the long run I hope to pay you more later."
The employee might say " Why my money. Use your own. Borrow some from a bank.. You make more money each and every year. You do that because of our labor. Why use my portion for your investment?"

The fact remains that owners and fans think the players are overpaid and don’t deserve what they get. If in fact their wages are destroying the game I can get on board. But their wages go down if revenue goes down. That is what revenue sharing is all about. The owners are using this recession as a club. If the owners truly believe in what they are saying they can open their books to an independent ( confidential) audit committee and prove to the players that the game is dying. But they won’t because I just don’t believe they are telling the truth about that fact

Anyway you have done a good job of bringing up the other side of the equation. Thanks.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 25, 2010 6:46 AM CDT up reply actions

ALL of them are overpaid

Owners and players.

But then, so are actors and actresses, news anchors and government workers.

At least with the entertainment industry, they’re basing the pay off a percentage of the profit, and while it might by grossly excessive (and it is), that’s how much our economy/culture values entertainers. It’s a handful of people getting their single product out to a vast number of consumers, each of whom has to pay up for the privilege of enjoying that entertainment.

Ideally, we the consumers should not have to pay nearly so much, and the entertainers could still rake in a couple hundred grand a year, but until We the People refuse, as a bloc, to keep paying high prices, the show will go on (bless P.T. Barnum’s gnarly lil’ heart).

by DCPurple on Jun 25, 2010 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions

Its kinda funny.

Everyone in this country believes in Capitalism and making the most out of one’s financial status. But when players, actors, actresses, bankers, ect do this then the same people say that they earn to much.

Do I think a fireman is as valuable to society as an actor or NFL player? Yes.
Do I think that the skills of a fireman is as scarce as those of a great actor or football player? No.

I like to think of wages as a supply and demand thing. I truly believe that if there were more talented football players available the price would go down. But look at the combine. Only a handful of athletes really had the physical skills to make a difference. And of those not all have the mental capacity to play the game at the NFL level.

An NFL player is a rare thing indeed.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 25, 2010 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions

Marxist Rising

I wish everyone in this country believed in Capitalism, LLV… but sadly that’s no longer the case. Now we have Marxists at every level of the government and trying to move the country further away from the capitalist, free market economy.

I think there needs to be a balance, however. Granted, a balance that’s heavily biased towards capitalism and as far from Marxism as possible, but there’s a place for a certain amount of government oversight, in particular where people rub together and the friction begins.

The reason that capitalism has gotten rocked out of it’s normal easy balance is because of technology, not politics. Mass communication, mass media, and virtual production, change the equation radically and our centuries-old methods of balancing things out, have not yet caught up and incorporated modern reality into the free market equation. No, I don’t know how it’s going to do it, I’ll leave that to smarter folks than me to figure out, but I have no doubt that it will be adjusted sooner or later.

One thing I do know, however, is that now matter how far out of wack things get, Socialism and Communism are NOT the answer, they’re the poison.

And for the record, the ONLY reason I support the NFLPA union is because the NFL has a government-sanctioned monopoly, and that requires balance on the other side. Otherwise, nothing would please me more than to see unions busted across the entire world.

by DCPurple on Jun 25, 2010 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions

I agree with your idea of balance.

My country is much more socialist than the U.S. and there are good and bad parts to that. We have essentially free health-care and a broader unemployment program which does give us a better standard of living. On the minus side of that equation we pay much higher taxes and our unemployment program is abused all the time.

Pure capitalism and pure Marxism are both destined to fail. Capitalism with some socialism mixed in is the best system but it’s incredibly hard to achieve the right balance.

I support unions when they fight for safer working conditions and health benefits. I’m not a fan of unions that only work to increase pay as there is a point where there pay gets to high and sinks both them and the company they work for.

I don’t think the NFL is in danger of sinking but I think the players are concerned more with higher pay than any of the nobler union goals such as retirement funds and health packages.

Also, the main reason Capitalism is struggling is that it’s very hard to fight communist China on a dollar for dollar level. They’ve cherry picked parts of capitalism while maintaining the cheap workforces of communism. It’s a tough combo to beat.

by CanadianViking on Jun 25, 2010 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions

I am with you on your point about Unions. I think for the most part their time has come and gone they did amazing things once upon a time but the world is different now (at least in the US) There are other measures that ensure benefits and things of that nature. Seems to me like most unions reward based on years of experience rather than performance. They make it hard for a company to get rid of its weak employees and bring everyone to the same level even if they aren’t carrying their weight.

by TrevorR on Jun 28, 2010 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions

I see your point.

I guess my point is that the money taken off the top is coming from both the owners and players pockets so they’re both taking a cut now to gain more in the long run. I have no problem with that funds purpose but I would like the cut off the top to be more evenly weighted which is believed to be an area the owners are willing to negotiate on.

I guess I don’t see that money as completely the owners or the players but more like a fund that’s used to renovate or expand a business. Both sides have valid arguments but in the end they’re just fighting for the last slice of a very large pie and being very petty in the way they conduct themselves.

by CanadianViking on Jun 25, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions

I guess I don’t see that money as completely the owners or the players but more like a fund that’s used to renovate or expand a business

Just a side-note, in the US, our tax system lets businesses ‘write off’ business-related expenses from the taxes that a business has to pay. So if a business makes $1M and has $200K in expenses, the reportable income is only $800K. That’s simplified, but illustrates the point. I’m not sure if the Canadian tax system works the same way, I know you guys don’t get to write off your mortgage interest payments, but we do.

Ultimately, however, a business is going to pass on it’s real expenses to us, the consumer.

by DCPurple on Jun 28, 2010 8:04 AM CDT up reply actions

Our system is similar but different.

We can write off business-related expenses but I think our rules are more specific as to what falls under this category. I think our amortization rules are a little tighter too.

Part of the problem with the NFL is that the real numbers are not disclosed so the arguments for both sides are based on projections and perception.

by CanadianViking on Jun 28, 2010 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Yuck!! Unions aren't bad . Bad Unions are bad !!!

They need to bring in the baseball’s union with guarenteed no trade contracts . The NFL’s union is dead . It is basically owned by the NFL . The William’s Wall case is a good example . The union negociated an illegal contract . Was it scrapped ? No the NFL continues to enforce it . The government allows it . It will continue until it doesn’t benefit the NFL anymore . Do you think the failed contract was a accident ? Be real . Some union folks dead and alive are standing with their pockets full of hush money .
Your right LLV but it’s all giving me a migraine ……………….

by gothicpurple on Jun 23, 2010 6:47 PM CDT reply actions

Owners don't need football. Football needs them.

All these guys that own the teams got rich doing other things. That bought the teams or controlling interest in the teams because of ego or maybe if they can turn a bad franchise into a good one there is some profit there. Like any business if I can’t turn a decent profit then I need to be doing something else. The players should not control the league. They have invested nothing but their talent which they are paid very well for. If they don’t like it then they can take those college degrees and see how much money they can make with them.

by iowaron on Jun 24, 2010 1:11 AM CDT reply actions

Not sure what you mean

The players should not control the league.

I don’t think anyone believes they players should control the league. But why does asking that your pay doesn’t get cut equate to “controlling the league”. The owners have the right to run their league. If the owners wish to control the rights of players to play for whoever they wish wherever they wish ( free agency) then they have to deal with the rights of players acting in concert, i.e. a union.

I don’t get why the union is made out to be the bad guy. I have never been a member of a union, but certainly respect the rights of members to join together to obtain more bargaining power. Remember, I am the one that thinks the Fans should organize to create power over both the owners and the players.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 24, 2010 6:30 AM CDT up reply actions

Ahhhhhhhhhhh

This was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far drawn out…I oringinally thought was msp18 or what ever his name is..Usually he has very loooooooooong drawn out examples…But we all LOVE THE VIKINGS and that is the botom line of it all !!!!

by WVVikings on Jun 24, 2010 2:28 AM CDT reply actions

Ummm ...

Are you sure you’re posting to the thread you meant to post to?

by puddnhead on Jun 25, 2010 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions

ANNNNDDDDDD

For couple yrs I have been on the Dailey Norseman and wanted to toot my own horn……..I LOVE my lil Viking man pissin on Greenbay…FFFFFFFFF em !! Go Vikings !! And YES I was trying to be politically correct…Like I really give a RATS a$$…But wanna make Gonoz happy……

by WVVikings on Jun 24, 2010 2:33 AM CDT reply actions

iowaron & LLV

Are you willing to lose football all together to validate your point . You can’t get married without a partner . The NFL wold become the WWF ?? A great entertainment entity of the past . I repeat the past . McMann could miraculusly bring the one back . Goodell isn’t that revolutionary ????
Neither should have control . That is suppose to be the definition of a Union isn’t it . When the NFL , Union & players lost Integrity along the way that is when the fans lost . We as fans closed our eyes to the whole and naively hoped for change . It was the restoration of integrity we should have been asking for . When seats were $35 it wasn’t a concern . The same seat know is $100 . So know we want change ? Integrity . A simple word with no defined meaning . ONe major component is to always seek the truth at all costs . But will this group ever really get back to Integrity . Not when money is involved . Have faith or keep hoping ?? Truth be told arm twisting and bribes will become the best solution if the NFL continues it’s strangle hold on America’s favorite past time ???? That being MONEY !!!!

by gothicpurple on Jun 24, 2010 12:05 PM CDT reply actions

Ahhh the $35-$100

One must take into consideration of inflation. What $35 bought back than, can probably equal to what $100 does now. One good example is gasoline (that took a huge jump).

Look at the prices of stadiums. I believe the Metrodome, being built under budget had a price tag of 60-80 million. Now we’re looking at 800 million to build a nice stadium.

Can we argue that with technology of today, that the stadium would last much longer. You think with technology, things would be able to be built cheaper. Well there are too many factors when building such a structure. 1) Price of land – the world has a limited supply and soon it’ll all be consumed up & owned… Value increases 2) Construction Codes – With people overly concerned about safety, etc. A building must meet certain building codes and meet safety qualifications 3) A rise in cost of labor 4) The value of the dollar (inflation itself)

However, a lot of these things can be off-set and help paid for (i.e., Advertising, merchandise sales, etc. etc.) The people of this era prefer luxury. Cars, phones, and computers aren’t as simple as they once were.

Overall, I woudl say that I think the CBA talks are coming at a bad time. We’re on the rebound from a recession, and that rebound seems pretty slow. The rich get conservative, and the richer get greedy.

It’ll be interesting how it all plays out..
I do know that 1 complete year or more w/o football would really suck…

by Deek on Jun 24, 2010 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Not totally true though. That $60-80 million stadium doesn’t have all the extra stuff they are putting in now. The electronics, the technology, the facilities, the extra stuff around it. Look at the Dome, its as basic as they come. The stadiums now they put so much more into so its really not an apples to oranges comparison. But yeah inflation comes into the picture but not at the levels this league brings on. They are eventually going to be their own worst enemy. There WILL be more places like Jacksonville where people just don’t go. There would be more I think if not for the rules about blackouts. Its kind of smoke and mirrors as the NFL basically forces the TV stations to buy up tickets or miss out on all the ad revenue and then they can keep talking about their great profits.

by TrevorR on Jun 24, 2010 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions

..ya

Ya, I didn’t go into detail on that, but I agree with you. Since what I was talking about is how the people of today prefer luxury. Almost to a point it is a necessity. Cars, phones, and computers are forever changing. I think there is a term for this, but supposedly technology doubles every 2 years. So, with that formula, each cell-phone or computer you buy, two years from that date you should be able to buy one twice as good.

But as far as most of those luxuries on a basic stadium, in some cases, those old stadiums can always be updated to an extent.

by Deek on Jun 25, 2010 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions

I hear there is a good example of your last sentence over in WI. ;-)

by TrevorR on Jun 25, 2010 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Well

Would it be easier to update an open stadium or an actual dome? You would assume the open stadium would be easier. Right? Just wondering.

by Deek on Jun 25, 2010 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions

Maybe they should just take the roof off of it then! :-) But yeah the sky is the limit when you don’t have a roof…not as much you can do here. Plus the stadium is so steep that I don’t know how much more you could go up.,.

by TrevorR on Jun 28, 2010 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Well

You can do major improvement I would think w/ an open stadium. Not saying you couldn’t with a dome, but, it would be more cost-effective with an open stadium.

As for removing the roof. I don’t see that happening. The dome was designed specifically for that type of roof. The two layers of teflon that has several fans blowing to keep it inflated. The rotating doors would become useless…

But on a positive note, I bet it would reduce the cost factors of maintainance. But I am sure that dome would look crazy weird w/o a roof.

by Deek on Jun 28, 2010 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions

Sop being melodramatic

he NFL is a multi- Billion dollar industry. It is not being put out of business. Many businesses have labor issues. This will be resolved. The only question is how tough each side will stand.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 25, 2010 5:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Sorry, this post was in response to Gothic purple

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jun 25, 2010 6:25 AM CDT up reply actions

Hmmm

An NFL game is equivalent to a Broadway front line show. In the sense that both feature the entertainment performers that are at the pinnacle of their respective profession. And you definitely don’t’ get Broadway tickets for $35. You probably couldn’t even get them for $35 when football seats were $35.

All this by way of pointing out, you’re implying that this is some problem with football, when the reality is, EVERYTHING works this way. Ergo your criticism is not just that the NFL is composed of money hungry greedy b@st@rds, but that the entire entertainment world (in a capitalist country) is. People value entertainment so much that they are willing to pay more for it. When the owners & their employees (players, actors, whatever) realize this, they charge more, because they can — and fight over how to split the booty.

It’s not football, it’s not the NFL. It’s The American Way, for better or for worse.

by puddnhead on Jun 25, 2010 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions