NFL Lockout

For those not in the know, but curious: basically, the NFL team owners basically decided that they didn't really like the deal they had going with the players in regards to revenues, and thus voted to opt out of it, meaning that unless the owners and players came up with a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), there would be a lockout and thus no football in 2011.

Among the issues in contention (and this is by no means an exhaustive list, I'll be adding to it as I remember issues):

• Owners want to go from 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games to 2 and 18, respectively. Preseason games are important for finding the deadwood in a team, and regular games are tougher on the starters (because they don't usually play entire preseason games), but since they don't actually count for anything yet still command full ticket prices, they don't sell particularly well.
• Owners want get an additional $2 billion pre-revenue splitting.
• Owners want to reduce the size of rookie contracts. This is important because of high-profile and thus highly-paid rookies turning out to be "busts."

Although the owners and players appeared to be close to a deal in the days coming up to the deadline, it fell through and a lockout started. There's been court action which I haven't been paying much attention to; currently it seems that the lockout is being upheld as legal.

So, based on what you know, what do you think about the situation? Are you siding with the owners? The players? Do you think both sides should stop whining and just make a deal? Or do you just no give a damn?

Personally, I'm with the players on this one. They aren't the ones asking for more, and even though a few million per year seems like a lot, it doesn't seem like so much when your career ends after 3.2 years due to the abuse your body takes.

I don't even watch Football, so they could completely shutdown and my life would be completely unchanged.

Personally, I do think every player should be granted healthcare for life, for any injuries arising out of their on-field conduct, and if the owners want so much money, they should put their lives on the line.

It's the owners' money. So I suppose I'm with them, somewhat. It's not like the players are going to be left to starve. They get paid a lot of money.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Their money comes from the fans, who don't pay it to see the owners.

To be fair, Ultra, there are ~2500 active players (about 750 of them would not be active at the start of the season due to every roster dropping to 55 by that point). Only about 500 of those people get paid multi-million dollar salaries. The rest are making no less than 250k, but usually no more than 1 million.

Not chump-change.. But not a massive amount in comparison to the stars.

The part the players seem to be truly hung up on is the "Owners want get an additional $2 billion pre-revenue splitting" bit. Players are actually pretty happy with the idea of a rookie wage scale(since it means more money for veterans.), it's the agents that hate the idea. And the 18 game schedule is a grumbling bit, but they'd accept it if they had to.

I'm just disappointed that no one has even bothered to offer a 50/50 split of the revenues (it used to be 45/55 in favor of the players and now the owners want it the same split in favor of them)...

One of the interesting bits about an 18-game schedule is how it will affect scheduling. Right now the NFL has a very nice, clean scheduling formula (which is on the American Football useful notes page). A move to 18 games would kind of screw that up.

Don't care much about football, but in terms of pure opinion about who I'd side with...the owners.

Their money. Plain and simple.

Also, the players are just playing a game. They have way more than they need to begin with. Asking for more is just plain greedy.

edited 27th May '11 9:53:20 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Hmm, and you don't say the owners are greedy?

I'm not too sure about how everything in NFL works.

But based on the few I read up on, it's their money.

And the players are just playing a game. They should be happy they could play and stop being so greedy and demanding money just for playing a game.

Don't complain and go play with their balls.

---

Note: This applies to even stuff I like. Football or not.

edited 27th May '11 9:58:47 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

It should be pointed out that the players are not asking for more. They are not going on strike to get paid.

The owners decided they want more of their own money, and don't want to be required(as per the, now defunct, CBA) to allocate $X amount to the players, and would rather have it be $X - $2 Billion.

The Lockout, in essence, is the owners saying "we won't pay you at all, unless you agree to be paid less."

edited 27th May '11 9:58:10 PM by Swish

I would suggest you correct your ignorance of the sport then.

edited 27th May '11 9:59:00 PM by blueharp

Like I said. My stance woulda been the same even if it's a sport I like.

Owners pay the players. But it's still the owner's money.

The players play a game. A game. The fact that they're paid more than they need to begin with only makes complaining about having their pay reduced seem even more petty.

edited 27th May '11 10:02:23 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

It's not whether you like it or not, it's that you're showing rather pointed ignorance of it. You're actually coming across as dismissive and derogatory.

And no, it's not the owner's money. Nobody goes to see the owners. They go to see the players.

edited 27th May '11 10:03:24 PM by blueharp

And guess who let's those players play in the first place.

I'd come up with an analogy, but I'm drawing blanks.

edited 27th May '11 10:05:20 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

I believe the example of the Green Bay Packers shows that a community could well do it, if they were allowed to do so.

The NFL rules prohibit such in the future though.

Of course, they don't stop teams from getting tax-payer support in other ways. How many of the stadiums are financed by local governments?

They also control the market of your chosen profession, so you can't even get a job elsewhere with any reasonable chance of success.

edited 27th May '11 10:09:50 PM by blueharp

@Signed Yes, it's a game, but it's also a Employer-Employee situation.

Hypothetical: Your employer told you (and everyone else in your place of work) that unless you agreed to take a [insert random percentage, atleast greater than 10%] paycut, don't bother showing up, and they won't allow you to work there. Assume that it didn't matter if you agreed to the terms, so long as the majority of your co-workers did not, your employer wouldn't pay any of you. Would your employer be in the right?

Because that hypothetical is what is actually going on with the owners/players thing...

In America, the average high school graduate earns $1.2 million over their career. The average college graduate earns $2.1 million. The average football player earns less than a million over the three years he's capable of playing before he wears himself out.

edited 27th May '11 10:10:30 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Really depends on what the job is.

If my job was just playing a game. And if I get paid more than I needed to begin with. I'd be annoyed of course.

But escalate things this far?

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Swish:Happened to me! My wage went from about 12 an hour to under 10. So that's probably a 20% drop or so.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

You may want to look into the daily life of a professional sports player.

Also, the escalation is by the owners.

edited 27th May '11 10:12:25 PM by blueharp

Isn't that ~17%?

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Still more than 10%...

Regardless... The problem is the NFL is an organization comprised of 32 companies colluding to maximize the profits of said companies.

It's not like the boss of company A is saying "you take this cut, or you're fired." It's every video game company getting together and saying "listen developers, we like you, but ya'll are not getting paid more than X to make a game from now on. Suck it up."

Eh. It's entertainment.

Fight smart, not fair.

The basic problem with the "it's the owners' money, they should be able to do what they want with it" is that, as has been mentioned, the NFL basically has a monopoly over professional football–there are other leagues, but hardly anyone's heard of them and they don't get TV time. So when your employees don't have anywhere to go, you don't have as many barriers to lowering their compensation.

Not to mention, people assume all NFL players get paid like the big name stars, meaning given theyre "rich" people who dont own a business, they fall into the same public thought as other celebrities. That they deserve to be humbled and made poorer than thou just to satisfy the masses love for seeing "undeserving rich snobs" get humbled.