NFL: Why i hate the Players Union...(LONG)

[Yellow Snow]

Except for the fact that it's the owners that are asking for the change in the compensation package. They're the ones making the requests to alter the deal that has been in place. They want a different split in the profits. They want the players to work more. The NFLPA has gone on record saying that they are fine with the terms of the current CBA when it comes to revenue splits. They aren't asking a change. The owners are, and when asked to show cause for this request they've refused. Should the union just accept their request blindly? Would that really be in the best interest of the workers they represent? To just take the league's word for it?

That is a great point. One that i hadn't considered. The union is obligated to oppose the changes to the compensation package as proposed. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't do their best to get the most they can for their members. I wasn't considering the fact that the players union didn't really have a choice in this situation.

I wonder what percentage of individual players would accept the agreement in order to keep from flushing the season, and what income bracket these players represent. I would think the "minimum wage" players would take the package and just play, while the guys that have the means to sit out a season wouldn't. Interesting to think that the union in an effort to help the minimum wage guy could actually be acting counter to their wishes. One would think nobody would openly say they wanted to accept the package anyway...

All that said... I still believe that the owners are within their rights to do what they want... ultimately, that is the bottom line in my mind.

 

[Wesley]

The players want to see the owner's books, especially the audited money because the owners are saying they are losing money. The players just want to see the exact financial information. 9 billion dollars is what is on the table, so I find it very reasonable to ask the owners to open up their books. If there is nothing to hide, then why hide it?

On the topic of the college players going or not going to the draft, I really don't care. The NFLPA is not forcing the college kids to not go, they are just suggesting it. So, the college kids can all just ignore the NFLPA and go.

Lastly, the owners have been gearing up for a lockout the past two years. By creating that tv contract to pay them if they get locked out from CBS and FOX, though that contract was just recently voided by a federal judge. So if the NFLPA is acting a little vicious, I don't find a problem with it, the owners have not done much to help solve the issue.

Owners offered to show 5 years of books, the players want to see 10 years. Gee guys (Mr Owner abnd Mr Player), let's agree on 7 or 8 years or can no one compromise in the world today...

 

[Peter]

Except for the fact that it's the owners that are asking for the change in the compensation package. They're the ones making the requests to alter the deal that has been in place. They want a different split in the profits. They want the players to work more. The NFLPA has gone on record saying that they are fine with the terms of the current CBA when it comes to revenue splits. They aren't asking a change. The owners are, and when asked to show cause for this request they've refused. Should the union just accept their request blindly? Would that really be in the best interest of the workers they represent? To just take the league's word for it?

This ^^^^

If your company came to you and said, "we want to change how we pay you. We want you to work more and make less." What would you do? In your situation you would probably take your skills elsewere (any self-respecting worker would) but where are the NFL players going to get another job playing football? Is Tom Brady going to say, "screw you! I'm going to play for $800/month in the Arena league!" ???? These guys are profesionals, and there is only one professional league out there. It's the NFL or bust, that's why they are fighting the owners.

 

[VeloClone]

That is a great point. One that i hadn't considered. The union is obligated to oppose the changes to the compensation package as proposed. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't do their best to get the most they can for their members. I wasn't considering the fact that the players union didn't really have a choice in this situation.

I wonder what percentage of individual players would accept the agreement in order to keep from flushing the season, and what income bracket these players represent. I would think the "minimum wage" players would take the package and just play, while the guys that have the means to sit out a season wouldn't. Interesting to think that the union in an effort to help the minimum wage guy could actually be acting counter to their wishes. One would think nobody would openly say they wanted to accept the package anyway...

All that said... I still believe that the owners are within their rights to do what they want... ultimately, that is the bottom line in my mind.

What was the minimum in 2010? $325,000? Everyone knew this day was coming. Everyone has the means to sit out if they have looked ahead in the least.

 

[tazclone]

Except for the fact that it's the owners that are asking for the change in the compensation package. They're the ones making the requests to alter the deal that has been in place. They want a different split in the profits. They want the players to work more. The NFLPA has gone on record saying that they are fine with the terms of the current CBA when it comes to revenue splits. They aren't asking a change. The owners are, and when asked to show cause for this request they've refused. Should the union just accept their request blindly? Would that really be in the best interest of the workers they represent? To just take the league's word for it?

Is this a common practice? I really don' t know. Does labor get to see the books for the businesses they work for? I guess I have never seen the overall books for a business I have worked for. I have seen the profit statements but never the books and I have been management. I have generally took their word and fought for every penny I could get. When I didn't get what I wanted I started looking elsewhere.

Seriously, how many laborers and labor unions get access to the companies books?

 

[tazclone]

What was the minimum in 2010? $325,000? Everyone knew this day was coming. Everyone has the means to sit out if they have looked ahead in the least.

Money is linear. The more you make the more you spend. Someone making $325K most likely has a larger house payment than someone making $60K. Given that these guys are on the road half the year and leave their wives and families home alone, I am guessing they have expenses to keep the wife happy. Not saying they can't save for a couple of years but it isn't like they don't spend what they make.

 

[Mr Janny]

Is this a common practice? I really don' t know. Does labor get to see the books for the businesses they work for? I guess I have never seen the overall books for a business I have worked for. I have seen the profit statements but never the books and I have been management. I have generally took their word and fought for every penny I could get. When I didn't get what I wanted I started looking elsewhere.

Seriously, how many laborers and labor unions get access to the companies books?

In my opinion, that question doesn't really apply. This isn't a typical business situation. There aren't too many businesses out there where the product is so greatly defined by who the individual worker is. Someone mentioned law firms earlier, and that's a good comparison.

 

[cybsball20]

Is this a common practice? I really don' t know. Does labor get to see the books for the businesses they work for? I guess I have never seen the overall books for a business I have worked for. I have seen the profit statements but never the books and I have been management. I have generally took their word and fought for every penny I could get. When I didn't get what I wanted I started looking elsewhere.

Seriously, how many laborers and labor unions get access to the companies books?

It's mostly public if you work for a publicly traded company. You can see what the CEO makes. IF the CEO makes as much as all of the employees combined you would probably have some upset employees.

 

[LindenCy]

It's been said, but the NFL is one sport that needs guaranteed contracts. The players take significant risk stepping on the field.

 

[tazclone]

In my opinion, that question doesn't really apply. This isn't a typical business situation. There aren't too many businesses out there where the product is so greatly defined by who the individual worker is. Someone mentioned law firms earlier, and that's a good comparison.

Why doesn't it apply? LAbor negotiations happen all the tie. I would be interested to know how many companies are requried to open their ooks. Besides, didn;t the owners open their books for the last five years? Why isn't that good enough?

 

[tazclone]

In my opinion, that question doesn't really apply. This isn't a typical business situation. There aren't too many businesses out there where the product is so greatly defined by who the individual worker is. Someone mentioned law firms earlier, and that's a good comparison.

Why doesn't it apply? LAbor negotiations happen all the tie. I would be interested to know how many companies are requried to open their ooks. Besides, didn;t the owners open their books for the last five years? Why isn't that good enough?

 

[CloneIce]

The players have a better case than the owners. Its pretty much a case of millionaires vs. billionaires, so its not like there is a little guy in the fight.

Just because here in America employees are used to getting the shaft by their employers and having little power, doesn't mean everyone needs to just accept it.

 

[Mr Janny]

Why doesn't it apply? LAbor negotiations happen all the tie. I would be interested to know how many companies are requried to open their ooks. Besides, didn;t the owners open their books for the last five years? Why isn't that good enough?

Apparently it isn't good enough. As I understand it, the league opened books to a third party, which analyzed them and gave the NFLPA a sanitized version. The union wants to see them firsthand.

And the aforementioned question doesn't apply because the circumstances are unique to the NFL. My earlier post pointed out how the worker is the product and that in itself is fairly unique, but to go further, in how many other businesses can management just up and void the deal of an independent contractor on a whim with no penalty?

Make no mistake, there is no good guy in this fight. Both sides are greedy and could not care less for the consumer. But, from what I have seen, aside from the supposed NFL draft boycott, the NFLPA has acted exactly how a good labor organization should. They are representing their members well. If they just rolled over to the NFL's demands, they would be doing a disservice to the players.

 

[tm3308]

Why doesn't it apply? LAbor negotiations happen all the tie. I would be interested to know how many companies are requried to open their ooks. Besides, didn;t the owners open their books for the last five years? Why isn't that good enough?

I'm no financial expert, so I'll ask anyone who might know: is 5 years really a good sample size for something like this? I would think that they would need to go back longer than 5 years to really establish a trend.

 

[tazclone]

Apparently it isn't good enough. As I understand it, the league opened books to a third party, which analyzed them and gave the NFLPA a sanitized version. The union wants to see them firsthand.

And the aforementioned question doesn't apply because the circumstances are unique to the NFL. My earlier post pointed out how the worker is the product and that in itself is fairly unique, but to go further, in how many other businesses can management just up and void the deal of an independent contractor on a whim with no penalty?

Make no mistake, there is no good guy in this fight. Both sides are greedy and could not care less for the consumer. But, from what I have seen, aside from the supposed NFL draft boycott, the NFLPA has acted exactly how a good labor organization should. They are representing their members well. If they just rolled over to the NFL's demands, they would be doing a disservice to the players.

In the case where you are looking at employer vs labor. Plaenty of places. PLantey of right to work states.

 

[tazclone]

The players have a better case than the owners. Its pretty much a case of millionaires vs. billionaires, so its not like there is a little guy in the fight.

Just because here in America employees are used to getting the shaft by their employers and having little power, doesn't mean everyone needs to just accept it.

Except most of the owners aren't making their money off football. They are making it elsewhere. That is the issue here. The owners are seeing more andf more losses and want to reduce that loss.

 

[cybsball20]

Except most of the owners aren't making their money off football. They are making it elsewhere. That is the issue here. The owners are seeing more andf more losses and want to reduce that loss.

Reduced profits maybe... but nobody is losing money in the NFL, not even in Jacksonville...

 

[Mr Janny]

In the case where you are looking at employer vs labor. Plaenty of places. PLantey of right to work states.

That's not what I'm talking about, though. The contract of a player in the NFL can be voided at any time for any reason by management with no penalty. The player, however, does not have that right and is expected to hold up their end of contract.

In how many other businesses does that situation exist?

 

[cycloneace55]

First of all the biggest losers in all of this are the fans and the private businesses that support the NFL through concessions, etc...

Warning: Its a long post.

A second big loser are the older retired NFL vets who just saw an 82 million medical/retirement package from the NFL go up in smoke as part of the deal the NFLPA rejected. This is the same NFLPA that has refused to return calls from some of the retired players who represent different groups seeking some form of support. Bad form on the NFLPA in my book but thats neither here nor there, the NFLPA under Upshaw stated he was beholden to the current players and not the retired ones.

Also as I have been led to understand the last package offered it included a much better and inclusive medical package for any player who had at least a year of service upon walking away from the game.

Also the thought of an 18 game schedule was put on hold for 2 years upon which time it would be re-visited buy the NFL and has to be approved by the NFLPA to be instituted. So as far as I am concerned that is off the table since the NFLPA will never agree to it.

The NFLPA agreed to a rookie wage scale which the owners agreed to put that money towards the older players and even more shocking the NFL agreed to raise the Salary cap FLOOR to 90% of the salary cap. The older players have been pro rookie wage scale for some time as the Jamarcus Russells of the world take money out of their pockets before they even step on the field. Last season the Bucs and the Chiefs were both around 80% as the lowest payroll teams int he league.

The owners have shown more of their books then they ever have and they as private business owners have no obligation to do so. From what I have heard the owners are the ones who have done more in the way of compromise then the NFLPA seems to have done.

As for walking away from the game crippled the NFL has tried to address this as well. They have stated that the off season programs, now averaging 12 weeks, would be cut by 5. They have also put an offer on the table to limit the number of full pad practices during the season to 2. This is unheard of as this was something that coaches were free to decide. Guys like Tom Coughlin like to suit the guys up and beat the hell out of them where as others limit full contact during the season. This is all well and good and to me shows that the NFL is concerned about the players well being. As for guys getting crippled and using it as an argument I counter with free will. You don't want to limp walk away from the game. Most of these guys got a FREE college education and it was their choice to take advantage of it or not. The should have a fall back plan if the NFL does not work out. Time to stop and hold them accountable for their choices in life.

Hell I work with a guy in a wheelchair not by choice but because he got hit by a drunk driver while riding his bike. He is in a bigger physical mess then these guys but he still manages to have a very successful career and I doubt he has ever made $325000 in a year.

As for business re-negotiating contracts, talk to the thousands of people who got a pay cut in the current economy. I know for a fact my wife was ****** about it but keeping a job was more important. She didn't get to demand to see the books in a privately held firm.

As for the players being the face of the NFL, the players change on an annual basis. A an unfortunate Viking fan I have rooted for QB the likes of Warren Moon, Jeff George, Spergoen Wynn, Dante Culpepper, etc. If the Players are the League why didn't it fold when the greats like Johnny Unitas and Joe Willie Namath retired? The faces alway change and they always will, the the NFL brings in scrubs the same thing will happen just like last time. We will get bad football until the fans start to know the players, the former players will start to cross the line and a new deal will get done. Do I want this to happen? No but it seems that might happen at this point.

Another point of contention by the NFLPA was the fine system and how the NFL addressed appeals. From my understanding the NFL has agreed to have fine appeal addressed by a neutral 3rd party. I think this would be for the good of the game and didn't like the system they had previously, to appeal to the same guy who gave the original fine seemed stupid.

I know this is long so bear with me......

All in all I have to say that both sides are in the wrong of sort but when it comes down to it its a symbiotic relationship to a certain extent. Sure the owners can replace the payers but at a cost to the league in the form of revenue for offering a sub standard product. The players need to realize that the owners are the ones who are taking the financial risk to support and market the NFL as a league, as well as a portion of the infrastructure and support staff for each team. (coaches, trainers, front office, etc.) Hell the league even offers education programs available to the players that are not available to the general public. Based on what I have read and heard, from both sides, I can't help but think that the NFLPA has not negotiated in good faith and just wanted to see how far they got before going to litigation. As I said thats just my impressions and opinions. When it comes down to it the money to be made will be exactly what the market bears and as fans I can only assume that any labor strife regardless of who is ultimately responsible will negatively impact that.

As for me I will be paying that much more attention to my beloved Cyclones! Go Cyclones!

P.S. Adrian Peterson's comments about the NFL and "slavery" are just plain ignorant and will not win the NFLPA any support in the court of public opinion.

 

[3TrueFans]

Except most of the owners aren't making their money off football. They are making it elsewhere. That is the issue here. The owners are seeing more andf more losses and want to reduce that loss.

You think they would all stick around if they were actually losing money by owning their teams?