Will the NFL Go on Strike?

**thesteve** · 03-12-2011, 09:50 PM

I understand the 16 vs. 18 game issue. The thing I was trying to figure out (maybe I missed it in the article) is, where does the $9 billion come from and if the owners want more of that money, where does it come from?

Napoleon17 · 03-12-2011, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

I understand the 16 vs. 18 game issue. The thing I was trying to figure out (maybe I missed it in the article) is, where does the $9 billion come from and if the owners want more of that money, where does it come from?

I'm not sure what you are asking... the way I understand it is that th the 9 billion is the total league revenue. The league currently gets a billion off the top (for stadium upkeep?), and they split the rest using a certain percentage (not sure if it's 50/50 or what). Apparently the total revenue per year is 9 billion. I guess that comes from ticket sales, tv deals, advertising, etc.

**thesteve** · 03-12-2011, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

I'm not sure what you are asking... the way I understand it is that th the 9 billion is the total league revenue. The league currently gets a billion off the top (for stadium upkeep?), and they split the rest using a certain percentage (not sure if it's 50/50 or what). Apparently the total revenue per year is 9 billion. I guess that comes from ticket sales, tv deals, advertising, etc.

Right...what I'm asking is...what are the players doing with their share? If that goes to player salaries, then where is the extra $1 billion more that the owners want come from given that the playing have contracts (I realize a lot of players don't have contracts right now).

Napoleon17 · 03-12-2011, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

Right...what I'm asking is...what are the players doing with their share? If that goes to player salaries, then where is the extra $1 billion more that the owners want come from given that the playing have contracts (I realize a lot of players don't have contracts right now).

Ah, I see what you are saying. I think the idea originally by the owners was to add the 2 games, thereby increasing the revenues enough to where the owners could take a billion and the players salaries wouldn't be affected. They would just be working more for the same amount of money.

TunerSteve · 03-13-2011, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

Right...what I'm asking is...what are the players doing with their share? If that goes to player salaries, then where is the extra $1 billion more that the owners want come from given that the playing have contracts (I realize a lot of players don't have contracts right now).

That's the issue that I see. Players have individual contracts, unlike most union workers. The players that have contracts in place will still receive the same compensation, whether the owners garner a larger share of the overall revenue.

My real concern is for the employees of the teams, stadium workers and vendors. These are the people that will be most affected by the lockout, and it's truly a shame.

Dr. Worm · 03-13-2011, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TunerSteve

That's the issue that I see. Players have individual contracts, unlike most union workers. The players that have contracts in place will still receive the same compensation, whether the owners garner a larger share of the overall revenue.

Owners have always cut players that become too expensive. You lower the salary cap, and it doesn't matter what players' contracts say. If they're too expensive, they get cut or they re-negotiate.

Quote:

My real concern is for the employees of the teams, stadium workers and vendors. These are the people that will be most affected by the lockout, and it's truly a shame.

This is what makes the whole thing sick. It's not just the billionaires vs millionaires thing that we've heard ad nauseum, it's that it is billionaires vs millionaires at the expense of people barely making a living. I've seen articles suggesting that we should feel sorry for the players because they aren't all millionares. But still, the minimum salary is $320,000, which at my current salary would take me more than 10 years to make. (And I live pretty comfortably.) I don't feel sorry for the players, I feel sorry for the thousands of people making less than me that are truly affected by this.

**thesteve** · 03-13-2011, 06:37 PM

+1 to what's been said about the stadium workers. I wish that angle was getting more press.

penguinofwar · 03-13-2011, 07:30 PM

The 18 games is just awful. For one, its all fueled by greed. Two, considering all the long term health problems that players are having today, 16 games is enough. I've read some statistics on the internet (I don't know how accurate they are), that the life expectancy of an NFL player is 55 years old, or somewhere from 53-59. That's ridiculous. Whether that's true or accurate for current NFL players I'm not sure, but we can all agree that its not uncommon for a player to suffer from serious health issues post football. So an 18 game schedule would only enhance that problem. I mean, if anything, the NFL should lessen the season to 14 games for the sanity of the players. So the player's health doesn't even overcome the owner's greed. That's just awful.

AlphaSigma · 03-14-2011, 12:46 PM

My understanding is it comes down to how the players and owners decide to split the $9 billion dollars that the NFL generates each year.

The owners want $1 off the top before the remaining $8 is split between the players and owners. Since revenue has increased each year, the players don't feel that they are receiving a 'fair share'. Naturally so because they aren't.

The consensus between players and owners is that they divide the revenue, but in reality the owners get $1 off the top before the rest is 'split'.

This effects the standards for player contracts, which in the past have been based on the CBA between the league and players. In theory players get paid proportional to their position, contribution (Tier 1 player, tier-2, NFL Starter, back-up ,etc) and the total revenue.

The problem as I understand it is

1. Owners are not being completely transparent with their total revenue records (By Players standards)
2. Owners asking for $1 billion off the top of total league revenue is not exactly 'splitting the league revenue' (which were wanting closer to $600 million, if I remember correctly)