CBA talks...

[steeljake]

as we all know they have halted them for now. it seems they are fighting over money, i know shocking right? I am sure the owner's attempt at getting a bigger piece of the pie is linked to jerry jones' monument to himself. if you didnt already know, the nfl take 1 billion off the top of all revenues before there is a 60/40 split in the players favor. the owners now want a 42/58 split in favor of them and 2 billion off the top before revenues are split. the players have agreed to give a little, offering a 50/50 spilt of all revenues, but the owners reject the very notion of that according to an article on espn.com: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6107737

I think that the owners assume the union will have to cave so they will not be willing to budge on their issues. The only ones that suffer is the fans. I hope Jerry Jones and people of his ilk burn in hell.

[manchild24]

I still think if they dont come to an agreement (which they will, no one's gettin paid if there is no CBA. The players won live pay check to pay check will fell it the most) They may do an extension to the current CBA so the season kicks off as scheduled.

Im not gonna act like I know all about this CBA but some things I think needs to happen
1-Rookie Salaries are WAY OUT OF HAND (need to be capped)
2- Players need to be taken care of AFTER their career is over
3- Npt sure if this one is even legal but they have owners meeting. Why dont all the owners get together, and agree to stop paying ridiculous contracts to these guys.
4 - no 18 game schedule (call me old fashion)
5 - Players need some type compensation if they are injuried during the season, just dont think its right that they dont have to pay them and can just cut them. Baseball they'd be getting paid.

[f16harm]

Owners (of any business) bare the risk and pay the bills.

Players/workers do the job for their owner and receive compensation. Don't like your compensation, either negotiate to chip in to pay cost and accept risk of ownership....or choose another profession.

NFL players, even at 42/58, are paid far beyond their true value compared to the general population worker and make more than enough to live a very comfortable life AND afford a modest health insurance plan for their family and a 401k/retirement out of their own pocket money!!

The problem is, a majority of the players are too fucking stupid to make logical decisions.....and would rather cry for it to be handed to them. Instead of buying $150k Mercedes and $1 million homes, they should invest or understand how to pay for fucking health insurance and a retirement plan like any other American worker (granted many of them don't even know, but they are also working with far less income).

For God sake, the rookie MINIMUM salary is $325,000. A 7th rounder who sits on the bench will make $325k. I didn't earn that in the first 5 years of my career after grad school.

[steeljake]

I still think if they dont come to an agreement (which they will, no one's gettin paid if there is no CBA. The players won live pay check to pay check will fell it the most) They may do an extension to the current CBA so the season kicks off as scheduled.

Im not gonna act like I know all about this CBA but some things I think needs to happen
1-Rookie Salaries are WAY OUT OF HAND (need to be capped)
2- Players need to be taken care of AFTER their career is over
3- Npt sure if this one is even legal but they have owners meeting. Why dont all the owners get together, and agree to stop paying ridiculous contracts to these guys.

That's called collusion (sp?) and it is highly illegal.

4 - no 18 game schedule (call me old fashion)
5 - Players need some type compensation if they are injuried during the season, just dont think its right that they dont have to pay them and can just cut them. Baseball they'd be getting paid.

The owners will get paid if there is no season, teh TV money is garuanteed no matter what. How they pulled that off I have no idea, but they did. The odds of the extending the cba into teh season are slim to none I think, but they could extend it a month or so if talks are going well.

I agree on a rookie salary scale/cap and the 18 games I think is dead in water (thankfully). They cant even get to the players demand (which it has been demanded in the past and only gotten them 5 years after retirement) for long term post career health care (which would be ultra expensive, more on this later) until they get past the revenue sharing issue. there is no way the players can give in to the original demand of a 2 billion off the top and then a 58/42 split. that would make them lose just over 3 billion dollars.

[steeljake]

Owners (of any business) bare the risk and pay the bills.

Players/workers do the job for their owner and receive compensation. Don't like your compensation, either negotiate to chip in to pay cost and accept risk of ownership....or choose another profession.

NFL players, even at 42/58, are paid far beyond their true value compared to the general population worker and make more than enough to live a very comfortable life AND afford a modest health insurance plan for their family and a 401k/retirement out of their own pocket money!!

The problem is, a majority of the players are too fucking stupid to make logical decisions.....and would rather cry for it to be handed to them. Instead of buying $150k Mercedes and $1 million homes, they should invest or understand how to pay for fucking health insurance and a retirement plan like any other American worker (granted many of them don't even know, but they are also working with far less income).

For God sake, the rookie MINIMUM salary is $325,000. A 7th rounder who sits on the bench will make $325k. I didn't earn that in the first 5 years of my career after grad school.

players being idiots with their money is a huge problem, but not one the owners shoudl have to bare the burden for, so in that we agree. your idea of a chip in program is a good one though. maybe a 70% player paid type thing. hell a 30% relief from what would already be high health care costs would go a long way. Right now they get 5 years on the nfl's group policy, say that after that they get a 70/30 or some type of split for out of pocket expense to remain on it.

[killgod]

Owners (of any business) bare the risk and pay the bills.

Players/workers do the job for their owner and receive compensation. Don't like your compensation, either negotiate to chip in to pay cost and accept risk of ownership....or choose another profession.

NFL players, even at 42/58, are paid far beyond their true value compared to the general population worker and make more than enough to live a very comfortable life AND afford a modest health insurance plan for their family and a 401k/retirement out of their own pocket money!!

The problem is, a majority of the players are too fucking stupid to make logical decisions.....and would rather cry for it to be handed to them. Instead of buying $150k Mercedes and $1 million homes, they should invest or understand how to pay for fucking health insurance and a retirement plan like any other American worker (granted many of them don't even know, but they are also working with far less income).

For God sake, the rookie MINIMUM salary is $325,000. A 7th rounder who sits on the bench will make $325k. I didn't earn that in the first 5 years of my career after grad school.

Yeah but they might blow out their knee holding a clipboard and then have to rely on their............college education

[steeljake]

The owners side

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6011712

The NFL's case for a new CBAA league representative makes an argument for changes in the game's economic modelEmail Print Comments150 By Greg Aiello
Special to ESPN.com
Archive
EDITOR'S NOTE: Last week, ESPN.com published a guest commentary from an executive of the NFLPA about the ongoing collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Read it here. Today, the league presents its point of view.



The NFL players' union says, "The players haven't asked for anything more and literally don't want anything more. They have simply asked to play under the existing agreement."


That ought to tell you something. If a collective bargaining agreement particularly favors one side, that side naturally won't want to change anything. That's how the players saw it in the '70s and '80s. The players believed the system favored the teams because there was no free agency. The players went on strike several times and then to court to change it.



Now the system does not work as well as it could from the standpoint of the teams. The time has arrived for adjustments that create an opportunity to make the game and league better.



The crux of the difference is this: The union accepts the status quo, while the NFL wants to improve and secure the future of the game for the benefit of fans and players.



The status quo means no rookie wage scale and the continuation of outrageous sums paid to many unproven rookies instead of shifting significant portions of that money to proven veterans and retired players.



The status quo means four preseason games in spite of the overwhelming rejection of it that by both fans and players.



The status quo means no league investment in new stadium development in Los Angeles and other cities, in international games, or in new technology to improve our service to fans in stadiums and at home.



The status quo means players continue to keep 60 percent of available revenue, in good years or bad, in a good economy or one with 10 percent unemployment, and no matter how much costs have risen for the teams. Player compensation has doubled in the past decade, and the union says NFL team payrolls rose 6 percent this year. Meanwhile, other costs for teams have risen dramatically.



NFL players have an extremely favorable revenue-sharing deal and full access to all information on revenue and a great deal of information on costs, including the largest cost, which is for players. The union has audit rights to all league and team revenue. The problem, however, is not revenue. It is costs. The union knows the problem. Costs must be properly balanced against revenue so that the league and the game can continue to grow. Companies with far more revenue than the NFL have gone bankrupt because they did not properly manage their costs. Our goal is to fix the problem now before it becomes a crisis. That means negotiating a fair agreement that continues to provide billions to the players while also giving the teams a sustainable business model and improving the quality of everything we do.


Why is the current deal so bad, asks the union? Because it does not secure the best possible future for the game, players, clubs and fans. The union has said its "internal deadline" for reaching an agreement has passed. Does that mean the union has abandoned negotiations in favor of de-certification and litigation? We hope not. Rather than litigating and firing misguided salvos about the "shame" of the situation, it would be far more productive and much more in keeping with the interests of teams and fans if the union returned to the bargaining table and made a good-faith effort to reach an agreement before March 4. After that, it is going to become much more difficult.



The new CBA is about the future of the game and doing what's necessary to improve the quality of the game. That means addressing player safety, retired players, preseason, the way we pay rookies and making sure the league's business model works for the future. If we do that, players, teams and fans can continue share in the benefits of growth. The status quo is not acceptable because it will not allow us to build the game with the players as we have done so successfully in the past.



As commissioner Roger Goodell has said, if both sides give a little, everyone will get a lot.



Greg Aiello is the NFL's Senior Vice President of Public Relations. For more information on NFL collective bargaining issues, go to www.nfllabor.com.

[steeljake]

The player's side

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5995362

Players' case for football in 2011Assistant executive director for external affairs explains NFLPA's labor stanceEmail Print Comments101 By George Atallah
Special to ESPN.com
Archive
The current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL players and owners that was signed in 2006 will expire on March 3. In May 2008, NFL owners opted out of the agreement early. The players want to play a full NFL season in 2011 and have offered to extend the current deal in an effort to work out a long-term deal without an interruption of league operations. The players haven't asked for anything more and literally don't want anything more. They have asked simply to play under the existing agreement.



The NFL is at the height of its popularity and success. According to reports Thursday, the NFL and ESPN are close to a nearly $2 billion renewal for the rights to "Monday Night Football." In 2010, 65 of the top 100 watched sporting events in the U.S. were NFL games. Eighteen of the top 20 viewed telecasts this television season were NFL games, and we haven't even seen the playoffs yet. Revenues are up. Sponsorships are up. Every television ad for this year's Super Bowl was sold months ago. All signs and indicators point to extraordinary success and rapid growth for the business of football.



According to the NFL and team owners, however, the "economic model in the NFL doesn't work." What's more, they have prepared for and are openly threatening a lockout if it's not "fixed." What is their proposal to fix it? They've asked the players for more than a $1 billion reduction in the players' portion of revenues in the first year alone of a future CBA. By the way, in a league with no guaranteed contracts, revealed dangers of the game and injury concerns at their peak, they want players to play two extra regular-season games.



The players maintain that one fundamental question needs to be answered in earnest if there is to be an agreement before a lockout: Why is the current deal so bad? If owners had decided to make this a direct business transaction between partners, the players are confident a deal would've been struck a long time ago. Business partners get together, sign confidentiality agreements, exchange financials and negotiate. Our repeated requests for detailed financial information that would help us answer the quintessential question have been denied.



As a result, players and fans have to go by what we do know. I recently sent a letter to all sports editors to set the record straight on the economics and revenue breakdown between players and owners because the phrase most frequently seen is that "players get 60 percent of revenues." This is not an accurate depiction. Players receive approximately 50 percent of all revenues in the NFL. Or, players receive approximately 60 percent of total revenue in the NFL after the owners take a number of expense credits that add up to more than $1 billion a year.



This is significant because the past 10 years of financial data at the highest levels show that the players' portion of revenues has decreased slightly. Simply put, the available data directly contradict the rationale and explanation of the NFL's justification for a rollback or, worse, a lockout. An unjustified lockout not only would prevent players from playing and fans from watching but also would have real negative economic consequences on NFL team cities.


The players have asked repeatedly for financial transparency and economic information. We have been told publicly and privately that detailed financials are "none of your business." In an era of greater financial transparency, this is confusing. Frankly, it signals that this negotiation is about something much different from figuring out how to work together to secure the future of the game.



For example, the owners have been clamoring for a rookie wage scale. They cited "exploding" rookie contracts as a reason for opting out early in 2008. The players offered a proposal to address owners' concerns called the proven performance plan. The NFL said no based on unwillingness to guarantee that the saved rookie money would go toward proven veteran players.



It's a shame that, nearly 1,000 days after the NFL owners opted out of the CBA, they can't guarantee NFL games next year. It's a shame heading into exciting playoffs with great games ahead that this unresolved issue continues to steal headlines. It's a shame that the owners are threatening to prevent players from playing football. It's a shame that the unanswered question remains: Why is this deal so bad?



The NFL players have asked me to share a simple request on their behalf: Open the books and let us play.



George Atallah is the assistant executive director for external affairs at the NFLPA. You can follow him on Twitter at @georgeatallah.

[steeljake]

this is a letter from teh NFLPA outlining the current revenue sharing in the nfl:

http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/Letter-Clarifying-the-Truth-About-the-Revenue-Split/

Print Article CBA News
Letter: Clarifying the Truth About the Revenue Split
{ In a letter to sports editors nationwide, the NFLPA's George Atallah sets the record straight on the revenue breakdown. }
Author: George Atallah, NFLPA Assistant Executive Director of External Affairs Posted: 12/16/2010 To the Editors:

The current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NFL players and owners that was signed in 2006 expires March 3, 2011. In May 2008, owners opted out of the agreement early. While negotiations between the NFL players and owners continue, the actions taken by the NFL and its owners signal an employer-imposed lockout. The players want to play a full and complete NFL season in 2011 and have asked the owners to extend the deal in an effort to work out a new deal without an interruption of NFL operations.

It has been widely reported that the owners have asked for an 18 percent reduction in the players’ portion of revenue. While the justification for this rollback remains in serious question, the purpose of this letter is to set the record straight on the revenue breakdown between players and owners. Currently, the phrase most frequently used to describe the division is, “Players get 60 percent of revenues.” This is not an accurate depiction.

On behalf of the NFL players, I am asking you to adjust the terms used in referring to this subject in your reporting based on the facts provided in this letter and the attached supporting document. There are two terms that you may have heard, but are distinct and not synonymous: all revenue and total revenue. ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. “Total Revenue” is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit, which have exceeded $1 billion in each of the past two years. The correct characterization of the revenue breakdown is as follows:

Players receive approximately 50 percent of ALL revenues in the NFL. Or, Players receive less than 60 percent of “Total Revenue” after the owners take expense credits off the top.

For the past two years, the expense credits the owners have received exceeded $1 billion. To provide a factual basis for this representation, below are the agreed upon percentages since 2000:

Players’ Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

Players’ Percentage of “Total Revenue” since 2000:

2000-61.7%

2001-57.1%

2002-56.1%

2003-54.3%

2004-57.0%

2005-55.1%

2006-58.4%

2007-58.0%

2008-57.7%

2009–57.1%

To provide an alternate explanation, the revenue model in the NFL can be defined by this simple formula:

All Revenue minus NFL & Owner Expense Credits equals “Total Revenue”

“Total Revenue” is a term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not a term of accounting. “Total Revenue” is not equal to the entirety of the revenue (all) generated from the league, but is the remainder of money after the owners receive a number of expense credits. I have attached a sample list of expense credits that the NFL and NFL owners are eligible to receive under the terms of the 2006 CBA.

The media plays an important role in providing millions of NFL fans information on America’s most popular sport. NFL players are paying attention to how these negotiations are being covered and I am writing on their behalf to ensure their business is covered fairly and accurately. As reporting of these negotiations becomes more intense, accuracy and fairness will be vital to informing the millions of fans that have concerns about having a complete NFL season in 2011.

Thank you for reviewing this information. I invite you to visit www.nflplayers.com/lockout to seek out more facts and figures related to this CBA negotiation. Please feel free to reach out to me with any additional questions or for clarification at any time.

Sincerely,

George Atallah

Assistant Executive Director

External Affairs

[manchild24]

players being idiots with their money is a huge problem, but not one the owners shoudl have to bare the burden for, so in that we agree. your idea of a chip in program is a good one though. maybe a 70% player paid type thing. hell a 30% relief from what would already be high health care costs would go a long way. Right now they get 5 years on the nfl's group policy, say that after that they get a 70/30 or some type of split for out of pocket expense to remain on it.

Antonio Pierce said last night on NFL that he personally knows tooooo many players that are dumb with their money and live pay check to pay check. they buy 7 cars, 3 houses and then are screwed

[f16harm]

Yeah but they might blow out their knee holding a clipboard and then have to rely on their............college education

that's a whole 'nother thing that rubs my hemorrhoids raw...

99% of these NFL players were scholarship students at pretty solid colleges right? And few of them take advantage of a free fucking 4 year degree.

....but we better have 9 kids with 9 different women and act all hard in the media. That's what really counts.

[steeljake]

Antonio Pierce said last night on NFL that he personally knows tooooo many players that are dumb with their money and live pay check to pay check. they buy 7 cars, 3 houses and then are screwed

yea, these guys make 10 mil a year for 5 years so they buy a 10 million dollar houes. what the fail to understand is that a 10 million dollar home takes 1 million a year to maintain and pay taxes on. so when their contract is up they might own the house, but they cant pay the bills to keep it up.

[shag773]

Owners (of any business) bare the risk and pay the bills.

Players/workers do the job for their owner and receive compensation. Don't like your compensation, either negotiate to chip in to pay cost and accept risk of ownership....or choose another profession.

NFL players, even at 42/58, are paid far beyond their true value compared to the general population worker and make more than enough to live a very comfortable life AND afford a modest health insurance plan for their family and a 401k/retirement out of their own pocket money!!

The problem is, a majority of the players are too fucking stupid to make logical decisions.....and would rather cry for it to be handed to them. Instead of buying $150k Mercedes and $1 million homes, they should invest or understand how to pay for fucking health insurance and a retirement plan like any other American worker (granted many of them don't even know, but they are also working with far less income).

For God sake, the rookie MINIMUM salary is $325,000. A 7th rounder who sits on the bench will make $325k. I didn't earn that in the first 5 years of my career after grad school.

I understand and agree with a lot of what you said, however comparing a normal everyday worker to your normal everyday NFL player is not apples to oranges. The average NFL career is about 3.5 years. http://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/F...-Hopeful-FAQs/

In 2009 the average base salary of an NFL player is $990,000. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nfl-player-salaries.html
For arguments sake, lets just say the average American works from 21-65. So that's 44 years the average American will work for.

Based on what we know, the average NFL player will make $3,465,000. Nothing to sneeze at. However, for a normal American who works for 44 years they would have to make $78,750 a year to hit that mark.

Granted, most players don't look at those numbers that way. They see money in their hands and they go out and spend it recklessly.

To give another perspective, the average MLB salary is $3,300,000

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/2010baseballteampayrolls.htm

with an average career length of 5.6 years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0709131254.htm

The average NBA salary is $5,356,000.

http://www.helium.com/items/923616-the-average-salaries-of-nba-players

with an average career length of 4.81 seasons

http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/relationship-selected-pre-nba-career-variables-nba-players-career-longevity

[shag773]

that's a whole 'nother thing that rubs my hemorrhoids raw...

99% of these NFL players were scholarship students at pretty solid colleges right? And few of them take advantage of a free fucking 4 year degree.

....but we better have 9 kids with 9 different women and act all hard in the media. That's what really counts.

Granted there are many players that live beyond there means, just like many normal Americans do. But's lets not make them all out to be a Cromartie..

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

What on gods green earth does a players inability to manage his home finances have to do with this ?

NFL owners have virtually no input on the success of there product. Its almost entirely in the hands of the players/coaches and TV for representation. Most owners in the NFL today are nothing more than glorified investors. ALL of them are making profit , no franchise has or is being sold at a loss , and all refuse to open there books for auditing.

There ineptitude and lack of spine in regards to agents representing rookies got them into a huge mess. There collective inability to control themselves backfired big time.
There excess greed in trying to sell pre-season games as regular season games blew up in there face.

The status quo means four preseason games in spite of the overwhelming rejection of it that by both fans and players.

Fans reject the pricing , the mandatory purchasing of these seats in order to get regular season tickets , and of course the complete objection to obscene Personal Seat Licenses involved with pre-season. We also reject networks trying to sell us prime time preseason as if it were mid November.
NOT THE GAMES THEMSELVES.

NFL is flat out lying about what people feel about pre-season. Once again there inability to sell PSL and luxury boxes for preseason games has them peeved. They risked it..now they want players to pay for that risk.


The system is fine , it works , and catapulted the NFL so far ahead of the other leagues its unimaginable that anyone would want to screw with it. As always greed wins.

NFL players already take "risk" by stepping on the field. Knowing its almost guaranteed you will have a life long ailment after a few years is "risk". Owners want guaranteed profit. The long term health of the league is secondary.People are missing that point. The old guard of NFL owners is mostly gone. The racism is dwindling but so is the genuine interest of the leagues long term plans.

Bottom line rookie salary caps would have been implemented immediately if the owners weren't so clueless and greedy.