Kevin Durant is “Doing Things the Right Way”
March 14, 2011WFNY Exclusive: Browns’ Joe Haden Talks Cleveland, Fans and Appreciation
March 14, 2011Maybe this will all seem quite obvious to the rest of you, but it was a realization for me over the weekend. I have written about the NFL labor power struggle between the players and owners a couple times now. Specifically, I wrote about how you shouldn’t really pick sides. (Part 1 – Part 2) I provided some of the counter-arguments to the largely pro-player commentary I was reading around the Internet – most notable from ESPN’s Rick Reilly and Bill Simmons. Then I read a poll at ProFootballTalk that shocked me. Despite what I have been reading in the media, fans aren’t really standing shoulder to shoulder with NFL players.
The PFT poll asked the question: Who do you blame for the NFL labor situation? the owners, players, both or neither. As I write this on Sunday afternoon, the results are currently as follows. With 31,482 votes in, 36.55% blame both, 38.22% blame the players, 24.79% blame the owners, and 0.34% (107 people) blame neither.
Those results surprised me. When I checked in on the poll on Saturday, the owners held an even smaller percent of the blame, so it was climbing as the poll went along. That being said, the fans blame the players over 10% more often than they do the owners, at least based on the PFT readership.
It got me wondering. How could this be with all the articles I’ve seen written?
I thought for a second that maybe my own sample size was skewed. Maybe I just happened to read more anti-owner articles. Maybe there are a whole host of anti-player articles that I just never ready. That seems unlikely. I am guessing WFNY and Cleveland.com readers would have pointed them out to me in the comments.
Then it hit me. Of course the media skews toward the players. These are people who rely on rumors from sources in order to make their living. In terms of supplying the media with sources, it is obvious who the media rely on. In the NFL there are 32 owners. Some of those (like Randy Lerner) aren’t exactly engaged in the team enough to be a source. Those owners employ some Presidents and GMs who would be aligned with the owners, but even still, if you add all of them up it is about 100-150 potential sources.
The player pool on the other hand is probably close to 2500-3000 once you count players, agents, managers, and hangers-on. If you were going to naturally align with the side that keeps your bread buttered so-to-speak, wouldn’t it make you sympathetic to the players that keep your columns filled?
This isn’t even to mention the fact that former players litter the TV media community and are part of the media fraternity.
It seems so obvious now. All the more reason why I really don’t want to pick a side, and prefer to talk about the issues. The last thing I want to be is the sports equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann.
26 Comments
I generally tend to side with owners in such things. It’s their league, it’s their teams. They’re the ones who pay the salaries and had to put up any money upfront, so they bare the risk and they should receive the rewards. Furthermore, if we leave it up to the players, it would be a true free market system and it would look a lot like baseball. So I just naturally tend to side with the owners in labor disputes.
I am only leaning towards the owners in this situation because I find it absurd that people like Drew Brees expect me to take sides. Really Drew? I don’t care about your problems in any way shape or form.
“This isn’t even to mention the fact that former players litter the TV media community and are part of the media fraternity.”
I think you’re underselling this. Writers grew up watching and respecting these players, not the owners. Now they work and hobnob with the players, not the owners. They are friends with players. This proximity makes the writers, especially the star columnists who never have to deal with a player ignoring them or berating them, much more inclined to side with the players.
I agree with Andrew. That’s how I tend to lean on this.
Good article Craig. I always thought of the former players angle (especially on ESPN), but didn’t factor in the whole player source thing.
I can’t understand why the players think they deserve so much money (besides ego and greed). This is a business and they are employees. The owners can pay them whatever they want and if they don’t want to play then the owners will find people who will.
I may be in the minority on this, but I don’t really care about who is in the uniform; all I care about is the uniform. I support the team and could care less who is in the uniform. If the current NFL players don’t want to play then bring in people who do want to play (I realize there would be legal complications to this). When the current NFL players are sitting on their couch losing money they will come crawling back.
With that being said, I’m sure the level of play would suffer.
I understand that everyone usually takes the, “its the owners money, they are putting up the risk” point of view. But how much risk are they REALLY taking, especially compared to the players. It seems to me, owning an NFL team is as much of a risk free proposition as can be. You are just about assured of making lots of money. And you’ve already made tons just to be able to buy a team. I guess what I’m saying is I’m just not sure how risky owning a NFL team really is.
Players, however, seem to be putting in quite a bit of what I would call REAL risk. As we are learning more and more everyday, the players are in a real dangerous position in regards to lasting health issues. Let’s put it this way, who would you rather be, a player or an owner?
Of course none of this means the players are right and owners wrong in their negotiations. I have my leanings but I don’t really know. I more wanted to comment on this idea of risk.
@Mark, I agree with you that right now there seems to be very little risk in owning an NFL team, but people used to feel the same way about GE stock.
The NFL is that way because they have made a lot of very shrewd deals and found ways to foster the growth of the game so that it overtook baseball and outpaces basketball, hockey, Nascar and pretty much anything not named The Olympics or The World Cup.
The players are a huge part of that, obviously, but don’t think that the Rooney family and others haven’t helped turn the NFL into the juggernaut it is.
Yeah, Craig pretty well articulated the meat of my point. The only thing I would have added is that while I understand the contracts aren’t guaranteed, but the owners are the ones who pay MASSIVE signing bonuses to unproven first round draft picks. There’s risk in that. There’s risk in almost every free agent signing. I just personally feel that it’s the owners’ league, and I tend to agree with their ideas on how it should be run (although I am wholly against the idea of the 18 game schedule).
I think from the health standpoint, the players definitely have ground. They should have the health insurance and benefits through life, say after being a 3-5 year pro (whatever it is deemed right). But I also do not feel pity on these guys because they get millions of dollars and piss it all away. If any of these players are in a bind from not working for 1 year then it serves them right (and there are). From an owners stand point, Im looking like I give this guy x amount of millions he can take care of himself after hes no longer employed.
Craig, If you are a news writer, it makes sense not to pick a side. News writers should just report facts (and point out lies). If you are a columnist, though, the whole point is kind of to have an opinion.
I think you are more of a columnist. So don’t feel bad about having an opinion.
What’s weird is the way you pretend you don’t. Your earlier articles, despite what you say, are clearly pro-owner.
“Don’t pick sides”: You can talk about being neutral when you’ve got a fair fight. But when you’ve got a club of powerful billionaires facing a hapless set of jocks (some millionaires, some thousandaires) who are subjecting their bodies, brains, and families to extraordinary risk for a few years of decent pay… I wouldn’t consider it a fair fight.
To not picks sides is to side with the owners. I think your opinion piece is fine as an opinion piece, as long as it’s retitled, “I’m With the Owners”.
My take on the owners – “We’re losing money but we won’t provide evidence to prove it. We want you to play two more additional games, assuming the additional risk of injury and future health issues, and do it at a discount.”
Don’t get me wrong, I think the players should make concessions (rookie salary cap, for instance)… but to lose a billion worth of revenue sharing off the top combined with additional work/risk seems like something worth raising a fuss about. I know I wouldn’t like taking a pay cut for doing more work.
2 things… and sorry it is long.
I think the major issue of concern as far as health goes is for the guy who is only in the league a couple years and leaves with health issues. I used to work with a guy who had been a long snapper for the Broncos. His career was cut short at the end of his first season when he blew out both of his knees. I am confident that the subsequent surgeries were more expensive than the rookie minimum that he made that year. The guy who makes millions should be able to take care of himself, but the guy who just makes a few hundred thousand and has to deal with the health repercussions may need some help.
I think in all of this it should also be considered that there are plenty of people who have jobs that naturally put them in similar risk as these football players. Truck drivers, fisherman, police, etc. all face ‘risky’ jobs, but the difference is the love for the game. Those other professions don’t give you the opportunity to a) be a star and b) play a freaking game for a living.
All that and when it comes down to it I am against the players. As described by Roger Goodell (who I am sure left out some details) the deal the NFLPA left on the table was, in my estimation, a pretty darn good deal. Due to that I think the players shoulder most of the blame here.
RE risk, sure the owners have some risk, and the players do too. The whole reason we’re at a lockout, though, is that the players can show their risks and negative outcomes – the owners refuse to show anything relating to their risk. Because they won’t show evidence of losing money, I don’t have to believe that they are losing money and have no sympathy for them at all.
All we know is that it sure looks like owners rake in the profits, no matter how incompetent they are or what they do, until they show otherwise. Al Davis and Dan Snyder make idiotic decisions constantly and Davis recently paid a gigantic signing bonus to one of the biggest draft busts in history – so where’s the evidence that they’re suffering for it?
I hear the problem with the deal the players left on the table is the deal was based on projections (got this from PFT so you may want to check it out). Basically, if projections are 4.5 bil then the numbers are broken up and w/e. if it goes over tho all of it would go to the owners. So while they said they split it 50/50, if they continue to go beyond the projections they get paid more then they would on the previous deal.
@11&13 – Complete agreement. I will back the players 100% until the owners open their books and back up some of their claims.
I also hate how the league (Goddell specifically) constantly claims that fans want an 18 game schedule when all the polling and ancedtoal evidence I’ve come across shows that fans widely support the current set up. Just say – we’re greedy.
@ 12
Is fishing really that dangerous of a profession?
@Wally, I didn’t pick a side. I was offering a counter-balance to two other articles.
I think the owners should make more than 50% of the profits, but I think they should increase their willingness to create a system that helps with health care for injured players. Somehow they need to take care of these guys who come in with dreams of being Josh Cribbs and then are crippled.
At the same time, I am tired of people wanting the owners to “prove they are losing money” as if they have to justify making a return on their investment.
So, no, I am not on team owner. I have issues where I support the owners and I have issues where I support the players. That other article will appear to be “pro owner” because it was reacting to two articles that were clearly “pro player.” I didn’t need to support those arguments.
@11 &13
Agree wholeheartedly. Open the books.
I find it hard not to come down as pro-owner on this. The only standing I think players have is on health issues that are directly correlated to the time they were players, and even then, it’s hard to determine where to draw the line and who should pay for that.
I think that the biggest point that people think about or fail to think about is that at the end of the day, it’s a business. When you compare that to your own job, it would be laughable to hear employees demanding for more money, more options, and a “share” of profits, on top of demanding to see the company’s financials. The only realistic concern would be a boss ignoring health concerns… but even then, it’s like the office putting up rules and the staff saying “Come on, that’s so annoying!” as some players did this year. So yeah, sure, get the office to be a safer place, and say it’s not fair to increase your hours. Other than that, though? Hard to sympathize.
Not sure why the “open the books” approach is something we believe makes sense (@11,13 and 18). Why does someone who puts their capital at risk, need to justify their right to earn a return and have others determine what is a fair return? So once they “open the books” who gets decide what is fair for the owners to keep?
Additionally if I were an owner, I would be very concerned about player behavior off the field over the years and would not see them as an equal partner is protecting the long term growth of the NFL brand. Let’s face it if the average career is 2-3yrs, they are not going to have the long term view of someone who owns the franchise and expects to do so for a generation. We all have many examples of what unions do to the long term viability of any business (see GM, US Steel, etc.).
The owners are making a claim, namely that their revenue is declining. The players, in response, are simply asking them to prove it. It’s not to say, “you’re making too much! or decide on what’s a fair amount.
Also (and I hate that this isn’t obvious) – your job, your profession is an apple. The NFL and it’s players are oranges. You complain, you get fired. Why? Because there’s a whole load of schlubs to step in. For pro athletes, this isn’t the case. They can make demands and negotiate a good CBA because of their talents and the fact that they’re the product. People don’t want replacements or scrubs. They want the best of the best.
If another football league opened tomorrow and signed the NFLPA players, 90% of people would watch it in an instant. Why? Because the onfield game IS the product. That’s why I support them getting paid.
Also, more scientific polling shows the players have more support than the owners: “A national poll by Bloomberg conducted March 4-7, found that Americans favored the players side by more than a 2-to-1 margin (43% to 20%)”
I look at it like this,the owners took the first chance possible to opt out of an agreement they didn’t like putting us on this path. The owners also say in addition to 1 billion off the top of revenue they already get towards stadium deals and upkeep they want/need another 1 billion off the top for the same thing. Having no involvement at all in this other than as a fan I would sure as hell want to see the proof that they need this money to stay solvent as a whole,this is not to say some owners are not fools and idiots and will waste their mone a prime example was Modell. I doubt all owners or even most are that poor with thier money,and doesn’t Art still have millions? In every state that has professional football including WI, where I now live, they owners are asked to do little to actually pay for stadiums, they pay little or no taxes on prime real estate, pay little or nothing to build them, and often have deals that make a city or state pay for upkeep….but they get all proceeds from the PSL’s,concessions,and parking at the least yet they also get of course added free security by local law enforcement. So where,and how,and why would they be losing money? They pay nothing in general for the infrastructure that supports their game…yet they need money for that reason specifically in fact they need 1 billion for it in addition to the billion they already get for that very reason. Thus the union has been asking the owners to show them why they need another billion for almost 3 years before splitting the pot of gold,not unreasonable when talking about a billion with a B,nor when talking about a million either. Then there is the fact that the owners made sure the tv money for this season was garunteed even if there was no season…thats 4 billion in that instance. So again explain to me why anyone should back the owners in this dipute?
The writers and players are both in unions. People in unions will back each other no matter the circumstances. That is why its so difficult to find an unbiased article.
@20, see 21. The owners are claiming that they need a larger share of the money because they are losing money. They will not show that they are actually losing money. So why should they get more money? There’s quite a good chance that they’re just lying as a negotiation tactic – they wouldn’t be the first to do so in labor talks and they’ve already shown that not everything will be up-front and honest (see the money they set aside). I don’t believe a thing that virtually anybody says regarding all this nonsense – I know that what I’ve said in this paragraph has been widely reported and never contradicted, so that’s what I think is happening. And in that case I don’t think there’s any reason to give the owners an even larger share of the money.
I’ll happily state that I’m generally pro-union, but that has nothing to do with this case. One side’s case is based largely on a claim that they are completely unwilling to show any evidence for, let alone prove, so I disbelieve what they claim more than the other side.
The owners are being asked to open their books because of the revenue sharing component of the expired contract. The owners should refuse to renew the revenue sharing component and keep their business operations private.
Players making the roster should then all be paid on a pay scale of minimum by position starting at a base of about 300K with standard annual increases of about 10%. There would also be fixed escalator bonuses for performance. There would be lifetime paid health care benefits to and a lifetime income of 30% of the base when the player leaves the game due to injury cut payable until early social security age of 62. Same age as auto workers. If a player is cut he would receive 20% pay at the rate of 2 years for every year he has played, payments ending at age 62. Players hurt not making the roster would also have paid lifetime health care.
League maintains a spending cap with no minimum.