NFL CBA Discussion

[Caveat Emperor]

The only thing special about the NFL is the product on the field. It's an industry where 100% of the value is brought by labor. 100%. People pay the sky high prices because they are seeing the best in the world.

That's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 0 value without the ownership:

1. Providing a venue for him to play.
2. Providing a conduit (via media contracts) for people to see him play.
3. Providing a governing body to ensure orderly competition
4. Providing a stream of opposition for him

[WVRed]

That's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 0 value without the ownership:

1. Providing a venue for him to play.
2. Providing a conduit (via media contracts) for people to see him play.
3. Providing a governing body to ensure orderly competition
4. Providing a stream of opposition for him

Obviously, but even then, point being that Peyton Manning could have went the direction of Ryan Leaf and the Colts would still be turning a profit. There is zero risk involved in owning a NFL franchise.

[reds1869]

Obviously, but even then, point being that Peyton Manning could have went the direction of Ryan Leaf and the Colts would still be turning a profit. There is zero risk involved in owning a NFL franchise.

See: Brown, Mike.

[Sea Ray]

George Will, one of the most famous conservative columnists in the country, once wrote that when it came to sports he's a Marxist. I simply can't understand how anyone ever sides with ownership in these cases.

If that's the case then he ought to support the MLB owners. They wanted socialism whereas the players wanted a free market system

[Sea Ray]

Obviously, but even then, point being that Peyton Manning could have went the direction of Ryan Leaf and the Colts would still be turning a profit. There is zero risk involved in owning a NFL franchise.

Easy to say that at this point. This is after the product that NFL owners have created. They've had to fight off challenges from other leagues such as the USFL, they merged the AFL and NFL, they set up a wonderful system where markets like Pittsburgh and Green Bay have as good a chance as NY and Chicago and finally it's the owners who have negotiated these lucrative contracts with the networks.

Sure, the owners have little risk at this point but it's not because of the players; it's because of the system they set up. The USFL had star players like Steve Young and Herschel Walker but they failed. The owners deserve to benefit from the system they've worked hard to put in place

[Redsfaithful]

That's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 0 value without the ownership:

1. Providing a venue for him to play.
2. Providing a conduit (via media contracts) for people to see him play.
3. Providing a governing body to ensure orderly competition
4. Providing a stream of opposition for him

Even ignoring number one which is pretty debatable, literally anyone could own the Colts and Peyton would still be provided all of these things.

Let's replace all the NFL owners with different rich guys and see what changes. You think attendance or audience would go down?

Now let's replace all the NFL players with UFL caliber guys. I think that might hurt revenue just a tad.

[Redsfaithful]

Sea Ray, that's actually a fair point about the USFL. They failed because of dumb ownership, so I guess there's a bare minimum intelligence level to owning a team that some people might not be able to meet (Donald Trump).

[kaldaniels]

The only thing special about the NFL is the product on the field. It's an industry where 100% of the value is brought by labor. 100%. People pay the sky high prices because they are seeing the best in the world.

There is zero risk in being an NFL owner. Anyone arguing differently is either lying or insane. If there was risk I'm sure these guys could put their money in something else; there's no shortage of fat, rich white dudes who want to own an NFL team.

Meanwhile you have players being called greedy, despite the fact the average career is five years, and they are literally putting their health on the line. Most all of these guys have lifelong health problems, including head injuries, meanwhile they are done earning, on average, by the age of 27. And the NFL only pays out health benefits for five years after you're out of the league. One of the points of contention here is players wanting that bumped to ten years.

George Will, one of the most famous conservative columnists in the country, once wrote that when it came to sports he's a Marxist. I simply can't understand how anyone ever sides with ownership in these cases.

If I saw correctly last week, Jon Bon Jovi is trying to put up 150 Million to buy 10 percent of the Falcons. Call me old-fashioned, but I gotta think there is some risk to that.

[Sea Ray]

Sea Ray, that's actually a fair point about the USFL. They failed because of dumb ownership, so I guess there's a bare minimum intelligence level to owning a team that some people might not be able to meet (Donald Trump).

The USFL is just one of many failed attempts to compete with the NFL. There are others:

1) AAFC
2) WFL
3) XFL
4) UFL-present

The issue isn't who has the most risk, Peyton Manning or Mike Brown...It's where else can Peyton Manning make $30mill a year? If football leagues are such a sure thing, why hasn't another league taken off?

The answer is: to do what the NFL has done is not easy. It takes a lot of years and a lot of good decisions need to be made

[Yachtzee]

There's plenty of risk in being an NFL owner, or owner of any professional sports franchise. History is filled with failed professional sports teams and leagues. Just because the current structure of the NFL allows owners to make money doesn't mean it will always be that way. I'm sure if the Jerry Jones and Dan Snyders had their way, we'd probably see some teams like Jacksonville, Tennessee, Buffalo and the Bengals fold. In fact, with simple change in how revenue is divided, we could see a team like the Colts have a couple bad seasons and end up in danger.

I'm all for players receiving fair payment for their contribution to the success of the league. The problem, as I see it, is that much of the money flows to high-risk "glory boys" at so-called skill positions (QB, WR, RB, Defensive pass rushers) in the draft, whereas many talented players who play less high-profile positions make closer to the league minimum, and those are the guys more likely to lose their career on a single play. The salary cap helps with that somewhat by keeping a lid on the salaries of the top guys. Without the salary cap and a slotting system in the draft, I would expect more money would flow to the big-name players, more teams operating at the edge of their margins, and not a lot of improvement for the grunts who are often just as important to the success of a team as the stars.

Instead of trotting out the old labor mantra of "let the bosses take the losses," the players and owners should be working out a way to ensure owners can make money for their investment and compensate the players in a way that ensures that everyone benefits, a win-win situation. They also need to work harder to educate players on how to save that money they're making now so that they'll have something left when they retire. Seriously, give me a three year contract making the league minimum and I could take care of my family for quite some time.

[Redsfaithful]

Really? You could take care of your family for a long, long time on $900k?

Except it's not $900k of course, it's more like $450k-$500k after taxes. And it's not really $450k-$500k, because you owe your agent $90k. And you have a lawyer who probably gets 5%. And you're 22 years old and probably dumb and think you're going to play 15 years so it's not like you're living in a one bedroom apartment and eating ramen.

So now you have like $300k to last you the rest of your life, you probably have friends and family hounding you for money because they think you're rich. And there's a good chance you have head injuries that will plague you for the rest of your life. What a deal.

Meanwhile an NFL owner's risk is ... people might stop watching football as much and the tv money might lessen? Who think's that's going to happen?

[Redsfaithful]

The USFL is just one of many failed attempts to compete with the NFL. There are others:

1) AAFC
2) WFL
3) XFL
4) UFL-present

None of those four were anything like the USFL, because none of them went after NFL level talent, which is what a serious attempt at competing with the NFL would entail. Because the talent is what matters.

[Redsfaithful]

I'm sure if the Jerry Jones and Dan Snyders had their way, we'd probably see some teams like Jacksonville, Tennessee, Buffalo and the Bengals fold.

To illustrate how much risk there is to owning an NFL team, the Jacksonville franchise could be considered a failure, and the price of failing there might be having to move the team to LA. How tragic for Wayne Weaver.

[Chip R]

There were 2 problems that led to the downfall of the USFL. One was their decision to play in the fall rather than the spring and then the decision to pay huge salaries they couldn't afford to talent. If they had decided to continue to play in the spring and had more financial common sense, they still may be playing today.

[Revering4Blue]

There were 2 problems that led to the downfall of the USFL. One was their decision to play in the fall rather than the spring and then the decision to pay huge salaries they couldn't afford to talent. If they had decided to continue to play in the spring and had more financial common sense, they still may be playing today.

You beat me to it, Chip.


While the USFL, if it hadn't folded, most likely would be unable to poach star players away form NFL franchises, the USL teams would easily be able to accumulate decent talent for one reason:

The NFL salary cap creates the ability for a USFL franchise to sign at least mid-round draft picks.

I'm a much, much bigger College Football fan than NFL fan, so maybe this clouds my judgement.