Doug Farrar Absolutely Nails It
Doug Farrar of Yahoo! Sports makes a strong case for the NFLPA in the CBA standoff.
By PackerAaron
This post from Doug Farrar over at Shutdown Corner is a perfect counter to our post on the NFL's take on the proposed 18 game schedule. Farrar makes the points I wanted to make in a follow-up/counterpoint post but have been too lazy busy to write.
Look, I am a fan of the NFL and of football - and visiting NFL headquarters was a dream come true. But that doesn't mean I'm bought and paid for. The players have some valid (and some not-so-valid) arguments to be made in the discussion towards a new Collective Bargaining Agreement and Doug does a perfect job of highlighting the issue that the NFL simply doesn't want to talk about.
Money quote:
If the owners get their way, the league's elite players would, in fact, be playing more games and encountering more injury risks for far less money as their gross revenue gets chopped at the top to compensate owners for outlays like practice facilities and travel costs (The NFLPA has proposed compensation credits for revenue-generating expanses, like stadium construction costs). Problem is, the players aren't shareholders in their teams and in those facilities. In fact, if you combine the increased schedule and devalued revenue stream, the players become much more like very highly-paid sharecroppers.
That last line is especially strong but I don't think it's too far from the mark.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (10)
maxginsberg
June 18, 2010 at 01:46 pm
Farrar's post is good and hopefully sparks more conversation. Where are the NFLPA's public relations people? I keep hearing/reading about the owner's proposals but not the players' ideas.
June 18, 2010 at 02:58 pm
Your right Max. 9 out of 10 average fans will just see the two extra games and want that to happen. The NFLPA has got to start making a case for itself.
Go Pack Go!
June 18, 2010 at 02:59 pm
He makes good points, but that sharecropper reference is so, so dumb.
PackerAaron
June 18, 2010 at 03:09 pm
I agree it's strong, not sure about dumb. His defense of the phrase: How is it different if the players are now required to give back up to 18 percent of their revenue to cover costs, when they will not share in the benefits established by the fruits of those costs? What's next — will the players be forced to pay rent for their lockers? Monthly fees for the gym? And here's the worst part; as Kendall outlined, the owners already have expense deduction built in to the current CBA.
June 18, 2010 at 10:08 pm
It sounds remarkably like being a student.
June 18, 2010 at 03:31 pm
I think the true problem is the way the NFL pays its players. Not much is given to actually performance and availability on the field in real time, but base on past performances or potential (rookies).
Once the contract is signed with guaranteed money, whats to keep the players motivated. The worst abuse of this recently is J. Russel of the Raiders.
I don't have an answer, but a better system needs to be in place before they increase the work load on these players.
June 18, 2010 at 07:15 pm
I couldn't agree with you more about the way players are paid. The whole Jamarcus Russell fiasco underscores the need for a rookie salary cap. I'm a firm believer in an incentive based pay structure. How many times do we see these guys have career years in the final year of their contract, get the big payday and stop performing. Another case would be Haynesworth of the Redskins signing a monster contract and then wants to dictate to the team how they should run things.
The upside of expanding the schedule is that teams that don't fill stadiums in the pre-season will realize more revenue (the league get's more too) with the expanded schedule and trust me, that's what it's all about. I don't see it helping the Packers out because they sell out the pre-season games anyway. You just have to love Packer Fans.
Bottom line is that there will always be a tug of war between the owners and the players. What business isn't like that?
Both sides are making a lot of money. I understand the Revis is about to sign a $100,000,000 contract. That just boggles my mind. It's hard to sympathize with somebody making that kind of money because he has to play two more season games a year. Even if they play for league minimum it's still a decent payday plus whatever endorsements or personal appearances that they pick up.
My sympathies are with the players that were in the league prior to mid 70's who were playing for bus fare by todays standards.
Sure there is an increased risk of injuries. I'm reminded of a line from the movie The Replacements "that's why they don't let girls play the game".
June 18, 2010 at 06:44 pm
Put the Guaranteed Money in the last 2 years of the contract and make the player play while still earning the other monies in the deal of coarse. But if the player gets injured he collects a percentage of the Guaranteed Money based on missed games and nature of injury.This helps protect the player from getting released with nothing but pain.This will eliminate ridiculus Rookie signing and more stupid Haynesworth type fiasco's.Although I think Wash should eat this one for being the front runner in stupidity and Oak a very near 2nd. Nah,it's a tie!!!
June 18, 2010 at 11:41 pm
I side with ownership in large part on the current situation, mainly because of the continued references to this "18% cut." It's factual...I'm not saying that. But even if you cut out 18% of the salary cap, the resulting actual dollar figure is an extreme climb from the actual dollar figures in 1993, 98, 03, 08, etc. Without trying to torque anybody off, I don't think it's a crime to suggest that the players take a cut in pay to cover the massive expenditures of stadia, mainly because construction costs have risen quite sharply during the same time period.
However, the players have one very valid point...and I'm not sure how hard they are "banging this particular drum," as it were. If they take a big ol' cut in pay to fund these stadia, they are, in effect, getting no return on that investment while ownership reaps returns for many years down the road. Frank the player takes the "18% cut" in pay for his very short, 3-year career, while the owners receive increased revenues for the 20- or 30-year life of the facility. That surely does not seem fair.
June 19, 2010 at 03:46 am
About the players geting hurt... if teams 'wanted' they 'could' have their 'star' players play every snap of the preseason. Just give them a cut of the revenue, increase the roster size, do something with IR (allow players to come back)... and boom; Bob's your Uncle.
GBP 4 LIFE