Ongoing CBA discussions

The players and owners negotiate a percentage of the revenue. So your concern for the owners in the bad economy is already taken into account, because as the revenue goes up or down, the players take adjusts accordingly.
One thing do I know is the owners did not always share in the merchandise money until the 80's or 90's CBA agreement. The owners until then took it all. The owners at the time also did not want to open the books on the merchandise revenue numbers either and they finally did.
Your claim of the players taking 60% does not ring true if the owners are not completely opening the books. As you well know, the players take 60% of what the owners are willing to reveal and share. Not the entire nut.

Another thing some people do not take into account is the value of the franchises and stadiums continue to going up and up. I am not saying the players should have any of it, they should NOT!
But don't cry poor for the owners when they are cash poor and hurting financially day to day. They can sell the team make a bundle and there will be a line of wealthy owners to buy.
Leonard Tose former owner of the Eagle bought them for $16m, paid himself a $6M a year salary off the team revenues, and then sold them for $65M.
Jack Kent Cooke bought Redskins in the 60's for a few Million, then sold them in the 90's for $800M.
The players have short careers, take all the risks to health and life, and their star power is what draws the crowds and sells the merchandise. Don't compare them to an everyday working folks. As you well know in the Sports and Entertainment business it is the stars that generate the revenue, not the owners.

In order to keep it short, I somewhat agree with you.
#1- your right the owners did keep everything prior to the 90's. But then the CBA came along and 60% was given to the players. But a lot of players made their extra money in advertizing.
“The CBA defines what ‘total revenue’ is in detail and gives the Union roughly 60 percent of that amount. The Union has created a new measure of revenue, which it calls ‘All Revenue,’ and says that the players get 50 percent of that,” Aiello said. “Saying they want 50 percent of this new revenue base, is the same as saying they want 60 percent of the existing revenue base.

#2- Your right again in saying if the revenue goes down so does the players cut, but the players still get 60% of what was taken in.

#3- Lets see you go out and tell your perspective employers that you want a % of their income and you want to see their books to make sure their on the up and up. What if the mods here said in order to remain a member you had to show your bank account statements. I think there would be quite a few upset people.

#4- Who knows why some owners do better then others, other then to say some are better managers. Snyder is an awesome manager... he just needs to keep his hand out of the kitchen. Your right when you say the teams sell for a decent amount and it will always go up, but if most of the money is tied up in the property then the owner really doesn't have much on hand of his own. I mean he might have an expensive team but if all he's pocketing is $1 mill a yr and he has players making 10 mill I'd be upset as an owner.

In order to keep it short, I somewhat agree with you.
#1- your right the owners did keep everything prior to the 90's. But then the CBA came along and 60% was given to the players. But a lot of players made their extra money in advertizing.


#2- Your right again in saying if the revenue goes down so does the players cut, but the players still get 60% of what was taken in.

#3- Lets see you go out and tell your perspective employers that you want a % of their income and you want to see their books to make sure their on the up and up. What if the mods here said in order to remain a member you had to show your bank account statements. I think there would be quite a few upset people.

#4- Who knows why some owners do better then others, other then to say some are better managers. Snyder is an awesome manager... he just needs to keep his hand out of the kitchen. Your right when you say the teams sell for a decent amount and it will always go up, but if most of the money is tied up in the property then the owner really doesn't have much on hand of his own. I mean he might have an expensive team but if all he's pocketing is $1 mill a yr and he has players making 10 mill I'd be upset as an owner.

1) Not correct because it is not 60% of all that is taken in. Just what the owenrs are willing to reveal.

3) This is the Sports & Entertainment business. Not your everyday job type situation. The comparison does not apply.
Look what happened to the Miami Heat after they acquired LeBron James and Chris Bosh. With in a week they went from being a team struggling to fill their seats, to selling out 100% of their entire arena for every game this season. All 44 games. They were able to lay off their entire tickets sales department. They do not need to sell tickets anymore. The revenue influx was massive. Star Power.
All of their road away games are also all sold out.
A steel worker or a welder is not going to have that kind of effect on the bottom line. Get it?
The same is true when we negotiate a concert deal with a high powered entertainer like U2 or Rolling Stones. They take a % of the entire revenue that night. It is not uncommon in the Sports & Entertainment business because the revenue gained by a Peyton Manning is so diffrent than that gained by a Rex Grossman. LOL!
If Peyton Manning is traded tomorrow to a team that is struggling to fill their seats like a Tampa Bay, Oakland or St Loius that only sells about 75% of their seats, the result is instant and powefull$$$. Not to mention the effects of Revenue on sales of Merch, Parking and Concessions.

#4) If the owner does not have enough money to be an NFL owner. Easy, sell the team to someone that does.

Do steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.

Finally someone who understands me. lol. Even in the old days players had choices. Go out test the market and take the highest bid or don't and go work for the team they like best. I look at whats happening now and think (as I did back in the 90's) if you don't like what your getting paid go get a real job and use your degree. The problem is they won't get as much money.

I also think the players are making enough money that they should be able to afford their own health insurance and retirement. Unless the NFLPA chooses to bring all the players under one health insurance company to save money. I think every player has a pretty good idea that they will only last about 10 yrs tops in the NFL and possibly less. So they go out and lobby for a huge salary. They should be putting money away for their retirement instead of buying 5 million dollar houses, or $100,000 dollar cars, or $50,000 dollar Rolex watches. It's not the owners fault the players don't know how to spend wisely or invest.

So for those of you who keep saying "this is not an everyday business" and that "this is show business" your saying then Actors and Actresses should be able to know the companies books and have their health insurance paid for?

I think you guys are wrong. It's a job. They are getting paid to do a job. The players can't have it two ways... they can't say hey this is my "job" and I should get paid for it, then turn around and say "oh I'm in show business so I want to see your books."

We're talking about collective bargaining, something that doesn't typically happen in every day life. Both sides involved should definitely be ready to prove and show their numbers. Otherwise how can the negotiations be fair and accurate?

I tend to believe that the show your books argument is a huge strawman put out their by the NFLPA. The NFL does give total revenue information, GB's books are open and seem to lend some credence to the owners arguments, and if that was a huge problem, I think Cohen would come out at whenever the end of the mediation comes and say, the owners refusal to cooperate led to mediation breaking down. I don't think that will happen though.

Having said that. One Sirius announcer (maybe it was Andrew Brandt in an interview with Tucker) said if that is the big issue, have an independent auditor come in, make "blind" copies of the books and give 3 sample sets (ie low -, mid -, and hi-revenue teams) for both sides to use in negotiations.

We're talking about collective bargaining, something that doesn't typically happen in every day life. Both sides involved should definitely be ready to prove and show their numbers. Otherwise how can the negotiations be fair and accurate?

I totally agree with you about the fairness. I'm not argueing that. My issue is the owner's shouldn't have to show it.

Is there not some public record they or anyone can pull this info from? I thought big companies assets were of public record and their taxable income?

On another note I understand the whole getting paid like a rock star, especially rock stars who are getting paid by several different organizations through their agent, and on top of that the band not knowing exactly how many people will show up so they get paid per a % of the take for the evening.

Football is different. Each players agent lobbies for a set amount for their client to be paid yearly and in some cases a bonus. Whether the player makes $10 mill a year or $400,000 thousand a year their income does not change according to their contract. The whole 60% was the NFLPA simply wanting to make sure the players were getting the majority of the cut which honestly is not fair. What would happen if the owner went out and hired players who accepted $400,000 dollar contracts? I mean after paying everyone I doubt it would be 60% of the teams income so what happens to the owner?

NFL teams (other than the Packers) are not public companies and don't have to release financial info. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.

I tend to believe that the show your books argument is a huge strawman put out their by the NFLPA. The NFL does give total revenue information, GB's books are open and seem to lend some credence to the owners arguments, and if that was a huge problem, I think Cohen would come out at whenever the end of the mediation comes and say, the owners refusal to cooperate led to mediation breaking down. I don't think that will happen though.

Having said that. One Sirius announcer (maybe it was Andrew Brandt in an interview with Tucker) said if that is the big issue, have an independent auditor come in, make "blind" copies of the books and give 3 sample sets (ie low -, mid -, and hi-revenue teams) for both sides to use in negotiations.

This is not a bad idea. It might be interesting to know which teams are considered to be low, mid, and hi revenue teams, or who the owners figure to be low, med, and high.

NFL teams (other than the Packers) are not public companies and don't have to release financial info. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.

Thanks. Well personally, I feel if the players feel they are getting cheated.... go play in the CFL, or UFL. Maybe they can make their money there, get all the concessions they want, and the fan base who follows players will follow them.

My problem is when the 90's hit I was sorta on the players side. In the aspect that the owners were making all this money and the players hardly getting any. This go around I sorta side with the owners. Part of my issue's have to do with the fact that prior to the CBA players could stay with a specific team their whole career, show loyalty, and have a fan base. When the CBA was put in place players started jumping ship like rats. Going to different teams, going where the money was, and smiling all the way to the bank. There is no team loyalty. There is money loyalty, and honestly I don't see the arguement if players are getting paid what they are asking for? Manning getting $50 mill? Haynesworth getting his big payday? I could see if players were asking 2-4 mill a year and the owners saying no I'll pay you 400,000 thousand. But even then the player can say no thank you and either look to another team or not play if they think they are worth more.