Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Vilma a scapegoat?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaybadger82" data-source="post: 446446" data-attributes="member: 6211"><p>Your response doesn't really address why the NFLPA is "frivolous" or "too powerful."</p><p> </p><p>Instead it glorifies owners, exaggerating their sacrifice and risk. NFL ownership is an extremely lucrative venture. Forbes reported that in 2009 the average profit for NFL owners was $33 million annually. That's after all the ownership expenses you list above (front office staff, stadium staff, facilities, etc.). Last year, when Wayne Weaver sold his Jaguars- perhaps the feeblest franchise in the league- he had no problem finding a ready buyer. In LA, there is not one, but two investment groups looking to establish franchises. There are plenty of people lining up to become owners, yet you somehow manage to make it sound like the league's owners are doing us a favor. Please. These are wealthy, sophisticated businessmen that obtain great profit and personal enjoyment from their investment. Let's stop painting them as benefactors that are solely responsible for the current popularity of the league.</p><p> </p><p>Of course owners are entitled to profit from their investment, but fans aren't buying Jerry Jones jerseys and they aren't cheering on Robert Kraft at Gillette Stadium. If players decide to leverage fan support by organizing to bargain for their interests, they're well within their rights. Simple fact is that your NFL largely operates in violation of this country's antitrust laws (see <em>Radovich v. National Football League</em> and subsequent rulings). So the league is subject to suit and players are going to leverage that in order to obtain better working conditions (Reggie White filed such a class action in the early nineties). Since the 1950s, the NFLPA was instrumental in establishing league-wide minimum salaries, continued pay for players that are injured (including medical treatment), the modern free agency system, and pension programs to help former players. None of these items strike me as "frivolous." Is the union "too powerful?" I don't think so, if the owners' willingness to dissolve the 1993 CBA after the 2009 season is any indication. This obviously reflects owners' confidence about negotiating a new agreement more favorable for the league. Amongst other things, they sought an 18 percent reduction in the players' share of revenues- that's an aggressive starting position.</p><p> </p><p>It's difficult to discuss the salary hypothetical you've outlined above. Let's keep in mind that your player making the league minimum over three years (approximately $1.4 million) will lose about half of that in taxes because he suddenly joins one of this country's highest tax brackets. Regardless, it's difficult to criticize the fairness of player salaries when that's what the market system has given us. Perhaps your construction worker above deserves a better salary and a safer work environment: He's free to seek better compensation with other companies, he might go to night school to enter a different profession, or he might try to organize with his fellow workers to demand better compensation and protections. Whatever the case, it's going to be difficult for this construction worker to demand improvements when his labor can be easily replaced. That's the nature of free markets.</p><p> </p><p>You attitudes seem shaped by the notion of all NFL players as irresponsible, unable to manage their money properly (as though a player earning the league minimum for just three years is supposed to have saved enough to cover future medical expenses and retirement). A million dollars doesn't go as far as you seem to think it does and if you're frustrated that the market has produced such relatively high salaries for professional athletes, I recommend you find another outlet for your consumer dollar. But if you're going to watch games on Sunday afternoons, purchase merchandise, and follow your team on ESPN.com, you're contributing to an entertainment industry that has produced generous salaries for players <em>and</em> enormous profits for owners.</p><p> </p><p>The bounty scandal is a black eye for the NFLPA as well as the NFL and neither organization wants to be associated with this kind of thuggish behavior. But these groups are still kicking the tires on the new CBA and there are legitimate questions about how the discipline process should have been handled. For example, salary cap circumvention issues (as you've characterized this bounty program repeatedly) are supposed to be resolved by an independent third party arbiter under the current agreement (this is probably why you never hear the NFL refer to this as a salary cap circumvention issue in the media).</p><p> </p><p>No, the NFL is not a court of law, but it is held together by contractual agreements. When the terms of these contracts are disputed, the parties go to court. This will play out. Deal with it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaybadger82, post: 446446, member: 6211"] Your response doesn't really address why the NFLPA is "frivolous" or "too powerful." Instead it glorifies owners, exaggerating their sacrifice and risk. NFL ownership is an extremely lucrative venture. Forbes reported that in 2009 the average profit for NFL owners was $33 million annually. That's after all the ownership expenses you list above (front office staff, stadium staff, facilities, etc.). Last year, when Wayne Weaver sold his Jaguars- perhaps the feeblest franchise in the league- he had no problem finding a ready buyer. In LA, there is not one, but two investment groups looking to establish franchises. There are plenty of people lining up to become owners, yet you somehow manage to make it sound like the league's owners are doing us a favor. Please. These are wealthy, sophisticated businessmen that obtain great profit and personal enjoyment from their investment. Let's stop painting them as benefactors that are solely responsible for the current popularity of the league. Of course owners are entitled to profit from their investment, but fans aren't buying Jerry Jones jerseys and they aren't cheering on Robert Kraft at Gillette Stadium. If players decide to leverage fan support by organizing to bargain for their interests, they're well within their rights. Simple fact is that your NFL largely operates in violation of this country's antitrust laws (see [I]Radovich v. National Football League[/I] and subsequent rulings). So the league is subject to suit and players are going to leverage that in order to obtain better working conditions (Reggie White filed such a class action in the early nineties). Since the 1950s, the NFLPA was instrumental in establishing league-wide minimum salaries, continued pay for players that are injured (including medical treatment), the modern free agency system, and pension programs to help former players. None of these items strike me as "frivolous." Is the union "too powerful?" I don't think so, if the owners' willingness to dissolve the 1993 CBA after the 2009 season is any indication. This obviously reflects owners' confidence about negotiating a new agreement more favorable for the league. Amongst other things, they sought an 18 percent reduction in the players' share of revenues- that's an aggressive starting position. It's difficult to discuss the salary hypothetical you've outlined above. Let's keep in mind that your player making the league minimum over three years (approximately $1.4 million) will lose about half of that in taxes because he suddenly joins one of this country's highest tax brackets. Regardless, it's difficult to criticize the fairness of player salaries when that's what the market system has given us. Perhaps your construction worker above deserves a better salary and a safer work environment: He's free to seek better compensation with other companies, he might go to night school to enter a different profession, or he might try to organize with his fellow workers to demand better compensation and protections. Whatever the case, it's going to be difficult for this construction worker to demand improvements when his labor can be easily replaced. That's the nature of free markets. You attitudes seem shaped by the notion of all NFL players as irresponsible, unable to manage their money properly (as though a player earning the league minimum for just three years is supposed to have saved enough to cover future medical expenses and retirement). A million dollars doesn't go as far as you seem to think it does and if you're frustrated that the market has produced such relatively high salaries for professional athletes, I recommend you find another outlet for your consumer dollar. But if you're going to watch games on Sunday afternoons, purchase merchandise, and follow your team on ESPN.com, you're contributing to an entertainment industry that has produced generous salaries for players [I]and[/I] enormous profits for owners. The bounty scandal is a black eye for the NFLPA as well as the NFL and neither organization wants to be associated with this kind of thuggish behavior. But these groups are still kicking the tires on the new CBA and there are legitimate questions about how the discipline process should have been handled. For example, salary cap circumvention issues (as you've characterized this bounty program repeatedly) are supposed to be resolved by an independent third party arbiter under the current agreement (this is probably why you never hear the NFL refer to this as a salary cap circumvention issue in the media). No, the NFL is not a court of law, but it is held together by contractual agreements. When the terms of these contracts are disputed, the parties go to court. This will play out. Deal with it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Half Empty
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
26 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 3:42 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 2:53 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Wisky newbie
Latest: milani
Today at 2:09 PM
Introduce Yourself
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
Today at 1:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Vilma a scapegoat?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
