Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: How The Kings Beat The Coyotes: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Who Really Loses in a Lockout?

I think DeMaurice's face pretty much sums it up. (Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Getty Images)

So the NFL Players Association has decertified and its representatives, which includes three of the best QBs in the league, have filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL to try to prevent the owners from giving them the grown up equivalent of a kindergarten "timeout." The owners then turned right around and gave them that timeout. Both sides are saying the other side is being unreasonable. Both sides say they have the fan's best interests at heart.

Really? Let's examine exactly what this argument is about and how invested the fans are in the topics the two sides are willing to delay or cancel the 2011 NFL season for.

Star-divide

I don't have the time or resources to dig down to the nitty gritty legal crap going on. Thankfully, the internet is full of people who get paid to do that very act. That'll make this much easier on you and me.

First off, know that the lockout is official as of midnight this morning. What are the ramifications? Kinda scary, especially for the players.

A lockout is a right management has to shut down a business when a CBA expires. It means there can be no communication between the teams and current NFL players; no players - including those drafted in April - can be signed; teams won't pay health insurance for players; players are not allowed in team facilities.

 

If the lockout lasts long enough, it would lead to the cancellation of games.


SI

Since the NFL is a contract based employer, they have every right to do this. This means that players will not be paid, as they normally would, for any of the normal offseason activities that would be scheduled in the coming months. This also means that every single one of the players "drafted" in about a month won't be able to sign or even practice with the teams that select them, giving them a huge disadvantage when football resumes. 

If you've been living under a rock the past few days (I doubt it. Falcons fans are notoriously clever), here's what the two sides were arguing about:

 

  • Money. Essentially, the players wanted a larger share of the $9,000,000,000 dollars in revenue the NFL annually sees.
  • Rookie Wage Scale. Let's say some young, hotshot college graduate is hired into your department at work and you've been there say...five years. You find out later that young hotshot, who hasn't even proved himself, is making ten times what you make and he just started. Would you be mad? Of course you would.
  • Better Health Benefits. It's a dangerous game, for sure.
  • Retired player fund. I've seen far too many specials on former footballers that are now almost vegtables because of their involvement in a violent sport.
  • 18 Game Season. More football is always a good thing, but for players, that'd mean high chance of injury. For owners? Two more NFL games to squeeze money out of.

 

So for almost the past two years, that's been the crux of it all. The two sides got very close to resolving all of this until one crucial point came up: financial ledger transparency. I'll let Peter King sum it up for you.

... [T]he players' union never felt a need to come off its core negotiating tenet for the past two years: full and unfettered access to the league's audited financial statements.

... [T]he NFL offered the players to have an independent auditor -- to be determined by both sides -- study the audited financial statements. The independent auditor would have ... reported to the union the year-by-year profit-and-loss statements for each team. ...[T]hat would have shown whether teams were becoming less profitable in the past two or three years, a core argument of the ownership. ... But that wasn't good enough for the players. 

SI

It all boils down to money. The players, who make between $320,000 and "A small country's GDP" per year each, want more of the pie. The owners don't want to give up any more of that pie. The owners are arguing that they're losing more money every year (even when the NFL ratings are the highest they've ever been, meaning that the $4,000,000,000 the NFL earns from TV networks per year is going to inevitably increase). The players don't believe them.

My dad would call this whole thing "one big hissy." He's right. This is a rich man's battle over rich man money. The players think they have leverage. The owners know they have the leverage; and the owners are right. Look at it this way: the players are rich because of the NFL. The owners were rich before the NFL. The Falcons' owner is a co-founder of Home Depot, a store that's in just about every medium to large size town in the country. Do you really think Arthur Blank goes to bed at night fretting over the fact that there's no football? Sure, we know he loves the team, the fans, etc, but this man is a multi-billionaire. He will not sweat over a lost season.

The players, if they've managed their money well, won't hurt too much either, especially if any endorsements continue despite the lockout.

So yeah, they're keeping the dissapointment of the fans in mind, right? Wrong. Had either side truly took one minute to really consider the fans' place in all of this (ie, we, the "poor" ones, are a large percentage of that $9 billion in revenue), they would have realized that this is the worst thing they can do.

We, the fans, are what gave them the best ratings this past year. We made the Super Bowl the most watched thing in the entire world and the money generated from ads, tickets, merch, and every other peice of material relating to that game could probably have taken paid off every one of this article's readers' debts combined. We, the FANS, are what made the NFL what it is today.

What do we get for it? Rich men bickering with filthy rich men over a $9 billion dollar money pile. The chance for little to no football in 2011. We, the fans, the ones who made the NFL the most popular sport in this country, the ones that pour our hard earned dollars into a silly game so that rich men may become richer and filthy rich mens' wallets can grow fatter, were completely ignored.

The NFL and its players have done more to harm the game than help it with this labor hissy. When football resumes, will it still be popular? Of course. Will it still have the gargantuan momentum it had going into the offseason? If this lasts long enough, I sincerely doubt it.

Comment 17 comments  |  5 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

If I could write THIS is what I would say.

Exactly how I feel. It’s not them against them it’s us against them. Don’t be fooled by Drew Brees an his plees for support and don’t listen to the owners and their “great respect” for fans. It’s all bull shit. The longer this lingers the deeper the wound. The game itself will lose value in the hearts of fans.

Rule #1: Double tap.

by Ball Hawk on Mar 12, 2011 10:04 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

Great read, Adam

Rec’d.

Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!

by Dave Choate on Mar 12, 2011 10:50 PM EST reply actions  

I disagree...

… on one of your points. As I understand it the players have not asked for more money, just for the money to say the same; they were very happy with the status quo. The owners have asked for a huge roll back in the amount allotted to the players as well wanting to change what constituted the pool of money they contractually had to split with the players. Thus the players wanting to see the books as they don’t believe the owners when some say they are losing money. Also the owners are still bickering over exactly what revenue to share as teams that are cash cows like the Cowboys feel they are writing to blank checks to teams like the Bengals who don’t make as much effort in marketing, naming rights, etc.

by bobulated on Mar 13, 2011 3:32 AM EST reply actions  

yeah

It was the players getting 60% of the revenue pie in the former CBA. It’s the owners wanting more of the pie plus a billion off the top. Wanting to know why the owners want more is more of the players trying to not get railroaded in CBA talks. A lot of prideful people are making this harder than it should be.

Atlanta will win a championship....someday

by maxxj3 on Mar 13, 2011 7:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

From what I understand the actual split under the old CBA was 50-50 of total revenue

The Owners got to keep the 1st billion for themselves and the players got about 60% of what was left resulting in a fairly even split.

Which explains why the Players Union’s first offer in these negotiations was a total 50-50 split of all revenue with the Owners (essentially keeping the status quo). While the Owners want 2 billion off the top and for the players to take an even smaller percentage (around 40 to 49%) of what’s left.

So the Owners have been the driving force in changing the revenue split. Whether this is because they are facing less profitability (as they claim) or if they are simply taking money away from the players to settle their internal differences in team revenue sharing (as the players claim), who knows?

by Leon07 on Mar 13, 2011 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

This is the essential point

And I’m disappointed Dave misrepresented it. It was the OWNERS who initiated this by backing out of the CBA early and locking out the players. This is about players wanting to KEEP what they HAVE versus owners who want MORE than they currently get.

by Hawes on Mar 13, 2011 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Didn't write this article...

Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!

by Dave Choate on Mar 14, 2011 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

Keeping it even is my understanding as well

Leon07, I believe you’re correct. The players want their portion to stay the same. They believe revenue has increased; the owners refuse to show the books – which could lead someone to believe the players may well be right.

by Reid Adair on Mar 14, 2011 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Owners will NEVER open their books. It would be too embarrassing.

Nepotism is a deeply honored tradition in the NFL. From coaches to owners jobs for family members are often part of the deal.

The Owners claim that the profits for each team are declining that that “may” be true, but proving that point once and for all isn’t worth the embarrassment of having their culture of nepotism exposed. Too many family members are making 6 figure salaries (or more) and never make more than a cameo appearances at the team’s facilities. And too many Owners are paying themselves millions with made-up job titles. Its a damn good way to hide money as an “expense” rather than a “profit”.

Honestly, I don’t think this is about any one issue. I think a lot of the Owners (led by Jerry Richardson) want to break the Union once and for all. And if that costs them a year of football revenue, they can live with it. Our only real hope now is that the players score a few early victories in the courts and the Owners are force to come back to the negotiating table.

by Leon07 on Mar 13, 2011 3:33 AM EST reply actions  

Nepotism...

Now there’s a word I haven’t heard since my high school history class.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that were true. In fact, in some ways I know it’s true.
But couldn’t the NFLPA just agree to not publicize the information in that books if the owners actually DID show it to them?

I think greed got the better of both sides. Both sides want too much money. I like the old days when professional athletes made as much as everyone else, when guys like Joe DiMaggio and Johnny Unitas were being paid $100K instead of $30MM.

"My parents do a lot of things behind the scenes that go unnoticed"- Cam Newton, Heisman acceptance speech.

by TurnerTheBurner on Mar 13, 2011 4:46 AM EST up reply actions  

The lock out to me is pretty much a toothless one. The only thing put on hold right now is FA, and as long there is FA period before the season starts I don’t see the problem. They promised us the draft won’t be affected.

Which leaves us about 6 months for them to get this mess straightened out. Maybe it’s a good thing that it’s going to the courts. Maybe the lawyers can succeed where two sets of childish idiots could not.

by Horner's Homer on Mar 13, 2011 8:52 AM EDT reply actions  

Adam

Beautiful write up! Rec’d

Dont cloud the issue with facts!

by muuzilla on Mar 14, 2011 4:19 AM EDT reply actions  

I respectfully disagree, Adam

I don’t see this as the players wanting more money at all; I simply think they want to see just where things are. Their salaries under the previous collective-bargaining agreement were based on revenues. That being said, there’s nothing wrong with determining that their share of the revenues is consistent.

Let’s not forget the owners wanted to keep $4 billion tucked away for themselves; it took a judge to tell them they couldn’t do that.

There’s a reason that the minimum for qualifying for NFL pension is just longer than the average career; the players are attempting to look out for themselves. I respect that.

I also understand that the owners want to make their money as any business owner would do. However, they need the players, and if owners’ profits are increasing (as I suspect they are), no reason the players shouldn’t see a portion of that money. If the owners are losing money, as they claim, they should open the books and prove it to the players. Whether that isn’t true or they simply don’t want to admit their “businesses” are struggling, they refuse to do it. Their refusal to provide full access to the records is what got things where they are right now.

I’ve grown quite weary of the rhetoric from the owners, particularly the e-mails from Roger Goodell and team owners. They want fans to believe they did everything they could do, and negotiations breaking off was all the players’ fault. I disagree. The key is the financial records. If the owners have nothing to hide, what’s the problem?

by Reid Adair on Mar 14, 2011 8:14 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A Falcoholic Primer

Where Falcons fans come to roost.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Ryan vs Brees/Manning/Brady: Why Ryan Can be an Elite QB
Small
Third Down Sacks: Mike Nolan Edition

Recent FanPosts

Falcoholic_icon_small
Never too early to........
Small
Third Down Pass Defense: Mike Nolan Edition
Small
The Pro Bowl Changes
Small
The Screen Pass and Matt Ryan
Barnabas_collins_250x250_small
Should the Falcons pursue Kellen Winslow?
Small
Facons Pass rush
Jonathan-babineaux1_small
Does Cam Newton really deserve the hype
Th_punisher_small
Falcons Trade for MJD from Jacksonville

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Baron Of All He Blogs

Thefalcoholic_small Dave Choate

Marquises Of Musings

Newprofile_small Adam Schultz

Bear-woodsjpg-ee4252752e478b73_large_small James Rael

205892_10150259660296336_683626335_7946790_3837839_n_small Caleb Rutherford

Earls of Typing

181614_735189801813_23210129_40578364_6784501_n_small Jason Kirk

Img_0301_small Jeanna Thomas

40564a_small Alex Welch