First of all, it's a lockout, not a strike. The NFL Players Association has said repeatedly that they will play under the existing contract until a new agreement is reached. Amazingly, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says that this proves there needs to be a lockout. Goodell wrote, "The union has repeatedly said that it hasn't asked for anything more and literally wants to continue playing under the existing agreement. That clearly indicates the deal has moved too far in favor of one side." Keep in mind, this is a league coming off its most successful season in history. But for the owners it's not enough. They want massive wage cuts and an extension of the season to eighteen games. If they don't get it and if there is no extension, they will be locking the doors by midnight.A March lockout might mean little to fans, but for players it constitutes a threat to their very health. An off-season lockout means that they will have no access to team trainers, doctors, or physical therapists. Remember, this is a league with a 100 percent injury rate. A March lockout also means that healthcare for players and their families is officially cut off. One player's wife had her pregnancy induced last week so it would be covered by the NFL's health plan....
Lastly, calling this "billionaires vs. millionaires" is a ridiculous act of moral equivalency where none exists. Here's the reality. You have thirty-one of the richest people in the United States — people with generational wealth, people whose children's children will make Tucker Carlson look like Big Bill Haywood — going against a workforce with careers that last just 3.4 years. It's a workforce that draws almost exclusively from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. It's a workforce that will die more than twenty years earlier than the typical American male.
NFL Lockout
One of the NFL teams is actually publicly owned (GB Packers I think) which makes it the only pro sports franchise like it in NA.
[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons%2F110304]Greed is good in NFL labor talks[/url]
Both sides are making far too much money. The question so far is who deserves it more the players or the owners.
Back it up a step and talk about how this money should be distributed.
- First they should take care of their own. They need to have a generous pension and medical plan that covers all former players regardless of when they played.
- Income support for players who suffered injuries that shortened their career and income earning potential.
- Youth athletics. Football of course, but also supporting facilities in needy communities.
- Community outreach.
Fans should no longer sit on the sidelines. We should demand a seat at the table and a piece of he pie. Heck we are the ones made the pie.
Both sides are making far too much money. The question so far is who deserves it more the players or the owners.
Back it up a step and talk about how this money should be distributed.
- First they should take care of their own. They need to have a generous pension and medical plan that covers all former players regardless of when they played.
- Income support for players who suffered injuries that shortened their career and income earning potential.
- Youth athletics. Football of course, but also supporting facilities in needy communities.
- Community outreach.
Fans should no longer sit on the sidelines. We should demand a seat at the table and a piece of he pie. Heck we are the ones made the pie.
1) I agree except for the 'generous' part, adequate is enough.
2) Sorry, the main reason these guys get the money they do is because the chance of injury is high and a short carreer is almost a guarantee. We hear it every time they negotiate a deal. They all have income insurance plans that cover them until they are released or retire and a lot have guarantees from the team. What kind of support do you really need when you made 12 million in your short 3 year career.
3 & 4) Whilst it would be very nice to 'force' these billionaires to be as generous as Bill Gates or Ted Turner to charitable causes I wouldn't want someone telling me to give a truckload of cash away if I did not want to.
Fans - Hell yea!!! $500 or more for a family of 4 to get half-assed seats and some food and drinks. Complete lunacy!
Lastly, calling this "billionaires vs. millionaires" is a ridiculous act of moral equivalency where none exists. Here's the reality. You have thirty-one of the richest people in the United States - people with generational wealth, people whose children's children will make Tucker Carlson look like Big Bill Haywood - going against a workforce with careers that last just 3.4 years.
That's right. After 3.4 years they can effectively RETIRE ON THEIR MILLIONS.
Shall we start our hunger strike now?
That's right. After 3.4 years they can effectively RETIRE ON THEIR MILLIONS.
They COULD, yes. But, in fact, a pretty high percentage of pro athletes end up bankrupt within ten years of their career ending. They make huge amounts of money for a very short time and spend money as if they're going to have that income forever.
Aside from the superstars who have long careers, make giant salaries and are recognizable enough to have a careeer in broadcasting or still be able to do endorsements, most athletes play a very short time and fade into obscurity. And because so much of their early life was dedicated to sports, they often have little in terms of marketable skills to fall back on.
They COULD, yes. But, in fact, a pretty high percentage of pro athletes end up bankrupt within ten years of their career ending. They make huge amounts of money for a very short time and spend money as if they're going to have that income forever.
Then I guess they need to spend their first ten dollars on a copy of The Wealthy Barber.
I guess I'm just thinking that these players are going to, for the most part, earn as much in their 3.4 years as I will over my entire life. I'm not siding with the owners on this, but it strikes me as similar to a feud between the VP of Monsanto and the CEO of Monsanto. One of them may be more "in the right" than the other, but deep down, who gives a fuck?
How is it that the only people who, evidently, legitimately deserve millions of dollars are the frat boys who toss a ball around for it? How do sports millionaires get a free pass on obscene wealth? Shouldn't the real progressive argument be "get rid of 'professional' sports and their obscene salaries altogether"?
I don't see what would be "progressive" about abolishing pro sports.
I suppose they "deserve" their salaries because people are willing to pay them. Football, basketball and hockey salaries are actually kept artificially lower than they otherwise would be because there are salary caps on the teams. Bill Maher actually did a good rant before the Super Bowl about how what makes football great is "socialism", in that it allows a team from Green Bay Wisconsin to be incredibly profitable because of revenue sharing and incredibly successful because of salary caps. In baseball, there are major disparities where the Yankees pay their top two players more than some teams entire budgets and most small market teams can't really compete.
All this said, I don't begrudge these players their massive salaries anymore than I begrudge Yo Yo Ma the fortune he makes as a cellist or Jasper Johns the fortune he makes as a painter. Each of them is obviously insanely talented and worked very hard to be great at what they do.
I don't see what would be "progressive" about abolishing pro sports.
I'm not sure what would be progressive about keeping them. Let's see: passive entertainment for millions, hyper-rich players (did you notice they're almost all men?), dodgy stadium subsidies, etc., etc.
What's the good part? Just curious.
I suppose they "deserve" their salaries because people are willing to pay them.
Wouldn't that apply to most CEOs? What's really the big difference? Lots of jobs are physical and don't pay millions. Lots of jobs carry a risk of injury and don't pay millions. Lots of people only keep a particular job for 3.4 years before moving on, and they don't pay millions.
I'm not sure what would be progressive about keeping them. Let's see: passive entertainment for millions, hyper-rich players (did you notice they're almost all men?), dodgy stadium subsidies, etc., etc.
What's the good part? Just curious.
I'm with you on the stadium subsidies but not the rest.
That most rich athletes are men is a bit of a non sequitar. Men and women have different physiologies. That the players are "hyper rich" seems meaningless. So are plenty of artists, musicians, actors, etc.
If it's "passive entertainment", then so is watching everything else on TV, going to a movie, listening to music, etc. Personally, I think we could all use some entertainment in our lives. For some it may be going to a concert, for others, to a movie and for others a ball game.
I also rather appreciate that sports might at least inspire people to play themselves and go and and be active outside, rather than sitting on the couch playing video games all day, etc. I know that during the World Cup this past summer, my daughter became interested in soccer and will be joining a league this summer, which is nice to see.
Wouldn't that apply to most CEOs? What's really the big difference? Lots of jobs are physical and don't pay millions. Lots of jobs carry a risk of injury and don't pay millions. Lots of people only keep a particular job for 3.4 years before moving on, and they don't pay millions.
Yes, there are lots of physical, risky jobs out there that pay poorly compared to being a pro athlete. But that's because there are many people who can do them, which is not the case in sports. I'm in pretty good shape and could handle some physical labour. I cannot, however, play basketball like Lebron James or hockey like Sidney Crosby. Or the cello like Yo Yo Ma, for that matter. The number of people who reach the level of being truly great at something is incredibly small
I mostly agree with Snert here--any fan of sports shouldn't be happy about the price of tickets, or the utter lack of respect pro athletes generally show their fans, their team, etc. But I don't think abolishing sport is the answer. When examining the money in pro sports, it's important to look at the people at the bottom rung of sport--and I don't mean the athletes who get one or two seasons, or even one or two games (who are definitely not millionaires--I think the minimum salary is around $300 000, obviously a lot of money for one year, but these aren't Wall Street financiers), but rather fringe players who don't make pro after making the same sacrifices their whole life. What does the NFL offer them? They're as much a part of the talent structure, as are the high school kids who don't make college, freshmen who don't make senior, etc. If we're going to pay 60$ a game and up, why aren't these kids getting some money? There should be massive investment in amateur football, especially since, as the OP article mentions, most of the talent comes from poor neighbourhoods. I'm inclined to believe that in order to move in that direction, we need to support the players.
There's also the valid question that Snert raises about women--why doesn't the NBA or the NHL send some of their money towards women's sport. Perhaps they do already, but if so, it must be a pittance.
Most of the players whose careers are over that early are marginal players whose salaries would be closer to the league minimum salary, rather than the league average. Last year the base rookie salary was $325,000, and the league minimum increases incrementally each year. So in fact, many players do not earn millions during their short careers, much less retire with millions in the bank.
Catchfire, there's a great essay by the late David Foster Wallace about an obscure pro tennis player named Michael Joyce who never quite made it. It was very interesting in that it talks about how he struggled and worked just as hard as the guys winning Wimbledon and making millions in Nike endorsements but just didn't quite get to the same level. I mean, if you look at the 100 metre sprint, the difference between first place and last place is measured in fractions of a second. And someone like Usain Bolt who wins the gold medal becomes incredibly famous and wealthy while the guy who finishes literally fractions of a second behind (after training just as hard for just as long) fades into obscurity.
Ticket prices depend. I mean, the Leafs tickets are very tough to get and ridiculously expensive. But I can spend 20 bucks and get good seats to a jays game at the last minute (though the beer prices are truly insane).
Yes, Dodger, I've read that essay. It's great. I actually have a bit of an obsession with sports mentality and marginal players. I read another article about the skip of the American women's curling team and she said that it costs around $250 000 USD a year to compete on the world stage in women's curling--and she is nowhere near a medal contender.
the utter lack of respect pro athletes generally show their fans, their team
Really? Pro athletes generally show a lack of respect for their fans and team? I think most of us could think of a few athletes who fit this description, but I'd say they are very much the exception - not most athletes in general.
Yeah--I'm not talking the extroverted displays of lack of respect. I'm talking about treating the team like it's their job, and seeking out money over team loyalty. I'm not blaming the players necessarily, but you have to admit that when it comes to loyalty between players and fans, the dynamic is more or less one way.
Primarily, it is a job.
Well, exactly. Which kind of makes it difficult to cheer for your team, doesn't it?
they 'make' it through college, apparently, so should be smart enough to figure out some combo of a) they will never play pro ball so need to think like a real person about work after school b) they won't be superstars so need to think about saving some money c) they won't play forever so need to think about a career after AND saving some of their money and just plain old c) must save some money!
if the average player only makes the minimum and plays for the average 3.4 years, that's still $1.1 million. hey, if i could make that in that amount of time, and invest what wasn't needed for my living expenses, i could live quite comfortably on the growth of the investment for the rest of my life.
i have little sympathy for the players. they are not special. they just do something for a job that some people like to watch. i have no sympathy for the owners. and public subsidies for private stadiums makes me want to hurl.
Not at all. In many ways one is cheering for a Brand. Reading about the early days of the NHL and the almost indentured servitude of the reserve clause is frightening for any supporter of labour rights. Despite not knowing who will play on a team from year to year, my support of some teams stretches back 40 years.
First of all, it's a lockout, not a strike. The NFL Players Association has said repeatedly that they will play under the existing contract until a new agreement is reached. Amazingly, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says that this proves there needs to be a lockout. Goodell wrote, "The union has repeatedly said that it hasn't asked for anything more and literally wants to continue playing under the existing agreement. That clearly indicates the deal has moved too far in favor of one side." Keep in mind, this is a league coming off its most successful season in history. But for the owners it's not enough. They want massive wage cuts and an extension of the season to eighteen games. If they don't get it and if there is no extension, they will be locking the doors by midnight.A March lockout might mean little to fans, but for players it constitutes a threat to their very health. An off-season lockout means that they will have no access to team trainers, doctors, or physical therapists. Remember, this is a league with a 100 percent injury rate. A March lockout also means that healthcare for players and their families is officially cut off. One player's wife had her pregnancy induced last week so it would be covered by the NFL's health plan....
Lastly, calling this "billionaires vs. millionaires" is a ridiculous act of moral equivalency where none exists. Here's the reality. You have thirty-one of the richest people in the United States — people with generational wealth, people whose children's children will make Tucker Carlson look like Big Bill Haywood — going against a workforce with careers that last just 3.4 years. It's a workforce that draws almost exclusively from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. It's a workforce that will die more than twenty years earlier than the typical American male.
The players!!!!
Since the late '50's,the NFL (under Pete Rozelle at the behest of George Halas) sought to level the economic playing field by sharing revenues from TV,radio,and,merchandising.This has allowed teams in Green Bay to compete with teams in New York,Chicago,Dallas etc.
It was quite a visionary idea for its time.It is essentially the bedrock plan that has made the NFL so successful.If I miss my guess,almost every team in the NFL has turned a profit before they've sold a ticket because of it.
Essentially,the new breed of owners (Jerry Jones,Daniel Snyder) have decide they want to keep their revenues to themselves.Mr.Goodell,being the owners man,is going along with this.To get this desired result,the owners have threatened to lock the players out.
I'm also a fan od baseball,however,the revenue situation in MLB is so out of whack that I can't imagine why (other than pure greed) why the NFL would embrace the MLB type of "revenue sharing"..
The doomsday scenario for the NFL,if this actually came to fruition,would be what we see in MLB..
Take a look at the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Kansas City Royals,and ask the fans of those teams what they think of that situation???Those teams are finished on Opening Day before the first pitch has been thrown.
As this relates to the NFL,take a look at teams like :Green Bay,Jacksonville,Buffalo,Cincinatti,Pittsburgh..
And ask yourself how those team will be able to compete in the future with the Dallas',New York's,Chicago's etc...????
It's not a pretty picture...
I'm on the side of the fan.
With the TV deals and merchandise licensing revenues they could go to $10 tickets instead of $10 hot dogs and still turn a profit.
They're doing it. The NFLPA has decertified, and the NFL has locked out the players.
The dercertification is so the NFLPA can go after the owners in open court over anit-trust issues...
They decertified in '87 and gianed free agency for it's membership..It has a been a hugebenefit to the individual players...
It's highly debateable if it's good for the average fan..Of course,the average fan is'nt taking shots from Ray Lewis!!!
So they have a union when they want it, and when its not advantageous to them, they get rid of it to force the other side to lsoe, then start up the union again? Sounds like a employer action, not an emplyee type one.
It is an employer action...They were intending to lock the players out anyway...
And the emplyers claim the players were planning to decertify and use the courts anyway. I actually dont really trust either side, its all greed
I suppose,but if you take the money out of it,it's a simple managment/labour issue,or issues....
It's not that big of a deal for me because I'm a fottball fan first,not an NFL fan only...
CFL,NCAA,CIS...Kiddo's JV team...
I can get my football fix in many places!!!
I really don't care who is wrong or right, lagally or morally.
We as fans will still pay $60+ for a ticket, $10 for a beer and $6 for a bad hotdog. Fans will lose in all outcomes.
I really don't care who is wrong or right, lagally or morally.
We as fans will still pay $60+ for a ticket, $10 for a beer and $6 for a bad hotdog. Fans will lose in all outcomes.
Fans might win if there's a permanent lockout.
The NFL is a TV sport. I've never attended a game, yet it's provided me with countless hours of entertainment - all within the comfort of my home.
[url=http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke-20110313,0,5359904.column]O... are villains in NFL labor fight[/url] by Bill Plaschke
In entertaining more people in this country than any other sporting league, the NFL robs its players of their bodies and sometimes even their minds, and now its owners want to rob them of some of their money?By essentially shutting down their $9.3-billion game this week, the NFL owners are suffering from severe brain cramps requiring an intravenous drip of common sense.
If you're like me, you don't have the patience to wade through all minutia of a sports labor mess, but in this case, the NFL owners' foolishness is as tangible as the "Dumb and Dumber" moment involving frozen snot.
Gross Fact 1: Even though their players endure the worst working conditions of any major pro athlete — shortest career spans and non-guaranteed contracts — the owners are asking them for a reported extra $325 million cut of the revenue. The players are wondering, why change anything?
Gross Fact 2: Even though their players' bodies are decimated by a 16-game schedule, the owners are asking them to increase to an 18-game schedule in three years. The players are wondering, are they really trying to kill us?
Gross Fact 3: Even though a study showed that 78% of NFL players are either bankrupt, divorced or unemployed within two years after the end of their career, the owners are still woefully inadequate in their contributions to the health of former players. The broken-down players are forced to shuffle and stagger into Super Bowl news conferences to plead for the owners to fulfill their moral obligation.
But the NFLPA is not a typical players' union. It is not fighting to get rich, it is fighting to break even. The players aren't fighting for their ego, they're fighting for their health.
Portraying the current players as greedy and entitled? Not when Super Bowl most valuable player Aaron Rodgers played the game within five months of suffering two concussions, literally risking his life for a Green Bay Packers team that made the league feel warm and fuzzy.The owners can't win here. We don't understand their wealth. We don't accept their extravagance. We simply cannot abide their greed.
We may boo and scream and deride the players, but, more than with any other athlete, we also understand that their risks are our risks.
Few of us have guaranteed contracts. All of us desire safety and security. Everyone seemingly fears an aging process that will leave us broken and confused.
In understanding the players, the NFL owners would be understanding their fans. In bullying them, it feels as if they are bullying the rest of us too.
Then the owners released a statement that took the chutzpah scale to new, unimagined heights. They wrote, "At a time when thousands of employees are fighting for their collective bargaining rights, this union has chosen to abandon collective bargaining in favor of a sham 'decertification' and antitrust litigation."Gobsmacked does not begin to describe my reaction. NFL owners are people who in their personal politics, respect unions about as much as Peter King respects Ramadan (that's congressional Islamaphobic goon Peter King, not Starbucks-swilling NFL writer, Peter King.)
It would be nice to think their press release is simply a respectful tribute to the heroic struggles of the public sector unions. It would be nice to think that even NFL owners have been moved by the plight of Wisconsin's teachers, nurses, and ambulance drivers, but let's be real. The owners are trying to drive a wedge between working class fans and players by portraying the members of the union as greedy, entitled and out-of-touch.
Professional football players average three and a half years in the league. They severely injure their bodies, and die 22 years before the typical American male. Yet the owners woul like us to see them as ungrateful, cloistered, creatures of privilege. If the owners really want to see people who match that description, they'd be better off investing in a mirror.
[url=http://www.thenation.com/blog/159211/nfl-labor-pains-and-press-release-r... Labor and the Press Release that Redefined Chutzpah[/url] by Dave Zirin
What. Ever.
I'd like to see the NFL fold. Over the last couple of years that league has stolen Stevie Baggs, John Chick and Andy Fantuz from my team.
Sorry but even the minimum wage players will make over $1million in 3 years and the average player would make about $6million in that time. That is far more than most of us make in a carreer so yes they are priviliged. I might be with them if they just went to negotiation or mediation but their legal tactics put them in the same class as the owners for ethics. I'm not being anti-union or pro-owner here but these guys are not your average blue collar union member.
these guys are not your average blue collar union member.
Perhaps not, but if there's no season, this lockout will affect thousands of blue-collar workers whose jobs depend on the league. And that's on the owners. They're the ones who are threatening to kill the upcoming season.
Perhaps not, but if there's no season, this lockout will affect thousands of blue-collar workers whose jobs depend on the league.
Agreed
[url=http://plixi.com/p/84960022]Vikings punter, Chris Kluwe's stick figures[/url]
Sorry but even the minimum wage players will make over $1million in 3 years and the average player would make about $6million in that time. That is far more than most of us make in a carreer so yes they are priviliged. I might be with them if they just went to negotiation or mediation but their legal tactics put them in the same class as the owners for ethics. I'm not being anti-union or pro-owner here but these guys are not your average blue collar union member.
The minimum wage is 100k per year
Perhaps not, but if there's no season, this lockout will affect thousands of blue-collar workers whose jobs depend on the league. And that's on the owners. They're the ones who are threatening to kill the upcoming season.
Quoted for truth and also altered to underline the main point which most people don't get on this post.
Sorry but even the minimum wage players will make over $1million in 3 years and the average player would make about $6million in that time. That is far more than most of us make in a carreer so yes they are priviliged. I might be with them if they just went to negotiation or mediation but their legal tactics put them in the same class as the owners for ethics. I'm not being anti-union or pro-owner here but these guys are not your average blue collar union member.
The minimum wage is 100k per year
The minimum wage for a person on the playing roster is $325k and under the current contract would have been $350k this season...poor babies, only 6 or 7 times the average household income as a minimum. The average in the league last year was $2.3 million...sucks to be average.
Hmm its been raised since I last saw it then, which was a few years ago. According to the wife aka she who knows all things NFL
[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/288qkk3.jpg[/IMG]
![http://i53.tinypic.com/288qkk3.jpg[/IMG]](http://i53.tinypic.com/288qkk3.jpg[/IMG]){kind=link}
Let's mobilize to help these fellows! God damnit, it could be any of us forced to live on only $325,000 a year!!
We shouldn't be pushed into an us or them decision. Fans should be taking this rare opportunity to make demands. There is an overflowing pot of money and a country that is falling apart. Clearly there should be a responsibility from the sport to give back to the community. Now is when this should be raised.
I understand that a number of poorer states have taxes on visiting teams. I believe Vancouver pays a tax when it plays Nashville in the NHL. I think this should be expanded and cities should band together and demand a seat at the table.
The pro-labour position is clear. Support the workers.
Let's mobilize to help these fellows! God damnit, it could be any of us forced to live on only $325,000 a year!!
Oh, hooray for sarcasm.
I'll respond with some of my own: I think what working people need more than anything right now is to see a workforce get crushed by their billionaire employers, and forced to make massive concessions on salaries and health and safety issues in a high-profile labour struggle. That should set the tone nicely for the years ahead.
Perhaps not, but if there's no season, this lockout will affect thousands of blue-collar workers whose jobs depend on the league. And that's on the owners. They're the ones who are threatening to kill the upcoming season.
Quoted for truth and also altered to underline the main point which most people don't get on this post.
[url=http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/21/what-happens-in-the-owners-lockout/... Happens in the Owners' Lockout?[/url]
For NFL city communities
- Team cities stand to lose $160 million and 150,000 jobs
- Stadium workers (concessions, parking, security, etc.) lose 10 or more paychecks a year
- Media who cover games (reporters, television, photographers) lose work opportunities
- Restaurants/bars lose revenue on game day
For NFL team personnel
- Coaching staffs face pay cuts
- NFL office staff face furloughs or pay cuts
- NFL Network/Films and online staff face pay cuts
I'll respond with some of my own: I think what working people need more than anything right now is to see a workforce get crushed by their billionaire employers, and forced to make massive concessions on salaries and health and safety issues in a high-profile labour struggle. That should set the tone nicely for the years ahead.
I wish it would. I'd love to be locked out of my workplace right now and have to subsist on my millions.
Curious question: are professional athletes really "workers"? What does their "work" produce? Distraction for the masses? Anything else?
It's the entertainment industry, Snert.