The perfect explination of the NFL owners greedy in this labor dispute...
- Thread starter salsadancer7
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 114
- Views 9K
In a strike, at the base level, it is fair to say "everybody loses".
But really, when you look deeper, in almost any labor issue, it is the workers vs. the customers. In a strike where the players win, everybody else loses.
There really is just nothing to see on the players' side of this, other than abject and open greed and delusion about their role in the world and earning capacity outside their one skill. One only needs look at MLB to see what happens when the owners fail us.
I hope this strike ends just like the 87 strike. A broken union. A better situation for us, the customers.
But really, when you look deeper, in almost any labor issue, it is the workers vs. the customers. In a strike where the players win, everybody else loses.
There really is just nothing to see on the players' side of this, other than abject and open greed and delusion about their role in the world and earning capacity outside their one skill. One only needs look at MLB to see what happens when the owners fail us.
I hope this strike ends just like the 87 strike. A broken union. A better situation for us, the customers.
But what about those that AREN'T millionaires that work for the stadiums, the hotels, the restaurants/bars on those Sunday's when there is a home game...?
Awww f**k them too I guess?
Do you even know what the owners/players are fighting for? Or is it that because they players are millionaires....you just cannot see eye-to-eye... but you can "sympathize" with the billionaire owner? LOL!
Another one. The players are not asking for ANYTHING. The owners don't even want a 50-50 split....
And the players are entited to any type of split exactly because?
Capital is fungible. A particular owner can just as well invest HIS money in a widget factory in Vietnam or in gold coins or whatever gives HIM the highest return on HIS money. The money is transferable.
A player, like any worker, is only as good as his transferable skills say he or she may have. In the case of most football players, his next best option after the NFL is the CFL (maybe C$100K/year), and after that it is probably Burger King. His overall value to the marketplace is really limited.
The players, making in the top 0.1% of all wage earners, are being unrealistic. Their unrealism translates to higher ticket prices, higher cable/DBS bills, and higher sportswear costs. Win this strike, owners.
Capital is fungible. A particular owner can just as well invest HIS money in a widget factory in Vietnam or in gold coins or whatever gives HIM the highest return on HIS money. The money is transferable.
A player, like any worker, is only as good as his transferable skills say he or she may have. In the case of most football players, his next best option after the NFL is the CFL (maybe C$100K/year), and after that it is probably Burger King. His overall value to the marketplace is really limited.
The players, making in the top 0.1% of all wage earners, are being unrealistic. Their unrealism translates to higher ticket prices, higher cable/DBS bills, and higher sportswear costs. Win this strike, owners.
You and most are clueless to what the owners wanna force on the players. Here it is in a nutshell:
The owners are more or less pissed that they agreed to the previous CBA....therefore wanting to kill the deal instead of extending it. It's funny how the owner state they risk all this money to build stadiums when MOST are built on the taxes fans....on basically holding cities and states hostage, then have the balls to yell poverty...then turn around and give a old, over-the-player a contract WAY beyond the teams means.
But, most are looking at it through anti-union venom and not the facts.
Salsa, I would love to discuss this farther with you, but this is a sonic discussion if we want to move from where it is now.
I will say though, that it "seems" as far as you are calling everyone clueless for not seeing the side of the players, you "seem" to be just as clueless to the "plight" of the owners.
There is probably some middle ground that none of your links show, and none of the ones, if any, to dispute it would show either.
Millionaires bitching at billionaires. It is amusing no matter the sport.
I will say though, that it "seems" as far as you are calling everyone clueless for not seeing the side of the players, you "seem" to be just as clueless to the "plight" of the owners.
There is probably some middle ground that none of your links show, and none of the ones, if any, to dispute it would show either.
Millionaires bitching at billionaires. It is amusing no matter the sport.
I agree with your LAST statement about millionaires bitching about billionaires. But I am sorry, I did not side with players when they were asking "how can I feed my family" and I will not side with an owner that cries poverty and then holds cities hostage and then gives a washed up veteran, a contract he SHOULD have earned when he was 5-10 years younger.
sorry...don't see their "plight". The players have like a 55-45 split in profits and they are asking for NOTHING. Hell, the players offered a 50-50 split..LOSING 5% and the owners STILL did not think it's enough. The owners, from what I have read and heard want a 60-40 spit because they are 'losing money' AND for the risky financial business of buidling stadium, among the main points. What risk? You can count with 3 or 4 fingers of how many owners did not use taxpayer money. Yet you have players risking their bodies/health and owners barely risking ANYTHING and you take their side?!
Go read MOST media that cover the NFL, and they all say this one, the owners are so overboard with the greed it's almost laughable.
So yes, I say clueless because I have done my homework. And if you look at most responses, they are knee-jerk reactions to the anti-union hate that seem very popular...and if you add a few millionaires in the mix, jack-up the knee-jerk reaction times 100.
This better (and I think it will WAY before Fall) get resolved, the OWNERS are the BILLIONARES and they want to take money AWAY from the players ?
This is ridiculous, most owners don't reinvest what they have or a small portion of it.
The Top teams probably do, but look at all the lower end clubs that barely spend what they have to, it's no wonder they stay at the bottom of the league.
Owners have money to burn.
This is ridiculous, most owners don't reinvest what they have or a small portion of it.
The Top teams probably do, but look at all the lower end clubs that barely spend what they have to, it's no wonder they stay at the bottom of the league.
Owners have money to burn.
Good one Jimbo. I just don't understand how fans can side with the owners when yeah, they do come to see the TEAM WIN, but they mainly come to see the players perform. NOBODY comes to the stadium to JUST see the stadium and all the wonderful things the owner has done. That is only part of the experience..and a small part at that. IF ALL the owners were paying for these stadiums out of their period, I can see their "plight"...but like I said, there is a small handful of owners that did not use public money.
NOBODY goes to Heinz Field to watch the Rooneys sit in the luxury skybox.
Salsa, are you saying that the owners should split the profits 50/50 with the players?
Last edited:
I am saying the owners should yes. Hell, it was something like a 55-45 split AGAINST the owners and the players were willing to go 50-50. And the greedy bastards wanted MORE. NOBODY comes to see the owners.....no one.
We had this argument in the last two strikes. The players, in their delusion, put together these all-star games. Literally could not give away tickets. Then the next time, the heroic replacement players. Drew, except where criminals inserted themselves in the process such as Philadelphia, about the same.
Exhibition football, where people watch guys that WILL NOT be on the team in September, shows that the NFL, more than any other sport, is team centered.
I love the loaded language that unions use here, as always, "giveback" "concession" and "billionaire".
Who is "giving back" or "concedeing" anything? No one wants to, nor can, take anything these players, or any union members, earned in the past. NOBODY is guarenteed a future. You, or I, or Peyton Manning could be dead by 2 this afternoon. The system has changed. Tommorrow your labor will be worth less. You neither gave back nor conceded anything. The deal you had tommorrow is just going to be different than the one you had yesterday. A normal part of a free Market.
Further, yes, the owners are "billionaires". Don't like that? Move to Cuba. AFAIK, every one came by his money in some legal method in a free society. Not my business. Why is how much your boss is worth have anything to do with how much you make? So should social workers make nothing, because their de-facto employers are persons with a negative economic value? Should the price of a commodity change depending on who is buying it? Should a doctor doing a tonsilectomy on a football player's kid charge him far more than he would charge me? OK, the owners are wealthy. Not my business, and not the players' business.
Exhibition football, where people watch guys that WILL NOT be on the team in September, shows that the NFL, more than any other sport, is team centered.
I love the loaded language that unions use here, as always, "giveback" "concession" and "billionaire".
Who is "giving back" or "concedeing" anything? No one wants to, nor can, take anything these players, or any union members, earned in the past. NOBODY is guarenteed a future. You, or I, or Peyton Manning could be dead by 2 this afternoon. The system has changed. Tommorrow your labor will be worth less. You neither gave back nor conceded anything. The deal you had tommorrow is just going to be different than the one you had yesterday. A normal part of a free Market.
Further, yes, the owners are "billionaires". Don't like that? Move to Cuba. AFAIK, every one came by his money in some legal method in a free society. Not my business. Why is how much your boss is worth have anything to do with how much you make? So should social workers make nothing, because their de-facto employers are persons with a negative economic value? Should the price of a commodity change depending on who is buying it? Should a doctor doing a tonsilectomy on a football player's kid charge him far more than he would charge me? OK, the owners are wealthy. Not my business, and not the players' business.
So, if people "mainly come to see the players perform", why doesn't the player's union decertify and then the players can start their own league?? This way, they can get a taste of the business side of running a pro sports franchise...
LOL that's because nobody would care about a bunch of players playing against a bunch of players, wearing uniforms nobody cares about.
Sandra
If an agreement is not reached by the Friday that is what the player union will do. This is the big club the player union has. If they decerify then the draft becomes illegal. This will allow the top players from the college rates go with the the team that bid the highest for their services.
Also if the union decerify it will allow the UFL an opportunity to grab some current NFL stars. I do believe their will be an agreement in place this friday.the agreement will have 18 regular season game and a rookie salary cap. The players will get better benfits with a lower piece of the pie. The owners on the other hand will have to proof to the players association that the extra revnue they get will go to better stadiums etc.
This is what I believe will happen.
Good points....but just cannot see the owners giving in a showing the players union their books. But who knows...I mean we already know the NFL is the current "national past time"...and I am sure the owners would rather reach an agreement than lose the gravy train.
Actually, that was a "tongue-in-cheek" question because we all know that would never happen. After all, where would they play?? Most of the good stadiums were financed with private monies, right??
