2011 NFL Lockout Thread

[southsider2k5]

Lost may have phrased it wrong, but the point stands: NFL teams wouldn't generate any revenue without the players. Why shouldn't they be entitled to a large share of the profits since they're the ones putting their bodies and health on the line and actually bringing the fans in?

 

The players were happy to play under the old agreement, but the owners wanted to end that agreement and hold on to an extra couple billion dollars. Anything offered by the owners that was short of the previous agreement meant that the players would be getting less of a share than they did before. Demanding an extra 2 billion and then coming back and saying "oh, ok, we'll only take an extra billion off the top!" isn't a good deal for the players. The owners refuse to justify crying poor, so the players rightfully resisted giving up a share of the profits.

 

The other side of that is true as well. The players wouldn't have a damned thing unless the owners put up the capital to fund the NFL, and its teams, in the first place. And IIRC they are already getting a much larger share of the revenues than pretty much any other business model on the planet, versus any other "employee" group.

[RockRaines]

Not with something like the NFL there isn't. The quality would suffer drastically.

For a few years, buut then it would be fine. Fans would still watch.

[StrangeSox]

I'm as pro-player as you are here (is that a brand?) but let's also remember one other detail. After Upshaw and Tagliabue, both sides made decisions to ready themselves for a confrontation, and set themselves up in a way that guaranteed one.

 

The Owners negotiated an agreement in 2006 that allowed them a chance to prepare to break the union, a-la what happened in the NHL and NBA. They brought in the guy who ran the owners side in the NHL lost season. They negotiated (illegal) TV contracts to try to cover their own tails while they strove to break the Union.

 

The Players responded by bringing in DeMaurice Smith, a labor dispute litigator.

 

Both sides set themselves up for a lockout. As I said I side with the players more than the owners, but let's not pretend that the players didn't take steps in that direction too.

 

Oh no doubt, I just bristle at the idea that the owners are entitled to all of the revenue and the players should be happy with whatever the owners decide to charitably pay them out of the good of their hearts.

[StrangeSox]

The other side of that is true as well. The players wouldn't have a damned thing unless the owners put up the capital to fund the NFL, and its teams, in the first place. And IIRC they are already getting a much larger share of the revenues than pretty much any other business model on the planet, versus any other "employee" group.

 

They're a unique employee group.

 

edit: employee-owned syndicates and co-ops might have higher profit-sharing models, not sure.

Edited April 27, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

For a few years, buut then it would be fine. Fans would still watch.

 

I really, really doubt they'd have anywhere near the revenue levels.

[RockRaines]

I really, really doubt they'd have anywhere near the revenue levels.

And the costs of fielding a team would fall as well if not more drastically.

[southsider2k5]

They're a unique employee group.

 

edit: employee-owned syndicates and co-ops might have higher profit-sharing models, not sure.

 

That is also a completely different ownership structure. I was operating under the assumption of an ownership being separate from employee situation.

[StrangeSox]

And the costs of fielding a team would fall as well if not more drastically.

 

Then why not call the players' bluffs if they'd be just fine without them?

[StrangeSox]

That is also a completely different ownership structure. I was operating under the assumption of an ownership being separate from employee situation.

 

That was an afterthought.

 

When I buy a car from GM, I'm not buying it because Engineer Smith works at GM and is a bad-ass engineer. When I go to a Bulls game, I am going to see Derrick Rose. Professional athletes and entertainers cannot be compared to typical employees because equivalent replacements are essentially non-existent.

[southsider2k5]

That was an afterthought.

 

When I buy a car from GM, I'm not buying it because Engineer Smith works at GM and is a bad-ass engineer. When I go to a Bulls game, I am going to see Derrick Rose. Professional athletes and entertainers cannot be compared to typical employees because equivalent replacements are essentially non-existent.

 

And you wouldn't be buying a GM at all if the ownership group didn't exist.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

My point was to differentiate between replaceable Engineer Smith at GM and non-replaceable Peyton Manning, Derrick Rose, Jonathan Toews, etc.

[southsider2k5]

My point was to differentiate between replaceable Engineer Smith at GM and non-replaceable Peyton Manning, Derrick Rose, Jonathan Toews, etc.

 

So you'd still buy a GM if you knew that some random strikebreaker came in and built your car?

[StrangeSox]

So you'd still buy a GM if you knew that some random strikebreaker came in and built your car?

 

GM could likely find equally capable non-union labor to perform the same job. The NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL can't.

 

Asking if I'd support union-busting efforts or regarding humans as another commodity or raw resource input, equivalent to tons of steel, brings personal politics into it too much. But working in that system, a millwright is a relatively common commodity who helps generate a small portion of GM's overall revenues while an all-star QB is extremely rare commodity that generates a significant portion of an NFL team's revenues. The only way for the NFL owners to fight giving players a significant share of profits is to behave in a monopolistic fashion and collude to keep players' salaries low.

[southsider2k5]

GM could likely find equally capable non-union labor to perform the same job. The NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL can't.

 

Asking if I'd support union-busting efforts or regarding humans as another commodity or raw resource input, equivalent to tons of steel, brings personal politics into it too much. But working in that system, a millwright is a relatively common commodity who helps generate a small portion of GM's overall revenues while an all-star QB is extremely rare commodity that generates a significant portion of an NFL team's revenues. The only way for the NFL owners to fight giving players a significant share of profits is to behave in a monopolistic fashion and collude to keep players' salaries low.

 

They already have a significant share of the profits, in fact a majority of the profits. Players salaries are also at record highs. To frame this in the "poor players" light is not accurate at all.

 

But to the example, there are pools of atheletes who can perform the same job in the same respect that car makers can be replaced. No they aren't going to be as good, and probably will require training to do the job adequately. Even then they probably won't be able to do the job as well as the person that they replaced. But if you were to ID GMs "star" employees and try to replace them would have a disasterous effect on quality, just like it would in the NFL. If the general public knew that GM's top employees were all gone and replaced with "7th round picks" they would stop buying GMs just like if the NFL brought in all new players to replace the striking ones, a large chunk of NFL fans would quit going to games.

 

The top 1% of anyone's employees are impossible to replace. The bottom 50% are easy. Why do you think the NFL has a 7 round draft every year? Because they replace a ton of players every single year, already.

 

To pretend the NFL is different than anywhere else is disingenuous.

[StrangeSox]

I would not disagree with employees (stakeholders) everywhere getting a larger share of profits, so I guess I win either way?

[southsider2k5]

They already have a significant share of the profits, in fact a majority of the profits. Players salaries are also at record highs. To frame this in the "poor players" light is not accurate at all.

 

But to the example, there are pools of atheletes who can perform the same job in the same respect that car makers can be replaced. No they aren't going to be as good, and probably will require training to do the job adequately. Even then they probably won't be able to do the job as well as the person that they replaced. But if you were to ID GMs "star" employees and try to replace them would have a disasterous effect on quality, just like it would in the NFL. If the general public knew that GM's top employees were all gone and replaced with "7th round picks" they would stop buying GMs just like if the NFL brought in all new players to replace the striking ones, a large chunk of NFL fans would quit going to games.

 

The top 1% of anyone's employees are impossible to replace. The bottom 50% are easy. Why do you think the NFL has a 7 round draft every year? Because they replace a ton of players every single year, already.

 

To pretend the NFL is different than anywhere else is disingenuous.

 

And replace profits with total revenues.

[southsider2k5]

I would not disagree with employees (stakeholders) everywhere getting a larger share of profits, so I guess I win either way?

 

Here's the rub. If there is no profit incentive, there is no innovation, there is no creation, and there are no jobs. The more profit incentive you take away, the less reason there is to build a better product to compete, the less reason there is for expansion and hiring of more employees. There is also less reason for companies to go into businesses to lower prices in a marketplace. Everyone supposedly hates monopolies, but taking profit away from industries ensures they will be there because no one goes into those industries.

[Balta1701]

And you wouldn't be buying a GM at all if the ownership group didn't exist.

I haven't bought a GM car because of their ownership group for the last 20 years, does that count?

[southsider2k5]

I haven't bought a GM car because of their ownership group for the last 20 years, does that count?

 

The government owns it now, you should be rushing out to buy one!

[Balta1701]

The government owns it now, you should be rushing out to buy one!

You know quite well that if they had produced enough of the Volts to satisfy the pre-orders, I'd be in line.

[southsider2k5]

You know quite well that if they had produced enough of the Volts to satisfy the pre-orders, I'd be in line.

 

This vaguely seems like the talk about voting for a bad Democrat being better than voting for anyone else yesterday...

[Balta1701]

This vaguely seems like the talk about voting for a bad Democrat being better than voting for anyone else yesterday...

Wait, so, the fact that I bought a civic when I needed a car instead of waiting the 5 years before buying a true gas/electric car is similar to me voting for a non-perfect Democrat?

 

I guess I can see that.

[southsider2k5]

Wait, so, the fact that I bought a civic when I needed a car instead of waiting the 5 years before buying a true gas/electric car is similar to me voting for a non-perfect Democrat?

 

I guess I can see that.

 

I was going more towards not buying the inferior American car even though it represents everything you hold dear (employees making lots of money, huge benefits and pensions, cheap and full health insurance) and instead supporting the opposite of that (including trade deficits).

 

You pretty much voted "Republician" because the "Democrat" wasn't good enough.

[Balta1701]

I was going more towards not buying the inferior American car even though it represents everything you hold dear (employees making lots of money, huge benefits and pensions, cheap and full health insurance) and instead supporting the opposite of that (including trade deficits).

 

You pretty much voted "Republician" because the "Democrat" wasn't good enough.

I'd add in "quality gas mileage" as the detail you missed. GM didn't care about that for decades.

[StrangeSox]

Here's the rub. If there is no profit incentive, there is no innovation, there is no creation, and there are no jobs. The more profit incentive you take away, the less reason there is to build a better product to compete, the less reason there is for expansion and hiring of more employees. There is also less reason for companies to go into businesses to lower prices in a marketplace. Everyone supposedly hates monopolies, but taking profit away from industries ensures they will be there because no one goes into those industries.

 

 

Who builds, produces, designs or provides a better product/service, the people who own something or the people who actually do the work?