Blog Entry

It's called negotiating

Posted on: February 10, 2011 5:53 pm
Edited on: February 10, 2011 5:55 pm


So the NFL owners walked away from the bargaining table after a short session Wednesday because the NFLPA asked for a 50-50 split of all revenues.

That's alarming.

It's also called negotiating.

One team  general manager told me this week that these negotiations would be like buying a car.

"The salesman says it's a certain price, and you want to pay something else,," the general manager said. "What happens? You walk. that's what will happen with these talks. They will negotiate. And it won't always be friendly."

But  I still think it will get done.

When/if NFL players start losing checks -- which happens when bonuses won't get paid out in early March -- then you will see negotiations heating up. I think the players will start pushing union chief DeMaurice Smith on to get a deal done.

For now, the negotiations look ugly. The NFLPA asked for a 50-50 split on all revenues. They got 59.6 percent of that in the last deal, but that's after the owners held back $1billion. This time, according to a team player rep, the league is asking to hold back $2 billion, before dividing up the pie by 50-percent. That's a big chunk to take off the table.

So when the union asked for the 50-50 split with just $1 billion off the top, the owners walked. They also canceled a session scheduled for Thursday and the owners canceled a meeting among themselves scheduled for next Tuesday.

It's ugly. And expect it to get worse before it gets better. But don't get worked into a tizzy over it. It's called negotiating.

Category: NFL
Tags: CBA

Since: Aug 23, 2007
Posted on: February 13, 2011 6:19 pm

It's called negotiating

@Bopspops:  "I favor the IWW" ...

So nice to come to Sportsline and get lectured by a goofy Marxist.

Since: Dec 1, 2008
Posted on: February 13, 2011 12:36 pm

It's called negotiating

Wait!! Let me get this straight. The owners want to skim two billion dollars off the top (instead of one), split the remainder of the money 50-50 (instead of 60-40 for the players) AND extend the regular season by two games? Translation: The players are gonna work more and be paid less. How typical in today's society..

Since: Mar 17, 2007
Posted on: February 12, 2011 5:31 am

It's called negotiating

All the folks union bashing here need to step back and maybe (hopefully) educate themselves on labor history.  Here's a little appreciated, basic fact -- if workers don't like their working conditions they have the right to organize and ask for what they want.  It's a basic human need, a precondition of humanity, actually, to form affinity with others.  Unions are one of the more effective expressions of this need.  Some unions are better than others (I favor the IWW), some are corrupt, but to say unions have wrecked this country is to show shockingly little perspective and betrays a deep disconnect with humanity.  

Simply stated, there are always at least three sides in a labor dispute – owners, workers, and the community which demands the product (which will also have divided allegiances), though some owners are more welcoming of the workers’ union than others.  The point is it would be silly to think any owner can or should meet every need of the workers.  It is not necessarily silly for one side to wish one of the other two sides in this dispute would go away.  Logically speaking, one side of the triangle is dispensable.  Anyone who said, “owners” is an empowered person.  That’s right, logically speaking, the owners are the dispensable side.  NO product without a community demanding it.  No product without work.  Lots of products made without both workers AND an owner of the means of production.  Always have been worker-owners.  Now if you want to talk about a fantasy league, what if the players could toss out the owner. Not in a day, nor even a season…

I don't believe every union cause is a noble one.  As things stand, that is, absent a true shakeup of ownership/division of labor, I don't believe the players are necessarily entitled to more money, or that the owners are entitled to a longer season, etc., and neither of those nor any of the other contentious issues on the table are really the issue.  Given the current ownership structure/division of labor, the practical issue is and will be which side is better organized, which is, at least in part, a litmus test of which side is better able to tap into the well of ambient good will in the community.  To Farmer Joe, I applaud your efforts to provide for your workers.  It reads as though you weren’t always an owner, like you know what your workers need since you’ve been there.  Or maybe you simply inherited the family farm.  As for your workers, I would support their right to organize if they felt the need.  Would you?  When you put on your ownership hat, do you respect your workers enough to recognize you are one labor misstep away from being dispossessed?  It IS all about the negotiation, which is also the ability to weather the collapse of a negotiation.


Since: May 15, 2007
Posted on: February 12, 2011 1:29 am

It's called negotiating

Since both sides just want more money; why don't they just increase revenue by selling tickets to seats that don't exist like they did at the Super Bowl?

Since: Oct 3, 2006
Posted on: February 11, 2011 3:19 pm

It's called negotiating

lol yea big diff. from 100 bil to 9 bil  but the outcome is the same.. the walkout was over 500 million..

again i favor the owners in being able to keep their money but since their in agreement of the 50 % and since the players already gave up 720 mil or the 9 %..   why not just let them keep the 500 mill ..and move on to the next topic..

maybe since they gave up the 500 million they can get the rookie cap their looking for...

Since: Dec 9, 2007
Posted on: February 11, 2011 2:30 pm

It's called negotiating

Sorry for the typos, I never did care much for computers...Foot in mouth

Since: Dec 9, 2007
Posted on: February 11, 2011 2:26 pm

It's called negotiating

I see both sides of the issue here, but I have to admit I am leaning more towards the owners here.  But then again I am businessman of sorts, well farmer actually so I see the situation kind of as one of my hired hands.

When I hire on a farm hand I pay them well.  Very well. So let me break it down. For an experience hand:

Hired hand wages:

$3800/mo salary raises based on performance.
Medical, dental, life insurance.
12 days vacation a year
Federal Holidays, 1 personal holiday, anniversary, and birthdays off.
1/2 side of beef a year if single, or whole if you have a family.
If you are married I'll provide you with a 3 or 4 bedroom house on one of the farms we own, singel you probably get one of the mobile homes (the all have sat. provided).
Farm Truck for work purposes (if you've been with us for a while)

Now I'll work you hard some times, but during the down months (Mid Nov say thru about the middle of March) it's pretty easy going and I expect you to spend as much time as possible with your family. 

Imagine now if your me and one of these guys that I compensate very well comes up to me and demands at the end of the harvest and after I've sent the calf crop to market, and I'm doing up my books for the year, he comes up and tells me, I want half of everything the farm's made profit wise, because I worked my rear end off for you and I could have been serious hurt or killed at any moment (farming has always been of he most dangerous jobs in the world.) and I only think that's fair.  What do you think my response to him would be?  You got it...Hit the road buddy.  I own this operation, I pay the bills, I compensate you youf fairly, your free to find a different job at any time.  It's your choice. 

That being said I don't have much sympathy at all for th players, they are free at anytime to find a new profession.  If they feel like they are being taken advantage of, not compensated fairly, or placed in harms way, being taken advantage of, then they can get a different job, that is what makes this country so darned great. 

Since: Feb 11, 2011
Posted on: February 11, 2011 2:06 pm

More like share the wealth not socialism

Uh, socialism is where the government owns everything so educate yourself dumba$$.  Revenue sharing is not socialism it is a means to an end.  NFL owners split certain portions of revenue not because they are generous, but because they are smart.  Jacksonville is never going to generate  enough revenue to compete against NY or Dallas so they would eventually go out of business as would most small market teams.  The NFL props them up so they can in turn say that they reach a larger portion of the populace to generate larger TV contracts.  It's called creating a market for your product. 
Unions are totally worthless entities who have outlived their usefulness and now just suck out the productivity and innovation out of any organization they supposedly represent.  Who gives a crap about what players went through before the union?  They did it at their own risk.  Just as players do today.  Without the NFL most of these guys would be standing in front of the fry lines at McDonald's.  Who cares if they get hurt because there will always be some other body willing to take their place.
Not that I care about the owners because they are just a bunch of greedy dillholes who would just as soon rob their grandmother to pay for a stadium so they did not have to.  As for them "blackmailing" communities, no one holds a gun to the community leader's heads.  Quite the contrary, they get their nice luxury boxes given to them so they can go to enjoy the fruits of their "wisdom" while the community of bleeting sheeps who continues to elect them year after year gets to pay for the shrines.  

Since: Aug 18, 2006
Posted on: February 11, 2011 2:01 pm

It's called negotiating

Am i off base on this, or missing something ?? please correct me if i am..

Your numbers are high so they distort the truth.  According to Freeman total revenue is approx $9Bill, so $8B gets split.

Currently (using present day $9B)

$8B x 59.6% = $4.768B to players; $4.232B ($9B-$4.768B) to owners.  Where the players get to keep their 4.7 the owners have to use theirs for debt service, coaches, employees, travel, etc.  anything left over they get to keep.  (that's why some teams have better scouting dept than others.

Proposed (owners)

$7B x 50% = $3.5B to players; $5.5B ($9B-$3.5B) to owners.

Proposed (players)

$9B x 50% = $4.5B to players; $4.5B to owners.  Because the owners have to uses their share towards expenses, under the current and the players proposal the players end up with more than the owners, under the owners proposal they could end up with more than the players.

If revenue would continue to grow % wise, the difference would become less because $2B represents 22% of $9B but only 10% of $20B.

Since: Feb 11, 2011
Posted on: February 11, 2011 1:58 pm

It's called negotiating

The numbers I heard were 9 billion dollars.  Mathematically, the old way, the players would get 59% of 8 billion because the owners skimmed 1 billion off the top. That was 4.72 billion.  50-50 with the owners still taking 1 billion off the top would be 4 billion dollars.  A drop of .72 billion or 15.25% decrease.  Now, if the owners ask for 2 billion off the top and still want 50-50, then the players would get 3.5 billion dollars, a drop of 1.22 billion, or 25.8% drop.  When you look at it with regard to percentages, they are squabbling over a hefty sum. 

If they did 50-50 of the 9 billion with owners getting no money off the top, the players would be conceding about 200million from what they hypethetically got last year. 

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or