Another point on this I want to bring up is, exactly what you said: private money. With free agency, each player could be considered, a business to themselves. We all shout from the rooftops about salary caps, and how that "balances" the competitive scales, and makes it to where small market teams, such as the Saints, can have a chance to win championships. We blast owners like Jerry Jones, and Daniel Snyder, for trying to spend their "private money", to buy players, that small market teams cannot, to win championships. Now, if I read something wrong into your views on this issue, i apologize, but it seems to me, that you aren't a fan of the cap. You believe, in your own words, that a man should be allowed to spend his private money, as he sees fit, right? Then in that mindframe, it seems to me, that you would also have to believe, that owners should be allowed to spend as much of THEIR MONEY, as they want, to buy as many players as they want. That is the impression you are giving.

If this was really the case the Saints would have folded a long time ago- they didn't win a playoff game for more than 30 years of their existence.

I do agree that when the quality of their product is suffering they do look to improve it- as a business you have to, but that has nothing to do with their right to pay their employees. They don't listen to you on that. Not at all. That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that.

Ok then. So you don't agree with the salary cap.

"That was what this was about too- whether they have the right to pay players as they see fit- and whether the players are worth that."

If an owner has the right to decide what a player is worth, and not the player, then the price has to be able to go both ways right? If Jerry Jones decides that he wants to pay Drew Brees 20 million dollars more, than the Saints have to offer, then he should be able to do that right? It's his money. It's his "private" money.

:popcorn:

I don't know what you mean by both ways. The player decides whether he is willing to play for that amount- he doesn't have to.

Yes, accept where there are binding agreements otherwise. Whatever rules and/or laws the NFL has set up would have to be followed.

SP- If the money doesn't belong to you you can't direct it. Why would you feel you have that right? That is a strange concept to me.

Also, how did we get on this topic- my original post was against the idea that teachers and the police, etc should be paid more than athletes if someone is willing to pay athletes more.

The demonstrations are a turnoff to me. They look childish at best, and thuggish at worst. Pay disputes are a private matter, and should be kept private. As a fan, I don't want to be pulled into this fight and forced to choose sides. If you want to be a pro football player, play ball! If you want to be a politician, hang up your cleats and go for it.

I have no problem with a players organization showing solidarity in the face of the couch potato nation on the most watched football game in a long time. Good for them.

yep, on that theres no need for debate , TWO DAT!!!! brother.

What we have is millionaire players complaining to their billionaire owners, and vice-versa. At the end of the day any increase in money on either side is passed down to you and me, not absorbed by the owners. When Nike or whoever pays an athlete a crazy check for endorsements the costs are trickled down to you and me in the price tag of their products. It's the fans who always get the shaft. We should be the ones holding our fingers up in solidarity. I love football but the salaries have become gross, for everyone involved.

The QB is the highest paid position due to the fact that they are the most vulnerable. However, there are increasing rules protecting the quarterback and their salaries continue to grow (see Tom Brady's recent deal). My opinion, for every rule that is added to protect a player, their salaries are reduced. If the logic is increased pay due to danger effect then reduced pay for less danger makes sense.

Is my suggestion silly, of course. But it just goes to show how what is going on in the NFL is not logically sound.

I think the NFL is not unlike the real estate market was, artificially inflated. Every bubble pops. The NFL is not exempt from the laws of economics.

Probably took that to a different level than intended but had to vent.

I am pro Union because without them the Corporate slave masters would eliminate the middle class. I understand professional athletes are not the middle class. I also believe the owners should offer lower priced seating sections and bring down the price of the consessions.

Did anybody see what happened to Damarcus Ware last night when he stuck his head in the wrong place? These guys should get all they can from the fat cats up top. Solidarity is the way to do it. Very few owners walk with a limp late in life except for when their pockets get too heavy. I'm not a big union guy, but I'm with these guys.

No one is forcing them to play. And they make more in 1 game that 90% of America makes in a year so the whole fat cat owners arguement holds no water with me.

The players are every bit as greedy as the owners.

Actually, those "corporate slave masters" put money in our pockets, pulling us up out of poverty and virtual slavery. Each owner probably employs 500 people directly and indirectly. How is that a bad thing?

If you want to complain about prices, complain to the player's union. The NFLPA is largely responsible for the outrageous costs to run an NFL franchise.

Interesting that Nissan-USA does not use union labor and continues to dominate the American market in both cars and happy employees. Unions ABSOLUTELY served their purpose in history but now union officials are just another group of people getting their cut and passing the cost down to consumers (which includes fellow union members). How much of the sticker price on your Chevy went to pay administrative fees for unions?

How much of your season ticket goes to pay for the same fees?

Not all unions are bad man....we need to quit selling ourselves down the river...and stick together...thats what made this country...:bng:

A local unionized plant went on strike for better pay a few months back. Now, 200+ guys who were making $20+/Hour (lowest) are out of work. The plant owners said screw you and shut the plant down.

I agree with you brother. I come from a family of union members and we do need to stick together. The idea of a union is great but with all things in a corporate society such as ours, what starts as a good idea often gets corrupted and misused. When unions were organized the common man had no voice. The only thing someone knew about current events was what happened to make it into their local paper. Now, some jackass preacher in BF Florida wants to burn a Qur'an and it's an international incident that, not only, the president chimes in on but the leader of our forces in the middle east, but that's a whole different subject.

My point is that everything is out there for everyone to see. The kind of labor abuses that rallyed labor unions together in the first place are not going to go unchecked as they did. I'll say this again, unions ABSOLUTELY served their purpose in history (THANK GOD FOR THE LABOR LAWS THEY HELPED TO CREATE). But they, like most big businesses (and they have become a business) have succomed to power grabs, political influence and in some cases corruption. All the while you and I pay the price, union or not.

How does this relate to the NFL? Same thing has happened in the NFL. Players were payed peanuts and had no rules to protect them on the field. They had no benefits to help them pay for medical care after retirement. Football players were left with a lifetime of misery for almost nothing in return. The players unionized and set the record straight. Now, you have young players who don't even know about the history of the NFL and what it took to get them the big salaries and medical treatment. They come into the NFL with a sense of entitlement. They want more, the owners aren't going to take less. All of the back and forth and negotiating and meetings and lawyers and on and on comes with an administrative cost that is pushed down to us...the fan.

At the end of the day they are arguing over how much of OUR money are they going to demand from US in order to see our team play.

I know you don't HAVE to buy season tickets. Tell that to a Saints fan this year. :bng:

I agree..there needs to be a rookie cap...and remember our beloved Mr. Brees is spearheading a lot of this..If i was a player ..i would probably be doing the same thing....i just hope they can work this out and keep the game i love from going in the crapper...:bng:

I'm going to tread into this thread lightly. Being an economist who is in a union, and also a business owner who has employed union labor, I may not have a unique perspective, but I can add a few things. They won't clear anything up or sway one to a particular side, but they are worth factoring into one's opinion.

1) Entitlement. One is entitled to what one negotiates with the payer. Vernon Davis (VD) negotiated the highest paying contract in NFL history for a tight end. As long as he performs as per the contract, he is entitled to any and all compensation specified in the contract. I find that concept getting diluted by the misperception that the term implies "worth" in a value judgment sense relative to the rest of society. It is not. Entitlement is simply between the two contractual parties. So, for a second week, we must make SF regret having VD.
2) Relativism/Social Justice. Born in the United States, in the later part of the 20th century, to a family of means, Alex Smith had a knack for throwing an oblong ball to another person. Born anywhere else on the planet, his skills would not command much in the marketplace; had he been born in Zimbabwe, for example, he would not even have had the chance to throw a ball, much less get paid for it. Farmers and teachers command orders of magnitude higher salaries than people who can throw balls in Zimbabwe. So it is with great cosmic fortune he works in a country whose society values ball throwing, and works for an employer who is willing to pay him a top 10 contract for throwing a ball to people. It is not that our society doesn’t value farming or teaching, it is just that at this unique point in time, it values ball throwing more. As long as Smith pays his taxes, he should earn whatever his culture is willing to pay. So, let’s see if Alex Smith continues to get his entitlements if he throws those balls to our players. I hope he has a teaching degree to fall back on.
3) Market Power - A. Individuals hold little market power to negotiate higher than market rates for services. When individuals collude, they can leverage potential withholding of services to gain premium wages. Competition is the enemy of premium wages, so colluding individuals need to have enough membership to have leverage, but not so much that the benefits of collusion become too diluted. The opposite is true, as fewer buyers drive down market prices. This is one of those situations where both sides wish to limit membership and drive market prices to favorable positions. Inducing defection is the goal of each side towards the other. Owners are going to count on the rank and file player earning the lowest wages to defect, as they have far fewer resources to commit to a prolonged period of unemployment. Small market owners need the group to justify franchise valuation and maximize total return. Players are hoping that big market teams, with the allure of breaking away from the pack and earning a higher return on investment, will force a disbanding of the owners who will negotiate higher salaries based on their expected higher yields. Each side is counting on maintaining its membership to maximize its leverage over the other side.
4) Market Power – B. Competitive balance stemming from collusion of both sides to limit wages and to equally distribute (most) revenues has served to increase the foundation of the major sources of revenues. Because each team competes with the same level of resources, its deployment of those limited resources determines its competitive outcome. Without a negotiated balance, a similar situation to Major League Baseball would occur, where only a few teams are competitively viable, and thereby profitable. Baseball franchise values fluctuate with regional demand for television revenues, creating lower potential revenues and lower potential wages/returns on investment. Highly productive players, whose negotiated relative salaries command a premium, but with no teams capable of paying that premium, will either have to accept lower salaries or not play at all. This situation has resulted in depressed value for smaller market teams and lower market share, revenues and profitability for baseball as a whole.
5) Anarchy. Otherwise known as Darwinism, Survival of the Fittest, The Free Market and Touch S*$T, Deal With It. Unregulated Free Markets will go through episodes of collusion, surpluses and shortages. Every participant will try to extract maximum value, driving costs down and finding price/quality pressure points that achieve maximum profitability. A paradox similar to that of the Pittsburgh Pirates can occur where one can field a truly uncompetitive product yet still be highly profitable. They are the “Sham-Wow” of professional sports.
6) Morality. Regardless of whether one believes in Social Justice or Anarchy, morality is irrelevant. Because “right” and “wrong” are intrinsic to one’s position on the field (or skybox), one should hear, but not factor in biased value judgments. Rules governing the process should dictate the ethics. If it is agreed that competitive balance is “good for the game” or long run profit maximizing, then rules promoting those outcomes should be enacted and enforced. If it agreed that competitive balance has no impact on long run profit maximization, then restrictions should be removed from participants.

As an ironic note, I find it very interesting that the Union (by definition, a collusive organization) wishes to decertify for the sole purpose of promoting a government intervention in relief of negotiating against a collusive ownership. If one has an “anarchistic” position, you don’t care about collusion and you don’t want government intervention. If you are a “justice seeker,” you only care about the minimum contract between parties, and collusion only truly matters if the minimum is less than that of what any American can expect from his society. This would be similar to investment bankers filing suit with the Federal Government to get a higher piece of the Goldman Sachs/Barclay’s/et al. pie. I’m not sure either side will be happy letting our Federal Government decide what’s in the best interest of the Game.

Currently, the Government sides heavily with unions. The owners wouldn't get fair treatment in arbitration.

:duel:

Well, this is the thing...

Players have too big a percentage of the pie(.)

The moves to alienate the fans (pay per view gravitation, more boxes, less seats, exclusivity ticket distribution) should anger fans to boycott merchandising (Buy Who Dat Shirts without NFL mdse logos)

And with each franchise doing over a couple of billion dollars each year, I know this much...

We should not have to fund stadiums.

We really should have more resources for education.

We really need to adjust tax codes to a flat tax rate.

We should have to pay for parking at games.

The distribution of revenues was a negotiated allocation. The next allocation looks to be different. Value judgment over the allocation is irrelevant. The owners are only entitled to that allocation they negotiate. There is no moral desert to any preordained share.

Flat taxes are regressive, which means they disproportionately burden the
poor. Historically, flat taxes have ensured that wealth generation by the bottom strata of wage earners is stunted and that wealth distribution polarizes to the top tier. Accordingly, economic activity falls and the economy shrinks. History shows that progressive tax systems distribute tax burden so that lower tiered wage earners generate wealth, which in turn INCREASES the total wealth of the top tiers. It is understandable to believe that a flat tax is "fair" but it has no relation to how a flat tax actually performs in an economy.

The owners and players whining at each other about payday isn't a new phenomenon. It just reaches epic levels every decade or so.

The USA needs a stupid tax.
People who drive while talking on a cell phone would pay extra, as an example.

For eight years jobs were sent overseas en masse... and NOW some people whine about jobs. They should have to pay triple.

I don't mind being corrected, if Im wrong, so please educate me if I'm off base here. But isn't the reason there is no cap this season, BECAUSE of the collective bargaining agreement? Hence, wouldn't the placement, or lack of placement, of a salary cap be relevent to this conversation?

My point being, the owners, according to some, have every right, to spend their money, however they please, and if they don't want to over pay for a player, that's their perogative. Now, let's look at the barn door, we could be flirting with opening here.. Let's look at owners who don't mind overspending on players, ala Jerry Jones, ala Snyder, and others. This idea of letting the owners decide how much the players are worth, could increase certain players salaries to historical preportions. Does anyone see what I mean here? I think the players are even pointing that out a little here. What happens, if both sides just decide to throw the cap out, all together? Don't say it won't happen, because obviously, with the seriousness of this situation currently, anything is possible.

What? No they don't. If you have a 10% flat tax, a "poor" person making 25K pays $2500 in tax. A "rich" person making 250K pays $25000 in taxes. Which would you rather pay, 2.5K or 25K?

If you want to pay more, just send it in. The IRS will gladly take it.

Talking about ridiculous observations, one thing I can't stand, is when someone who played football in high school, or even college, starts trying to relate themselves to the NFL level of play. One percent, i'm sorry, let me say that again, ONE PERCENT, of all college players make it to the NFL. "Yeah, I played football back in high school, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THESE GUYS GO THROUGH, AND THEY ARE A BUNCH OF OVER PAID CRY BABIES." Ok Biff. The truth is you have NO IDEA, what these guys go through, and neither do I. And we as fans play both sides of the fence on this all the time. On one hand we say, "well, this guy chose to be a football player, so either he can take the money offered to him, or go somewhere else." Then said player, goes to another team for more money, and then we say, "that guy is a greedy s.o.b., and I hate him now. He should have been loyal to us." You can't have it both ways folks.

Let's also look at the pay scales in pro football. A star running back, makes what, anywhere from about 6, to 15 million a year, not counting incentives. Where as a fullback, is lucky to get paid 2, or 3. Now this is the guy who does alot of the dirty work, to make that running back look so good, but he usually gets no recognition, and definately gets way less money. "HIS CHOICE, HE WANTS MORE MONEY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RUNNING BACK. HE WANTS MORE MONEY, SCREW HIM, WE DON'T NEED HIM. WE CAN FIND SOMEONE ELSE." Thus, loyalty is no longer an issue with these players. We sit and say, this is a business, and it should be handled that way, and don't let our opinions sway one bit, UNTIL a player says the exact same thing, and then we start calling them names.

We all make choices, that put us where we are today. Would you like to get paid more for what YOU do? I'm pretty sure that's a yes.

Never saw a poor owner. The Not For Long league teaches the players to get their share while they can. They can hold up the sign of solidarity all they want it doesn't bother me. After all it is a dangerous game and can come to an end very quickly.

bobad, I teach this stuff at a college and I get paid a lot to consult on this. If you want, I'd be happy to have a side discussion on tax theory. No charge, as long as you pass along what you learn.

The current NFL collective bargaining agreement is set up like its own country, with taxes that are assessed for basic activities and incentives for others. The allocation/distribution of wealth is governed by both the contracts the have with 3rd parties as well as the internal agreements/contracts. There is a great pull from an oligarchic perspective to break the cabal to get a better deal (take marbles off the table). Problem is, that the marbles there in the first place depend somewhat on the way the marble get distributed. If TV is the greatest revenue source, and national organizations like ESPN are trying to maximize revenues, they have to have every team be as competitive as possible, otherwise it would be in the best interest of a regional carrier to get a monopoly on one team (like the Yankees or the Braves). Game theory generally holds that if everyone seeks the most superior position (which by definition only a few can attain) then there will be many suboptimal and super-suboptimal outcomes. If there are too many super-suboptimal outcomes, then the overall value declines and the total revenues fall. Long term profitability would be compromised, which harms the players most.

The issue isn't the system that has been put into place. I think that everyone in the NFL believes that a CBA with nearly identical structure will benefit both parties. The issue is how the pie is cut. The risk is that to hold a polar position one must expect that the system fails and a suboptimal system evolves. That new system could be even worse than government intervention!

income tax as a whole has that effect and on everyone paying into.

a lot of you teachers are keen on keynesian econ- pure garbage

A consumption tax is the only fair tax. eliminate the income tax

If you guys want, I'd be more than happy to have a thread on policy options in a recession. It would be fun, at least for me. Let me know and I'll send powerpoints to aid the discussion

yawn.

oh, for the love of Pete, dont.

See that! Quickest way to end an argument is to threaten powerpoints. We shouldn't be sending troups to Afghanistan, we should be anesthetizing them with a slideshow.

Victory is mine!

I hate unions, so I think it's a load of crap. These guys are making ridiculous loads of money, so I don't have any sympathy for them. My beef with players today is that holdouts are becoming much more prevalent. When these guys have one good season, they go asking for a new contract. But if they have a bad season, you don't see them offering to give the money back.

You can talk about the money that NFL owners make, but what you're probably not taking into account is the financial risk that they take.

No, that is okay- I don't have time right now during the semester, but I'll concede that you know more than me on the subject-

no, please, anything but powerpoints! hahaha...