bobad

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

subguy

jeanpierre

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.

xan

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.

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."

Choupique

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.

SaintPauly

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's popular is not always right, and what's right is not always popular.....

bobad

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.

SaintPauly

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.

What's popular is not always right, and what's right is not always popular.....

RailBoss

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.

xan

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!

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."