Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Hugh Douglas Admits To Stealing From Jaguars

Brian Waters Addresses Roger Goodell's Meeting With The Chiefs Players

And the PR battle between the NFL and the players continues.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has been visiting NFL players in a tour of training camp across the league. He kicked off his camp tour with the Kansas City Chiefs last week.

On Friday, I wrote a quick story for SBNation.com about a few Redskins players being, ahem, disappointed in their meeting with Goodell. Here's a quick taste of it:

"He's walking around kissing babies, you know, shaking hands, and he just wants to say that the owners are over here, the players are over here and I'm in the middle, I'm for the game," top cornerback DeAngelo Hall said. "But to ask him a question about anything, he couldn't answer. He couldn't answer this, go check with this, go ask these people, I don't really know. It was a waste of time."

Star-divide

When Roger Goodell visited the Kansas City Chiefs last week on the eve of training camp, he had to know he'd be getting a hard line of questioning. The Chiefs have two players -- Brian Waters and Mike Vrabel -- on the NFLPA's Executive Committee. Rudy Niswanger is alternate team rep. And we know Jon McGraw is well-informed with these issues considering the last time I talked to him was on Capitol Hill with other NFLPA folks.

After Goodell's meeting with the Chiefs last week, it was Waters who, like the Redskins players, spoke out against what the players are calling his inability (or refusal) to answer certain labor-related questions.

In Kansas City, Waters asked Goodell directly whether the owners were planning to cut health benefits for players in the event of a 2011 lockout. Linebacker Tamba Hali stood up and flat-out asked why the owners had opted out of the collective bargaining agreement.

"He couldn't give us any answers," Waters said. "All he said was, 'They weren't happy.' If we ask you why they weren't happy and all you can say is, 'They weren't," then how can you say we're having an open dialogue and this isn't just a P.R. move so you can say, 'Hey, I went and talked to the players?'"

The story with Dan Graziano of FanHouse.com includes accounts from other players of similar meetings with Goodell.

This is just a taste of what's to come. This will get more and more public as the days roll along (as if it already isn't) and it'll make it more and more interesting for each player to walk into work each day. Waters is completely, 100% within his rights to make these criticisms of Goodell (as are the other players) and the lack of answers does seem to be a problem, even if we've heard just one side. He's also criticizing the guy (Goodell) who is leading the group of owners, one of whom signs Waters' paycheck (Clark Hunt), against the players so you can see how it might get a little messy.

For the record, I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong. I'm just saying that it's going to make daily life a challenge for both sides when they have to work together (while there's still football) and then handle the labor issues on the side. It's a slippery slope for all sides involved and it's not going to get any easier anytime soon.

I get the feeling that fans, while they may take certain sides on individual battles like this one, understand the ultimate goal: Playing football in 2011 and beyond. As a fan, you're naturally going to be drawn into thinking one side is right and the other is wrong. That's OK but I think it's just as (if not more) important to keep your eyes on the ultimate goal.

At some point this offseason, NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith will likely make a similar trip and hold a meeting with the Chiefs. I don't think the players will be walking away from that one like they are the Goodell meeting.

Comment 69 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

really? Tamba and Brian don't know why owners opted out?

I find it hard to believe when most of us fans know.

1. Money
2. Money
3. Money
4. Money
5. Money

I’ll abbreviate the list….

And to an extent I can’t blame them.
There must be a Rookie Cap. This is just so ridiculous.

All this is on both sides is about money. And for most instances, I won’t side for players. They get paid to play a game I love and would pay for just a few perks.

And don’t get me started on Union greed.

" It was great for me to get out of that city, because it was just a lot of jealousy, envy and hate that came with being a part of that city."
- LJ, after taking denial lessons from our current President

by chief Stevie_k on Aug 7, 2010 8:59 AM CDT reply actions  

Well said

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

great post,

I believe their salaries more than compensates for hazard pay. At the end of the day they are another union trying to squeeze out every dollar they can from the owners who in turn squeeze every dollar they can out of us. People need to realize that there is a cause and effect to high labor cost. This is why I think most unions neeed to go away for most part, they have outlived there usefullness, there are some that need to stick around, but not many.

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions  

You don’t want to get hurt? Then go teach school, become a fireman, join the Marines, sell cars, whatever.

Pretty sure 2 of the 4 would be even more dangerous than football, lol. In all seriousness I don’t think the owners have much leverage in this situation because the NFL’s union is obviously a very skilled labor force that you can’t replace. Also, the NFL is a monopoly so the auto industry analogy probably doesn’t apply to this situation.

by I_Bleed_Red. on Aug 7, 2010 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

The NFL is no more monopoly than the auto industry IMO.

You are as free to start your own football league as you are your own car company. Is it more difficult? Maybe. But not a monopoly.
And you are dead on in correcting me about the dangerous occupations. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Also, it is not meant as a slight to any of those noble professions. It was meant as more of a compliment.
Good points there I_Bleed_Red. Thanks

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions  

Thanks man...

really enjoyed your post. I always thought that the NFL was a monopoly because when Congress had hearings on the NFL they always use the excuse that the NFL has an anti-trust excemption to knock down criticism that Congress should be involved in more important matters. Although this situation is making me really nervous about not having football next year I find this battle between the owners and players really interesting. And I just want to make it clear that I wasn’t mocking you or correcting you with that comment. I knew what you were trying to say, just couldn’t resist the irony.

by I_Bleed_Red. on Aug 7, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions  

haha

You don’t want to get hurt be a Marine or a fireman…..

wow

Don't Fuccop Succop

by chicks_love_chiefs on Aug 7, 2010 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well said man

They’re just bitching(in my opinion) because the NFL is gonna start cracking down on these ridiculous contracts starting w the rookies. They could put 20 grand a check away(chump change to them) and be able to live off the rest of their lives once it adds up. They get no sympathy. Not only do they get money from contracts, they get it from endorsements, commercials, interviews, hell even make us die hard fans wait hours in line then charge us just for your autograph! They should not be making as much as the most powerful people in the country, makes no sense!

by KCinIL on Aug 7, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions  

I like your final comment.

(actually all of them)
Makes me think… (and this is not a political statement Chris Thorman, so please don’t send me another slap on the wrist e-mail for it) … that if the President of the United States could play QB, he’d quit his current “job” in a second to get that fat paycheck!
I only use him as example because he’s supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet, but can’t come close to what an NFL QB gets.
Good points KCinIL

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions  

Just piggy backin off you!

Alright too much man love goin on It really doesn’t make sense that players would try to take the sympathy role to the public when 95% of us make nowhere near that. The greatest comment ever “how can I feed my family on 5 mil a year”- Latrell Sprewell and he was dead serious! They ever heard of a savings account?

by KCinIL on Aug 7, 2010 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah. That actually came to mind for me as well.

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

The Players might want to look at some history and see the main reasons for why the auto industry crashed. A large part of it was pensions and benefits payed to unionized laborers. It increased the cost of doing business so badly for the American industry that they couldn’t compete from a profit standpoint with the Japanese and others.
That’s not the only issue, but it’s a big one.

You’re missing a LARGE part of that equation… SIZE. The amount of workers in the auto industry absolutely dwarfs (or, dwarfed) the NFL. When you’re talking about 100’s of 1000’s of people vs, what, 10’s of 1000’s at most? I don’t see an NFL team carrying more than 1,000 employees, and I think that is seriously stretching it way beyond what they would require. But I disagree with your point here, you can’t compare two totally different things, especially when the auto industry was THE job to have for so long. A lot of the reason for the american industry’s collapse was lack of innovation and reliable products. Ford has done a good job of turning themselves around, and GM is slowly working towards that as well. Also, many (if not most) cars made by foreign companies are assembled here, in union plants, so to blame the UAW solely for the downfall of the Detroit big 3 is a flawed thought in and of itself. Taking less benefits wouldn’t have made the companies automagically come up with better cars.

Yes the Owners have Millions, if not Billions of dollars. Yes, without the players, they wouldn’t be as wealthy. But the employees are getting way too greedy. If a player wants to whine about health benefits he may need after he retires, then maybe he should be socking away a million here and a million there instead of pissing it away.

Most of the owners are billionaires. The employees are what drives the NFL to be a multi-billion dollar a year business. There are only slightly less than 1700 NFL players during the regular season in the entire world. Think about that for a second. 1700 people in the WORLD are professional NFL football players for 19 weeks out of the year. That’s a very niche market, no? And not all players make millions per year. Most of the league makes the set floor salaries designated to years of service. But really, all they want is to see how much of the pie they’re NOT getting from owners, to decide what they should fight for. I support that thought.

However, I think both sides are being greedy and losing sight of what their jobs are… to entertain. Greed is what’s causing both sides to remain stagnant on making a deal, and the owners (i think) have a whole lot more leverage in the event of a lockout, especially since the TV deal the NFL signed pays teams in the event of a lockout or not. Players won’t get paid, and that’s going to cause a whole lot of grief when guys are having their custom Bently’s and houses repossessed because they were ignorant with their money. Accountants people, when you’re making shitloads of money, get yourself a damned accountant and an investment broker.

If you can sack groceries, you can sack a QB... right?
The kool-aid is now Berry flavored.

by IISaiNtII on Aug 7, 2010 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

Sounds like you have an axe to grind

so to blame the UAW solely for the downfall of the Detroit big 3 is a flawed thought in and of itself. Taking less benefits wouldn’t have made the companies automagically come up with better cars.

It has nothing to do with better cars, it has to do with UAW demanding more and more money and benefits and in so doing pricing the American auto worker out of work. Which is the problems with most unions in general and why our cost of living was skyrocking until our credit limits got maxed out

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions  

I think he was partially correct actually.

I do think it had a lot to do with a poor product they were putting out. But you are correct. When the government went in and did the evaluation of GM’s bebts/assets, they publically stated that most of the problem was their Unionized work force and their inability to keep paying the pensions. It was sucking them under.

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions  

There was a time

when those companies could pay that, and the companies agreed upon it. However, it was the unions fault for not taking less in this climate to help save jobs. That I agree with for the most part.

If you can sack groceries, you can sack a QB... right?
The kool-aid is now Berry flavored.

by IISaiNtII on Aug 7, 2010 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions  

true

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

but again

Why would they put out an inferior product, so they can keep cost close to their competition. The bottom line in the whole thing is high labor cost over the years has killed that industry, buisness are never going to not make a profit. they are going to try and keep cost low to move more product and therefore make more money. when you have an albatross around your neck called Union labor and the other guy does not, usually you lose.

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions  

Japan

Has a lot more public support and welfare for the individual in retirement and health while working. Its a completely different situation than American workers face.

by KeyboardGato on Aug 7, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Japan also has the word

Karōshi, which can be translated literally from Japanese as “death from overwork”

Working conditions are different over there. Just sayin’

Needs for 2010:
O-line
D-line
Linebacker
Safety

by Bleedingredandgold on Aug 7, 2010 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

exactly

not to mention that the companies had to continue paying full wages and benefits to laid off workers essentially forever due to union extortion

union lovers need to give up on the innovation argument. U.S. companies did innovate. However, all the innovation occurred in suvs and huge pick up trucks because those were the only things that could create a profit margin at all. In small cars it didn’t matter what innovation they could create they could never price them low enough to compete due to the union and their outrageous demands for wages, benefits, and perpetual jobs regardless of the economy or the productivity of the workforce.

Unions create a workforce that races to the lowest common denominator. It is the least productive worker that becomes the standard because the members are unwilling to rat out their “brother” and would rather just slack off as much as that guy gets away with.

Stay thirsty, my friends - for Kool-Aid !!!!!!

by kabrink on Aug 7, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

The size comment doesn't totally hold water though.

The auto industries earnings also dwarf the earnings of the NFL. And I agree with you that they had more issues than pensions and benefits. Thus the reason I said “a large part of it was”. I never said it was the sole reason.
I like your argument and especially like your final paragraph.

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions  

On a per employee basis

I would have a hard time believing that.

But the simple fact is, it’s the rich fighting the rich, while the poor and middle class support both of them. I have a hard time feeling compassion to either the players or the owners, because even the lowest paid guys in the NFL still make 5x what I make a year. I’m thankful to even have a job in this economy to be honest.

If you can sack groceries, you can sack a QB... right?
The kool-aid is now Berry flavored.

by IISaiNtII on Aug 7, 2010 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Rec'd

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions  

You have several good points, but it's also important to remember that not every player is Eric Berry.

As a matter of fact, for every Berry there are 50 guys who get signed as undrafted free agents, bounce around from team to team and practice squad to practice squad for a few years, and then get cut and never resigned. On the one hand, they don’t see the field as much, but on the other hand they’re still contributing in a very dangerous sport, and do not make nearly the money that first round draft choices do. Don’t get me wrong, they still make a good salary, but it would be a mistake to assume that the NFLPA consists entirely of multi-millionaires who can piss away millions and still have enough left to live on for the rest of their lives. The Sam Bradfords and Ndomukong Suhs of the world are more than satisfactorily compensated, but there are lots of players in the league who weren’t first round draft picks and who, as a result, make a much smaller amount of money even though they may see the field just as much, if not more, than some of those over-payed players (particularly if they’re on their first contract) and who are just as at risk of a career ending injury at any time.

by MtHammer on Aug 7, 2010 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions  

Correct.

And those are the players who either don’t make it in the league and therefore aren’t even in the equation, or they stay in the league and stick it out on practice squads for “chump change” because they have a great love for the game and won’t give it up. In that case, they are assuming their own risk to play the game.

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions  

Brad Cottam, Kolby Smith

Stay thirsty, my friends - for Kool-Aid !!!!!!

by kabrink on Aug 7, 2010 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

It surprises me that Goodell would try to paint himself as some sort of mediator between the ownership and the players. Goodell represents the owners, period. The commissioner always has and always will. That he meets with players and can’t answer their most basic questions shows that the meeting are a farce and more about PR than anything of substance.

Anti-union talking points take on a life of their own. They don’t even have to be true, they just have to seem as though they could be true.

The auto industry crashed because of pensions and benefits paid to unionized workers? If that was true then only the unionized elements of the industry would have crashed, not the entire industry, but Toyota and Nissan crashed with the rest of them. The truth is that all the labor costs that go into an automobile account for about 10% of the cost of the vehicle. Yes the legacy costs the Big 3 American automakers deal with are large. The companies made promises regarding health care and pensions to their employees a generation ago but just pushed off paying for those promises into the future. If GM never builds another car they still owe those workers what they were promised and that was a business decision on the part of GM. Don’t blame the union worker because of the promise made to him by his company. Blame the shortsightedness of the owners.

The NFL is different from the auto industry. In the NFL, the union members don’t make a product, they are the product. In a typical business labor usually represents a small fraction of the cost of the product but clearly it is going to be the lion’s share of costs in a sport (yes, Soylent Green is people).

The owners want to restructure that cost so they (the owners) make more money. That is reasonable. That is why the owners elected to renegotiate the agreement with the players. The players want to make as much money as they can. That is reasonable. I like to think that when reasonable people negotiate, both sides can win. I think ultimately that is what is going to happen here.

by LennytheCool on Aug 7, 2010 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

wrong, regarding auto industry

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. Ford is barely scraping by. Toyota and Nissan crashed? No, they didn’t. You are correct that the industry as a whole has suffered less sales during the recession. However, those two companies and many others survived just fine. GM and Chrysler were going to eventually (sooner rather than later) go bankrupt because of their problems regardless of whether we had a recession or not.

BTW, why do you think all the foreign automakers that build plants in the U.S. have chosen southern locations? Because those locations will support a non-union arrangement. Not to mention governments that are actually business friendly environments which truly result in more jobs for their constituencies.

Stay thirsty, my friends - for Kool-Aid !!!!!!

by kabrink on Aug 7, 2010 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

You say that GM and Chrysler were going to go into bankruptcy regardless of the recession and imply that was because of union contracts. That is simply false. Again, labor represents about 10% of the cost of a car and that is without regard to whether it is union or non-union labor. The foreign transplants are winning in the marketplace not because their labor force isn’t unionized but because those companies have succeeded in predicting trends and producing reliable, high quality, fuel efficient vehicles that people want to buy. Those successes have much more to do with culture of the management and the abilities of their designers, engineers and marketers than with the labor force.

I can see that foreign transplants would want to invest in places where they don’t have to deal with unionized labor since no capitalist wants to deal with an 800lb gorilla when they can deal with 80 10lb chimpanzees instead. That is nothing new. It just means that capitalists will always work to their perceived self interest and they know they can make more money if their workers aren’t organized.

by LennytheCool on Aug 7, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

so what if it is only 10% of the total cost

10% of $30,000 is $3,000. So a non-union guy only cost $1,500 per car, therefore lowering the cost of the car and making it easier to sell.

BTW 10% is pure speculation not a fact

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

the 10% thing you cite is meaningless

If this figure is correct, 90% is the cost of materials etc. These costs are roughly the same for every manufacturer across the industry. So, the only difference between the manufacturers are in the 10% you cite. So, when US manufacturers have huge labor burdens and low productivity it makes all the difference.

Stay thirsty, my friends - for Kool-Aid !!!!!!

by kabrink on Aug 7, 2010 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

Union "work ethic" can't be over stated either

And guys from up north are the laziest, hmmm I wonder why Toyota and Honda pick the south

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Meeting of the minds

I am afraid the union is going to be the downfall of pro football as we know it. They keep wanting more, more, more, without giving anything! Yes the players health and safety are of prime importance, but until this year, very little has been said about by the Union. They don’t want to let a crisis go to waste. Reasonable people should be able to get a reasonable agreement. That being said, player salaries have gotten so far out of line it is beyond ridiculous. When a player holds out because he wants $.50 more, he is really showing his greed. There has to be a rookie salary schedule. Their demands are way out of line

by honk on Aug 7, 2010 9:40 AM CDT reply actions  

Agree.

The other thing that is wrong is the way the Teams set up the contracts. IMO, if you sign a 5 year 25 mil contract, the team should have to pay you 5 mil a year for 5 years. I’m getting soooooo F—-ing sick of players holding out with two years left on their deal because they are “only getting paid 2 mil a year” when the contract was front end loaded paying them 21 mil in the first 3 years.

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

how can the players possibly think that Goodell actually KNOWS anything ...

… or if he does that his baby-kissing excursion is the time to negotiate? it isn’t … Goodell is being his usual “head of state/figurehead” on a trip like that … negotiations are done in the big office with the big guns from both sides

both sides need to give in and donate a MASSIVE amount to older vets who NEED the money (all 1st round picks should tithe 10% to the fund) and they need to end the ridiculously insane salaries for those top-end first round picks … it’s not JUST the union out of line, though … it takes two to tango, and the union might be more willing to “give up” some things ($$$) if the NFL gives up some things too ($$$) … when both sides make concessions, then you end up with some kind of agreement

"I shall conquer untruth by truth" - Mahatma Gandhi
"It's always easier to sell 'em some shit than it is to give 'em the truth" - Shel Silverstein, The Perfect High
Whitlock Rocks!
hi, Mo! 5 minutes!!!

by upamtn on Aug 7, 2010 9:51 AM CDT reply actions   2 recs

when both sides make concessions, then you end up with some kind of agreement.

Good luck with that. We are so screwed. Enjoy football this year boys, I’m betting we don’t get it next year.

by I_Bleed_Red. on Aug 7, 2010 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions  

I think we will have it next year.

I just hope the owners don’t have to give 60% again. That was the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. If my employees came to me and said they want 60% of my revenue, I would show them the door because if I did give them 60%, I would technically be working for them for the 2 weeks we would be able to stay afloat.

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions  

Too much money to lose

They wont do that. We’ll have football next year, because neither side wants to be considered “the ones who stopped football”. But they should act a little more like employees, I mean, that’s what their PAID for! =)

by KCinIL on Aug 7, 2010 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions  

I hear you man...

my Dad owns a small business and bust his ass only to get hit with huge overhead and taxed to death. Professional sports just doesn’t seem to be governed by the same rules as most businesses. You could say its the most expensive and riskiest hobby in the world. Does anyone know how much profit these guys are pulling in every year?

by I_Bleed_Red. on Aug 7, 2010 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions  

as a fellow buisness owner, I know exactly what you mean

I get so tired of this “I’m owed something” attitude workers have now days. I am a person who 12 years ago stuck my neck out to start my own company. So dont tell me how much I need your services and how underpaid you are. All i need is for you to do your job. Sorry rant over

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

"I feel like I need a raise"

Shit me too! And about 50 other people haven’t before and after me. I mean if it wasn’t work, we wouldn’t call it f**kin work! It’s WORK!

by KCinIL on Aug 7, 2010 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions  

hired-not haven't

Gotta love workin the night shift!

by KCinIL on Aug 7, 2010 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions  

Nailed it!

That’s the point. The players are leaching off of the owner’s ass. The bigger and fatter the ass, the more blood there is, the more the leach wants to suck it.

wow that sounds wrong

But it’s not. People shouldn’t criticize an owner for being a billionaire. He got it because he earned it in most cases. He took one HUGE risk investing everything he had in a franchise, therefore deserves the rewards and or losses he gets.
Players are not owed anything more than the huge contract they are given.

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

that was to teabaggingeper

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

How did Clark Hunt "earn" being a billionaire?

Seems to me he hit it bigger than Berry did in the rookie lottery. If I got to choose my parents, my last name would be Kennedy, Gates, or Hunt.

Al Davis earned his millions in football (With a little help from Lamar, IIRC). Most other owners were millionaires to begin with, however they came by their stacks before football. Owning an NFL team is a low-risk, high-reward club for the ultra-wealthy, not a struggling small business.

The NFL is a cash cow. In a perfect world, owners wouldn’t worry about profits, they’d own the team for the love of the game, and players wouldn’t play for money, but the love of the game. The converse of that is indifference to the game on both sides, and the pure love of the money. What we have is something in-between those extremes.

I do take issue with your statement “The players are leaching off of the owner’s ass”. The players are what make the owner money. They are his factory, his machinery. No players, no money. It’s a bad CEO who doesn’t maintain his facilities lets his company go to shit. The players are not employees you can simply hire like you are buying a pound of rice, the way others here seem to have (IMO) done (and are bitching about – “you get what you pay for” applies to employees, too. Pay shitty wages, and you get shitty workers, Whaaaaah).

In the end, the question comes down to how to divvy up the pie. Should owners get 90% of the revenue and players 10%? I think you’d agree that would be unfair. Reverse it: Should the players get 90% and the owners 10%? Doesn’t seem reasonable to me, either. The answer lies somewhere in-between. If finding the answer were easy, it would be done already.

Needs for 2010:
O-line
D-line
Linebacker
Safety

by Bleedingredandgold on Aug 7, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

This is a complicated issue

I’m glad people on here seem astute enough to realize this isn’t just a case of those “greedy evil owners” vs. the “poor little players”.

The union needs to stop trying to put the screws to the owners and realize that they were in a VERY player-friendly agreement. They need to realize that not ALL savings from a rookie wage scale can go to current players, and that some of it must go to retired players.

They also need to realize that Owners take a pretty big risk in buying and running a football team. It takes deep pockets, and if you look in places like JAC you can see how owners really are taking a risk of losing a great deal of money.

Finally, BOTH sides need to realize that this isn’t a war. This isn’t about the big guy vs. the little guy. This is billionaires vs. millionaires. And both sides will need to make concessions.

That’s one issue I’ve seen with the players union. They seem to want to stick with the status quo, and aren’t willing to make concessions (other than a rookie wage scale, which doesn’t impact the current players at all and can only help them).

I’m not a fan of owners either, either, for the record. I just see zero willingness to compromise on the part of the Union. The Union is supposed to be HELPING the players, and it will only be HURTING them if they don’t get an agreement done. Because a lot of these guys only have a few years to make money, and losing out on a year could affect the rest of their life.

That’s my biggest issue with unions (at least the modern day unions). They’re more concerned about winning than about the people they’re supposed to represent.

I love my wife, my kids, and the Chiefs. In that order. Except on game days.

by MNchiefsfan on Aug 7, 2010 10:03 AM CDT reply actions   1 recs

I can agree with that. Rec'd

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions  

Could even go a step further

And say it’s just all about the paycheck and profits until they can bleed it dry or someone lays down new laws/rules. Shouldn’t owners have a little more say so than the players union? How does that even work out.

by KCinIL on Aug 7, 2010 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions  

Here is what i think is fair..

They should base the salary cap floor and ceiling based upon the previous years earnings. That way its like a employees stock option plan. If the NFL makes 100 billion, then the players get 60 billion for example. If the NFL has a down year then readjust the salary cap to accomadate the loss. Maybe then the players will realize a little better how important the fans really are.

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 11:34 AM CDT reply actions  

I like that...

a lot. But, your going to have to give the players something they want to make that happen.

by I_Bleed_Red. on Aug 7, 2010 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

give them a bigger piece of the pie

if owners can be guarenteed a profit, what do they have to lose? In fact the players will build this thing up because they know that salaries will go up the very next year for their efforts on and off the field. everybody wins.

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions  

A few rants...pardon the novel.

1. If you are Goodell, don’t make this stupid tour if you have NO information to offer the players cause you know that’s exactly what you are going to ask you about is the CBA. Think about what was accomplished here — no agreements made, no information shared, no grievances addressed. However, some bad blood was created by Goodell being a baby kisser while making zero progress. The players feel like he is trying to politically out-flank them, not reach-out to them so this tour is ONLY decreasing the possibility of football in 2011. Its exactly this type bad faith pseudo-negotiations that risk souring the process early such that each side feels like they need that one more concession before the process is over. That kind of sentiment snowballs — Goodell is being dumb. He would’ve been better off having private meetings with owners to figure-out exactly what they were and were not willing to give up.

2. I don’t think Water’s was asking about health care nor is a comparison to the auto-industry at ALL informative. We’re not competing with a Japanese football league. And Waters was asking about health benefits that they already get — what he was asking about was will those current health benefits be canceled in 2011 if there is a lock-out. Seems like a legit question because some of these guys have a LOT of medical problems, treatments, prescriptions, need surgeries, etc. Without income and health benefits, 2011 could be a financially devastating year for any players who haven’t saved their money wisely. And I’m not compelled by the argument that “well they shouldn’t be spending their money so recklessly anyway”. So what? It’s their money! The same argument could be applied to owners. Lot of financial risk associated with owning a team? Well they just should’ve had more assets and securities available to back-up their investment! Its a double-standard applied to players and not owners.
What Waters was asking was a question he KNEW Goodell wouldn’t answer. I’m guessing his purpose was to demonstrate to the young folks that the NFL is not going to screw around — you don’t do a CBA our way, we will cut you off completely in 2011. Goodell’s non-answer served Waters’ purpose.

3. I’m not a complete union sympathizer. In fact, I think it is the union that needs to open with some concessions. But the average life expectancy for an NFL player is 55. 52 if you’re a lineman. Players sacrifice years of their lives — about 33% of it, against the national average that is — to play this game and make BILLIONS for owners. You can’t measure that in millions of dollars. And lets not forget that for many, those last few years aren’t so awesome. Dementia? Concussions? The inability to even remember one’s glory on the field?
And this “well they don’t have to play” argument is non-nonsensical to the point of being silly. Of course they have to play. Isn’t that what we’re talking about here? Trying to avoid, at all costs, a situation where they don’t? The owners need the best players in the world to do what they do on TV to make money. The players need their salaries to finance their “silver” years since their bodies will be largely incapable of doing much work at all past 50. We fans (at least I) need football to survive. Of course they have to play because if they don’t, EVERYONE loses.
I’m not saying the union should get everything it wants — far from it. All I’m saying is that we should be too quick to dismiss the concerns of a union of people who sacrifice a lot that CANNOT be quantified in dollars.

4. At the same time, the proper repayment for their sacrifices aren’t more extravagant salaries.
I think the players need to concede a rookie salary cap(?) or at least a structure to the owners that will reduce these ridiculous salaries. It’s forcing owners, specifically the owners with the top 5-10 picks to play roulette with only one $90-$50 million dollar chip that they can only place on one number.
I think the players also need to give-up some ground on hold-outs. I’m not at all sure how this would work but I get sick of players in Shane’s scenario where they’ve made $21 million on their $25 million contract and hold-out for a new deal or insist on a trade because of their “low” yearly salary.
There should also be some kind of obligatory charitable pooling of resources for anyone who makes over X amount per year that is dedicated to the communities these clubs play in. (does something like that already exist?) Cities give-up a LOT of resources that could be used for many more important things than football. And that’s coming from an avid football fan. I think that sports clubs do a lot to inspire comradery in the cities they compete in. But you can’t tell me Detroit couldn’t find some other more pressing need to address aside from its football team. Some sort of agreement whereby the pooled money of players making over a certain amount would present tax benefits both for the players and the owners. In conflict resolution this kind of resolution is called a collaborative solution. Its not one side giving-up something that they want and the other taking it, its both sides finding an external mechanism, a third way, that makes everyone win.

5. The owners also need to make some concession, but few of them, I think, need to be monetary or designed to protect exorbitant salaries. Most, I think should, should be earnest efforts address players’ concerns about health issues. Concussions, player health care for veterans of the league, etc.

by hornetchiefsfan on Aug 7, 2010 11:40 AM CDT reply actions   2 recs

And lets not forget that for many, those last few years aren’t so awesome. Dementia? Concussions? The inability to even remember one’s glory on the field?

All I’m saying is that we should be too quick to dismiss the concerns of a union of people who sacrifice a lot that CANNOT be quantified in dollars.

Lets also not forget some owners put their own fortunes and futures on the line as well to own these teams, and if they fail will still be able to remember the haunting memories of their failure. Owners are people too, people who have hopes and dreams for their families.

All these guys are in this together and need each other, so i advise them to find a way to take our money and enjoy.

.

by teabaggingexper on Aug 7, 2010 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions  

can you supply a reference for this statement?
But the average life expectancy for an NFL player is 55. 52 if you’re a lineman. Players sacrifice years of their lives — about 33% of it, against the national average that is

Stay thirsty, my friends - for Kool-Aid !!!!!!

by kabrink on Aug 7, 2010 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions  

interesting

I had not heard of this before. It is clear from the article that the life expectancy issue is still speculative. I am not dismissing it at all, but it is not settled statistical science at this point, as I read it.

It is interesting that at the end of the article Culpepper says: “If something happens to me because I was carrying weight, then it’s on me,” Wade said. “I’m the one who chose to be a lineman. If I wanted to play football, I was going to be a lineman. That’s the skill I was given. If you’re really that worried about it, do something else.”

Stay thirsty, my friends - for Kool-Aid !!!!!!

by kabrink on Aug 7, 2010 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's a great point.

It’s not like every player doesn’t know the risk. I had a scholarship to play football. I had knee trouble in high school, and knew it was an issue. I also knew I needed that $$ towards my education. I was using football to get my education. Kind of the opposite of these guys using school to play football, but still.
I took the deal and got my knee blown out in the 3rd week of preseason work my Freshman year. Career over. Simple as that. I took the risk. I got what I got.
I could have chosen to get a job at McDonalds and work my way through. But I took the risk because I loved football, I was very good at it, and I wanted the scholarship money.

President - Team Colquitt Fan Club - est. July 29, 2010

by ARROWHEADSHANE on Aug 7, 2010 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

From

The article said, the Players Union is very willing to go along with a Rookie Wage scale, and has made proposals about it, but it’s the owners that don’t want to hear what they have to say, or at least Goodel doesn’t. Rookie(specifically 1st round) wage scale, with ALL the money saved going to vets and retirees is something both sides should be on board for. The players seem to be, the owners, not so much.

by dablueguy on Aug 7, 2010 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Kansas City Chiefs blog! Follow us on Facebook and on Twitter.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Calabaloo_small
Reviewing AP's Predictions For The Chiefs 2011 Season
Small
Some clarity on Peyton's injury
Crennelgatoradebathposterizedrough_small
Brian Daboll: Another Perspective
Dxmcc_copy_small
Why Drafting Robert Griffin Is Not Optional For The Kansas City Chiefs

Recent FanPosts

282_small
Top 5 WR with bottom five QB's
Small
My scenerio trade involving Bowe.
P702199dt_small
Do we already have the QB of the future?
Bflow2_small
The Case For Trent Richardson And The Kansas City Chiefs
Small
Triple Trade-up Scenario
Dbs_oak_991_10_23_11_small
10 Bold Predictions For The Chiefs 2012-2013 Season
10452014-small_small
My Favorite Chiefs- Defense (1980's-Present Edition)
09000d5d826f8203_gallery_600_small
Prospect Mockery. 02/15/2012
Small
Expectations for SB under Cassel/Orton
Winning_me_small
Chief Concern

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

23247_617116905_1805_n_small Chris Thorman

Headshot_small Joel Thorman

Editors

Matt_ssv_pic_small_small Matt Conner

Stag_20silhouette_small stagdsp

288-chiefstexans0944_sp_8-15-09_jfs woodman212

Lips-rhps_small upamtn

Contributors

Small Jon Yoon

Kc_ny_small NJ Chiefs Fan

Phoenix_by_melen_small KaloPhoenix

N1358340181_30185582_5800_small Flowers24

Dirkness_small HisDirkness

Cassel_small Steve_in_RI