-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
-
Perez Abomination Grows
April 23, 2013 | 81 comments
Streetcar Line
Save the NFL, Now
A wonderful Super Bowl behind them, owners and players are about to destroy the best thing going.
The National Football League has one of the best things going in the history of team sports. Its owners and players are on the verge of blowing it entirely, leaving the fans in the lurch. The game should belong to the fans who pay for it. If the owners and players ruin the coming season, may a serious pox be on both their houses.
How stupid must both sides be to even come close to risking their pot of gold and their pre-eminent place in the affections of the American public. How short-sighted. How incredibly unimaginative with solutions. And how pathetically greedy.
As they say in bridge, let’s review the bidding. Under the old system that is expiring on March 4, the teams operated on the level playing field set by an ingenious and workable salary cap. League balance is excellent. And, despite the literally unbelievable — not at all believable — claims of some owners, everybody prospers unless they ware utterly incompetent. Eight billion dollars in revenue allows lots of prospering.
Owners, addicted to taxpayer-financed stadiums and outlandish ticket prices like junkies on a diet of both crack and meth, are upset because the current system sets aside 60 percent of revenue to be dispersed among the players. They want to backtrack on that percentage. Cry me five rivers and a large-sized lake.
In all my years as a huge sports fan, longtime New Orleans Saints season ticket holder, sports writer (yes, that’s how I got my start), and columnist, I never have supported the players in a sports strike. Nobody deserves the sort of money, for instance, that baseball players get for running around on manicured, deep-green fields. But this — this is different. The violence of professional football is almost unimaginable. The careers are short, but the cumulative injuries are forever. If most owners are making profits — which they certainly are — under today’s 60-40 split of an $8 billion pot, then there’s no reason to monkey with that overall breakdown. The players, after all, aren’t demanding more, but just to keep what they have.
Worse, the same owners who feign serious concern about player health are promoting the unbelievably moronic idea of turning a 16-game regular season into an 18-game season. Don’t they know there are limits to the stresses the human body can endure? Don’t they know that the fans don’t want to see their favorite players get hurt and have their careers cut short? Commissioner Roger Goodell makes the ludicrous claim that the 18-game proposal is all for the fans, to save fans the annoyance of four full pre-season games. Yeah, right — as if the league ever really cared anything about the fans except what is in their wallets or allowed by their credit cards. Fans endure what the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins called “a splitting headache and sour stomach from the $19 margaritas and the $12 wine and the $10 beers and the rest of the fiscal insanity.” That’s not to mention the obnoxiousness of the only-for-premium NFL Network, which makes some of the league’s biggest games unviewable by a huge swath of the public. Fans are near the breaking point already. What we need isn’t more bells and whistles; what we need is a stop to the cost spiral.
Yet here the owners are threatening a lockout. Huh? Rather than wait to see if players strike, the owners would lock out the very people who do the actual grunt work, the people without whose phenomenal skills these owners would be rich nobodies with only their bank accounts to feed their egos. (Then again, if there’s no NFL season, maybe more owners can get their names in the papers by suing alternative weeklies because of hurt feelings over a devil illustration. Dan Snyder could show them all how to star in their own movies and call it The Anti-Social Network.) King Solomon couldn’t collect his riches without his mine workers, and the owners don’t actually own any teams if the teams have no players to generate the gold. Or, to change metaphors, locking out the players makes as much sense as it would for an astronaut to turn off his own oxygen suit before a space-walk.
On the other hand, the players are acting like spoiled brats as well. Rather than hiring as their union’s executive director somebody who actually has proved that he cares about the game, they hired a big-money lawyer whose idea of how to avoid a lost season isn’t to start negotiating months in advance, but instead to try to use his connections with Eric “The Pardoner” Holder and the rest of the Obama administration in order to get politicians to ride to the players’ rescue. The threat is to “decertify” the union and then ask Congress or the courts to eliminate the league’s super-valuable anti-trust exemption. But it is that very exemption that helps the league do all the things — revenue sharing, salary caps, joint marketing agreements, etc. — that keep the playing field level enough for every fan to have reason to hope his team can one day win a Super Bowl. The anti-trust exemption is what allowed the league to thrive and become pre-eminent. Eliminating the exemption would be like the players cutting off their own versions of Brett Favre’s favorite cell-phone-seduction-tool in order to spite their jock straps. (These guys bust their noses all the time and don’t mind spiting or rearranging their faces, but see how they like it when their league gets ruined enough that their groupies decide to throw themselves at golfers instead.) What’s needed here isn’t trial-lawyer brinksmanship — a testosterone-fest for paper-pushers — but steady, persistent reason and common sense.
There is no reason, none on Earth, why the two sides can’t find a solution. There’s plenty of money to go around.
That said, the NFL right now really is great entertainment. The last five years have had superb season climaxes. First was the long-awaited triumph of pro’s pro Peyton Manning and nice-guy coach Tony Dungy. The next year featured the first Super Bowl featuring a team unbeaten after 18 games, the amazing possibility of back-to-back championships by quarterback brothers, the most amazing single catch (ball-to-helmet) in NFL history, and the greatest upset since Joe Willie prepared with “two beers and a broad.” The year after that featured another nail-biter, won by another all-world catch (Santonio Holmes dancing in-bounds in the end zone), in a game featuring two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Then came the Saints’ marching in after 43 years, first winning in overtime against a legend from a New Orleans exurb (Favre’s Kiln, Miss., is less than an hour from the French Quarter), then in the match-up against real local-boy Peyton, the son of the single most beloved player in the team’s first four decades. Finally, this year, another nail-biter, with the Lombardi-haunted Packers first dispatching the 80-year rival Bears before edging out the AFC’s single most storied franchise in a game not decided until the last minute.
This is the sort of sporting spectacle worth saving. It is why true fans should not just curse the greed on both sides of this labor dispute, but instead wish for constructive solutions — and even propose them. In Part Two, tomorrow, I’ll put forth my own ideas. But for now, in the spirit of Starrs fallen forward into frozen end-zones, let’s just say that the way to the winning score for both sides is just to push forward, knowing that the will of Lombardi insists the task is doable.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (128) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/09/save-the-nfl-now
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Mc| 2.9.11 @ 6:33AM
As far as the 18 games per season argument is concerned, I have an idea but try to send an email to anyone in the know. It is so simple. The wild card weekend would have each division winner sitting out; N, S, E and W. The wild card would be the second and third place teams with only the bottom teams from each division forced to wait another year. The rivalries that already exist would become tremendous in the ensuing years if this playoff plan was adopted. And there would be no need for any extra regular-season games. Do the math and go Steelers!
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.9.11 @ 6:36AM
Actually, you missed the opportunity to point out the real problem with this mess. It's the fact that the government is involved and has invoked special privileges on the owners. The players benefited but the public never did.
The public was simply put in a position of paying ever higher prices for the same product. If anyone is the victim here it's the public.
Let them crumple and recreate themselves without special privileges. Many other businesses do, and it works.
In the meantime don't look for anyone to look out for the public in this mess. Soon they will by paying $200 for tickets and another $200 per person to eat at the stadium. They will also be hit up with a player's tax on each ticket sale so the owner's don't lose anything.
At some point the public will revolt and simply stop going and stop watching. The greed is incredible on both sides and at some point greed will get what it deserves.
Appleby| 2.9.11 @ 6:56AM
Your last paragraph says it all. A product is worth what peeople will pay for it -- and it is up to the people who pay for it to vote with their dollars, euros, shekels and pence to decide if the game is worth the candle.
Just ask the Toronto Maple Leafs, whose *star player* makes $600,000 a month and has done absolutely NOTHING this year -- and the Leafs have not made the playoffs in 5 years or won a Cup since 1967 -- yet they sell out every game.
Hosehead| 2.9.11 @ 7:55AM
Fan is short for fanatic and the breed supports their team no matter what the politics. Our Phluffya Flyers sold out every game from 1967 to 2002(?) even when they were not winning. Also,Ed Snyder built his own arena without city dollars.
JFGalt| 2.9.11 @ 8:12AM
I've already voted with my wallet and have stopped paying the ludicrous prices. Who can afford to take their family to a game. $100 for each ticket (if you're lucky), at least $20 for parking, $10 a beer, $5 hot dogs, want to buy a souvenier - forget about it and I'm taking nosebleed seats here. I remember years ago one of the players strikes and going to my gym which was adjoining the Atlanta Falcons training facilities. Players covered in heavy gold jewelry and sitting on their Porsches, Mercedes and Ferraris complaining about their salaries. We taxpayers are always paying for new stadiums - why - for a better fan experience - NO - its for more luxury skyboxes. pretty soon that's all that there will be in a stadium. Professional Sports (and I include college here) in general is out of control. But nothing will change because fans won't stand up for themselves and say enough is enough. They only care about watching their team winning a game and not the game itself. Americans like to be winners or think they are part of the winning despite the fact that they are actually losing. This country needs to wake up.
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 9:57AM
"...Players covered in heavy gold jewelry and sitting on their Porsches, Mercedes and Ferraris complaining about their salaries..."
If you go to YouTube there is a clip of an NFL pregame show before an NFC championship game. It appears to be the late seventies or early eighties. In it is a behind-the-scenes story of Joe Theisman preparing at home for the "big game". The car he drove was a station wagon which appeared to be several years old and his home can be best described as upper middle class....AT BEST.
Back in the day professional athletes, even the top performers, lived among the fans.
Old Guy| 2.9.11 @ 4:48PM
The problem is the lily-livered politicians and the greedy businessmen who make it possible by forcing the taxpaying public to participate in the scam. The Indiana Pacers play in a $180 million basketball court for which they pay $1 (yes, one dollar) per year and receive all revenues, including all non-basketball revenues. With the backing of downtown businesses and the local media, city government just voted to give the Pacers $10 million per year - for at least 3 years - for "operation" of the building. The Pacers had complained that they were losing money in the ccurrent framework. The owners are billionaires owning and operating shopping centers internationally but it seems to occur to nobody to ask how such brilliant businessmen can lose money year after year running a basketball team under such magnificently generous terms!
mames| 2.9.11 @ 9:44AM
Here's an idea - IT JUST A GAME! Wh=o gives a damn what millionaires do to divide their booty and BTW the govt MUST get out of the way and let this thing run in a free market manner. NOBODY is harmed if the NFL folds, NOBODY. Get a grip America you're starting to sound like the Romans crying for bread and games. Far more crucial things to be concerned about.
Bob K.| 2.9.11 @ 10:18AM
Amen!
Tim the Enchanter| 2.10.11 @ 1:39PM
Amen to that. We as a society would probably be better off without the NFL. Lots of vice and very little virtue. The players themselves look as if they were from a jail-break at a Barnum and Bailey sideshow. Most have a bit of a smart-ass attitude, as well. Great examples for young, impressionable minds.
scotchieguy| 2.9.11 @ 12:27PM
The greed really isn't incredible on both sides--just the owners. The players risk injuring themselves physically for life, playing an average of what, 3-4 years, w/ no guaranteed money. They can be cut on a whim. And now, the owners want to expand the season to 18 games. There is no reason to do this, but it is as inevitable as expanding the playoffs. The current format is perfect, and as sure as I'm typing this, they will do both, further watering down the product, and guaranteeing 2nd and 3rd stringers in the playoffs. Eventually it will be as watered down as the current college football bowl games, the NHL or the NBA.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:07PM
You are absolutely correct. The game has evolved [though through the demand/supply fault of the viewing public] into a consumer/fan disaster, with the excessive price of same being the result. If fans would simply not renew/pay the exorbitant ticket prices [or watch/view on TV] these games, the consumer demand would dry up and the NFL business would deteriote into bankruptcy. The fans get screwed not only by the league but by TV as well in this process. Sadly it is only due to these fans irrationaly devotion/demand for this game that results in same burying them in the price-debt!!!!!!!!!!
irish19| 2.9.11 @ 5:58PM
Just so you know, the Rugby World Cup is this year. So, if you can get it, there is at least a bit of an alternative. And I doubt the players are as spoiled as the typical NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL type.
Besides, it's a great game to watch!
JimH| 2.9.11 @ 7:14AM
While this is largely a fight between billionaires and millionaires, the league in it's current form has only been possible as pointed out above by special anti-trust exemptions. In addition many, most? teams have benefited from special local tax treatment and tax payer funding of the stadiums in which they play. Football, which I love is ultimately a business. The government should not be involved. That being said, I do have some some sympathy for most of the players. A football players career is on average quite short, with rare exceptions their contracts, unlike baseball players are not guaranteed and because of the violence of the game their bodies pay the price for the rest of their lives. The owners are now trying to recoup what they consider an over generous previous agreement.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:10PM
Absolutely correct, but this could be remedied by a combination of top line health insurance contracts and long term disability insurance for the players, instead of their excessive salary structures. Additionally, these non-rocket scientist players don't have the intelligence to use part of their high salaries money to personally obtain these insurance products on their own to insure their financial well being!!!
Old Soldier| 2.9.11 @ 7:37AM
I grew up going to Patriots games in a half-empty stadium owned by a tire salesman. But we had great fun and my middle-class Dad could afford a game or 2 a season. I still really enjoy watching the NFL - on TV. I would never consider paying for the tickets, parking, etc... to get myself and the kids in a stadium these days.
The owners really are about to kill their golden goose.
ShalomMetsJets| 2.9.11 @ 1:34PM
Ditto. I grew up going to Jets games at Shea in a half-empty stadium. Jets tickets were cheap in those days ($11 for Loge seats until the move to Jersey in 1984), and the players on injured reserve sat in the stands and interacted with the fans (I got a lot of autographs from players on the Jets and their opponents). I can't afford to go the games, and everything is too distant. The team and league try to stage events where there is some interaction, but it's rarely open to more than season ticket holders and its staged. It was more open and spontaneous back in the day.
Curly Smith| 2.9.11 @ 7:50AM
You miss the point entirely. It's not about money, it's about power. Neither the owners nor the Union is willing to let the other side "win". Each would rather destroy the enterprise than to be "the one who blinked". It won't be resolved, if it is resolved, until both sides are staring into the abyss.
It's what happens when one or both of the parties wasn't involved in creating the success but rather inherited the benefits of all the previous heavy lifting. They don't understand where they came from, they can't comprehend the amazing level of success, but they do know that they're vastly inferior to those who came before them. So they have to be seen as winning. They have to create a crisis to be recognized as "statesmen". There's no material difference between Congress and the NFL in that regard.
Ryan| 2.9.11 @ 8:07AM
If there weren't money here, then power wouldn't be an issue.
Appleby| 2.9.11 @ 11:52AM
The NHL found out when they went on strike that (1) almost nobody knew and (2) of those few who knew, nobody cared.
The only people who were really hurt were the secondary folks -- the ones who maintained the rinks, sold the overpriced goodies, and operated businesses in the local area that did most of their trade on game nights.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:16PM
Duh, really? Of course, the money and power are interrelated [as in everything else in life]. The issue is [1] that the owners' should be able to control their own business [and not the players/employees] and [2] the players union is now controlled by an BHO labor lawyer intent upon dragging the government/DOJ into this fight and coercing a PRIVATE business!!!!
John Daniel| 2.9.11 @ 7:51AM
Maybe these folks need to remember that there's an alternative market - and a good one - in college football. And there's ESPN. If the NFL blows this one then Saturday could become the new Sunday.
JimH| 2.9.11 @ 8:37AM
Unfortunately, at the high level at least, college football is as much a business as the NFL.
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 10:19AM
The NCAA might be worse than the NFL, but as far as being a "business" does not really apply because of their tax-exempt status. They are in essence a poorly run non-profit who don't have to account for where their money is spent. As long as it's spent in "pursuit of education", you know, like 20 million dollar scoreboards and 5 million dollar coaching salaries.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:18PM
Partially, but not completely, since there are no excessive player salaries and labor unions involved in the college game!!!!!!!!
John Daniel| 2.9.11 @ 4:16PM
Actually, sports fans, I'm finding Division III ball to be preferable...good athletes not big enough to be in semi-pro Division I, who generally play because they enjoy the game with no real pro prospects. Genuine college football.
Brian Mc| 2.9.11 @ 5:14PM
Used to be that way for division I. The wife and I would sit up, winter nights and catch the Iowa Hawkeyes play basketball...Lute Olsen, George Raveling days. It was a cheap way for us to stay passionate with the program and local advertisers had an audience willing to buy what they were selling. Now....you had better have cable/Big Ten Network if you want to stay a "fan". We haven't seen a game in several years. Personally, I refuse to pay to watch commercials and I don't need 75% of what cable shoves down my throat. Let me pick and choose my channels and I'll consider cable again.
MoeBlotz| 2.9.11 @ 8:06AM
In the age of Lombardi,professional football was still a game. Today the NFL is a big business. Half the fans know little about the basics of the game,they just root for the home team(usually) and Monday is dreary if they lost. My dad and I used to watch up to four games on a Sunday,switching between NBC and CBS. Yes,I had to get off my arse to turn the selector on the black and white Zenith. After Dad died,I discovered outside activities were more fun than plonking myself down in front of the boob tube on nice sunny days. I still enjoy a good football game,but on a nice day you can have more fun outside. Let the @(#*$&%{}! lock out the meat supply,maybe it will help our obesity epidemic. America will survive.
R Martin| 2.9.11 @ 8:16AM
"The game should belong to the fans who pay for it."
How long has it been since that was the case? The game belongs to television, and the owners are tv's agents. I stopped attending games long ago (even with reasonable ticket prices) when refs started standing on the sideline, ball in hand, players twiddling their thumbs while commercials ran for the television audience. Perhaps the groupies who have already decided to throw themselves at golfers recognize earlier than most that there is already too much money in football.
Melvin| 2.9.11 @ 8:35AM
Well, any time Madison Avenue gets involved the above pretty much happens.
NASCAR is a classic example . Drivers were ugly as sin, and could drive their backsides off. Now the drivers are all pretty with great abs, driving ability has deteriorated for safety, and the tickets are just way too expensive.
MoeBlotz| 2.9.11 @ 9:27AM
Madison Avenue has been involved in the NFL for a longer period than it has with NASCAR. For every talented player in professional football that the advertising dollars have corrupted,five more were waiting to take his place. Wielding a 4,000 pound missile at 200 mph and trying not to collide with 42 other blokes whilst turning left has a much smaller talent pool.
John - TMF| 2.9.11 @ 8:50AM
Want to fix the NFL? Since it is a creature of the statutory goodies that Congress hands out, make it really simple... end the anti-trust exemption and then do:
1. Make the NFL a Stock exchange holding corporation where each team has a buy in price, and the buy in covers, Draft pool funds, Defined benefit funds for health and player retirement contributions... league copyrights. The NFL would run the league, officials, schedules, and coordinate stock trading between teams.
2. End private ownership of all teams. No more quirky, greedy, or spiteful "owners". Go to the Green Bay Packers model of team ownership where it is a publicly held corporation with shares of stock that can be bought and sold by fans via the NFL stock exchange. This all can be organized without "stealing" from the existing owners, and once they are paid off, they can be free to buy as much stock as they can afford.
3. Change the compensation system for players to be based on experience. Drafted players get a 3 year contract at scale, with a signing bonus based on their draft or walk-on status. That bonus is paid by the draft stock pool for drafted players, as an individual negotiation by between the team and the player in the case of a walk-on. After 3 years, then it's open modified free agency. The player is free to negotiate with whatever team wants him.
Player contracts should be post performance not anticipatory but non-binding. Meaning, contracts in the NFL are largely meaningless. Players get union scale and the big money, except for cash signing bonuses, is not guaranteed. If the player gets injured his contract money is toast.
It is better to go to a payment on performance system where players are paid based on their prior season's performance. Just like any salesman's comp plan in any company. All incentives and bonuses should be published, comp plan negotiations are private, but must be public after agreements are signed.
There are other changes.. but basically the NFL needs to be a public entity with public stock in teams, dividends, and the books published in annual reports.
It doesn't solve everything, but it would keep small market teams in the league, allow for team negotiation of TV contracts... Steeler TV and the Cheesehead Network would be a dream for me... :-)
The last Super Bowl's viewership could have been its ownership watching... it was for the Packers.
FWIW...
The Mighty Fahvaag
PS 18 games is 2 games too many. But 4 divisions would be much better.
Sean| 2.9.11 @ 9:01AM
Let's get government out of football. The NFL is already in collusion with college football to keep underclassmen out of the league. This creates a free minor league for developing talent.
Nothing will "destroy" the NFL. It will keep going on. The players should want to get rid of the salary cap. Many good veterans that can still play are cut every year to save cap money. So with the salary cap in place fans do not get the best product.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:21PM
If the game demand [from ticket holder attendance and from TV viewership] dried up/stopped, then the NFL would be DESTROYED!!!!!
Sean| 2.9.11 @ 4:49PM
And that is not going to happen
LarryK| 2.9.11 @ 9:11AM
I predict that the NFL owners will initiate the downturn of the popularity of the NFL. Their greed will be their undoing.
canuckistani| 2.9.11 @ 9:34AM
We talk about tyranny and socialism on this blog, but yet we write and defend the NFL like it was mom and apple pie.
The owners are downright stalinist - revenue sharing or is that income redistribution?
Non-competitive and restrictive markets, salary caps, cities held hostage to veiled threats.
Calling the winner a "world champion" when there are zero international teams.
A commissioner cum dictator having unfettered control over player affairs.
Two-way contracts mean owners have no obligation to their employees.
Anti-trust exemption, like baseball's, is a scourge.
Co-opting of the military with color guards and flybys is right out of the Ministry of Propaganda.
The enemy is us. The owners, like the rest of us would in the same situation, massage, exploit, and consume every morsel of vanity a pol chooses to vend when offering bread and circuses for the proletariat.
Only the viewer and ticket-holder can enact change.
Old Soldier| 2.9.11 @ 9:47AM
Decertifying the union make all this go away. The players have the ultimate power in this dispute. If they voted to de-unionize, the owners are truly screwed. Teams would have to pay players what they are worth from year 1. The draft would be gone - they would all be free agents.
I'm waiting to see if the players go nuclear with that threat.
LarryK| 2.9.11 @ 10:34AM
That would truly be a free market unless the owners colluded and "fixed" the wages.
skip| 2.9.11 @ 11:23AM
You forgot the most egregious activity by the NFL, the blatant discrimination. There are no quotas for weak, short, lightweight linemen, or for slow, vertically challenged defensive backs and receivers, etcetera.
Appleby| 2.9.11 @ 11:54AM
Or for Wimmin!
skip| 2.9.11 @ 1:14PM
If I remember correctly you reside in Wisconsin.
If that is correct congratulations to you on the Packer victory.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:31PM
You had this scenerio previously when there were the two seperate leagues [AFL, NFL], with the rich/wealthy teams paying huge salaries to the best players, and the lesser wealthy teams not doing so and being unable to compete. The Chiefs [formerly the Dallas Texans] once sequestered a highly saught after player in a motel room [and paid him megabucks] to kepp him from the NFL seeking teams. Playing payers is related to contract with the NFL, not based upon the players union status. The union should be eliminated [agreed, like all unions should be] so that owners/teams would not have to alternatively seek other ways to make their money [TV ads revenue, etc], which ultimately result in the paying fans getting financially screwed!!!!!!!!
Flagstaff| 2.14.11 @ 1:14PM
You have the story of Otis Taylor backward. The NFL had him "sequestered" in a motel room, and Lloyd Wells of the Chiefs spirited him out through the bathroom window to sign with the Chiefs.
That was in the days when motels had windows that opened.
Generally I'm not pro-union, but in pre-union, pre-free agency days, major league ownership treated players like property.
One must consider that there is only one employer in pro football now, the NFL. Same for MLB. Yes, the teams compete with each other for players, but drafting and other rules certainly restrict player movement. The rules that allow some movement wouldn't be there without pressure from outside of ownership.
The availability of more lucrative employment in the AFL is what drew star players away from the NFL. The bidding war for players like Mike Ditka and John Brodie is what forced the merger of the two leagues. Had they stayed separate, there might have been no need for a players' union. They merged, so the players again had no leverage, but they had discovered they were worth more than they had been receiving. Voila! Discontent, a union, and the CBA.
Steve A| 2.9.11 @ 10:23AM
America has a short attention span & a short memory. You could wipe out the entire season next year, come back the following & the NFL would probably not skip a beat.
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 9:31AM
The problem with sports in general is franchise owners' insatiable desire for revenue streams. What/who drives this?...unions and free agency.
It seems not long ago FO's left money on the table with most satisfied making a small profit or breaking even. Enter a strong union and free agency and the door was blown wide open for FO's to justify pursuing every revenue stream imaginable, from mulimillion dollar merchandise deals, corporate sponsorship, to catering to the ultra-rich; all in the name of paying inflated player's salaries.
The government provided the needed cover by giving them tax-exempt status which is similar to Title 9 providing revenue-generating collegiate sports programs' justification for all of their over spending.
NONE of this would occur if FANS realized they are players in this game as well. Don't they realize THEY need representation as well?
Just remember when the NFL and players association are in the process of negotiating fans wont be part of the equation because they always give up their right to sit at the table.
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 9:38AM
Correction. The NCAA has tax exempt status, not the NFL. The NFL is exempt from anti-trust law.
canuckistani| 2.9.11 @ 12:21PM
They have the weakest union, two-way non-guaranteed contracts, and shouldn't all freedom-loving Americans be supporting free agency?
Or do you prefer billionaires being protected from themselves?
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 1:00PM
In my opinion, this is not a capitalism/socialism argument but one about the quality of professional sports from a consumer's (fans) point of view.
Because I will never be in position to be an owner nor a player, I couldn't care less about who receives what. I only care about the product on the field and how much it will cost me to consume it. Make no mistake, the quality is lacking.
My point is as a fan, the value of the product was far superior when professional sports was a part-time endeavor to the athletes (yes, most had real jobs in the off season), owners (no, the prime investment of most owners was NOT their sports franchises but other businesses), media (no focus on sports other than the nightly sportscast, newspaper, and if you were lucky, a sports-talk radio station during drive time in the evenings), and fans (yes, most had lives other than following sports).
Restating my original point, in those days owners wouldn't think of squeezing money out of their fan base from EVERY CONCEIVABLE angle. It simply was not in the mindset of an owner who owned teams for local pride. The players unions "let the genie out of the bottle" so to speak, and as a result, the quality of professional sports - from a fan's perspective - has been in slow decline ever since.
Call me a naive apologist for sports owners of the past but convince me otherwise.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:36PM
True, agreed, except that I'm against unions per se. Eliminate the players union, and get fans to use some brain cells in ratching back some of their pent up demand for the game, and game prices in general would decline to a reasonable level [and the game product would remain the same]!!!!
Pete| 2.9.11 @ 9:42AM
As long as Goodell gets fired over all of this, I will walk away happy. He is like Obama's EPA, making nebulous rules so that enforcement can be arbitrary to favor some over others. Unaccountable, arrogant, etc...truly a giant ass. The game is morphing into something it was never intended to be under him; you can't touch the QB, can't hit anyone hard. Why not just play a glorified game of "500" where an unopposed QB chucks the ball in the air and 6 receivers, 3 on each team try to catch it to score points? Perhaps a work stoppage is all for the best, before Osama decides to go after the (white) players and owners for "windfall profits."
Ryan| 2.9.11 @ 10:29AM
I dispute the "can't hit anyone hard" point. If there is one thing he got at least partially right, it's the enforcement against leading with the head while tackling.
You can hit hard with shoulder pads.
Pete| 2.9.11 @ 11:09AM
Every child in America (in Football) is taught to tackle the same way and that involves "leading with the head." The point is that it is impossible to judge intent, and even more impossible to prevent helmet to helmet hits when both players are going full speed and can move their bodies any way they please at any second. I contend that this suits Goodell just fine, because then he can choose to penalize some players and not others, fine some players more than others, and generally strut around like the arrogant ass that he is.
Running backs can spear people with their helmets at full speed, as can linemen (as long as they aren't hitting the ball carrier). The best anti-concussion helmets aren't "mandated." He wants to add two more regular season games. None of that reconciles with your point of view about player saftey, because it isn't about safety at all.
Ryan| 2.9.11 @ 11:16AM
Partially correct, but good coaches have always taught to tackle with pads, not attempt helmet-to-helmet. I REALLY think you're wrong there. The rules allow for ball carriers - but it more directly affects receivers on crossing routes and qb's.
Goodell has usually been too arbitrary, but the calls he made were generally right.
I do agree with you about the need to mandate new helmets.
Pete| 2.9.11 @ 11:25AM
There is a difference between "spearing" and tacking with your head in someone's chest and inadvertently having the crown of your helmet hit the other guy's helmet. Spearing, I am on board with you, but that has always been illegal. This arbitrary judgment land we are in now is what is crap, and Goodell hasn't been close to generally right or generally fair. As for a mandate, I think it should be up to the players to take whatever risks they please as free men. I brought up that point to illustrate that Goodell could care less about safety.
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 11:39AM
"You can hit hard with shoulder pads."...and be out for the rest of the season with a dislocated shoulder because SP's now are the size of knee pads...err, ...you know, those foam thingies they used to wear for knee protection.
Old Soldier| 2.9.11 @ 12:31PM
I'll agree with the rule when I see one running back penalized for leading with his head. Apparently they are exempt from those and face mask penalties. More nonsense to get more scoring.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:44PM
My possibly being older than both of you, I can remember when tackling was performed by simply wraping the defenders arms around the offensive player's legs and bringing same to the ground. In the 1950's with teams like the Colts, Giants, Bears, Packers,etc, there was no helmet-to helmet collisions, and this activity has evolved from the growing monopoly of African-American players in the game [and facilitated by politically correct coaches]. There is simply no need or purpose [other than too aggressive violent injury] served by this, since the object of tackling is not dependent upon same!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Capt G| 2.11.11 @ 8:26PM
That's not only not true, it's hogwash.
Ask Frank Gifford about Chuck Bednarik. Couple of white boys, by the way.
The game is far less violent today...but don't take my word for it...ask Artie Donovan, Dick Night Train Lane, Herb Adderley. If you ask David Deacon Jones, do it politely, or he might still make you ears ring.
You wrap your arms up after you make the hit. If you don't make the hit, you're either going to get run over, dragged down the field, or come to the realization that your arms are not as strong as an NFL running back's thighs.
scotchieguy| 2.9.11 @ 3:22PM
The cat's out of the bag. Tackling used to be the way to take the guy down. Now, it is all about the big hit, and the intimidation that goes w/ it. You don't forget pain, and if you are drilled by a safety once, odds are he is coming after you again. It works. The problem is, how do you get rid of the vicious hits where a defender comes full speed into a defenseless receiver and knocks him out for ten minutes? This is not good for the game. Rodney Harrison, himself a very hard hitter when he played, said on NBC the ONLY way to stop these hits is to eject the player immediately, and then suspend them. He said fines meant nothing to him when he played. They're already being paid a ton, but being in the game is the most important thing for these players--taking them out would be a huge incentive.
Tim Gallagher| 2.9.11 @ 6:23PM
"Now, it is all about the big hit, and the intimidation that goes w/ it."
Yes, and also about ESPN airtime: having your big hit shown over and over and over and over.
cuban pete| 2.9.11 @ 9:43AM
I boycotted the entire 2009 season including the Super Bowl because the league would not allow Rush Limbaugh to buy a fraction of a team but would still allow the jock sniffer Olberman to contribute his unoriginal insights.
Halfway through this year I began watching again because my wife kept harping on me to "lighten up" and Rush appears to have weathered the snub.
Having said that, there is entertaining football to be seen every Friday night at your local high school and Division II and III is very well played and the price is right.
D-I football is great because you can see different offensive schemes. Navy gives teams fits with their option offense for example.
I wish the NFL well but if next year goes in the tank so be it.
Richard Baker| 2.9.11 @ 9:43AM
"Lombardi haunted?" Lombardi set a very high standard and the "Packehs", as he called them, are probably glad to have such an ideal to shoot for. What an example. Are the Dolphins "Shula haunted" because of the undefeated season, as an example? I agree with Curly and his ideas above but free enterprise is what built this league and will continue to do so and the "power" such success creates will always be the Shakespearean "rub."
lmn| 2.9.11 @ 9:45AM
This is a case where the players are the means of production. They don't need to strike, there are plenty of empty fields and lots of excess equipment. Several games of "amateur" scrimaging would get plenty of news coverage. It wouldn't be as theatrical as a normal season, but the players could still "do it for the fans" and show owners who realy has the leverage.
JimP| 2.9.11 @ 10:15AM
Quin, are you saying Dan Snyder isn't a football genius? But, but......
If these two groups kill their own goose, then some enterprising folks will launch another pro league.
Occam's Tool| 2.9.11 @ 10:16AM
Sorry, but don't we have Islamofascism to deal with?
canuckistani| 2.9.11 @ 12:23PM
...no we're dealing with national socialists in sport....get with the program.
missbosslady| 2.9.11 @ 10:26AM
I'm a HUGE football fan, but I have my limits.
There is so much money to go around in the NFL it is difficult for the average person to understand how there can be any problems concerning revenues, this is further compounded by the exceptional greed of both owners and players.
There just seems too much to stomach as an NFL fan these days. Stallworth on the field may have been the last straw for me.
The league has become infected by millionaire criminals and their greedy overlords, and for the cool price of approx. $150-$200 a head you too can be a lucky spectator. Woo-hoo!
Enough is enough.
Ryan| 2.9.11 @ 10:31AM
Stallworth served his penance and the time mandated, and is truly remorseful for his actions. It's Ray Lewis that probably has more to answer for.
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 1:26PM
As Dennis Miller would say:
I haven't seen this much fuss over money since Leona Helmsley's dispute with the vet over the cost of her dog's gold tooth inlays......................cha cha
Ryan| 2.9.11 @ 10:32AM
For what it's worth, I think that we'll have a season next year. I think everyone is just posturing publicly.
Too much money is at stake for either side to walk away and do nothing.
Clint| 2.9.11 @ 10:34AM
It's about Hired Guns coming in & out of towns for big bucks, to play for The Chickified NFL of Show Business Owners.
Ned| 2.9.11 @ 10:35AM
I stopped watching professional football the same day the refs stopped throwing the penalty flag whenever the thug with the ball did his in-your-face "victory" dance... I find that entire spectacle offensive enough, but the daily recurrence of criminal arrests for off the field behavior just makes my case. I don't care, won't watch, and won't even notice if the whole thing collapses in upon itself.
Ned| 2.9.11 @ 10:38AM
And I won't watch ANY sports event that has women commentators. Exactly how many female NFL, NBA, or MLB players are women? That's how many are qualified to stand on the side lines and explain it all to the stupid fans.
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 10:53AM
What????
If there are no female sideline reporters we wouldn't get the answers two of my all time favorite questions:
"Describe the emotion"
"Did you expect to win today?"
No offense to the female audience here but if the networks didn't make it so obvious why they put the cute moppets on the sidelines, they would earn more credibility, at least from me.
canuckistani| 2.9.11 @ 12:31PM
Go back into your cave, Ned, or your momma's basement....
I would take a half decent woman over Tony Saragusa any day. That guy's a dud and an obnoxious dud at that. Add Joe Theismann and Randy Cross to the list of wasted airtime and skin.
scotchieguy| 2.9.11 @ 3:31PM
I heard over 10% of the FOX pregame show is laughter. Doesn't surprise me a bit. Except for Howie, they are all over-grown fools They're not much better at CBS, and is that part of the dress-code to wear a U.S. flag pin on your lapel? Oh, we're all glad you are Americans. I do like ESPN pre game. Boomer's too intense, and too into the games to fool around w/ useless giggling. He's what is right w/ the game. I'll miss him more than anything if they lock out. "Bumbling, Fumbling, Stumbling!"
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 5:50PM
Don't get me started on the announcers and commentators in professional sports. They are nothing more than shills for whatever sport they're involved with.
They are cheerleaders in expensive suits who can never really speak their mind, except a few from the "protected class" are allowed to quasi speak their mind, to a point.
Gone are the days of people like Howard Cossell, Jimmy the Greek, and a few others who were given carte blanche to speak their minds.
That is, until they were fired :)
When you watch a sports pregame show, you are watching nothing more than a league approved infomercial.
somnolence| 2.9.11 @ 10:42AM
When all is said and done it is only a game, and it was much more exciting to watch in another day when it was only a 12 game season. It is preposterous that the Super Bowl is played in February when the Pro Bowl used to finalize the season the last week in January. I agree with the great Jim Brown, who voices his disgust at the showboating after touchdowns, the deliberate running out of bounds, etc. There are some who dare to say Brown was of another day and for him to get lost. Sorry, he still holds the top average rushing per game and most of his brief career was during a 12 game season. When any game is performed properly it can teach the values of good sportsmanship, how to handle both victory and rejection. I'm not so sure its totally family-friendly with the juvenile spats that occur out there all too frequently. That surely can't be a positive reinforcement for kids. And no, I don't care if I rocked someone's boat or not. I haven't paid to see any professional sporting event since the early 1980's.
Alan Reader| 2.9.11 @ 10:49AM
Nice article, and you couldn't have found a better man to use in the accompanying picture than Greg Jennings. This guy is a class act.
Paul from SA| 2.9.11 @ 10:53AM
It's the union. I lost interest after the Rush Limbaugh fiasco.
Doctor Right| 2.9.11 @ 11:02AM
Sorry, but it's hard to find any sympathy in this pissing contest between two groups of multimillionaires in this "labor dispute".
If the owners and the players are stupid enough to alienate their fan base with a lock-out/strike in the middle of the worst recession in 50 years, screw 'em!
Bob Miller| 2.9.11 @ 11:03AM
In our still-somewhat-capitalist system, if NFL management and labor can't find a way to get it together, there will eventually be another league meeting public demand.
GW| 2.9.11 @ 11:50AM
“Nobody deserves the sort of money, for instance, that baseball players get for running around on manicured, deep-green fields,”
If a liberal wrote “nobody deserves the sort of money corporate executives get for sitting in penthouse boardrooms,” you would rightly lambaste them for engaging in class warfare and attacking free market principles. Although baseball, like football, has a lot wrong with its structure, one can’t argue those making money for the league shouldn’t be compensated at fair market value. You don’t get to decide what pay level is fair—that is what markets are for.
“But it is that very exemption that helps the league do all the things -- revenue sharing, salary caps, joint marketing agreements, etc. -- that keep the playing field level enough for every fan to have reason to hope his team can one day win a Super Bowl,”
I can’t agree. The restrictions placed by the NFL are not only anti-competitive, but the league itself is a form of socialism. If say, Jacksonville can’t sell out and make as much money as say, a team in LA, why should the rest of the league subsidize this? If the anti-trust exemption was revoked, investors and financers (like Mark Cuban or Donald Trump) would be allowed to start up a franchise wherever they could, draft players and sign free agents, and begin competing in the league. If they did poorly, fans would stop attending, TV ad $ would decline, and the team would either fold or change management. If it works well in the market, why couldn’t it work in the NFL?
Who Cares?| 2.9.11 @ 11:53AM
It would be beneficial for America, and all freedom-lovers worldwide, if the NFL not only didn’t play next year, but also ceased to exist altogether.
Did anyone see the old clip of Reagan from the 1976 Republican convention, when he graciously spoke after Ford was picked as the nominee?
His brilliant query about what people 100 years hence would have to say, about how we handled the potential civilization-destroying nukes then aimed at both sides of the cold war, applies, in SPADES, now---and, indeed, ALWAYS.
And, the NFL is probably the most egregious distraction we have, as the most popular form of being the MERE spectator, instead of the PLAYER, in the real games of human life.
“While America Slept” will likely be the name of a book about this country, if trends continue---read Mark Steyn.
In mere dollar terms, the 8 BILLION “discretionary” dollars fanatics are reported to spend, yearly, on such a game as pro football, would surely be more wisely spent on personally useful projects.
If I were in charge, it would be mandatory for every able bodied American, as soon as they could do anything useful, to spend a minimal amount of time “farming”.
We should go back to the old days when almost everyone lived on farms, and children were needed to do chores, as soon as possible, just to survive.
I have long envisioned the virtual disappearance of useless lawns, replaced by at hand gardens, so that we are each essentially responsible for growing fresh vegetables and fruit, to be eaten right away, as soon as picked.
What an either or!
Either spend Sundays sitting on your fattening ass, a mere spectator of a football game, or spend it on your hands and knees as a real participant, getting down and dirty creating REAL goods.
Harken to one of the bibles key insights—
When I was a child, I acted like a child.
When I grew up, I put away childish things.
Yes, American FANS are simply extending their childhood.
Oh well. My old man was addicted to cigarettes, and only stopped when cancer attacked his voice box, which had to be removed, leaving him with a hole in the throat to “talk” through. And, finally, a golf-ball-sized tumor on his neck killed him.
NFL football!
Roy| 2.9.11 @ 2:56PM
At least an NFL fan wastes at most 50 or so hours a year..think what a baseball or basketball fan can waste.. :)
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 11:55AM
Quin, GREAT article, as usual; BUT again, I'll [as also a fellow longtime Saints/Aint's season ticket holder of a long time ago] to respectfully [and only partially] disagree with you. This situation [as with all management/labor situations] involves the question of which of the two parties involved has majoritive legal rights. Do owners have the right to set company/franchise/league policy or does the labor [players'] union? The owners' rights should prevail, since they take all of the economic/financial risks, whereas the workers/players are [or should be] simply employees/workers hired and paid by the owners/companies/franchisees. The workers/players do not have any financial/economic SKIN IN THE GAME so to speak, as do the owners. If the business of the NFL fails due to lack/reduction of revenues, escalation of expenses, etc to make same unprofitable [and therefore unsustainable as a business], then the owners solely lose/suffer and economic/financial loss. The players have previously obtained their salaries/money, and can thereafter walk away without financial loss, whereas the owners lose their business, their profits, their income, etc; and could possibly be subjected to bankruptcy or financial ruin. It is the owners, and their NFL management operation, that sustain the profitablable operation of the game, not the players. One player can be substituted for another and the game continues, but without the ownership and management by the NFL Commissioners' office, the game/business dies. The players' union is a typical socialistic organization that has successfully resulted in players' salaries being extremely too excessively high. These multi-billionaired athletes are way, way overpaid for the intelligence required to perform their jobs. The viewing public of these games end up paying the cost/price for same. It can stop by the owners taking back the profits that belongs to them!!!!!!!!!!
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 12:40AM
That's a bit at odds with the facts. The owners operate within a league protected by an anti-trust exemption, a league that neither you nor I can join after forming our own professional football team, and a league that guarantee's it's members a profit on TV revenues alone. The relative uniqueness of the NFL is that the owners have nothing at risk, in a free market sense, at all. Their risk level is commensurate with that of OPEC member states; there's a chance the world with stop using oil tomorrow but Vegas isn't offering a line on it.
Before a single game ticket, licensed jersey, or ball cap is sold, after all expenses are accounted for, the owners make a profit. In most cases, the late Joe Robbie being the exception, the owners have blackmailed cities and regions into building stadiums for them, again with little of their own cash at risk. Communities live under the threat that the owner will move the team to a more complaint community should they resist financing newer and bigger stadiums. And the hard numbers are that communities and states don't come close to making money on those stadiums they finance.
The only product the owners have to offer is the game and the game is comprised of the players. No one goes to a game to see an owner. And the only reason the owner's pay a purported 60% of revenues in player salaries is the threat of the loss of that anti-trust exemption.
The history of the NFL and it's commissioners has been one of protecting owners against themselves. The biggest factor for ownership in the construction of new stadiums is the inclusion of sky boxes, the revenue from which is not divided with the rest of the league. With the cheapest of those sky boxes selling at $25,000 per game, the owners aren't tapping fan wallets in their sales, they're tapping a tax code which allows corporate welfare. Corporations write off the cost of renting sky boxes in a federally protected industry. Good work if you can get it. Unless you're a taxpayer, that is.
The players, on the other hand, are a product of the free market, while constrained in the marketing of their skills by the NFL system. If any industry deserves a union it's the NFL. And it isn't the union that forces an Al Davis to pay a Jamarcus Russell $40 million guaranteed money before taking a snap from an NFL center; it's Al Davis and the other owner's greed. Owners spend nine months a year crying poverty, until they draft the next shiny object and then trip over themselves grossly over-paying the player. What business spends $40 million guaranteed on one employee, who turns out to be a bust, and has to be restrained from doing it again?
There are 500 CEO's of Fortune 500 companies and they are largely interchangeable. There aren't ten NFL quarterbacks capable of the performance Aaron Rodgers put up through the NFL playoffs this year, and there certainly aren't 490 undiscovered athletes who could equal it either. Just how many 6'07", 300lb men who can run a 4.7 second 40 yard dash do you think exist? Out of millions of kids who grow up playing football, less than 1600 per year will play in the NFL. And they will have a career that averages around four years and make, on average, a salary commensurate with a B-grade movie actor. The intelligence required to play the game is an intelligence largely unfamiliar to mere physical mortals. It requires not only the physical skills, the phenomenal coordination, but an ability to integrate those skills into a game happening at the pace of a car crash. Watch any of the great NFL running backs and the ask him why he weaved a certain way going down the field. He won't say he saw something; he'll say he just sensed something. It's called football intelligence and it doesn't show up on the MMP test. NFL football is a pure meritocracy of excellence and no flaw goes unrevealed. And no, one player cannot be substituted for another and the game continue unchanged. The 2010 Packers were the exception that proves the rule. Ask the Minnesota Vikings, who were one play way from the Super Bowl last year, about the effect of injuries to irreplaceable players. A 12-4 season became a 6-10 season with essentially the same roster.
There are only three real issues in the current CBA conflict. About two of them there is no real disagreement; the need for a rookie salary cap to protect the owners from themselves and provide money for proven veterans, and the need to do something long term for the physical and mental health of the players who've gone before. The final issue is the owner desire for an 18 game schedule with, presumably expanded rosters but no increased salary for players.
The 18 game schedule emanates from two things; owner greed for yet more income and fan frustration from paying full price for four pre-season games as part of their season ticket package. Owners want not only the increased TV revenues from two more regular season games, they want to eliminate two pre-season games for which they receive very little real TV revenue. They are hardly concerned with the quality of product on the field and the dilution of talent that increased rosters and inevitable injury will produce. In that, they are much like other corporations in their desire to avoid real competition in favor of a steady revenue stream. Think General Electric; they're really not all that different.
Unfortunately for the NFL, it does not have a commissioner able to coalesce the owners around their own best interests. Like all professional sports leagues, the owners realize great success and reward under a strong commissioner and then promptly decide that such a man is no longer required. From Bert Bell and Pete Rozelle they've gone for a lawyer in Tagliabue and now an economics undergrad in Goodell. Good grief!
About once a decade the owners gaze upon their goose that only lays golden eggs and take it into their heads that, if they squeeze the goose just so she'll pop out a couple more eggs. The health of the goose is the least of their concerns.
Wayne | 2.9.11 @ 12:04PM
The best thing that ever happened to the NHL was the lockout. It became a better league with better rules as they found common ground. We can afford to lose a season of football. There are always other things to do. A lost year may actually start considering the fans perspective.
skip| 2.9.11 @ 1:34PM
I disagree.
I have not fully forgiven the NHL for denying me the pleasure of one more year of Stevie Yzerman's career. His goal total would certainly exceed the 700 plateau instead of his 692.
And some of the new rules are a joke. Some games are worth 3 points and some are worth 2 points. It is like liberalism run amok.
The worst offense is the shootout. Talk about mickeymouse crap. Does the NBA settle regulation ties with a free throw shooting contest? Or a game of 'horse'? Does the NFL decide regulation ties with an extra point contest?
The MLB a home run derby?
I was an ardent fan of all four major sports. Then the antics of NBA players turned me off that sport. One too many times a player hit a three pointer to bring his team within 21 points of the lead in the 3rd quarter and chest thumped his way up the court for me. The MLB missed a world series for crying out loud and I can't muster any real enthusiasm since. The NHL lockout almost lost me, but I love the sport so much I'm still on board, but the league as no more room for error in my support. It is tough enough tolerating the joke that is Bettman, who can give Goodell a run for his money in the incompetence department.
If the NFL did not enforce excessive celebration penalties they would likely have lost me. And don't anyone kid themself, there is definitely enough greed and/or stupidity among NFL owners and players to cause a year without a super bowl.
Brian Mc| 2.9.11 @ 5:37PM
OH, so hockey has a 'different' way of deciding a game...? I didn't realize since I don't like to watch people do things to each other after play has stopped, that would land the rest of us in jail.
skip| 2.9.11 @ 8:10PM
One of the myriad reasons hockey is so awesome is no player can get away with cheating or playing dirty without getting punched in the face.
One of the fewer and fewer reasons every day America is so awesome is you don't have to watch any sport no matter how stupid the reason for not watching.
skip| 2.9.11 @ 8:13PM
How bad would our society be if every time a politician, lawyer, or judge lied, cheated, or ignored the law they got punched in the face?
What a wonderful world it would be.
Wayne | 2.9.11 @ 7:45PM
Well watching the Carolina team, with the family friendly atmosphere was great. I wish some 10 years ago, MLB baseball would have had a lockout, rather than encourage players to take steroids. Then maybe I would watch it. Now the sport is polluted with meaningless home run records and pointless discussions about who should be in the Hall of Fame. What is missing is who missed out on a baseball career because some steroid induced monster beat him out.
It would have been much better in fact to have had no major league baseball these last 10 years. Because its a sham.
scotchieguy| 2.9.11 @ 12:17PM
Brian Mc--sounds like you are in favor of expanding the playoffs, so the 2nd and 3rd place teams play each other? So you would possibly have a 5-11 team play a 4-12 team. Why? We don't need 18 games, and we don't need to expand the playoffs. The format is perfect right now. Other than the preseason games no one cares about, why mess w/ it?
Brian Mc| 2.9.11 @ 5:40PM
Then, remove two pre-season games. Now, you're perspective 5-11 and 4-12 teams can mash it out for a chance to go up against the division leader. I see nothing wrong with this scenario after watching winning teams sit out and losing teams win their respective division because...they are in a different division...!
Dave| 2.9.11 @ 12:19PM
I stopped watching professional sports years ago. The continuous chant of players demanding more money or their whines about how 13 mil a year barely covered the upkeep on their 30 homes and 50 cars gave me a serious case of disenchantment. The owners are as greedy as the players. It's nothing new.
Eric Damon| 2.9.11 @ 12:24PM
On this issue I stand with the player's union! The NFL owners continue to cry poverty and want to enact a huge revenue give-back from the players, yet they refuse to open their books to the NFLPA to prove just what the financial condition of the league is. How poor can the NFL be when they just signed a billion dollar deal with ESPN/ABC to continue broadcasting Monday Night Football?
Also, the owners like to pretend they care about the health and welfare of the players when they honestly don't. One of the first negotiating moves made by the owners was to threaten to drop the health care plans that cover the players and their families...a plan that is already patently unfair. The way the plan is set up now it takes a player 4 years to be fully vested/covered and the plan only lasts 5 years after the end of the playing career...but the average playing career only lasts around 3 years. So the players pay for a plan that won't fully cover the vast majority of them, and if it does it leaves them to pay for some lifelong injuries out of pocket after 5 years. Add to that the fact that the NFL willingly sues players who file worker's comp claims for injuries clearly sustained while playing in the NFL and you get a picture of a group (the owners) that cares only for making the fattest possible profit, with little to no concern for its workforce.
One last thing, this is not necessarily a fight between billionaires and millionaires. The superstar players are millionaires true enough, but the vast majority of players in the NFL are making a couple of hundred thousand dollars per year...and than money isn't even guaranteed. NFL players serve at the pleasure of the owners and their contracts are written in such a way that the only money that teams are obligated to pay are the signing bonuses...which is why a Donovan McNabb can get a "long term" extension for big money from Washington and be cut in the offseason.
canuckistani| 2.9.11 @ 12:35PM
Good points.
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 12:50AM
Well said.
The NFL minimum salary for rookies is $285,000 and it reaches $510,000 in year four by when, most careers are done.
Oldefarte| 2.9.11 @ 1:00PM
Yes/true, but they're all FALSE. The players are employees, and as such, provide their labor for a marketably fair wage. The players do not OWN the team, the owners DO OWN IT. Maybe adequate health insurance should be substituted for part of the players' exhorbitant salaries? The game was the same [or possibly better] when Unitas, Title, Namath, Starr, etc played, yet the players now are making $billions more today than their counterparts did in yesteryears. Not that the owners are blameless, but they own the businesses/teams, and beyond their legal/moral obligation to pay a marketly fair wage to the players, they should not be dictated to by a labor/players union as to they can and cannot do with THEIR BUSINESSES!!!!!
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 12:44AM
You're not describing business; you're describing slavery.
matthew s harrison| 2.9.11 @ 1:15PM
Quin-The National Felony League is just that-a bunch of criminal minded cry-babies who can't live on 5 million+ a year, because they have to buy bling for their bitches, 20 cars a year, and 20,000 sq ft houses....all this, while not staying in shape, only playing 16 or so games a year-and all the while fighting dogs, packing heat, and using drugs. What is so good about that? NOTHING. It is my opinion that the record viewership this year was simply because the Packers made it-and additionally to watch the commercials.
Let the NFL die-we taxpayers pay about 10% of their salaries-and we have funded most of the stadiums in the league. When do we get our profit sharing? Answer: the twelfth of NEVER.
My heart is pumping piss for the players ,and the liberal elitists who own the teams, who get massive tax breaks, have taxpayers pay their expenses, and who all evade income taxes! I say, bring on rugby-those guys play for smaller salaries, and they are man enough not to have to wear a suit of armor to play ostensibly the same sport!
Ryan| 2.9.11 @ 2:24PM
Actually, league average salary is about $800k/year.
Most players are upper-middle class, and they have to make sure their pay stretches a while and find other, less lucrative careers.
matthew s harrison| 2.9.11 @ 3:57PM
Actually Ryan, as of 2009-the average was about 1.8 mil. As for stretching pay-these guys all have insurance, all have the same access to investing, all make extra dough on commercials, etc in the towns where they live, make endorsements from sporting goods mfr's, and get large appearance fees. So, forgive me if my heart pumps piss for guys who work for 7 months a year and make 2 million bucks to do so. They can make money myriad ways-and if you look at the older players who saved money, who got meaningful degrees, and who kept out of jail and off the crime blotters-there is much work for all of them after football. Here in Chicago, have the team from the 80s superbowl win are in sports broadcasting. Many of them own businesses, and many still make appearances around the country which pays big bucks.
While I understand the average career in the NFL is 3 years-that is a 6M+ paycheck nowadays-if they can't survive for long after football on that, then they are just morons-and yes- most of them are-if this lockout/strike goes down, look for pawn shops in the cities with NFL franchises to have giant inventory-just as they all did when the NBA went on strike-there will be more cars, rolexes, and diamond earrings for sale at the pawn shops than on all of EBAY and Craigslist!
matthew s harrison| 2.9.11 @ 3:57PM
Actually Ryan, as of 2009-the average was about 1.8 mil. As for stretching pay-these guys all have insurance, all have the same access to investing, all make extra dough on commercials, etc in the towns where they live, make endorsements from sporting goods mfr's, and get large appearance fees. So, forgive me if my heart pumps piss for guys who work for 7 months a year and make 2 million bucks to do so. They can make money myriad ways-and if you look at the older players who saved money, who got meaningful degrees, and who kept out of jail and off the crime blotters-there is much work for all of them after football. Here in Chicago, have the team from the 80s superbowl win are in sports broadcasting. Many of them own businesses, and many still make appearances around the country which pays big bucks.
While I understand the average career in the NFL is 3 years-that is a 6M+ paycheck nowadays-if they can't survive for long after football on that, then they are just morons-and yes- most of them are-if this lockout/strike goes down, look for pawn shops in the cities with NFL franchises to have giant inventory-just as they all did when the NBA went on strike-there will be more cars, rolexes, and diamond earrings for sale at the pawn shops than on all of EBAY and Craigslist!
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 1:44PM
I'm sure you could find something more important to write about Quin. When I was a kid back in the 50' and 60s, I could name every player in every major league baseball and NFL team. Now, I couldn't even tell you which cities they play in. After millions of taxpayer dollars wasted for stadiums that are then torn down to build even more expensive stadiums because they didn't have sky boxes where about 1% of the fans MIGHT actually get to see a game in their lifetime; I don't really care what happens to the NFL players or coaches.
Generally, the players are rich, spoiled a$$holes with way too much money and no common sense or regard for anybody but themselves. (Is this where somebody yells about their favorite player who raises 500 deformed dwarf orphans with post nasal drip on his estate in Texas? Yes, there are exceptions.)
But, as nobody seems to understand, WE ARE BROKE! WE ARE OUT OF MONEY! AS A NATION, WE ARE BANKRUPT! It is criminal for any level of government to provide any funds to any private enterprise out to make a profit. It is no business of the government and its' taxing and eminent domain powers to get involved.
All professional sports are businesses. The federal government apparently feels that waiving of the anti-collusion laws is appropriate for baseball teams, but not, at least formally, for football. That should be the extent of their involvement. The NFL owners and players have every right to kill the golden goose should they be stupid enough to do so. That's why we call it "Free Enterprise". They are free to be brilliant or stupid; their choice.
As far as how much the players get paid, they deserve anything they can get. If the owners are stupid enough to pay them crazy salaries, that's their business. If the players want to cripple themselves for the glory and money they get from playing a violent game, that's their decision. That's why we call it "Free Enterprise". Stay out of it. We'll survive either way.
Marcel| 2.9.11 @ 1:47PM
This article misses the biggest issue facing the NFL - lack of racial parity. Undue focus on running speed and jumping ability has produced an NFL that is substantially skewed toward African American players. This cannot continue if the NFL wants to enjoy continued success. This may require the creation of sports mentoring and development programs around the country and particularly in Asian, White and Hispanic areas. Strong goals should be set for both short and long term achievements in reducing the institutional racism so event in the NFL and so clearly reflected in its hiring practices. It's time to come into the 21st century. No more racism. Let's "Win the Future"!
Bob Grant| 2.9.11 @ 2:12PM
Nice snark. Affirmative action in the NFL?...
How about some sort of NASCAR-style restrictor plate device for the faster, stronger players?
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 4:30PM
I wonder what the libs/dems would think of mandated affirmative action for all professional sports that receive ANY form of federal dollars. (Sort of like the feds hiding behind the commerce clause and cash for colleges to impose their insane policies on college sports.) I can see it now. Let's look at the NFL first:
Each team has 22 full time players plus 2 specialists. Add the second string to total 46 players plus extras and a few coaches to 'round us off' to 50 people. That means 25 females and 25 males, although that's not actually correct. But, no big thing. Now that we're equal based on 'gender', let's go to race. With current approximations of population, there should be roughly 13% Blacks and 14% Hispanic, and 3% Jewish, and a 'smidgen of 'other' in there. So, we'll have 6 Blacks and 7 Hispanics, and 1 Jew. That leaves 36 Whites, but that ignores the really small minority groups. So, we should protect the NFL against lawsuits, so we'll add in 2 players for "Other" groups, which leaves 34 Whites. But, we haven't discussed sexual preferences and average size. (We do not want to be accused of 'sizeism', or 'ageism' either.) So, at this point, we have to include at least one 'little person' of each sex, and an equal number of each age group between 10 and 90, based on demographics. We've also failed to include Asians, Polynesians, Eskimos, Native Americans, etc.. I wonder how THAT will go down?
Now to the NBA. We'll also make it easy. With two teams and coaches, do the same math for 20 people, based on race, size, sexual preferences, etc... What a mess. But, why is the world of professional sports immune from the same 'quota' environment that the rest of our companies, agencies, and schools are subjected to? Then of course, why aren't the unions demanding that there be no discrimination of players based on their age, size, and, frankly, ability? Again, that's what the government is subjecting the rest of us to. How about forcing the professional leagues to hire only Whites and Jews until they have made up for the current racial inequalities? Is it somehow different because the preponderant majority is Black rather than White? Is Racism, Sexism, and all the rest of the "isms" off limits to them? Just wondering...
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.9.11 @ 1:57PM
Heh,
We have recorded tv. The only time I have to watch commercials is during football and baseball games.
No wonder their revenues are so high. Advertizers having people actually watch their adds.
scotchieguy| 2.9.11 @ 3:43PM
Ah, you ever heard of Tivo?
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 4:32PM
A few years ago Fox was bidding for the rights to telecast NFL games. At that time they ended up paying more for the broadcast rights than the total value of every franchise added together. Hmmm... Why didn't they just buy the whole thing?
JP| 2.9.11 @ 2:48PM
The late Pete Rozelle got wha he wanted. There is so much parity in the NFL that the difference between a 2-14 team and 14-2 champ is no more than 3 or 4 players. Thanks to a strict salary cap and free agency, team pretty much rent thier players. And no team can amass 24 highly skilled players, let alone staff a decent crop of subs. What we have are teams with 2 or 3 super stars, 10 veterens, and 11 starters who have no business starting. There isn't one team that can survive the loss due to injury to any of its super stars. There is no Earl Morrell, or Danny White waiting in the wings to replace a Griese or Starbach.
The last real dynasty was the 1991-1996 Cowboys. I'm no fan of Dallas, but in those years thier talent was pool was deep and wide. Almost every position had a potential All Star.
Don't get me wrong. There is plenty of talent out there today. But the contract agreements between the owners and players has led to a situation where everyone is just a step away from a Super Bowl Ring or disaster. This year's Super Bowl illustrated that. Niether team had enough talent to fill 24 starting positions, and it showed.
Roy| 2.9.11 @ 3:02PM
And yet, by the end of the season the Packers had 15 players on injured reserve, including multiple key starters, and they lost two more key starters in the course of the Super Bowl itself...
But yes, I agree. The current rules are designed to prevent one team from dominating year after year and they are working as designed, with some frustrating side effects. I think it's very likely the Packers won't be able to keep their team together with all the increased salary demands that are sure to follow.
JP| 2.9.11 @ 3:51PM
"And yet, by the end of the season the Packers had 15 players on injured reserve, including multiple key starters, and they lost two more key starters in the course of the Super Bowl itself..."
Which just goes to show you how bad the Bears and Steelers were. When the Packers lost thier 2 star DBs in the first half, and the Steelers couldn't capitalize (again, they had one great WR and three other mediocre wide outs) you know something is wrong. This is the Super Bowl. In the past, San Fran had 4 receivers deep; the Cowboys had an All Pro WR in Irvin, an All Pro TE in Novacek, and Emmit Smith could catch out of the backfield. One only has to go back to the 1996 Packers to see that Farve had 4 targets and an All-Pro line (most teams can only afford to staff 2 really good veteran lineman these days).
Again, there is plenty of talent -talent is not the problem.
Paul| 2.9.11 @ 3:17PM
Here I must agree with Mike D. It's kind of a pathetic thing to care about, isn't it?
Yes, I am aware that more Americans than not do care about it, to some extent.
Paul| 2.9.11 @ 3:17PM
Here I must agree with Mike D. It's kind of a pathetic thing to care about, isn't it?
Yes, I am aware that more Americans than not do care about it, to some extent.
Charles| 2.9.11 @ 4:05PM
1. Stop any taxpayer funding for stadiums, arenas, racetracks or whatever other venue is required to hold events. This B.S. about benefits that sports dollars bring into a community is not justification for a dime of taxpayer money being spent in pursuit sporting events.
2. End the anti-trust exemption or any other government involvement in professional sports. Let the market work, good or bad. If the product is in demand, then those citizens who wish to support it are free to do so with their own dollars. The sport can then live or die with fan, advertising and TV dollars. If that means less money or more money for the sport, then it will adapt its operations to fit the revenue stream.
3. These are games folks, it ain’t life or death. I have no animus towards any sport, but as a taxpayer I deeply resent any of my city/state/federal tax dollars being spent on what is simply entertainment. I, and everybody else, need to spend my own money for this entertainment.
Mike Daly | 2.9.11 @ 7:12PM
Hillyer is ignoring that the owners have to spend money to make money and the cost of doing business has begun spiraling out of control. This is not owners vs. players, and it isn't really owners vs. owners (though there is some of that at work here); it's economic reality vs. the league.
While it's certainly not ideal, taxpayer funding of stadiums is a superior investment to backing unionocracies and the scams that are entitlement programs (which outpace funding of stadiums by an enormous percentage). It would certainly allow the league to find new revenue streams and thus alleviate (in part at least) the issues at work at present. The overall spending, though, does have to come down.
The bottom line is the 59.4% of revenue going to players does have to be chipped to about 55% - this "cut" won't amount to anything in terms of actual cash the players get anymore than Reagan-era reductions in spending increases constituted "cuts in spending."
Negro X| 2.9.11 @ 7:13PM
Charles,
I couldn't have said it better.
Joe NoPack| 2.9.11 @ 8:39PM
IDGARA.
p-squared| 2.9.11 @ 9:56PM
The players are NOT just asking to maintain the status quo. They are demanding former player insurance, a bigger slice of revenues, and changes to player health care. You make it sound like the owners/league are completely in the wrong, but it is YOU that is wrong. Players need to remember that there are thousands of young men out there who were .1 second too slow in the 40, 1/2 inch too short in vertical jump, etc., who would sell their mothers to play professional football. Think about all the perks that players get - who pays for that? Oh yeah, the owners. The owners want a rookie salary cap, which is entirely reasonable. The list of players who got big rookie signing bonuses out of college only to go down in flames in the NFL is almost endless. You say the game is violent and careers are short, which is true, and no player should be surprised by it. So, players should save up instead of blowing their millions on cars, women, and the latest gadgets for sexting and tweeting. They've been given everything for so long that they forget there is life after the game and noone is responsible for their long-term well-being except themselves.
Ticket and concession prices are a great example of the free market, they are as high as the market will bear. If the fans don't want to pay, they don't have to.
The NFL Network is another revenue stream, and your whining about inaccessibility is silly. The game belongs to the league, and if they decided to commit fiscal suicide and ONLY show games on the NFL Network that is their business. Apparently it was in their best business interest to create the network and set aside some games for broadcast on it.
Besides, if there is a lock out, the Washington Redskins have a good shot at the Super Bowl!
John Navratil| 2.9.11 @ 10:54PM
Football... That's the prolate spheroid, right?
Derek Leaberry| 2.10.11 @ 8:30AM
The NFL is pretty much a gang of athletic hoodlums and not the Bart Starr league of the 1960s. Ask yourself- would you want 95 % of the NFL players around your daughter? For every Tim Tebow, there are 20 Ben Roethlisbergers, Albert Haynesworths, Randy Mosses and Tom Bradys. If the NFL were to give America a Fall without men in dreadlocks and Viking-length hair, it would be a great present indeed. In fact, if Americans would spend Fall weekends in the great outdoors instead of gazing at football games in front of 52" TVs chomping chips and drinking watered-down beer it would do Americans much good.
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 4:00AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 4:34PM
The history of the NFL and it's commissioners has been one of protecting owners against themselves. The biggest factor for ownership in the construction of new stadiums is the inclusion of sky boxes, the revenue from which is not divided with the rest of the league. With the cheapest of those sky boxes selling at $25,000 per game, the owners aren't tapping fan wallets in their sales, they're tapping a tax code which allows corporate welfare. Corporations write off the cost of renting sky boxes in a federally protected industry. Good work if you can get it. Unless you're a taxpayer, that is.