-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
After just one full day of negotiations with the players union — a union for once just trying to maintain the status quo rather than making new demands, for the one game where major, lifelong injuries are common — the NFL owners walked away from the table like spoiled little rich kids. Even worse, Carolina Panther owner Jerry Richardson reportedly was openly mocking of two of the classiest players in all of sport, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, who sat in on the discussions as observers. Richardson reportedly belittled comments Manning made about player safety. I’d like to suggest that Richardson get out there for every game of a 12 year career, take all the shots that blitzing linebackers and 300-pound linemen can dish out, and yet not miss a start. Hell, let Richardson do that for one half of one game and see if he doesn’t end up in the hospital for weeks. Hell, let him just get out of bed, even without a formal “injury,” after a single game endured by the likes of Manning, the day after the game. I bet he couldn’t have done it even at age 22. He would be too sore. Too achy. Awwww……
Never, ever have I sympathized with striking professional athletes. In this case, however, if there were a way to lead a fan boycott that would crush the owners without hurting the players, I’d do it. And I supported the owners in the 1987 “replacement player” year and in the 1981 (or was it 1982?) strike year as well. This time, though, every single facet of the owners’ demands is absurd. Worse is their behavior, their pathetic pretense of a testosterone-fuled tough-guy act, of walking away from the negotiations. Again and again these owners show contempt for the fans who both directly and indirectly pay for the whole league. Their refusal to negotiate shows even more contempt. But that refusal is itself contemptible. Not to mention childish.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/15/nfls-jerky-owners
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.11 @ 3:54PM
Well, hell, Quin the owners ARE spoiled rich kids as a group.
Their teams are merely a play-toy for their egos.
We experienced that for many years right here in Houston. Yech!
James| 2.15.11 @ 3:55PM
Look - I am in agreement with you some of this and, based on what I have read, Richardson's behaviour was out of bounds. But, you need to get your facts straight before writing something as stupid as the above. Richardson, in fact, played professional football with the Baltimore Colts. I thought you were a journalist or something.
So, does he know have license to say what he said based on your argument, above?
Also, your silly man-love of Brees is disturbing.
Mike| 2.15.11 @ 3:59PM
I believe that Richardson was a player in the 1950s.
Larryk| 2.15.11 @ 4:33PM
1 season
ncatty| 2.15.11 @ 5:24PM
2 years wasn't it? Anyway, it is no excuse to be a boor.
W| 2.15.11 @ 7:32PM
they played only 9 or 11 games per season in the 1950's. Today's one season, with playoffs and pre season, is the equivalent two seasons back then
Michael Sittnick| 2.18.11 @ 9:51AM
Well, they also played both ways, and had a LOT less substitution, and less sophisticated medical attention.
Different era, the '50's game was tough in a different way.
That said, the owners are exceptional in shaking down cities for money in the form of stadiums, and the players want their piece of the action.
People have to stop paying $200 to stand OUTSIDE Of the stadium at the Super Bowl. or this nonsense will continue.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.11 @ 4:42PM
I honestly couldn't care less about the travails of millionare athletes and multibillionare owners.
Our hospitals are having nursing staffing cut, and those ladies are a hell of a lot more talented and worthy than any NFL stars. And, by the way, I'm an MD, not a nurse. A pox on both their houses.
Ryan| 2.15.11 @ 4:49PM
Most NFL players aren't millionaires, and their careers average less than 4 years. After that, most have to stretch out their salary gained for the rest of their lives, and try and get into something else after spending their entire previous life playing football.
So, maybe a little sympathy. Not that your point about the nurses isn't valid, though.
gearjammer| 2.15.11 @ 5:01PM
How about 4 years fighting in WW2 ? Those went to hell and back and picked up the pieces,
including playing pro ball=Charlie Connerly,Gino Marchetti, there is quite a list. Ted Williams served in 2 wars for goodness sake. Your fantasy football obsession now has you living a fantasy life in real time.
Ryan| 2.16.11 @ 8:12AM
I'm just stating facts, not fantasy. Yeah, just about every other service profession deserves more money. I'm not debating that fact.
But stating that all NFL players are spoon-fed millionaires is a gross mischaractarization.
Le Cracquere| 2.16.11 @ 8:19AM
They belong to a union. BY DEFINITION, there is not a penny of their salary that is not ill-gotten, and they have earned not a scintilla of courtesy or regard. Although Richardson's behaviour was tactically unwise, he wouldn't have been out of line to relieve himself upon the shoes of Messrs. Brees and Manning. No one is stopping the latter from running their own teams, at their own expense.
Michael Sittnick| 2.18.11 @ 10:02AM
If the players are union, then the owners are socialists, so they are both in the same boat. The NFL is more aggressive than any other professional sports league in leveling income between well-run teams and poorly run teams. They share TV revenue equally, regardless of ratings of individual teams. They impede the ability of a player to bargain for himself with the salary cap. Before the unions, the owners colluded to keep a player from becoming a free agent. He could not offer his services to a competing team in the NFL. It works out, more or less, because it is just a game. But the bigger crooks are the owners, not the players.
Oldefarte| 2.16.11 @ 11:58AM
The POINT is that THEY MIGHT NOT BE MILLIONAIRES...BUT THEY SHOULD BE. They're not because [in most cases] they stupid, and possibly borderline illerates. The lowest paid pro football player in the NFL [undrafted walk on,etc] used to make approximately $500000/year, with the highest paid [Manning etc] making $millions/year [combining salary, bonuses, TV endorsements etc], and if they cannot become millionaires by receiving that kind of money then its due to their lack basic intelligence [that should allow them to invest/save etc necessary to accumulate wealth]. Tittle, Starr, etc of yesteryears did not receive this kind of salaried money, and yet they invested and became millionaires!!!!!!!!!!
gearjammer| 2.15.11 @ 4:55PM
My family worked and works in construction since we came to America. We took our hits, and we, like ballplayers of the past, served in the armed forces and took hits there as well. These guys make more in a few seasons than we did in a lifetime. Cut your career off at 4 to 6 years and save the bulk of your money and you will still do fine in life Mr. ballplayer. Watch college ball-plenty of guys ready to step up and help the show go on. Also, I have encountered and got to know a few off the guys-they are not in any way dependent on wheel chairs to get around, or babbling dopes with dementia induced by concussions. I have seen my share of them ski, run road races, golf, dance energetically at weddings etc. I agree some guys stayed and have stayed to long. The Favre fiasco was beyond comprehension. Yet, I will bet he will live a long life and do his hunting and fishing for decades to come. If, the players want more money they need to hit up tv networks. " Stars" in lower rated shows make less and they make more, because the NFL gets the ratings, unlike Katie Couric with her 15 million a year base pay. That is capitalism.
kingsmill| 2.15.11 @ 5:50PM
Hey Quin have some perspective-Bob Kraft, "Owner of New England Patriots to be keynote speaker at corporate "LGBT Networking Session" in Boston".
http://www.massresistance.org/.....index.html
Kenny| 2.15.11 @ 6:43PM
Let 'em strike.
As it is, the inordinate attention paid to the NFL has helped to corrupt college football by making a joke of the idea of student-athlete.
Le Cracquere| 2.16.11 @ 8:24AM
It was always a joke. As little sympathy as I have for the union, an NFL player is engaged in the essential, defining purpose of the NFL, and is not at odds with its core mission--which is more than one can say for a college athlete.
PCC| 2.15.11 @ 6:46PM
Please tell me again why these fine gentlemen deserve an anti-trust waiver?
And please tell me again why any city in its right mind would provide these creeps with taxpayer-financed stadiums?
p-squared| 2.15.11 @ 10:22PM
Clearyl Hilyer is a shill for the NFLPA. The status quo is that unproven rookies get multi-million dollar contracts and bonuses and the owners get shafted when they (and many do) fail to make the cut. The players need to realize it is NOT their game, it is NOT their league. There are thousands of kids out there who would do almost anything to get a shot at the pros. Their level of play wouldn't be quite what we're used to, at least at first, but it would still be pretty good. Players incur physical risks when they play, but it's a tough game and nobody is forcing them to face dangers they don't fully understand. If they don't think their exorbitant contracts are enough to compensate them for the risks, then don't sign them.
Eric Damon| 2.16.11 @ 9:57AM
Hold up partner! How is it the fault of the NFLPA that the owners are rushing to pay unproven players more and more money every year? The last I heard, the NFLPA was on board with a rookie pay scale so long as the money "saved" was being spent on the current veteran players who had proven themselves and on extra benefits for retired players.
And it is the player's game, because not one person ever went to a Panthers game and spent the whole time looking up at the owners bx admiring how well Jerry Richardson owned that day! People do not buy replica Jerry Jones suits, nor do they wait outside the local shoe store to get the same type of loafers that Dan Snyder was wearing during the game. The players are the league, and without them there is no NFL. Furthermore, of the thousands of kids out there wanting their shot at the NFL, if they were of the same quality as the current players they would be in the NFL, not somewhere dreaming of it. No matter what anyone says the quality of the games with those guys would be nowhere near the quality of the games with the proven players.
As for the players and their "exorbitant" contracts, you need to get a better understanding of how the system really works in the NFL. The contracts signed by guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and the like are not the rule for NFL players, but the exceptions. The vast majority of the NFL players you see on Sundays, the nameless faceless guys running down to cover kicks and punts, or doing the long snapping, or kicking the ball are not being paid millions of dollars per year. Most of them are making a couple of hundred thousand a year, which is good money no doubt, but it is money that in many cases is not even guaranteed. So when you are talking about the spoiled millionaires in the sport, understand that most of the players are not that. They are getting to pursue their dreams, but the dream can also be taken from them in a flash, with no real explanation needed, and no money owed.
And if you are a conservative, why the jealousy over the amounts of money that the players make? They are simply being paid what the limited market for their particular set of skills will bear, and isn't that part of the beauty of free market capitalism...at least on the part of the players?
Finally, to turn your phrase back on you...the owners know that by drafting a player that has not played in the NFL that they are taking a risk that things may not work out. Players may disappoint, get injured, or flat out be busts. If the owners aren't willing to take those risks in exchange for the enormous amounts of money they stand to make, then don't sign them. Besides, no one is forcing them to own a football franchise.
Right?
J.C.Eaton| 2.16.11 @ 12:32AM
The issue would minimize if the public could resist the temptation to subsidize either side[and by the way lighten up their debt burden]by refusing to buy and build them a new stadium that is outdated in less than twenty years.
Bob K.| 2.16.11 @ 1:32AM
Jerry Richardson, I believe, recently had heart transplant surgery so one would probably react to his criticism keeping that in mind. He also was CEO of some very big restaurant chains like Hardee's and Denny's that had 100,000 or so employees so he is likely somewhat biased against Unions. No doubt he is teeing off many people on both sides of the table who want to see this resolved.
If you are a union/management negotiator in the middle of contract negotiations it is a good idea to keep loose cannons away from the table.
Oldefarte| 2.16.11 @ 12:29PM
Once again, OWNERS of any business [NFL or otherwise] should not have to BARGAIN with their EMPLOYEES. If anyone agrees with NFL unionized players [and against their owners], then they also philosophically agree with the general concept of UNIONIZATION. Therefore that person must be a closet Democrat possibly!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 2.16.11 @ 4:27PM
Just read where the owners stormed out of a meeting AFTER THE PLAYERS DEMANDED A 50-50 SPLIT OF THE [NFL] PROFITS.........as I said, the players obviously can be incredibly STUPID!!!!!!!!
Eric Damon| 2.17.11 @ 12:09AM
No disrespect Oldefarte, but you must really not understand the NFL labor situation and should probably not comment until you understand what is going on. You act as if the NFLPA proposition was some type of insult to the owners, who then stormed out in righteous indignation, when it actuality it was a very fair offer. Right now, under the current CBA the players are entitled to 60% of the revenues, so proposing a 50/50 split actually increased the owner's share of the revenue pie by 10%. If I were negotiating with someone and they offered me a 10% increase in revenue, I would at least consider the entire offer before storming out...and then blaming the other side. But I suppose that tactic works with people like you because you obviously think that business owners should be able to treat their business partners, which is exactly what the NFLPA is, in any manner they feel like...just to increase their share of the money.
Besides which, the owners aren't some great paragon of capitalism as you obviously believe. They have set up a cartel that does not allow anyone else to do what they do and have received a limited anti-trust exemption from the government to protect their monopoly. They are way closer to crony capitalists than they are to free marketeers than you seem to realize.
Oldefarte| 2.17.11 @ 11:28AM
Eric, My graduate [business] school studies enabled me to 'understand the NFL labor situation' quite well. What pretel are you qualifications? The NFLPA is nothing more than a typical labor union, and anyone attempting to claim otherwise is a STUPID FOOL. As such, the NFLPA has resulted in a gradual takeover of the pro football business from the owners. Whether the players recieve 60%, 50% or 100% of the NFL profits is immaterial. The WHOLE GD POINT IS THAT THE FOOTBALL BUSINESS/ENTERPRISE BELONGS TO THE OWNERS, NOT THE GD PLAYERS, DUMBARS! Whatever percentage of profits the owners wish to voluntarily grant to its EMPLOYEE-PLAYERS is their business solely. As long as same is a fair-market oriented wage [and respective to the laws involved], then that is all that should count. Labor unions typically [and the NFLPA is no exception] are GOONS, THUGS, AND CRIMINALS, and the NFLPA's now being administered by this AFL-CIO LABOR LAWYER with political ties to the current US President tells volumns about this situation. No doubt, FOOL, you also agree and favor the current TEACHERS' UNION in Wisconsin manipulating/forcing its school children to leave their classrooms and march in protest over Wisconsin's governor proposals to make teachers begin paying a minor part of their pension/health benefits also, huh, DUMBARS??????????
Michael Sittnick| 2.18.11 @ 10:09AM
If players had been able to shop their services with competing teams at the end of contracts, you might have a point. If the NFL did not forbid this, the salaries would be even higher, and Dan Snyder would have the most talent, because he's willing to spend all the money he can to put a winning team on the field.
The fact is that the NFL teams have a socialist arrangement where they share nearly all of the revenue, regardless of performance. This is not union versus capitalist, this is union vs. socialist/cartel arrangement.
But as long as state's subsidize same by building stadiums, and people are willing to spend $200 to stand outside of the SUper Bowl and watch it on TV, the players are going to want their cut. The NFL would rather have a union than TRUE bargaining, as the best players would make even more money, as they always had whenever there was a startup league (AAFC, AFL, WFL USFL. XFL is an exception by design)
Oldefarte| 2.18.11 @ 11:27AM
From Wikipedia regarding the NFLPA:
........Returning to collective bargainingThe settlement was presented to and approved by the judge who had heard the McNeil antitrust case in 1993. Once the agreement was approved the NFLPA reconstituted itself as a labor union and entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with the league. The NFLPA and the league have extended their 1993 agreement five times, most recently in March 2006 when it was extended through the 2011 season after the NFL owners voted 30-2 to accept the NFLPA's final proposal. However, in May 2008 the owners decided to opt out of this agreement and play the 2010 without a bargaining agreement in place. This means the 2010 season will be played without a salary cap (or floor), and there is the looming possibility of no play at all in 2011 if an agreement cannot be reached. The main discussion between the owners and the NFLPA is removing two pre-season games and making them regular-season games, bringing the total regular season weeks to eighteen. Another major topic is former-player insurance after any player has retired........
This is UNION VERSUS CAPITALIST and could/should be resolved by NFL fans [if possed of intelligence] simply by not renewing their respective season tickets and turn off their televisions on Sunday [and Monday night]!!!!!