Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

NFL owners decide they 'can't live with' collective agreement

DAVID NAYLOR

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:39 PM EST 21/05/08

Current contract will end in 2011 instead of 2013; league emphasizes negotiations will continue ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. David Gehring from Ottawa, Canada writes: I think the current deal is, for the most part, fair to both owners and players. By having the salary cap set based on revenues (slightly less than 60%), both the owners and players get a sizable share of the money that rolls in, and if the economy has a downturn then the burden is shared and both the players and owners get less. The biggest problem that they have to address right now is that the early first round picks are getting signed for way too much money, so within the salary cap those rookie contracts are taking absorbing a lot of money that would have otherwise gone to proven veterans.
  2. J K GALBRAITH from Canada writes: David: Your point is well taken about the rookie contracts but I think the larger issue going on from the owners is the growing divide between the really wealthy teams and the less wealthy teams. As I understand it, the teams only share equally the revenue from television and no other revenue. Historically, the television revenue has always covered the costs of the minimum of the salary cap. However, with the many new stadiums being built including the new Cowboys stadium and a new one for the Giants and Jets means the overall revenues of the league will be continue to increase. As the revenues increase, the salary cap and minmum may increase faster than television revenues. The small market teams such as Buffalo, Jacksonville, Kansas City, and others may for the first time not be able to cover their salary costs with television revenue. Should a new team and stadium go into Los Angelese in a couple of years, the smaller teams will have an even greater problem. I suspect many of the smaller market teams feel the only way to change the situation is to try and reduce the percentage the players are getting or there will have to be some form of expanded revenue sharing among all the owners which could be very difficult to implement.
  3. David Gehring from Ottawa, Canada writes: Good point JK. I thought the NFL still worked on a system where gate revenues were shared between the home team (60%) and the road team (40%), which would make the big market vs small market problem less severe. But there would still be an imbalance, particularly if a small market team has a lot of other small market teams in their division and on their schedule. This is a problem that already exists in hockey and it seems like the best solution is to have revenue sharing, but since so many of the owners are "self-made millionaires", many of them are against the concept.
  4. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: I think it's a shame that professional sports is no longer about the game. It just seems to me that the main emphasis, whether it be football, baseball, hockey, etc. is profits and salaries. No one cares about playing the game anymore, only - how much am I getting and how do I get more. The sport has become secondary to the business. I find it sad. I'll start watching sports again when the emphasis is put on the actual sport and not the marketing efforts to make me buy things.

    This pre-game post has been brought to you by ....; and from ...; and special consideration by ...; and if you really like this post you can purchase a copy from ...; the copy available to purchase is brought to you by... and by ... and by...; If you really enjoyed the post, please remember to purchase the video game for only $...; developed by ... and for sale from ... If anyone would like to purchase advertising space for this post, please call the Director of Marketing. This post is copyrighted and brought to you by ...; there is a $5 fee to read this post, please make your cheques and money orders out to ...
  5. Cowtown boy from Calgary, Canada writes: "This is a problem that already exists in hockey and it seems like the best solution is to have revenue sharing, but since so many of the owners are "self-made millionaires", many of them are against the concept. "

    Of course they are against it. It's much better to take the money from the athletes who are performing for the spectators and the reason that it exists at all. The NHL players caved in last time, but just wait, I'm sure the owners will want even more next time.
  6. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: The other thing the owners did today was set in motion a set of provisos that were in the 2006 agreement and were designed to kick if one side opted out of the agreement. These provisos affect only the 2010 season, but are nonetheless significant as they affect the eligibility of unrestricted free agents (4 years changes to 6 years in the league to be deemed eligible); they also allow teams to designate an additional transition player tag (giving them 2 plus the franchise player they already have), and there is another clause that affects the teams with the best eight records which restricts their movement in the free agent market by forcing them to reduce their current cap entitlement by the amount they pay for the free agents they want to sign. In all, a move to strengthen the owners position.
  7. J K GALBRAITH from Canada writes: David: I did not realize they shared the game revenue at one
    time. They might still share some of it but I was under the impression that they do not.

    Dave T: Thanks for filling in the additional information. That is very important for understanding how they are positioning themselves.
    Those provisions certainly do strengthen their position in limiting salary costs due to free agency for those that teams that may not reach the cap. They still probably need to deal with David's point about the limits on rookie salaries and signing bonuses.

    This should get very interesting over the next two years.
  8. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Dave T from midwest, : Hope all is well. You summed it up quite well. The owners are also saying that while revenues increase and the players get 60% of that, the owners incur all of the risk concerning the drive to increase those revenues be that new stadiums or whatever...and I can see their point. Perhaps both sides should incur some risk.

    There was also a good example of why the rookie cap should be in place.

    Jake Long, who has yet to play a single down in the NFL, instantly became the league's highest-paid offensive lineman when he signed a contract (including $30 million in guaranteed money) with the Miami Dolphins as the top overall pick of the 2008 draft.
    .
  9. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Hi Rob Carriere: All the best to your family down there on the Bay. And yes, a lot of money to rookies: not only Jake Long, but as recently as yesterday, Matt Ryan with $34 million in guarantees and a $72 million contract. A very good payday for a QB who threw 16 interceptions in college last year!
  10. Chris Eaton from Fredericton, writes: You mean the stadiums that governments are footing most of the bill for? Yeah, tough to be an owner there.
  11. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Perhaps cost verification is in order, but I guess some think an owner risking and investing $500 MILLION is rippping off he tax payer.

    New Dallas Cowboy Stadium:

    Originally estimated to cost $650 million, the stadium's current construction cost is in excess of $1 billion, which will make it one of the most expensive sports venues ever built.

    Arlington voters approved the increase of the city's sales tax by one-half of a percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent

    The City of Arlington will provide $325 million in funding, and Jones will cover any cost overruns. Also, the NFL will provide the Cowboys with an additional $150 million, as per their policy for giving teams a certain lump sum of money for stadium finance.
    .
  12. P McLean from Canada writes: J S, I might agree with you sentiment if there was ever a time when it was about the game. Even in the 1890s Albert Spalding was lamenting that baseball was going to collapse due to the players making too much money. Things are just a lot more publicized now. That plus the fact people are willing to pay the prices for tickets, etc., means there's a pile of money for somebody. Since I haven't seen anyone buy a ticket so they could see an owner,....Read Lords of the Realm, and Net Worth, and then come back and tell if you still think it ever was just about the game.
  13. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Rob Carriere: Part of the impetus for these new stadiums of course is expanded revenues from luxury suites. Corporate sponsers will gobble them up, and the fans will happily fill the stands. Football is a religion in the US; people will pay whatever it takes to be there.

    As for Jerry Jones, he is a shrewd owner who many people abhor, but he is also an owner who I think will help to facilitate a new deal when the time comes.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top