The NFL Lockout has become one of the most polarizing issues in sports. While the desire for a full NFL season is shared by nearly everyone, many fans have differing views on how the labor issues should be settled. Most fans believe that the players’ demands are more valid, and have taken the side and cause of the players. Very few fans believe that the owners have a legitimate gripe. Therefore, I do realize that many readers will be skeptical of the argument, at least at the beginning, but I ask the readers to hold judgement until after reading the article.
I also ask, before analyzing the issues, to release all biases towards the players’ cause. Release bias about the fact that owners make more money than the players. Owners own the franchises, that is the way the NFL works now, worked in the past, and will continue to work in the future. Release bias about the fact that players are more “blue-collar” than owners. Players always do more physical work than the owners, that also is the way it is now, was in the past, and will continue to be in the NFL. None of these issues have changed in the history of the NFL, and therefore none of these issues matter in terms of the current lockout. They are pointless arguments that only cloud the labor dispute even more. The only issue that matters is why now, in 2011, players and owners want a different percentage split of the revenue than in 2006. If one does consider all the petty issues, the discussion will go nowhere. Because when a person applies personal values or beliefs to a complex issue like this, it is impossible to objectively determine the validity of an issue. What I am asking is that readers look at the issue objectively. I am asking that readers remember that the only important question is: why, in 2011, do players and owners want a significantly different percentage split of the revenue than in 2006?
The players received a very favorable deal in 2006 when the Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed. As a result, over the past 5 years the owners have incurred financial difficulty because of the way the money was divided. The owners opted out of the CBA at the end of this season in order to redistribute the income. The major issue in the lockout is how to split $1 billion (of approximately $9 billion in revenue) between players and owners. Players and owners both feel that they deserve the $1 billion. Owners have put forth multiple offers for dividing the $1 billion, and each time the players have rejected the offer. So why do owners believe that they deserve a significant portion of the $1 billion in question?
Because the players are not “partners.” The players have made the bogus argument that they are “partners” with the owners. As “partners,” players believe that they should have a large share in the extra revenues made. However, the players are not “partners” in any sense of the word. Partners share start-up costs, partners help cover losses, and partners share in risk. The players are not “partners” because they have no involvement in these aspects of an NFL organization.
First, in terms of NFL start-up costs, players have no involvement in the purchase or upkeep of franchises. The franchises are the sole ownership of the owners, and the players do not help to pay for the franchise. The players get paid by the owners, simple as that.
Second, in terms of covering losses, the players would laugh at the notion of helping to cover a quarterly or yearly loss. This liability is taken solely by the ownership of the team. When Tom Brady chips in $2 million to cover a loss for the Patriots, then I will consider the players “partners.” Until then, the claim by the players remains bogus.
Third, in terms of sharing risk, there simply is no sharing. The owners take all the capital and long-term risk associated with their franchises. Owners have been building new stadiums in bunches over the past few years. Many times this is because of the risk of franchises changing cities without a stadium upgrade, as has been prevalent across American sports in recent years. In the past 10 years, the stadiums have become more expensive to be considered top-tier, and have become less publicly funded. Therefore, the owners are taking larger financial risks with these long-term investments. Do the players take upon themselves any risk to help pay for these stadiums and other long term capital projects? Absolutely not. The players instead get paid to train and play in these state-of-the-art facilities.
So if the players are not partners, what is their relationship with the owners? Well, simple, the players are employees. Just read the above three paragraphs and it is perfectly clear. The players don’t share in ANY start-up costs, don’t help cover ANY losses, and don’t shoulder ANY risk. Partners do. An employee, on the other hand, is a person who works for a company, is paid a salary, occasionally receives bonuses, and does not have any financial obligation towards risk-taking or covering losses. NFL players get paid a generous salary ($1.5 million average), occasionally receive bonuses (signing bonuses and performance-based bonuses), and do not have any financial obligation towards risk-taking or covering losses (Eli Manning didn’t put forth any money to build New Giant Stadium, which was 100% privately funded). Therefore, the players are employees. Employees. Not partners. Why then, would the players deserve the majority of the extra $1 billion? The owners own the teams and control revenues, the owners pay the players as well as any profession is compensated, the owners take the risk, and the owners cover the losses.
The players’ demands are really the unfair ones. They want a large share in the profits but don’t want to cover the losses. They want a large share in the profits but don’t want to help build the stadiums. They want a large share in the profits, and want to be considered “partners,” but if the players can’t hold up their end of the “partners” argument, then why should the owners give the players a larger share of the profits?
For an article arguing the players’ point of view, click here.
Loading ...
[...] For an article arguing the owners’ point of view, click here. [...]