CBA Impact - Have fans forgotten how to be capitalists?
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 4, 2011 11:15 AM PDT
Email
PrintFooch's Note: While some will disagree with the conclusions here, I do think this is a well-worded take on the subject from a slightly different angle. Emotions have run high in this and one often does need to factor in the capitalist nature of things and get a little selfish. Although some may disagree, this is an excellent FanPost.
"Millionaires vs. Billionaires", "The players are greedy", "The owners are crooks", "They’re both killing the game", "I’m selling my season tickets", ……. Maybe these rants explain why tabloids are the NEW media. These statements attract attention but they don’t resolve anything. Remember that movie line? "In a capitalistic society, for lack of a better word, ‘greed’ is GOOD." So, what’s the problem?
I don’t really understand why fans have been choosing "sides" to be on – this dispute isn’t a game, we don’t really have a team playing, there is no championship at stake. This isn’t American Idol, where you vote for who’s personality you like and it counts toward something. The correct answer isn’t in the back of the book. This is just an economic process following its due course. Oh, way to take emotion out of the blog DVC, why would anybody want to talk about economics here? (Because economics has jurisdiction over this issue.)
I know this will cause some of you a great deal of pain and anxiety but for the next few paragraphs, pretend you are an owner. You have accumulated equity of $1B, from having more successes than failures, in various industries and have liquidated it so that you can invest in an NFL team. Your goal is the same as any other business – make a return on your investment, which would be comparable with investments you could have made instead, otherwise, why would anyone own an NFL team? Providing a public service is not your goal. Are you rolling in money? Ummm no, you spent it on the team; you are rolling in equity again.
Demand is good in this industry and for this demand, you will put up with receiving most of the public blame for the unpardonable sin of "not winning", whenever it occurs. With good demand, you can make a better return by lowering costs, raising prices or a combination of the two. In other words, you WILL have the ability to make a comparable return in this industry. Let’s assume that an investor can make 10% per year on the stock market, or by owning a Laundromat. By setting prices, so that revenue exceeds cost by 10% of your investment, you WILL make a comparable return on your equity. Of course, this power is never absolute - If you raise prices too much, demand may drop but otherwise, your goal IS attainable. So, since your 10% is assured, your next step is to lock in player cost, so you’ll know how much to set prices.
The players want you to pull down your pants and bend over. No actually, it’s worse than that – they want to see your books (and so do all the nosy fans)! CRAP!! Everyone would find out about your stadium cost overruns and how your negotiating skills compare to the other teams. Good thing you’re still a private company. When you go public, investor’s money needs to be protected. Otherwise, only the IRS, your independent accounting firm and maybe some creditors need to see your books. Why no others? In a private enterprise, there is no outside investment money to protect. If a consumer doesn’t trust the product, they don’t buy it or could ask for the return policy. If an employee doesn’t like the job, they could work somewhere else. No other party really "needs" to know about your books. There might be the possibility that the tabloids (I mean media) will try to position their nose up the unauthorized sweet spot of some confidential source and leak it out under the pretense "the public’s right to know" but that all depends on their cost/benefit scenario and if they have more desirable priorities. I imagine that Yahoo has an entire department dedicated to finding out, exactly what base that Justin Bieber has gotten to with Selena Gomez, so the secrets in your books are probably at a much lower priority. For most of the world, this is "only" football.
As an owner, you’re probably getting a little tired of hearing about all the billions that you’re "making". The word "making" is properly used with income or profit, not revenue. Since profit is revenue less expenses and nobody knows how much your expenses are, then nobody knows how much your profit is either. Just because you won’t tell anybody (except the IRS, your independent accountant or some banks), does that mean anybody can conclude that you’re making billions or you’re a crook? They don’t "know" diddly squat about your profit. It’s OK if they don’t buy your product or don’t work for you but they’re wrong to make assumptions from a lack of information. That’s called bias.
Ok, you can stop pretending to be an owner now (or resisting it with all your might).
When the league opted out of the CBA, said they weren’t getting enough and wanted to reduce costs, my first thoughts were "better option for me than raising prices". After all, am I going to get a better product if the price goes up? Doubt it – The players are doing the best they can just to remain employees. Would I get a worse product if the price goes down? Doubt it – The players are doing the best they can…… Now if player salary went down near to what they could earn with their degree, maybe we’d see a few defections but we’re not even close to that pay level. I don’t much like the owners either but their solution seems to work better for me. After all, greed is good for me too. So, just what relationship do we bloggers have with a player in this dispute, anyway? Fan? There’s no game and the activity is pretty boring. Agent? No commission or value added for us. Social Worker? No salary either (or poverty to protect against). We shouldn’t be disillusioned that if the players get richer, it could (somehow) help us. Maybe we’re supporting the players out of habit from games. The players are heroes (sometimes). There is also the chance that some of us have nothing better to think about besides football (who, us?) and are impatient enough to assign blame for the uncertainty. Impatient you say? Well, realistically, when has a labor dispute NOT gone down to the last minute? Why would this issue be any different?
This "taking sides" response leads me to believe that we’ve lost our focus. We’ve forgotten what our primary role in this economic dispute is. We’re not associated with the players OR the owners. Neither of them is on OUR team. The owners are acting like capitalists, the players are acting like capitalists but we’re still acting like fans - Some capitalists WE turned out to be. We’re the MARKET. We’re the ones who pay every cent of the revenue, either through ticket and merchandise sales, cable or satellite channel packages or from the influence of sponsor commercials. We pay both the owner’s profit AND the player’s salaries. This dispute isn’t about how to split $9.3B. That was LAST year’s revenue. This is all about determining how much to CHARGE US NEXT YEAR.
Oh, you don’t go to the games, so a price increase won’t affect you? Maybe not now. Over 30 years ago, when there were only three major networks, the idea of "pay TV" was introduced and the public said it would never work. Yeah right, you can’t even get good reception today without paying extra. My nephew in New York City is constantly annoyed that the big games are not on the package he gets, so he has to go to a sports bar to watch them and he doesn’t even drink. Even if you don’t go to the games, you won’t be able to avoid paying for where these escalating costs are headed. Someday, the "influence of sponsor commercials" may not cover the bill. Get ready for HBO, Showtime and the NFL Premium Channel. Oh sure, they’ll air preseason and some regular season games on the major networks, to stimulate interest and suck in some new customers but come playoff time, …..well, you know the routine.
We ARE involved in this dispute and its outcome impacts us economically. Since I do not have an unlimited supply of money, I prefer a "market-friendly" solution. I’ve loved football for a long time but if they screw it up, someday my love could be priced out.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
127 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So what is the solution?
I guess it is to be patient, hope for the best, and not care. Honestly, I’m just losing interest in the whole thing. We haven’t won in so long. If we do, I will not feel a part of it because I will not buy tickets. Maybe I am just a bad fan. Who wins the Superbowl is not really important in the grand scheme of things.
Good post. I don’t agree that greed is good. Competition is good. And even that is up for debate. The only solution I have is to stop following sports. Guess that is taken care of if there are none to follow.
That's close to where I'm at.
Offseasons are supposed to be boring, so I’m doing other things. When the “product” becomes for sale is when I’ll be making conclusions. Then it becomes the “market’s” move. Right now is just drama and posturing that lacks entertainment and closure. NBA Finals are on. I can do without sports news that is not really sports (like scandals, arrests, court cases, rumors, allegations, breakups, yadayadayada).
When we start winning again it’ll last for several years at least. The solution is chill out.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 4, 2011 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions
You have accumulated equity of $1B, from having more successes than failures, in various industries and have liquidated it so that you can invest in an NFL team. Your goal is the same as any other business – make a return on your investment
how many of these “owners” actually built another company or invested wisely or made their own money? I bet most of these “owners” inherited their money or they are the original owners of the teams. Second, why would anyone buy a business that is not making money or giving them the desired return on their money; especially one that costs about one billion dollars?
“better option for me than raising prices”.
it is thought that the owners have already raised the ticket prices to the maximum and due to the economy they will not be able to raise prices further. If owners can raise prices they will regardless of what contract they have with the players.
As an owner, you’re probably getting a little tired of hearing about all the billions that you’re “making”. The word “making” is properly used with income or profit, not revenue. Since profit is revenue less expenses and nobody knows how much your expenses are, then nobody knows how much your profit is either. Just because you won’t tell anybody (except the IRS, your independent accountant or some banks), does that mean anybody can conclude that you’re making billions or you’re a crook? They don’t “know” diddly squat about your profit. It’s OK if they don’t buy your product or don’t work for you but they’re wrong to make assumptions from a lack of information. That’s called bias.
There are ways to determine how much money someone is making without seeing their books; example the way they travel, do they have a new G60 plane with a really good looking flight attendant or are they flying commercial? Most of the income and expenses are well known, stadium costs, players contracts, coaches contracts, tv deals etc are all already out in the open. The owners used “not making enough profits” as their excuse to lower the players pay. It was a failed negotiating tacit that did not work when the players asked to see the real numbers, why would the owners use that as an excuse only to show their books and reveal record profits? Leagues that are actually losing money reveal there books as the NBA is currently doing. Another sign that teams would be in trouble are the same thing that is happening with the Los Angeles Dodgers or the New York Mets; clearly both of those teams are having financial issues; none of the football franchises show any of those sings. The owners even took less money from TV deals, if you were losing money or not making enough why take less money?
My opinion is no matter the outcome the owners are still going to try to milk the most they can out of everything that they can regardless and with what may seem at time with no regard to the fans. This lockout stuff could have been avoided and the whole seat snafu are two prime examples of the owners lack of really caring about the fans. But as fans and Americans we will all bend over and take it because we need entertainment and we love football.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
Hi Hungry - Killed any owners today?
I’ve read some of your posts and comments on this issue, so I think we’ll end up agreeing to disagree but thanx for reading my post and I’ll be happy to reply to some of your points.
An owner having prior company experience was just the example I used to give the reader an owner’s mindset. The investment goal is the same if he was born into it. Second, there is a disclosure when you buy stock that applies here "past performance is no guarantee of future results". If you own, your money is at risk and there’s no guarantee what you’ll be making.
Several places, you represent what the owners would do as fact and I keep wanting to say "and you ‘know’ this because?" It’s heresay – pessimistic heresay at best.
Actually, I was toying with the idea of rolling out a "projected income statement" for the NFL consolidated. You’re right, some account balances are known and the Green Bay Packers financial statement might be used to project some other numbers. In the end, I thought it would be too distracting and beyond the scope of my post. Your example about the plane and attendant (How good looking?) doesn’t "fly". Billionaires own many companies (to diversify wealth), so you can’t conclude which profits were used to buy the plane. Also, assets from one are not accessible to others unless there’s a bankruptcy or the owner contributes capital. It’s not a crime to be rich y’know.
We agree that Frank McCourt is scum, though.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 4, 2011 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions
If it's so hard to be an owner of an NFL team...
why aren’t we paying premium prices to watch them go to work and suffer the financial ails of being a capitalist? Seriously this issue is about the NFL wanting to innovate their product at a time when the product doesn’t see the need be innovated. Or more simply put; the players are football, not owners and they like the way things are just fine. How many people does that offend? That means football goes on, status quo intact. I know football is expensive but that’s because it’s an incredibly exciting, passionate, complicated and thrilling game to watch. Who wouldn’t want to pay top dollar to witness it being played at the highest level? The market will always be in demand and by virtue of that it’s really unrealistic to believe that the owners are really fighting to bring down prices instead of building new stadiums and increasing revenue over the long term. This is about turning up the engine of this business and maximizing profits.
I think that the NFL is wrong to ask these guys to play longer seasons, while paying them less. I think the owners need to realize that their employees are all rare individuals, practicing an incredibly skilled craft and we, the market, worship these players. Don’t destroy the game they built and don’t deny us of the sport we love. I believe it’s fair to say that when there was football the fans were happy, the players were happy and the owners were rich. Why the need for such dramatic changes to a business that clearly thrives in the sports market?
Most profits in sports teams
has come from inflation. Same as your house circa 2007. If the league loses stature, you lose money if you purchased – again like your house – in recent years.
Good example is Dodger owner. He’s looted the income and run the team into the ground, all the while raising parking & tickets 30 percent. The worth of the team would still net him maybe $300 M if he were to sell. It wouldn’t have anything to do with his tenure.
I agree
Even if the team is losing a million or so every year, which they can take as a tax write off, if they then turn around and sell the team for a $300 million profit, they’re still coming out ahead on their investment. The value of an NFL team has gone through the roof over the last 10 years. I find it hard to believe a money pit would go up so much in value.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
If they didn't operate as a Cartel
Maybe I’d be more interested in being concerned with a market-friendly solution.
by Deelron on Jun 4, 2011 4:18 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
capitalism like...
Enron or Worldcom or Meryl Lynch or one of many other companies. Sorry I don’t feel for the owners.
by wtlichens on Jun 4, 2011 6:15 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
This is why China is winning
Capitalism always undergoes changes and so does the overall dynamic of the world. Screw economic models, I want Football!!!!
Harbaugh will find a QB and he will succeed.
I have no love for the owners.
They do nothing whatsoever to produce the product on the field. The players are the ones assuming ALL the risk, doing ALL the work, and the owners are merely leeching their profits off the top. Usury is a good word to describe the attitude of the owners. They will charge whatever it takes to assure record profits every single season. The prices will go up for every single thing. You almost need a small business loan to buy a round of beer for the boys. The cost of food that is normally found on the dollar menu at most venues goes for 6 and 7 bucks at the park. Oh, and of coarse you cant bring your own beer in for “safety” reasons. Bullcrap! The owners decided arbitrarily that with the new HUGH tv contract coming up shortly, that they want an even bigger piece of the pie. You know, the pie they did nothing to produce. The players see themselves as employees who are being asked to take a pay cut so the owners can have another yacht that they can ski behind. SO how many yachts are TOO MANY? Capitalism is good. In fact, it has proven over time to be the best way to produce the incentive to achieve. But there is a point where pure capitalism becomes unbridled GREED. Where seeking even more profits in the face of record profits, all the while balancing your lust for more revenue on the backs of the workers who are actually PRODUCING the profits. I believe the owners have gravely miscalculated this time in their monumental cash grab. They forgot the FANS! You know, us working stiffs who pay the ridiculous ticket prices not to mention the absurd parking prices and ripoff food prices every season. The fans are not a bunch of mindless oafs who just open their wallets every time the NFL wants to play cash grab. The price of an NFL ticket is so high now that most folks are either splitting their season tickets or are only going to a game or 2 a season. I for one can not afford to drive 120 miles one way to a game, spend a day’s wages or MORE on Parking, Tickets, Beer, Food, and toll fare. Last I checked the stands were not filled with 6 figure earners who need to blow off a little steam.
The fans are the fans. People from every walk of life who SACRIFICE in order to attend a game or two a year. People who just want a diversion from their boring lives for an hour or two and watch the gladiator type struggles on the field. I have become very disenchanted by the way the owners have handled their side of this labor dispute. ANY other corporation in the WORLD would have to open their books to show the need for any takebacks by management. If they continue to have RECORD PROFITS every season, then what are the owners bellyaching for? I understand the need for a rookie salary cap. Jamarcus Russell was a prime example of why the owners should not be forced to pay unproven rookies tens of millions of dollars on the outside chance that they MIGHT succeed. Football is not a sport where all 1st round draftees are immediate successes. In fact, a large percentage of those lottery players will be busts in 4 years. So take the money saved in the rookie pay scale and spread it out to the veteran players who have made the game of football what it is today. NOT THE OWNERS, but the PLAYERS define what the NFL actually is. The owners have merely found a way to profit and profit well from the actions of the players and the loyalty of the fans. If there were no owners at all, fans would still come to the games. Even if they were held at high school stadiums on a Wednesday night in the rain, fans would still be there. No beer, no concessions, no paid parking in the DIRT. Just 22 men on the field who have a game that many would consider “America’s Game”. If the owners persist in their greedy demands, and the season is actually jeopardized for the sake of the owners greed lust, the fans will be more than just a little upset. I would not go to even one game anymore if the owners win this battle and force the players to accept less so the owners can HOARD even more money. The owners are NOT a bunch of barely scraping bye small business owners who have all their money tied up in their teams. In fact, many of the owners are fabulously wealthy beyond the imagination of the fans. If the owners arbitrarily decide to withhold football from the fans because they want more money for no other reason than they just want more money, the fans will not be pleased.
I know many who have said to me if the NFL decided to NOT play this season, they would seek entertainment elsewhere. In this world of 24 hr news, PPV movies, and thousands of avenues of entertainment available to the common man, the owners no longer hold a monopoly over entertainment. I can see fans walking away from the game in large numbers. Numbers large enough to cut into the profits of the owners. It isn’t the same when the coliseum is half empty every game.
Fans have even been asked to pay FULL PRICE for preseason games that are the same as a game of replacement players for 80% of the game. The fans have taken it and taken it, and this might be the tipping point for the fans to finally get sick enough of the owners greed and just walk away from the NFL. The popularity of the NFL has never been higher. The record profits have never been higher. Yet the owners are unhappy because the return on their investments isn’t 10 times greater than the stock market. Maybe it’s only 5 times greater. But if the owners persist in trying the patience of the fans, there will be a backlash. The fair weather fans will disappear like vapor. The poor but loyal fans will just stay home. And the season ticket holders will feel cheated and will not renew the next season even though they will be fully reimbursed if no games are played.
The owners better think long and hard before they kill the golden goose to profit from the dead gooses feathers as well. The owners have a good thing going, and if they really want to create a mountain of ill will between ownership and the fans, then go ahead and hold the season hostage. The ONLY losers will be the owners in the end.
Another year, another chance to hope for the team !!
by FaStRmAn on Jun 4, 2011 9:52 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Awesome article
Unfortunately, I think you are wasting your time. Most people nowadays are taught to hate rich people, instead of trying to become one of them. The owners are the richest people in the NFL, so they are the bad guys. It’s that simple. The Man is always screwing the little guy. I see some of the responses and want to respond, but realize there is nothing I can say in a blog post that will counter years of indoctrination against capitalism.
by AKinferno on Jun 4, 2011 11:50 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Besides, if NFL tickets get too expensive...
I am sure the Federal Government will create some sort of subsidy or NFL Welfare program so everyone can afford it. Or maybe just pass a law that says watching football is a right and the tickets cannot cost more than a certain dollar amount. That’s what China would do I am sure.
by AKinferno on Jun 4, 2011 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
You sound like a communist
Comrade.
Ground Hogs Day ~ The Sequel ~ The Nightmare Goes On And On And...
That was my intent, it's sarcasm.
That is now a lot of people think nowadays. I don’t want our country to turn into China, but many people do.
by AKinferno on Jun 6, 2011 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
That rec'd
was actually for your initial comment.
I agree wholeheartedly!
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
After seeing some of the responses, I am coming to the same conclusion (that I am wasting my time).
The San Francisco bay area, being a democratic stronghold, does have the reputation as extremely pro-labor and that base is present here, even if some bloggers are from different areas. Thought I’d give it a shot.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 5, 2011 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I think my biggest criticism was you presented the high school economic class definition of ownership. Anyone with an account consulting their business doesn’t run that model thus you made a plethora of wrong, outdated assumptions.
sd377 wants to ban me for unleashing the Kaepernick Supernova Gamma Ray
I keep almost getting sucked in myself
I just canceled a long comment explaining the whole “lemonade stand” example, using it to show how this demonizing the rich as “greedy”. Profit is considered greed in a socialist society, and we sadly are in a headlong rush to become one.
by AKinferno on Jun 6, 2011 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd again
See how I’m mostly limiting myself to recing your common-sense comments, instead of getting “sucked in” myself?
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
Legit rich people have no reason to be hated
Again, people (including myself) are sick of the greed. Greed isn’t profit; greed is doing whatever it takes to get that profit. To think there isn’t a lot of dirty back door deals going on with most of the wealth that floats around in this country is naive. Not every rich man is a good ol’ boy that picked himself up by his bootstraps and worked his way to the top. Another thing we hate is what people DO with that money… Such as some companies having record profits in a recession but still refusing to hire more employees, which only makes things worse. The world isn’t as simple as “poor people hate the rich because they’re rich.”
Sorry Miami fans, don't Harbaugh a grudge on us.
Horse poop
Generated by Faux News pawns who can’t think for themselves.
Ground Hogs Day ~ The Sequel ~ The Nightmare Goes On And On And...
We don't hate rich people, we hate jerks and greed.
Look at this economy and our politicians (or government in general) that jerk the people around all the time to put a little extra money in their pocket. If stepping all over your fellow man is what it takes to collect money that won’t matter when you’re dead, count me out.
Sorry Miami fans, don't Harbaugh a grudge on us.
If you hate jerks and greed
You must hate both sides of this dispute. Neither side cares a whit about you or me as long as we keep buying their product.
that totally makes sense...
hate to break it to you but the old rules of capitalism never took into account what would happen if the owners went on strike instead of their workers. This isn’t Rocky vs. Drago, it’s wealthy guys vs. rich guys and that’s why it’s so pathetic that even with all the money football brings in, it still isn’t enough. Listen I think it’s great the NFL wants to be popular all over the world and wishes to support every franchise in their pursuit to build better facilities but not at the cost of an NFL season? That doesn’t mean I don’t believe an NFL owner should be a the total mercy of his staff but football isn’t like running a steel mill or a restaurant and I think that goes without saying. The owners should want to make their players happy at all costs and position them to succeed the same way an auto-manufacture should build the best cars. That’s business. All this abstract economic thinking gets besides the point when it isn’t grounded by reality. These dudes wanna play and the longer the NFL locks them out the more likely they are to be hurt economically.
"These dudes wanna play"
No, these dudes wanna get paid. That is some reality for you.
The only players griping about the lack of an off-season are the ones with big roster bonuses that they won’t make.
That isn’t a bad thing. Both owners and players are looking after their own self interest.
But the “we just want to play” is a marketing line from businessmen trying to gain leverage in the court of public opinion — that you and many others appear to have bought into hook line and sinker.
I’m not saying we should believe anything the owners say either. I believe that profits for most teams is pretty damn good. But at the same time, I can’t fault a business owner for trying to maximize his profit.
The grounding reality here is that professional football isn’t a game, it’s a multibillion dollar business.
Want to see football played “for the love of the game”?
Support your local youth football league — that’s likely the last place you are going to see it played like that.
Wait who's on strike here?
How can you possibly believe it’s the players who are being selfish and unrelenting in this situation when they weren’t the ones attacking the status quo? The owners flipped the script, it’s really simple. The only thing you can fault the union for was trying to boycott the draft.
It’s one thing if the players stood up and said we’re not working today or until you guys pay us more money or concede to these demands we won’t play, but they didn’t do that. They were totally happy with the terms of their employment which made both parties enough money to run in the black. The NFL isn’t just a business, it’s probably one of the best run business in the world and a highly coveted form of entertainment. Their media rights, the super bowl, everything about football is bought and sold at a premium because there’s a huge market for the game. So let’s be real for a second..
This lockout isn’t about turning around a failing business via capitalism it’s about making the greatest, most lucrative sport in all of America even more profitable whatever means necessary. I don’t know about you but as a consumer the first thing I really care about in football is the product, the rest will follow and the NFL just made a terrible business decision to lock out it’s players and suspend the sport because now there is no product. And whenever it returns, it will need to readjust.
I mean seriously I am so excited for this team next season but how can we even expect to have a chance if there’s no preseason? I don’t think anyone needs to be to reminded that the NFL is a business because anyone who’s watched the game has seen players come and go or teams move to different cities. But the bottom line is the fans are the market and the players are the game and in order for the business to run you gotta have those two pieces in place. Locking out the players and pissing off the fans is a risk that should only be utilized under extreme circumstances. This isn’t one of those times which is why public opinion is vastly against this lock out.
Listen man I just want football back and anyone who goes on strike in this business better have a damn good excuse because this isn’t the coal industry, these guys are living out their dreams and getting paid top dollar for it.
The owners have a "pretty damn good excuse"
The old CBA was a sweetheart deal for the players, the owners had the option to opt out, and they took it.
Of course the players were perfectly happy with the terms.
They get close to half the revenue, not profit, revenue. For them that is money in the bank.
The other half the owners keep — they still have expenses to pay.
That doesn’t make the owners right and the players wrong, but that is why they aren’t happy with the bargaining agreement as it stood.
Nobody is saying it is a failing business, but you are speaking with a great deal of hypocrisy.
You won’t fault the NFLPA from shooting down any CBA proposal that isn’t a carbon copy of the old sweetheart deal, but you will fault the NFL for wanting to be even more profitable.
I’ll say again, both sides have the right to try to make out the best they can by whatever legal means necessary.
But to claim either side has some kind of higher obligation or moral/ethical standard that should cause them to short-change their self-interest just so we can be entertained is grade A bovine excrement.
by Ougadas on Jun 5, 2011 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agree
Opt out clauses are not hidden loopholes that some lawyer discovers. They are put there, on purpose, in case future conditions do not improve as much as EXPECTED. This is not to say they didn’t get better but maybe they didn’t improve as much as they expected. There was an economy problem. Maybe it “dimmed” expectations a bit.
This is no different than a player opting out of their contract to become a free agent. If the clause is there, you can use it, even without an excuse.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 5, 2011 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
The old CBA was a sweetheart deal for EVERYBODY..
the NFLPA and the league have extended the old CBA five times since 1993, when it was first agreed upon. In May 2008 that changed because of the recession and it was unlikely that less profit could maintain the old CBA.
Anyone remember how the Cardinals vs. Steelers Superbowl at the beginning of ‘09 wasn’t a sell out and advertising rates were historically low? That was a true reflection of the economy at the time. People obviously were watching their money and the Super Bowl wasn’t a bottom line necessity for anyone. Does this mean that because the NFL was economically motivated to opt out of the old CBA we should tell the players to shut up, and that the owners know best? No..
The NFL makes an obscene amount of money because it’s an incredibly well run business which is important because very few supporters of the NFL are willing to put a face on this issue. This labor dispute isn’t about efficiency, or profits or economic security, the NFL has all of that, it’s about the league going into riot mode during an economic crisis that they assumed would prevent the old status quo from being maintained over the long run.
Well thankfully the recession, in football at least, has been absorbed. We can all be proud of ourselves for keeping football alive when the owners thought we’d stop buying merchandise or paying to see games because our houses were being foreclosed on or our jobs outsourced overseas. Nope, all that doom and gloom can take a hike because reality has returned to normal. Football still makes bank.
This is why I’m so amused by this issue. The owners aren’t avoiding risk by throwing out the old CBA, in fact they’re taking on more of it because there’s little to no evidence suggesting that the football economy is dwindling. So what do the owners really want?
We can rule out that the NFL is broke, that the old CBA was simply too good to be true for the players, that the fans needed something more to keep the game competitive. I believe that this issue is about increasing the football market by freeing up capital to build better stadiums and expose the sport around the world. Don’t get me wrong all that sounds awesome, my only issue is that because of the NFL’s new demands, which have divided players and fans, professional football is now positioned to regress in 2011.
I'm hearing a lot of assumptions like this (and this is realistic compared to some of the others)
but when I actually come across some supported results, it doesn’t seem like the NFL escaped the recession unscathed. Check this article out: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/09/nfl-attendance-likely-to-fall-for-third-straight-season-in-2010-to-lowest-level-since-1998/1 The results in 2011 did end up experiencing another drop in attendence. The increasing number of blackouts affects TV viewing market numbers which affect how much money the NFL gets from the networks. If the other teams have financial issues like the Packers, who are making only 2% ROI and our price can’t go up much without reducing demand, then the owners don’t have much wiggle room. Wanta see the Green Bay numbers?
http://joe.bowman.net/Statement.htm
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 9, 2011 6:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Furthermore,
The old CBA was a sweetheart deal for the players, the owners had the option to opt out, and they took it.
The owners only had, and exercised, the option to opt out one year early.
Doing so only accelerated a process that would have run its course next year, anyway.
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
the players
stood up and said we’re not negotiating today, or at all.
The owners wanted to negotiate a new agreement that was mutually beneficial for the long term success of the product; the players wanted nothing to do with negotiation, only litigation, so walked away from the negotiations.
That is what triggered the lockout, and that is how I can possibly believe it’s the players who are being selfish and unrelenting in this situation!
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
I like the post and feel about the same , no NFL network nor sport radio and for the first time in year's , i don't know all the Coaches name's nor the player's drafted , i was on cloud nine with the Harbaugh hiring , but have slowly lost my wing's ...!!
I'm your " Huckelberry "...it's just my game ...Jimmy Raye your no daisy ...!!
This is all John Adam's fault
His invisable hand hasn’t been moving much lately in the NFL (that’s for all you econ geeks out there, and I know there are many). I don’t think the players should be allowed to see the owners books, but I know why they want to. The owners are claiming they needed to take $2 billion off the top instead of just $1 billion as they were in the most recent CBA or they’ll lose money. The players are saying, “We don’t believe you” so they’re wanting the owners to show them where they’re losing money.
Imagine you work for a multi-billion dollar company and the owner says they need to cut $1 billion in payroll or they’ll lose money. That means there’s a great chance your own salary will be cut. You look at the owner flying around in his private jet and living high on the hog and wonder if they’re really losing money. You’re right I don’t have a dog in this fight but I think it’s only natural to side with the working man, even if he is a millionair, than to side with “the man”.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
by urnext on Jun 5, 2011 9:23 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I hate that there's no spell check
“invisible” not “invisable”
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
I hate that there's no "IQ" Check!
It’s Rampant GREED not Capitalism. In Capitalism, everyone wins in an organization that is successful. Owners take care of their employees. Everyone is happy and the corporations make record profits annually. Here we have a group of owners who are not satisfied with record profits but are so GREEDY they want even greater profits at the expense of THEIR OWN WORKERS! Long gone are the days when companies took care of their employees in order to secure the business and assure the stake holders of LONG TERM PROFIT! It is all about the IMMEDIATE explosion of profits ! The owners feel like the last CBA somehow screwed them. But the actual profit margins of the owners went UP! So who really got screwed in the deal? NO, the owners need to calm down and be thankful that the NFL is still one of the few places that is profitable DESPITE the economy being as bad as it is! Instead, they have decided to arbitrarily force their employees to take pay CUTS to fund the owners even MORE LAVISH lifestyles! I guess the NFL owners saw that the Bankers were getting super rich and want to get in on that GREED! Pathetic how the Owners are so willing to throw their customers under the bus to obtain even more profit than they already enjoy.
Another year, another chance to hope for the team !!
Are you refering to yourself about the "IQ" check?
I was agreeing with the players argument that the owners aren’t really losing money. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Not yet
aren’t really losing money
but, projected that way, in the not-too-distant future, under the terms of the old CBA.
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
That's just a guess
As long as the books aren’t open there’s no way to really know. The owners say they’ll lose money, the players say they don’t believe them. Anyone who says they know for sure is just guessing.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
We don't know every teams details
But we do know that the highest paid Green Bay player made more profit than the franchise did.
Now Green Bay did move several million of future years expenses onto this year, but without those the two highest paid players combined made more profit than the franchise.
It’s not a stretch to believe that some franchises are making more profit, but I don’t think it’s an order of magnitude greater.
I'm glad you mentioned the Packers
They are one team who’s books are opened because they’re publicaly owned and they are making a profit. Does it really matter that one player is making more money than the team made in profits, which happened to be just under $30 million over the last two years? Is there some rule that says the owner must earn more in profits than the highest paid employee of that company? How many CEOs are making millions of dollars for a company that’s in the red? Besides, none of this is taking into consideration the increased value of the franchise. An NFL owner who bought their team in 1996 and then sold it in 2007 could expect to earn around $693 million in profit on the sale. How many players earned even a tenth of that much money over that same span of time?
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
How many players put up the capital for that kind of investment?
None? They are perfectly welcome to do so.
I've been wondering why we haven't been hearing more about the Packers' books.
People keep talking about how the owners won’t open the books, but I never hear anything about how the Packers’ finances break down.
We don't need 8 in the box. We have 52 in the box.
We've been talking about them below - see link
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 6, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
so...
the “NET INCOME before expansion revenue” line at the bottom is profit, right?
We don't need 8 in the box. We have 52 in the box.
that's what I thought at first
but if you look farther down the line, it appears profits spiked from 2003-2008 before going back down to where they had been in the first place.
Any idea why profits would jump several hundred percent like that for a few years and then return to normal?
We don't need 8 in the box. We have 52 in the box.
Flip over to the balance sheet (link near the top)
Equity (investment) was much smaller in the early years and it looks like Lambeau’s small seating capacity was holding them back. They were in financial trouble because longterm debts were coming due and it looks like they bounced some checks. They solved it by selling stock to finance stadium improvements increase seating capacity. After that, revenue started kicking in, so I wouldn’t call the earlier years normal or desireable. They’d like 8-10% ROI (Comparable return) but 2% is hanging on.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 6, 2011 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
FTFY
Here we have a group of owners who are not satisfied withrecordshrinking profits.
as a result of the terms of the last CBA.
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
One more point
The owners profits are completely unrelated to ticket prices. Ticket prices are based on demand, not profits. If an owner can raise ticket prices by $10 a ticket and still sell out every game, they’ll do it. If they can charge $10 more for parking and people are willing to pay, they’ll do it. It won’t matter if the owners are already making a huge profit or if they’re losing money.
In reality, the reason the owners want an extra billion is because of the growing cost of stadiums. Owners don’t want Candlestick park they want Cowboys stadium. And when they build their fancy new stadium with all it’s amenities, or upgrade their current stadium, they WILL raise ticket prices and fans WILL pay because they will be receiving more for their money in the new stadium then they were in the old. It won’t matter if the owners or players win, the fans will pay what the market will bear.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Regarding your stadium cost point
Say the owner is satisfied with a little less than Jerry’s palace – cost $1B. Times 32 for each team in the league would mean 32 years before becoming out of date and time to rebuild. Sounds reasonable to me. If you rent one instead of build, the builder will pass the same cost on to the renter.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 5, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make
The owners need more money so they can have more liquid capital to build or remodel their new stadiums. But none of that means anything to the fans. You said,
This is all about determining how much to CHARGE US NEXT YEAR.
But that has nothing to do with it. This isn’t a government that has a fixed amount of money to spend and if there isn’t enough they raise taxes to cover the cost. If the owners are running their businesses as efficiently as they can, they’re already squeezing every last penny they can from us. It’s called maximizing profits. It doesn’t matter if they’re making money or losing money. They’re not a charity or altruistic. They’ll set ticket prices where supply equals demand so they can capture as much profit as they can.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Well, my point is that $1B off the top doesn't seem unreasonable for that cost component
and since it is part of the owner’s proposal, it would be part of what they charge us next year.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 6, 2011 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions
But it wouldn't
What they charge us isn’t decided by how profitable the company is or by what their expenditures are. It’s soley decided by demand and nothing else. If there’s a game coming up in an 80,000 seat stadium and the price of the tickits is $X, and at that price 200,000 people want to buy tickets, the owner isn’t charging enough. So they raise the price to $X+20. Obviously some people who were willing to pay $X won’t be willing to pay $X+20, but let’s say there’s still 150,000 people willing to pay $X+20. The owner still isn’t maximizing profits so they raise the price again to $X+50. Again, that increasing will drop demand but let’s say 100,000 people are still willing to pay. The key is trying to find that point where the number of peole willing to pay equals the number of seats in the stadium. Of course, this is a little over simplified since demand will vary on who the opponent is as well as other factors, but that’s the jist of it. How much of their income they use to pay players or is used for a new stadium, or how much money they may be making or losing isn’t even considered when trying to decide what ticket price would best maximize profits. What we pay this year or in future years is not at all affected by who wins this fight. We’ll pay the same no matter what.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
by urnext on Jun 6, 2011 7:09 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It would and always has been
Stadium cost, whether rental or purchase, has always been a team expense. It gets paid from the revenues a team gets from us, directly or indirectly. So what if it isn’t considered within the ticket price calculation, since it gets paid with team revenues, it’s cost is part of what they charge us for.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 6, 2011 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
You right
But it doesn’t affect us at all. My understanding of your post was that we’d be better off if the owners got a better deal in a new CBA. Maybe I misunderstood. My point is simply we’ll pay the same amount now matter who wins this fight. If the owners get extra revenue by being able to keep an extra $1 billion of the $9 billion pie, the price we pay won’t be affected by it. If they suddenly find they have a more expenses thanks to the rising cost of stadiums, the price we pay won’t be affected by it. What we pay has nothing to do with who wins this fight.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
I see it different than that
My interpretation is the owners say they’re not making enough and an 18% pay cut (if that was the original number) would make it right without a price increase. In that case it wouldn’t affect us. My post points out that the owners are going to get their 10% no matter what, so every pay concession they make to the players will increase the price we get charged.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 7, 2011 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions
But if the owners COULD increase the price
and people would still show up, then why wouldn’t they have already increased the price?
That’s what urnext is saying here. If the owners CAN raise the price, there’s no reason to wait until costs go up.
We don't need 8 in the box. We have 52 in the box.
Maybe they can't right now. I'm starting to think demand isn't that absolute.
Now that I’ve read this article (link) http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/09/nfl-attendance-likely-to-fall-for-third-straight-season-in-2010-to-lowest-level-since-1998/1 ,it doesn’t look like the market can bear a price increase right now. According to this, attendence has been affected by the poor economy. Increasing prices would not only worsen that but increase the number of blackouts. That affects TV viewing market numbers which affect how much money the NFL gets from the networks. If the other teams have financial issues like the Packers, who are making only 2% ROI and our price can’t go up, then the owners don’t have much wiggle room.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 8, 2011 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Doesn't this prove the point I was trying to make?
The owners are trying to get money back from the players because right now their profit margins are really small and they know they can’t get any more money from the fans. Therefore, they’re trying to increase profits by reducing costs, in this case player’s salary, because they know increasing ticket prices would actually reduce revenue. So if the owners lose this fight they know they’ll have to go on with small profit margins since they know increasing ticket prices would only cause a further reduction in ticket sales and as a result, a further reduction in revenue and profit.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Well, there's two feet of text on my screen, so maybe it's a good time to summarize.
I’m assuming your point is that player’s salary doesn’t drive ticket prices. So, if the player’s salary stays the same, ticket prices wouldn’t go up. I’m not agreeing with that – still. If the profit margins are small, like the above sources indicate, I think what it affects is how much concessions the owners can vary from their proposal. The owners would not sign a CBA, that lasts for years, that projects peanuts or losses in the hope the economy will get good enough to raise prices some day. Optimism that the economy would stay the same is what got them into this mess, so they’re done with optimism and they’re done with peanuts.
Of course those sources are just indicators. If the margin is better for most of the teams, the market might bear a price increase but I’m sticking to my guns, players win=price increase, players lose=maybe no price increase. When do you sleep?
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 10, 2011 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Expenses never determine prices
At least according to my econ professor. Prices are set at the point they feel they can maximize revenue. But I do agree with you on one point. The owners will never agree to a new CBA if they feel doing so won’t give them an adequate return on their investment. Of course, they also need to consider how much the lockout is costing them and how long they feel they can hold out. As for your last question, I work nights so I don’t normally go to bed until 1 or 2 in the morning.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Here's an example that might make it easier to understand
And I replied to one of your earlier comments so I had more space. Let’s say you started a candy business and you’ve worked out a deal where a supermarket will carry your candy bars. You can make 1,000 a day and your cost is 60 cents per bar each day for everything. At first you sell them for $.75 ts but they’re really good and the supermarket can’t keep them stocked. Eventually you find $.90 is the price where people are buying about as many as you can make every day. So your revenue is $.90 × 1,000 or $900 every day. After expenses you profit is $300 a day. You tried selling them at $1.00 each, but at that price you only sold 850 a day, so your revenue is $1.00 × 850, or $850 a day for a profit of $250.
One day something happens to drive up the price of chocolate and now your cost is .75 cents per bar. Can you increase you price to $1.05 to make up for the extra cost? No, because if you do you sell less and make less money. You have someone that works for you and you tell them you need to pay them less but they’re an expert chocolateer and you can’t easily replace them. In the end you just have to make less money or figure out a way to cut costs some other way.
It’s the same with football. It’s the same with football. They don’t set ticket prices based on their expenses or how much they have to pay their employees. They set the prices at the point where they think they can generate the most revenue. If they aren’t they aren’t running their business very effectively.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
It's been a few years but I haven't forgotten my Economics course.
It’s a bit oversimplified, though. Markets change. If your candy bar profit is too large, somebody will copy your bar (as best they can), add a more reasonable profit and take part of your market share. If the price of chocolate goes up, the price of every reasonably priced candy bar goes up, albeit gradually. Competition keeps you from gouging the public. Football has no competition for your money? Sure it does- MLB, shows, remodeling your house, anything else you might want to do on a Sunday. Maybe we’re all addicts here but some of that $9B is discretionary, an elective. Maximizing profit is the goal but it needs to be sustained through business cycles and competition. The price answer isn’t in the back of the book but I believe that it is influenced by costs.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 13, 2011 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree
And that’s the whole point. The reason people won’t buy your product as prices go up is because they have other options. If the players win and owners raise their prices to make back some of the income they have to pay players, people will use their money on other sources of entertainment. That’s the point I’m trying to make. If owners raise their prices they’ll actually make less money bacause less people will buy the product. They’ve already set the price at the point where they’re maximizing their profits. Any further increase in price will force people away into choosing other forms of entertainment. The owners won’t raise their prices because they can’t raise their prices and make the same amount of money. And if they can raise their prices and make more revenue, they haven’t been running their bussiness as effectively as they could have.
You’re saying the owners will raise their prices if the players win. I’m saying they’ve already raised them as high as they can. Any further increase will drive people into using their income on other things such as MLB, shows, remodeling their houses, and anything else they might want to do on Sunday.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
We're not too far apart on the mechanics, urnext
but I think we’re trying to prove different points. If the attendance article (above) is a valid indicator, then you’re correct about the owners not being able to raise prices and my conclusion, in that case, is the players won’t win and must take a pay cut. If the article is not a valid indicator, then prices can go up and the owners will give concessions. I do think the article is a valid indicator though, so a price increase and the player’s winning are low probabilities. Are we good?
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 14, 2011 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions
No
I want to keep going back and forth. It gives me something to do at 1 in the morning.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
i tried to rec'ed 200 times but it would only let me do it once.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jun 5, 2011 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Crap
I only need one more rec to get my first ever green comment. Maybe I can get my mom to sign up at Niners Nation.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
green comment
Your benevolent despot has weighed in from on high and rec’d your comment.
by David Fucillo on Jun 5, 2011 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes , nice to see you've joined the movement and decided to go Green ...!!
I'm your " Huckelberry "...it's just my game ...Jimmy Raye your no daisy ...!!
As long as you've been here you've never had a comment go green?
Heck, I’ll rec it to help you out, even though I mostly disagree with the position you took.
I know it's sad
I’ve had several posts get 3 recs but never a comment until now.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
The invisible hand concept is from Adam Smith, not John Adams.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jun 10, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
That's what I get for trying to quote from "The Wealth of Nations" off the top of my head without double checking
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
I thought you were joking
would’ve fooled me with a simple “I meant to do that”
Oops
I ment to do that. My ealier comment was a joke.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
John Adams?
You mean Adam Smith right?
by mr. instigator on Jun 16, 2011 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Love the article
great points on both sides. I tend to lean towards the owners in general, but i’m not on a “side”.
I look at this whole situation from a perspective of figuring out who is to blame for the death of Person B when Person A smashes into their car on the highway and Person B wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Both sides are to blame and they need to get to working it out, bury the hatchet, and back to making the millions they do.
Honorary parent of Duane Kuiper, beloved solar powered broadcaster and power hitting coach for the Giants.
I wonder what percent of total revenue is in the form of Ticket price's in comparision to total revenue ...!!
I'm your " Huckelberry "...it's just my game ...Jimmy Raye your no daisy ...!!
Could someone tell me how to format this address so it becomes a link?
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 6, 2011 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
link
You need to post it in the body of the comment not in the subject line.
by David Fucillo on Jun 6, 2011 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Edggy - This link might help - It's 20% for the Green Bay Packers
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 6, 2011 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks' , that's what i thought , kinda makes Urnext point a little lesser to the degree of income ...
…. if i read that rite their profit margin is squat , if i’m ponying up a Quarter billion buck’s to operate any business i want 10 percent in return , i just bid a few jobs’ and got 4 outta 5 of them with the happy thought , when all is said and done 12 % goes in my pocket , the one i didn’t get , is the one i turned down after they tried to knock my price down to 4 % profit …just not worth my time …!!
I'm your " Huckelberry "...it's just my game ...Jimmy Raye your no daisy ...!!
Spoken like an owner
Also note that compared to prior years, their profit margin has BECOME squat, mostly attributable to the change in player costs.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 6, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
But there's a source of income that's not included in that
The value of the average NFL team has gone up around $300 million over the last 10 years. They may not be receiving that profit every year, but if they do decide to sell the team, that’s an extra $300 million if profit, or an average of $30 million a year for those ten years they invested in the team. That alone should make it a worth while investment.
But all that is beside the point. What I’ve been trying to say is that none of this affects us. It doesn’t matter if the owners are making money or losing money. It doesn’t matter if the players are getting a huge share of the profits or are being screwed over. What we pay as fans is completely seperate from all this. It won’t matter if the players or owners win this fight, we’ll still pay the same. But we will lose out if part, or even all, of the upcoming season is lost..
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
I gotcha , while said profit's don't stem per year as great as a whole ...
… the equity of the franchise does suggest great value in the long term investment …!!
I'm your " Huckelberry "...it's just my game ...Jimmy Raye your no daisy ...!!
Great post.
And it’s settled. We have to sue the NFL and Players for irreparable damage to my health. I am stressed and worried I may not get football next year.
We will force them to end the lockout. Add the rookie salary cap. Give the owners 1.4 or so billion, no changes to the rules or kickoff crap. Or we will boycott and force ourselves not to watch or attend games.
A man can dream…
by 49erfannm on Jun 6, 2011 12:05 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Of course the premise of your post is that unfettered capitalism is the best thing
and I’m not convinced that it is.
I had to look up "unfettered"
I think those are the rules in force, give or take a court ruling or two. I was more interested in pointing out that they call them “private businesses” for a reason and the time for the market to react is when the product is on the shelf, not when the boardroom meeting is going on.
Well the NFL is a unique situation
because the 32 teams aren’t individual businesses, but part of a collective. The 49ers have absolutely no way to make any income outside of the NFL. Likewise the Cowboys and every other NFL team. There’s no real free market here, because there’s no competition.
Back in the 60s when you had both the AFL and the NFL, it was a different story and some of the things that the two sides did to get recruits makes for entertaining reading. As a side note the NFL was deathly afraid of Al Davis back then. When they merged the deal was pretty much done withou him there because he was a no-holds barred fighter.
I know he gets a great deal of grief these days (and most of it is deserved), but he is one of the most important owners in the history of the NFL.
Some lawyers are spending a career arguing these points, y'know.
To some people they may look like a collective and to some people they may look like a closed population of separate businesses with the league as a regulator. You would be hardpressed to find an industry more competitive, though.
I remember hearing that Al Davis signed Fred Belitnikoff to a contract on the field after the Orange Bowl ended. So tell me Smiley, after he dies, would you go to the Al Davis Museum in Jack London Square?
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 6, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Absolutely I'd make the trip
I don’t live in the Bay Area, so I’ve never been a part of the whole Raider/49er hatred. My hatred has been directed first at the Cowboys and then at the Packers (specifically Favre) for all those defeats in the NFC championship game.
Your Post Reflects a Common Misunderstanding of Capitalism
Capitalism is simply an economic model based on unfettered (or unrestrained) competition between everyone involved in the market. If any actor involved in the market is not competing for participation, then it’s not capitalism.
The owners are colluding to act in their collective interest as a “league” not in the individual interests of their particular team. Just because they are rich and acting out of greed doesn’t make them capitalists. The owners are the very definition of anti-capitalists.
First, there should be no draft, each player should be a free agent from day one to contract with any team. Second, there should be no salary cap, the market is supposed to dicatate salaries. Third, teams should be publically owned and traded on one of the major stock exchanges to allow them to raise capital necessary to build new stadiums. Bonds have been around for hundreds of years now and funded hundreds of thousands of companies’ capital investments.
Efficiently managed teams would negotiate good contracts with the right players, raise money for the best stadium the market will support and be profitable businesses. Poorly managed teams would fall by the wayside. That’s capitalism and that’s what the players wanted in 1987.
Rooting for the owners is like rooting for USSR in the 1980s.
by reedkrase on Jun 6, 2011 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Yep.
You're not a 49er unless you got a gold star from Trent Baalke. Only "high character" guys get to play for the 49ers. The team is built in the locker room, as we all know.
by BustaTheRippa on Jun 6, 2011 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions
The problem with this is it doesn't take into consideration competitive balance
If the NFL ran this way you’d have a few teams that were real threats every year and a bunch of teams that never had a chance because they wouldn’t have the same amount of resources as the bigger market teams. MLB is the closest to this system and it’s why the Yankees and Red Sox are always near the top. But they still have a draft which allows smaller market teams like the Rays and Athletics to still have a chance, even if it’s not as big. Allowing teams to run without any regulations at all would destroy competetive balance and the sport.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
3 points
1. Red Sox didn’t win a world series for 86 years before 2004 not exactly a team that is always at the top. Since 1980 about 18 of the 30 different teams have won the series, which is pretty good over 30 years. In that same time only about 15 different NFL teams have won superbowls, so in that sense the MLB seems to have a comprable, if not better, system to protect the competetive balance. The NBA would have the worst, with half of all championships being won by the lakers or celtics.
2. This post called for a capitalist approach, and I believe my comment states the elements missing from the NFL to consider it a capitalist endevor.
3. The point of public ownership is the ability to raise capital through stock offerings. Poorly managed teams wouldn’t limp along for decages as the owner continued to mismanage it, but would be replaced with new management in stockholder votes. People will do what they have to to protect their investment and get a good return.
The post called for a more capitalist approach by the fans, not a change in structure.
I tried to point out that the time for the market to react is when the product goes on the shelves, not while the boardroom is going on. I like the structure the way it is, pure capitalism model or not.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 14, 2011 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Comment meant to be read with my prior comment
A more capitalist approach from fans would require the most “market-friendly solution,” which would be for fans to demand owners and players act like capitalists, which requires a change in structure.
The fans’ power as a market is inhibited by the collusion between the owners and players. So if you’re calling for the fans to act as capitalists, then by the same token you are calling for a change in structure. If you like the current structure, then you are acting as a fan, not a capitalist.
Disagree
The market has no role in labor negotiations or team management. It can simply buy or not buy when the product is being sold.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 14, 2011 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
demand vs. power to have your demands met
A consumer in a market is supposed to be able to choose between competing products AND competing brands. That’s not the case under the NFL’s current structure.
Your post encourages fans to be more capitalist, this would be to voice support for the players, for a free market, no draft and no rules regarding team ownership. This would be petitioning the courts for actions against the NFL for trust violations. This doesn’t mean that fans would have to be able to see such changes enacted.
I'm all for free markets
I consider myself a libertarian and nothing would make me happier than to see Ron Paul become our next president. But to accomplish the goals you’ve stated the government would have to get involved. True, football acts a lot like an oligopoly, but I’d rather see that than have the government messing around with things.
As for my point about competitve balance, it is true that some big market teams will stuggle. But by and large (I think my dad always said that) big market teams have an advantage over smaller market teams, at least in MLB, and to a lesser extent, the NBA with their soft cap. They don’t always fully take advantage because their GMs sign too many bad free agent contracts, but a team with a $150 million payroll will have a lot easier time than a team with a $50 million payroll, as would be the case if teams were run as public companies.
In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Nope, none of that is there.
My post encourages the reader to see things from the owner’s perspective and suggests player cost will drive prices but not improve the game. Factoring in the capitalist nature of things does not mean you can translate it into your own agenda.
’Scuse me while I fall on my sword.
by DeathValleyCarl on Jun 15, 2011 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions
but your post doesn't have anything to do with capitalism
which has been my point all along. Viewing the debate through the owner’s greed doesn’t make it capitalism and the NFL doesn’t operate as a capitalist market, so your concerns over price, while justified, don’t follow the normal supply and demand rules that we’d expect in a free market.
I have no problem with your support for the current structure, personally I think changing the nfl’s structure would be like kicking a hornets nest. I was just looking for some intellectual integrity in the argument.
players
have no binding (guaranteed)contracts,how does this hurt the owners ?? Players did not lock the doors,owners did…players do not get tv money,with or without a season,owners do..
The love of money is the root of all evil
I think we’re seeing the results of that right now.
"I for one welcome our new computer overlords." - Ken Jennings, after losing to a computer on Jeopardy, 2/16/11
The root of all "evil"
Is organized religion. And we’ve been seeing the results for 2 eons.
Ground Hogs Day ~ The Sequel ~ The Nightmare Goes On And On And...
It's ok
They’ll forget how to be socialists as soon as soon as football is played again.
Even if this mess is drug out in the courts another year or two, as long as football is allowed to continue in the meantime even the most outraged fans will forget all about the business end of the game.
The great outrage isn’t about who is right or even who is less wrong — it’s a child deprived of it’s toy throwing a tantrum and looking for the family dog to kick.
I know this will be a greatly unpopular comment, but it’s the truth.
Now I’ll just don my flame retardant vest and maybe see the post count for this thread shoot through the roof.
Awkward.
My flamethrower was confiscated by Fooch. Apparently we aren’t supposed to use them on the spammers…
We don't need 8 in the box. We have 52 in the box.
by these3words on Jun 8, 2011 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
