NFP: Owners seek double-digit cut in player salaries

Box_O_Rocks

One personality, many pieces
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
25,660
Reaction score
1,337
Points
113
Location
Patriots Planet surveillance center
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Owners-seek-doubledigit-cut-in-player-salaries.html
Owners seek double-digit cut in player salaries

by Robert Boland
January 28, 02010

Peyton Manning will wear jersey No. 18 on Super Bowl Sunday. That number, 18, also reflects the percentage the NFL Players Association says owners are asking its members to cut from their share of league revenues that go to player compensation and benefits.

Giants owner John Mara said last week that the economy necessitates some cuts. Credible sources confirm that the owners are asking for an 18-percent rollback of compensation, which is currently pegged at almost 59 percent of the total football revenue earned by the league and its teams. This seems fairly extreme for an enterprise -- the NFL -- that is basically in the black, so it’s not surprising that the players’ union, led by executive director DeMaurice Smith, is reacting loudly and negatively to such a proposal.

It seems that the two sides are intractably apart, but a look inside these numbers indicates there may be some room for both sides to negotiate and reach the kind of win-win that Commissioner Roger Goodell and Smith need to deliver for the game to survive without a work stoppage. We’re still early, and nothing is going to get done without both sides using as much of their respective leverage as they can and without some pressure provided by the last minute.

Why are we here?

We are talking about rolling back players’ salaries not because owners are losing money but because already thin margins have tightened in this new economy. But mostly we’re here because the NFLPA won too great a labor victory in the 2006 CBA. The late Gene Upshaw was the undisputed winner, getting far more categories of revenue included under the cap and revenue sharing. He won a whopping share of the NFL revenue pie. Upshaw may deserve criticism for how that pie was served to his players, retirees and those suffering from debilitating injuries, but he won a huge victory. But much like the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I but helped cause World War II, too great a victory can sometimes have very negative consequences. The salary cap, which is based on revenue, rose from $80 million per team in 2005 under the old CBA, to $102 million in 2006, $107 million in 2007, $116 million in 2008 and $128 million this year, not because the NFL added new revenue, but because the 2006 CBA changed the calculation of the cap and eliminated a variety of carve-outs, mostly from luxury amenities, that had allowed owners to keep money in their own pockets. The floor also now sits at about $112 million. This is why no owner fears the coming uncapped and unfloored year the way they did back in 2006. The shrinking economy, especially business entertainment spending, has hurt owners, and they’re demanding a change.

The difference may not be as wide as perceived

Despite the owners opening negotiations with a demand for an 18-percent rollback in player salaries and benefits -- the NHL, a league that had very few profitable teams, only demanded a 25-percent rollback -- the sides still have room to negotiate. I’m not buying the gloom and doom scenarios. We’ve said before that there aren’t massive disagreements on other issues, with owners wanting Vick and Lelie forfeiture clauses, the biggest non-money point of disagreement. The fact the cap grew from $80 million to $128 million in just five years offers some room to both recognize that owners are stretched thinner than before in the current economy and for players to preserve some benefits of the current system but avoid a lockout and a total cave-in.

What 18 percent would mean

Using the $128-million-per-team cap allotment and subtracting 18 percent from that figure, owners are asking for a cap or new kind of ceiling on team salaries of somewhere around $105 million -- recognizing we are using round numbers and calculation conventions from an old agreement that might not exist in a new one. That would put between $750 million and $1 billion of the approximately $8.5-billion NFL pie back in the hands of ownership.

Where there’s room for the sides to come together

But any good negotiator knows where to look for helpful benchmarks or slack in an opponent’s proposal. An effective benchmark here is likely not rolling all the way back to 2006 numbers but limiting big jumps in salary growth in future years, and perhaps both sides looking heroic by taking a 10-percent cut. That would put player salaries at $115 million per team, just about the 2008 number. Owners would get more than $400 million back from their current spending, surely enough to ease margin pressure.

Since owners seem more troubled by the current floor than the current cap, perhaps Smith and the union can limit any trim off the top of a cap by taking a larger cut on the floor, maybe leaving the cap at $128 million but letting teams cut the floor from $112 to $92 million. It might have a short-term drag on overall player salaries, but it would allow some teams to continue to overpay some players, and it’s the big contracts teams do that blow up on them and that push salaries higher.

While this negotiation is the biggest off-field story in American sports, reading too much into a first proposal may be premature. There is much room for the sides to work. It’s critical that they do.
 
We will have a season without football in the very near future
 
Wow 18% is pretty substantial, if this is true there will be a lockout if the owners don't bend on that. The union will never agree to that big a cut.

Though the point about the salary floor is well made.

I think the players are in for a hard dose of reality this time around. The owners will force a roll back not only of the overall percentage for the cap, but of a lot crap the union stuck in last time that limits the ability to discipline players and recover money from holdouts.
 
Wow 18% is pretty substantial, if this is true there will be a lockout if the owners don't bend on that. The union will never agree to that big a cut.

The owners will bend on that. It's just part of the negotiation process - start with something outlandish, "concede" some ground, and end up agreeing about where you want to be.
 
Just a bargaining tactic. No way that the owners truly expect the NFLPA to relinquish 18%.
 
They wont budge much if you think that they are just lowballing. They will also insist on pulling out most of the crap that was thrown into the revenue sharing "pie" in 06. And they will drop the floor too. And the Vick claus will be a reality.

Or there will be a lockout.


The owners aren't fuggin around this time. Players are gonna get in line with the program or there wont be a program.
 
They wont budge much if you think that they are just lowballing. They will also insist on pulling out most of the crap that was thrown into the revenue sharing "pie" in 06. And they will drop the floor too. And the Vick claus will be a reality.

Or there will be a lockout.


The owners aren't fuggin around this time. Players are gonna get in line with the program or there wont be a program.

A curse on both of them if they do. I doubt if it will turn me away from the game as baseball did, but it won't be the same as it is now.:Lecture:
 
STupid lockout on the year I could have made money on the SB (working it bc it was in Indy).
 
JaMarcus Russell | QB

<table class="p_afterHeadline" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%">TEAM: </td><td>Oakland Raiders</td></tr><tr class="p_afterHeadline"><td>HEIGHT/WEIGHT:</td><td> 6'6' / 260</td></tr><tr><td>DOB:</td><td width="50%"> 8/9/1985</td></tr><tr><td>AGE:</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>COLLEGE:</td><td>LSU</td></tr><tr><td>CONTRACT INFO: </td><td>9/10/2007: Signed a six-year, $61 million contract.</td></tr></tbody></table>
 
I'll cop at the outset that I didn't read every sentence of the article (and didn't understand a good bit of what I did read), but my big beef with player salaries is the rookie pay. It is unconscionable IMO that some dude who has never played a single down in the pros is given the gross national product of a small country to sign with some SB-starved team. Too many examples to list, but JaMarcus Russell comes to mind. Jumbo Jimbo hasn't done doodoo for the huge boodle Davis (insanely) shoveled his way, but now they can't afford to cut him and nobody else wants him at that price.

But back to the rookie thing per se: NO WAY should a brand new, untested at the professional level player (no matter HOW promising coming out of college) be given way more starting money than seasoned vets. How is this not totally demoralizing - not to mention completely unfair - for the old timers.

(And I'm not trying to compare the average salary of us civilians with pro athletes. Apples vs oranges. I just think the brand new noobs in no way should get the preposterous loot they are given to sign.)
 
I'll cop at the outset that I didn't read every sentence of the article (and didn't understand a good bit of what I did read), but my big beef with player salaries is the rookie pay. It is unconscionable IMO that some dude who has never played a single down in the pros is given the gross national product of a small country to sign with some SB-starved team. Too many examples to list, but DeMarcus Russell comes to mind. Jumbo Jimbo hasn't done doodoo for the huge boodle Davis (insanely) shoveled his way, but now they can't afford to cut him and nobody else wants him at that price.

But back to the rookie thing per se: NO WAY should a brand new, untested at the professional level player (no matter HOW promising coming out of college) be given way more starting money than seasoned vets. How is this not totally demoralizing - not to mention completely unfair - for the old timers.

(And I'm not trying to compare the average salary of us civilians with pro athletes. Apples vs oranges. I just think the brand new noobs in no way should get the preposterous loot they are given to sign.)

Bingo OBF,:thumb: How many 1st round busts are there every year. And they get paid much more than an UDFA who busted his ass and is contributing to the team?
 
JaMarcus Russell | QB

<table class="p_afterHeadline" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%">TEAM: </td><td>Oakland Raiders</td></tr><tr class="p_afterHeadline"><td>HEIGHT/WEIGHT:</td><td> 6'6' / 260</td></tr><tr><td>DOB:</td><td width="50%"> 8/9/1985</td></tr><tr><td>AGE:</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>COLLEGE:</td><td>LSU</td></tr><tr><td>CONTRACT INFO: </td><td>9/10/2007: Signed a six-year, $61 million contract.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Exactly the point I was going to make, albeit in a different form. This can be resolved by a rookie salary cap.
 
Bingo OBF,:thumb: How many 1st round busts are there every year. And they get paid much more than an UDFA who busted his ass and is contributing to the team?

I seem to remember that half of 1st rounders make it. I'm going to pick a random year (2003) and get back to you.
 
Mark Sanchez, 50 mil.
Stafford, 71 mil.
Smith, 62 mil.
Jackson, 50 mil.
Heyward-bey, 24 mil.
Crabtree, 30 mil.

Et-effing-c.
 
Mark Sanchez, 50 mil.
Stafford, 71 mil.
Smith, 62 mil.
Jackson, 50 mil.
Heyward-bey, 24 mil.
Crabtree, 30 mil.

Et-effing-c.

It's insane. Already, Suh is being mentioned as a sure-fire prospect. Yeah? Well, so was Ryan Leaf, Robert Gallery, Brian Bosworth, Tony Mandarich, Steve Emtman....

Of course, it is also possible that Suh may turn into a HOFer but it's stupid to put so much money into someone who is unproven.
 
Back
Top