Millionaires Behaving Badly
The current situation in the NFL makes me absolutely sick. By failing to come up with a method for splitting up billions of dollars in annual league revenue among the 32 owners and the players, the NFL now looks as if it will unravel the very fabric of what has made it the premier professional sports organization in the country. The loss of the salary cap for 2007 (and, if you believe NFLPA President Gene Upshaw, as I do, forever) will destroy the competitive balance that allows the NFL such widespread popularity. This popularity, of course, is a big factor in driving those massive revenues into pro football's coffers. The Players Association and the owners are biting the hand that feeds them all, and it's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
I can't see the owners' side of this at all, quite frankly. People who buy professional sports franchises needs to look at the situation the way Mark Cuban did when he purchased the Dallas Mavericks. It's not about making money, although that's possible to do if you run it the right way. The goal should simply be having fun with all of that money that otherwise they'd never be able to spend in a hundred lifetimes. That's why it really bothers me when the richer owners in the league don't feel the need to sacrifice a little bit of their revenues for the common good of the sport. The smaller market owners aren't much better, either. They gripe that they sometimes need to spend 70% of their revenue on player contracts, but that still leaves them with 30%. It doesn't take a mathematician to note that 30% of over $100 million is still a pretty significant chunk of change. At some point, and I would have hoped it could have been this week, common sense should have prevailed, as everyone involved needs to realize that uncertainty in the league's system would lead to corresponding uncertainty in how much money flows into their pockets.
I have a little more sympathy for the players in this, but they're still looking at this the wrong way. Sure, the absence of a salary cap would allow insane rogues such as Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones to overpay for the services of the league's stars, but what about the rank-and-file of the union's membership? No salary cap also means no minimum on the amount teams can spend, and given how much wringing of hands there is from the small market owners about personnel costs as a percentage of revenue, you have to believe that there are teams that would take advantage of that situation. It also means no individual player minimums and no guarantee of any type of benefits package. If any profession needs to have mandated employee benefits, it's a profession where getting and delivering savage hits are job requirements. The Players Association was already complaining about insufficient pensions, so how could they allow the possibility of losing minimum salaries and benefits for current players, too?
What's my solution? I can't say I have a perfect one, but it seems to me that it's in everyone's best interests, owners and players alike, to meet in the middle. Find some halfway point in both the revenue sharing and player percentage of revenue issues, and go with it. Otherwise, everyone loses.
I can't see the owners' side of this at all, quite frankly. People who buy professional sports franchises needs to look at the situation the way Mark Cuban did when he purchased the Dallas Mavericks. It's not about making money, although that's possible to do if you run it the right way. The goal should simply be having fun with all of that money that otherwise they'd never be able to spend in a hundred lifetimes. That's why it really bothers me when the richer owners in the league don't feel the need to sacrifice a little bit of their revenues for the common good of the sport. The smaller market owners aren't much better, either. They gripe that they sometimes need to spend 70% of their revenue on player contracts, but that still leaves them with 30%. It doesn't take a mathematician to note that 30% of over $100 million is still a pretty significant chunk of change. At some point, and I would have hoped it could have been this week, common sense should have prevailed, as everyone involved needs to realize that uncertainty in the league's system would lead to corresponding uncertainty in how much money flows into their pockets.
I have a little more sympathy for the players in this, but they're still looking at this the wrong way. Sure, the absence of a salary cap would allow insane rogues such as Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones to overpay for the services of the league's stars, but what about the rank-and-file of the union's membership? No salary cap also means no minimum on the amount teams can spend, and given how much wringing of hands there is from the small market owners about personnel costs as a percentage of revenue, you have to believe that there are teams that would take advantage of that situation. It also means no individual player minimums and no guarantee of any type of benefits package. If any profession needs to have mandated employee benefits, it's a profession where getting and delivering savage hits are job requirements. The Players Association was already complaining about insufficient pensions, so how could they allow the possibility of losing minimum salaries and benefits for current players, too?
What's my solution? I can't say I have a perfect one, but it seems to me that it's in everyone's best interests, owners and players alike, to meet in the middle. Find some halfway point in both the revenue sharing and player percentage of revenue issues, and go with it. Otherwise, everyone loses.
posted by Lock Ness Monster at 12:16 PM
3 Comments:
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"- I forge who said this ironically.
Still if the NFL forgets what situation baseball is in right now they deserve whatever comes to them. The whole reason the NFL is HUGE every year is because teams like San Fran, Arizona, and Houston have an outside chance of making the playoffs.
I can't totally agree with the "you're rich already" notion you mentioned Kirk. I mean I agree with the thought but not the fact that you are taking very successful business people and telling them to do something for 'fun'. Owners and any successful business people are generally incapable of turning off that drive, especially when there is direct competition with other similarly rich people.
My solution, come up with a cap tied to an independent economic figure (GNP for example) and lower the max and raise the minimum salaries (that should get the vote of most players not named Manning).
Interesting point about competitiveness, Ahamed. I must admit I hadn't considered that. It's a very valid point, although I don't think it applies to all NFL owners, since part of the richer owners' justification for not wanting to share a lot of their revenue from sources such as naming rights is that it would take away incentives for the less affluent teams to create new revenue streams. If some people need incentives to do that, then those types really aren't as competitive, or they just aren't as willing to do what it takes to compete. On the whole, though, I'd say you're right about most owners with that comment, especially your Snyders, Joneses and McNairs.
I say, come up with a cap tied to an independent economic figure and raise the max and lower the minimum salaries.
Gauri
Post a Comment
<< Home