The threat of a work stoppage increases

[Kurb]

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/09/nfl-players-union-business-sports-football.html

I think this is the one thing that could get me to stop being an NFL fan. If these guys who get paid millions to play a schoolyard game feel they're not getting enough new Ferraris, I think I might be out.

Hope this doesn't happen.

It pales in comparison to what the owners make.

But in the owners defense, they are the ones with the financial risk, thus get more of the reward.

[mantal]

wow cwalker at the tender age of 15 baseball completely jaded you now that's a claim no one will believe

I believe it as I am the same way, I haven't watched pro baseball since that strike either. How old were you?

[Matt Foley]

Don't dismiss the possibility of this happening. It came VERY close to happening a couple of years ago. A couple of key people (Mr. Richardson being one of them) backed down at the last minute.

[Scrumtrilescent]

And in this billion dollar game of chicken, they will again. Especially in this economy, a strike would be more devestating than if it occured last time.

[Fireball77]

if all you people that argued against new contracts by pointing out the highest earners approached politics the same way we might have a halfway decent country.

You mean if people carried over the stance that merit and production should be the biggest reasons people make more money rather than potential alone you think the country would be better off? I agree. Somehow I don't think that's what you meant though, not sure.

Let's hope both sides have some big picture thinkers.

[Fiz]

I believe it as I am the same way, I haven't watched pro baseball since that strike either. How old were you?

8.

surely between 8 and 14 i would have gleaned the necessary life experiences to fully understand the baseball strike and summarily be sickened by it

[CWalker4205]

wow cwalker at the tender age of 15 baseball completely jaded you now that's a claim no one will believe

I really could care less if you believe me or not, I'm not here to make poo up to gain acceptence, if that's your m.o. then by all means enjoy.

[CharlotteBeer.com]

8.

surely between 8 and 14 i would have gleaned the necessary life experiences to fully understand the baseball strike and summarily be sickened by it

:rofl:

[panthers55]

No offense but hearing you guys talk NFL agreements and capology is painful.

This isn't about getting billions of dollars to play the game, it comes down to a few different things.

1. Revenue sharing between teams: i.e. what portion and from what of money is shared between teams, rather than being simply the one team's money.

2. The percentage of total revenue that is spent on the salary cap. It was designed to steadily increase in nominal amounts by slowly increasing the percentage, which is fair given the new streams of revenue the NFL have opened.

It's all fair agreements, not a lot of this debate is about players wanting more money. This is no different in the argument than trade unions on the docks or the mines arguing for different conditions and payment structures. It happens every day around the world.

Don't hate either side, this is an extremely convoluted and complicated issue. I'll have to find a thread I made a while back with a full explanation of how the cap and financial stuff works, but it's pointless to blame either side.

Actually the cap is actually a byproduct of the CBA agreement not the biggest issue. And it isn't that complicated.

The owners were the one to opt out early of the CBA agreement because they believe they agreed to a deal which gave too high of a percentage of revenue to the players. The percentage is not increasing from year to year nor are the players looking for more of a percentage. They seem happy preserving the status quo. The percentage went up from 55% to 60% when it was signed but is set at 60%. The cap goes up as total revenue goes up but the percentage going to the players remains the same.

The players were not the ones to act and if there is a lock out it will be by the owners not players.

This article in 2008 discusses the issues present when the owners originally acted. The players will work hard to keep what they gained so far while the owners want to get something back feeling they have given up too much already.

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/bob260505/2008/05/03/NFL_Lockout_Eminent

As for the rookie cap that is a new idea and not part of the current CBA although there is some discussion that with a rookie cap there may be more money for the vets so they may not be opposed.

Revenue sharing goes both ways. It won't be just determining the percentage of revenue to share with the players but determining what the revenue sharing will be among the teams as well. Teams in big markets with new stadiums won't want to share anything outside of TV revenue, while teams like Buffalo will lobby for a bigger part. This won't inhibit a deal between the players and owners as much as make it hard for the owners to agree unanimously on a new deal. What I have read has said that the players primarily don't want to give back what they already have while the owners do.

Here is a more recent one summarizing the issues pretty well. the solution may require creative thinking, but it is pretty clear what each side wants .

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=7626764

It will be very hard to get the horse back in the barn after the gate has already been opened. So the solution may be multifaceted and complex but the issues are pretty straighforward. Like always it is all about the money and how the pie is cut.

[Sam Mills Fan]

No offense but hearing you guys talk NFL agreements and capology is painful.

This isn't about getting billions of dollars to play the game, it comes down to a few different things.

1. Revenue sharing between teams: i.e. what portion and from what of money is shared between teams, rather than being simply the one team's money.

2. The percentage of total revenue that is spent on the salary cap. It was designed to steadily increase in nominal amounts by slowly increasing the percentage, which is fair given the new streams of revenue the NFL have opened.

It's all fair agreements, not a lot of this debate is about players wanting more money. This is no different in the argument than trade unions on the docks or the mines arguing for different conditions and payment structures. It happens every day around the world.

Don't hate either side, this is an extremely convoluted and complicated issue. I'll have to find a thread I made a while back with a full explanation of how the cap and financial stuff works, but it's pointless to blame either side.

I honestly don't care if the players are taking it up the ass on a percentage basis by the owners. If taking it up the ass means they get to make the money they make, they need to learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.

[Sam Mills Fan]

It's happened before.....

Players in the '80s were being paid pennies compared to 2009.

[Kyle82]

Never underestimate the ability of a bunch of oversized egos to act retardedly.

So true.

[Fiz]

I really could care less

oh so you do care, fantastic

[Snake]

The fact is if the players strike then all they do is hurt them selves. Last time there was a lockout the owners won and the owners will always win because they can find ways to make money. I am just shocked that they would want more then 60% when they dont have to pay in on anything. Hell avg workers have to pay some in on there medical where NFL players pay 0%. If you work at a job and get hurt for a year you lose out they get payed most of there salary for the year. This is just crazy if they cant work something out.