How the NFL is Cheating Rookies out of Millions of Dollars

[RunKC]

http://ble.ac/2tU9cdS

Not able to post on my phone but this a really interesting article.

What do you think? Should NFL players strike? If you were an NFL rookie, what would your mindset be?

[kccrow]

As of last numbers, and these aren't exact...

MLB paid about 33% of revenues as player salaries with revenue net of salaries at $200 million.
NBA paid about 35% of revenues as player salaries with revenue net of salaries at $125 million.
NFL paid about 41% of revenues as player salaries with revenue net of salaries at $225 million.

[Chiefnj2]

The NFL is cheating rookies? More like NFL vets screwed rookies in the last CBA.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by kccrow

As of last numbers, and these aren't exact...

MLB paid about 33% of revenues as player salaries with revenue net of salaries at $200 million.
NBA paid about 35% of revenues as player salaries with revenue net of salaries at $125 million.
NFL paid about 41% of revenues as player salaries with revenue net of salaries at $225 million.

The 2011 CBA shares 48% of gross revenues with the players.

Of course, those revenues aren't disclosed but that's what is in the deal.

The owners keep 52%.

[ndws]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The 2011 CBA shares 48% of gross revenues with the players.

Of course, those revenues aren't disclosed but that's what is in the deal.

The owners keep 52%.

Its good to be king.

The GM of the company I work for also makes a disproportionate amount of money compared to the rest of us. Its life.

[tk13]

The players really have no one to blame but themselves. They got run over last time by the owners. They'd just signed another bazillion dollars in TV deals, then turned around and locked the players out because the owners felt they weren't making enough money. And the players still caved. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they wanted some payback. They put themselves in a bad position.

On the other hand, the argument that "CEO's make a lot of money" doesn't really work here either. Yeah, they do... but the honest fact is most average people aren't the best in the world at their job. CEOs do make great money, but if you're an elite talent at your job you get paid too, or you go leave and go work somewhere that will pay you. And it's even more rare when you're talking about football players. There are barely 10-15 good QBs as it is. Imagine what it'll look like when you eliminate the 90 best QBs in the world. It won't be a good product to sell. If it was we'd all still be watching the XFL. So the players do have a little leverage.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by tk13

So the players do have a little leverage.

The players have a terrible representative.

The NFL owner are extremely smart, savvy and have endless pockets for counsel.

Each and every time the players want something (e.g., less practice time, less time in the facility, etc.) the owners counter with money.

The NFLPA wimped out on drug testing and now, then lack of practice time in the facility has backfired.

If the players want to make changes, they'll need to hire someone else rather than Smith and possibly, strike.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by tk13

The players really have no one to blame but themselves. They got run over last time by the owners. They'd just signed another bazillion dollars in TV deals, then turned around and locked the players out because the owners felt they weren't making enough money. And the players still caved. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they wanted some payback. They put themselves in a bad position.

On the other hand, the argument that "CEO's make a lot of money" doesn't really work here either. Yeah, they do... but the honest fact is most average people aren't the best in the world at their job. CEOs do make great money, but if you're an elite talent at your job you get paid too, or you go leave and go work somewhere that will pay you. And it's even more rare when you're talking about football players. There are barely 10-15 good QBs as it is. Imagine what it'll look like when you eliminate the 90 best QBs in the world. It won't be a good product to sell. If it was we'd all still be watching the XFL. So the players do have a little leverage.

Agreed. It's one of the few markets where every single company can collude to cap the market. Not even close to a free market. I get why the nfl does it from a competitive balance standpoint. But in the last strike the owners refused to open the books after being challenged to prove that they were struggling to handle higher salaries. The owners refused.

I would rather pay players than owners

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The players have a terrible representative.

The NFL owner are extremely smart, savvy and have endless pockets for counsel.

Each and every time the players want something (e.g., less practice time, less time in the facility, etc.) the owners counter with money.

The NFLPA wimped out on drug testing and now, then lack of practice time in the facility has backfired.

If the players want to make changes, they'll need to hire someone else rather than Smith and possibly, strike.

This. And striking against NFL owners is going head to head with some of the wealthiest,testosterone driven, most stubborn men on earth who can and will outspend and out wait you.

[tk13]

The unmentioned part of it is really TV ratings. When the lockout happened... the NFL was at an all time high. People would do anything for football. And most still would, but the ratings actually dipped and interest waned a bit last year for the first time in forever.

If that's a trend, the players would actually be in a better position because otherwise the owners feel like they can literally do anything they want. People just want football.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by tk13

The unmentioned part of it is really TV ratings. When the lockout happened... the NFL was at an all time high. People would do anything for football. And most still would, but the ratings actually dipped and interest waned a bit last year for the first time in forever.

If that's a trend, the players would actually be in a better position because otherwise the owners feel like they can literally do anything they want. People just want football.

It's not going to be a trend.

Amazon, for whatever reason, pitched in $50 million to simulcast Thursday Night Football this year.

[NWTF]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The whole point of the salary schedule implemented in the recent(ish) CBA was to stop unproven rookies from getting paid huge amounts of money while never actually contributing (see Jamarcus Russell). Are top rookies underpaid for a few years? Sure, but the whole point is that there's more money to go around to pay vets their due.

The only "better" solution would be strictly pay-based performance, and I doubt anyone would want that.

Well said.

[JakeF]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The whole point of the salary schedule implemented in the recent(ish) CBA was to stop unproven rookies from getting paid huge amounts of money while never actually contributing (see Jamarcus Russell). Are top rookies underpaid for a few years? Sure, but the whole point is that there's more money to go around to pay vets their due.

The only "better" solution would be strictly pay-based performance, and I doubt anyone would want that.

The last thing any Union wants is a performance-based salary system.

[Direckshun]

Rookies are getting screwed because they never had a seat at the table.

The CBA was negotiated between owners and players that were currently in the NFL, which was largely veterans who wanted a bigger piece of the pie.

At this point, to be vested in the NFL retirement package, you need to play three years in the league.

It makes a kind of intuitive sense that if you want to make the CRAZY money the league can pay you, mostly thanks to the hard work of the veterans that came before you, you have to invest the time, effort, and execution to being a very good football player in the NFL in about three years.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Rookies are getting screwed because they never had a seat at the table.

The CBA was negotiated between owners and players that were currently in the NFL, which was largely veterans who wanted a bigger piece of the pie.

At this point, to be vested in the NFL retirement package, you need to play three years in the league.

It makes a kind of intuitive sense that if you want to make the CRAZY money the league can pay you, mostly thanks to the hard work of the veterans that came before you, you have to invest the time, effort, and execution to being a very good football player in the NFL in about three years.

As usual, your musings male zero sense.

I know guys that were undrafted college free agents that were on NFL rosters for 3 years that receive pensions of more than $250k or more per year after they retired or were forced to retire.

OJ Simpson earns $25K per month.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by JakeF

The salary cap is still the salary cap, I don't see how it's working against the veterans. Teams are still paying the same total amount of money. Each team has some super players getting tons of money with cheap rookies making up for it. Veterans get more of the salary cap because of the rookie slotting.

It hurts the JAG vets because rookies are cheaper and stars soak up the available cap, I suspect. I don't have a problem with that.