Countertrey wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:DesertSkin wrote:Red_One43 wrote:Equating the Owners/Players - employer/employee relationship with everyday employer relationships is a bad comparison. Like it or not, the NFL owners and the players have revenue sharing of all the profits.
This part is wrong. Revenue sharing and profit sharing are not the same. They are not sharing profits. They are sharing the revenues that the owners bring in, means that none of the costs of operating the business are included in the sharing. I think this is a big distinction that many are getting confused.
The owners aren't bringing that money in on their own. Without the product or service provided (the games), the owners would be out of luck.
How would that be any different from any business that involves more than one person? Bottom line, without the owners meeting expense obligations, there are no jobs. You have to understand the difference between revenues and profits. Most businesses share PROFITS... which means what is left AFTER expense obligations are met. Profits is ALWAYS a much smaller proportion. You can't claim to be participating in a partnership with ownership (an argument I have heard from players multiple times) if you do not accept a proportion of the risk and liability.
Agreed there is a difference betweeen profits and revenues. I should have stopped at the owners and players have "revenue sharing." That was my error.
I don't agree with the statement, "revenues that the owners bring in." He might say that in private, but not in front of his workers. A better statement an owner could publicly make is, the revenues that my business brought in. Take a look at the publicly owned Green Bay Packers. I doubt that those owning shares in that franchise would say that
they bring in the revenue. The bottomline is the business brings in the revenue. In businesses, with workers, such as the NFL - No Owners, no jobs; however, no players, no business.
The owners, who are successful businessmen, knew that the players did not have to pay operating costs and were not accepting a proportion of the risk and liability when they signed the 2006 extension of the CBA, yet they still agreed to continue what amounted to a 50/05 split of revenues. Clearly the owners knew and know that the players are not partners in the business sense of the word, but they were willing to give the players an equal spilt. The players, I am sure, recognize that they are not in a partnership in the corporate sense of the definition. They see themselves as a reason that NFL is as successful as it is - thus partners in the success of the NFL. The NFL cannot survive on replacement players - they need the star players and quality of play. That is why these successfull businessmen seee it fit to pay these guys millions of dollars. Since the merger of the NFL and AFL, several leagues have tried to survive and failed. The latest, the UFL, has decided not to even compete with the NFL. Clearly the market gives the players more leverage in CBA negotiations than with other businesses. That is why the players can make demands that those of us in other businesses cannot.
Ideally, the split should favor the owners because of the business costs and risks they incur; however, when you compare the deal that MLB has with its players, there is big thing missing and a big thing found in the NFL deal. The "missing" is the GUARANTEED CONTRACTS that the MBL players have and the "found" is the SALARY CAP that the MLB players' deal doesn't have. It is understandable why both sides were happy, at the time, with the old CBA when the was signed and then at its extention. Owners had a cap and no guaranteed contracts and the players had an outside the norm 50/50 split of the revenues and free agency.
When it comes to the special employee/employer relationship that the NFL has, let's not forget the anit-trust exemptions the NFL gets. Labor laws recognize a special relationship that the NFL has with its owners and players.
Is the NFL one business or 32 separate businesses? In the American Needle case, the Supreme Court said 32, so why can't the NFL players play for any team (business) that they want? In any other businesses, banking, shipping, auto, a potential employee can choose any business he wants. An auto business cannot draft an employee and prevent him from working for another auto business. Why is it legal for the NFL to prevent a player from choosing to play for the Redskins over the Bengals? Thus, the Brady lawsuit. The American Needle case will not give the players a slam dunk win, but it gives the players leverage when signing the new CBA. (The players can sign a CBA and hope to win this case later) Is the NFL one business or 32 separate businesses when it comes to labor? The answer can be arugued on this thread, but the answer most likely will be found in the Supreme Court.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25 ... l-20100525
My point is comparing the NFL owner/player relationship to other businesses outside of sports is not a good comparison at all. There are some similarities, but there are major differences that set it far apart from everyday business employee relationships. Some folks have said they would get fired if they asked their CEO to see the books. That I am sure it is true, but Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees will not be fired for asking to see any owner's books. They will be fired when they can't do what they do best - play football. The market says the players have a special employee relationship to the owners and it is something more than the employee/employer relationship that most of us have with our employers.
