Tuesday, February 15 2011
The NFL players' union says, "The players haven't asked for anything more and literally don't want anything more. They have simply asked to play under the existing agreement."
That ought to tell you something. If a collective bargaining agreement particularly favors one side, that side naturally won't want to change anything. That's how the players saw it in the '70s and '80s. The players believed the system favored the teams because there was no free agency. The players went on strike several times and then to court to change it.
Now the system does not work as well as it could from the standpoint of the teams. The time has arrived for adjustments that create an opportunity to make the game and league better.
The crux of the difference is this: The union accepts the status quo, while the NFL wants to improve and secure the future of the game for the benefit of fans and players.
The status quo means no rookie wage scale and the continuation of outrageous sums paid to many unproven rookies instead of shifting significant portions of that money to proven veterans and retired players.
The status quo means four preseason games in spite of the overwhelming rejection of it that by both fans and players.
The status quo means no league investment in new stadium development in Los Angeles and other cities, in international games, or in new technology to improve our service to fans in stadiums and at home.
The status quo means players continue to keep 60 percent of available revenue, in good years or bad, in a good economy or one with 10 percent unemployment, and no matter how much costs have risen for the teams. Player compensation has doubled in the past decade, and the union says NFL team payrolls rose 6 percent this year. Meanwhile, other costs for teams have risen dramatically.
NFL players have an extremely favorable revenue-sharing deal and full access to all information on revenue and a great deal of information on costs, including the largest cost, which is for players. The union has audit rights to all league and team revenue. The problem, however, is not revenue. It is costs. The union knows the problem. Costs must be properly balanced against revenue so that the league and the game can continue to grow. Companies with far more revenue than the NFL have gone bankrupt because they did not properly manage their costs. Our goal is to fix the problem now before it becomes a crisis. That means negotiating a fair agreement that continues to provide billions to the players while also giving the teams a sustainable business model and improving the quality of everything we do.
Why is the current deal so bad, asks the union? Because it does not secure the best possible future for the game, players, clubs and fans. The union has said its "internal deadline" for reaching an agreement has passed. Does that mean the union has abandoned negotiations in favor of de-certification and litigation? We hope not. Rather than litigating and firing misguided salvos about the "shame" of the situation, it would be far more productive and much more in keeping with the interests of teams and fans if the union returned to the bargaining table and made a good-faith effort to reach an agreement before March 4. After that, it is going to become much more difficult.
The new CBA is about the future of the game and doing what's necessary to improve the quality of the game. That means addressing player safety, retired players, preseason, the way we pay rookies and making sure the league's business model works for the future. If we do that, players, teams and fans can continue share in the benefits of growth. The status quo is not acceptable because it will not allow us to build the game with the players as we have done so successfully in the past.
As commissioner Roger Goodell has said, if both sides give a little, everyone will get a lot. (source Greg Aiello is the NFL's Senior Vice President of Public Relations. For more information on NFL collective bargaining issues, go to www.nfllabor.com, via ESPN)
martes, 15 de febrero de 2011
Combine boycott not an option, right now
Tuesday, February 15 2011
DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, held a conference call with player agents Monday, but there weren't any new discussions of a possible boycott of this month's NFL Scouting Combine. This article was written by Jason La Canfora and appeared on nfl.com
"That's tabled," one source said of such discussions.
However, a combine sit-out still could be brought up at a later time, although it's not likely to happen.
Smith advised the agents that he and the NFLPA would continue to fight the use of the franchise tag on players. He also gave a general overview of labor negotiations with the NFL but declined to go into specifics.
While a boycott of the Feb. 24-March 1 combine remains highly doubtful, players skipping the NFL draft in April is likely if no collective bargaining agreement is in place by next month.
Smith has individually met with top agents since the Super Bowl to discuss the potential effectiveness of having prospects skip the combine, as well as refusing to participate in any NFL events surrounding April's draft.
NFL Network insider Albert Breer also reported that the NFLPA will hold its normal meeting with agents on the Friday of combine week, but the union has made this year's meeting mandatory for all agents to have continued certification. In the past, the meeting hasn't been mandatory, but the NFLPA is changing that to emphasize the importance of the situation.
Agents generally must attend one of three NFLPA meetings during the year to maintain their certification.
The league and the union also are exploring the possibility of another CBA negotiating session this week. They had previously set up a date to talk this week, and NFLPA sources said they're waiting to hear back from the league to see if talks will occur.
Last week's talks in Washington broke down, and Thursday's session was cancelled.
Some say they aren't expecting much progress in negotiations between the NFL and the union before the CBA expires March 3.
The union has said it expects owners to lock out players if a new CBA isn't reached by the deadline.
The major issues are how to divide about $9 billion in annual revenues, the owners' push to expand the regular season to 18 games and reduce the preseason by two games, a rookie wage scale and benefits for retired players.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said earlier this month: "There are no deal-breakers."
That includes the league's desire to expand the regular season to 18 games. Goodell said fans repeatedly tell him the quality of preseason games doesn't meet NFL standards.
"That was one of the basis at which we started to look at the 18-2 concept," he said. "I feel an obligation to do the best we can to present the highest quality. If we can't do it right, we won't do it."
The league estimates there would be a cut in gross revenues of $120 million without a new agreement by early March; $350 million if there's no CBA by August, before the preseason starts; $1 billion if no new contract is in place until September. And if regular-season games are lost, the NFL figures the revenue losses would amount to about $400 million per week.
The old deal was agreed to in 2006 and could have been in place until 2012, but owners exercised an opt-out clause in 2008.
DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, held a conference call with player agents Monday, but there weren't any new discussions of a possible boycott of this month's NFL Scouting Combine. This article was written by Jason La Canfora and appeared on nfl.com
"That's tabled," one source said of such discussions.
However, a combine sit-out still could be brought up at a later time, although it's not likely to happen.
Smith advised the agents that he and the NFLPA would continue to fight the use of the franchise tag on players. He also gave a general overview of labor negotiations with the NFL but declined to go into specifics.
While a boycott of the Feb. 24-March 1 combine remains highly doubtful, players skipping the NFL draft in April is likely if no collective bargaining agreement is in place by next month.
Smith has individually met with top agents since the Super Bowl to discuss the potential effectiveness of having prospects skip the combine, as well as refusing to participate in any NFL events surrounding April's draft.
NFL Network insider Albert Breer also reported that the NFLPA will hold its normal meeting with agents on the Friday of combine week, but the union has made this year's meeting mandatory for all agents to have continued certification. In the past, the meeting hasn't been mandatory, but the NFLPA is changing that to emphasize the importance of the situation.
Agents generally must attend one of three NFLPA meetings during the year to maintain their certification.
The league and the union also are exploring the possibility of another CBA negotiating session this week. They had previously set up a date to talk this week, and NFLPA sources said they're waiting to hear back from the league to see if talks will occur.
Last week's talks in Washington broke down, and Thursday's session was cancelled.
Some say they aren't expecting much progress in negotiations between the NFL and the union before the CBA expires March 3.
The union has said it expects owners to lock out players if a new CBA isn't reached by the deadline.
The major issues are how to divide about $9 billion in annual revenues, the owners' push to expand the regular season to 18 games and reduce the preseason by two games, a rookie wage scale and benefits for retired players.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said earlier this month: "There are no deal-breakers."
That includes the league's desire to expand the regular season to 18 games. Goodell said fans repeatedly tell him the quality of preseason games doesn't meet NFL standards.
"That was one of the basis at which we started to look at the 18-2 concept," he said. "I feel an obligation to do the best we can to present the highest quality. If we can't do it right, we won't do it."
The league estimates there would be a cut in gross revenues of $120 million without a new agreement by early March; $350 million if there's no CBA by August, before the preseason starts; $1 billion if no new contract is in place until September. And if regular-season games are lost, the NFL figures the revenue losses would amount to about $400 million per week.
The old deal was agreed to in 2006 and could have been in place until 2012, but owners exercised an opt-out clause in 2008.
Sides "could" meet this week
Tuesday, February 15 2011
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved.
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counterproposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words was a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, knowledgeable sources who previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next season are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare-up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences. (source ESPN’s Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter)
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved.
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counterproposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words was a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, knowledgeable sources who previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next season are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare-up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences. (source ESPN’s Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter)
The NFLPA aren't impressed with the owners latest move
Tuesday, February 15 2011
The NFL has filed a complaint against the players’ union, arguing that the NFLPA has refused to bargain in good faith so that the union then can decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit.
The union has responded.
“The players didn’t walk out and the players can’t lockout,” NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told PFT via e-mail. “Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised. This claim has absolutely no merit.”
The league hopes to prevent the union from decertifying so that a lockout could proceed. The fact that the league has made the claim is the clearest evidence yet that a lockout is planned. (source Pro Football Talk)
The NFL has filed a complaint against the players’ union, arguing that the NFLPA has refused to bargain in good faith so that the union then can decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit.
The union has responded.
“The players didn’t walk out and the players can’t lockout,” NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told PFT via e-mail. “Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised. This claim has absolutely no merit.”
The league hopes to prevent the union from decertifying so that a lockout could proceed. The fact that the league has made the claim is the clearest evidence yet that a lockout is planned. (source Pro Football Talk)
A proposal that wasn't a proposal
Tuesday, February 15 2011
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved. This article was written by Chris Mortensen & Adam Schefter and appeared on espn.com
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counterproposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words was a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, knowledgeable sources who previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next season are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare-up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences.
Player agents have a conference call scheduled for Monday afternoon with Smith.
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved. This article was written by Chris Mortensen & Adam Schefter and appeared on espn.com
According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counterproposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words was a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, knowledgeable sources who previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next season are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare-up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences.
Player agents have a conference call scheduled for Monday afternoon with Smith.
Greed is the word
Monday, February 14 2011
NFL fans want their football, want it every fall and winter, and they're willing to do almost anything to get it, including accept a measure of pain. This article was written by Monte Poole and appeared in The San Jose Mercury News.
Cheerfully aware of this craving, those peddling the game consistently take advantage of these fans, in a classic case of the greedy few exploiting the needy masses.
But the NFL's bully fleecing routine went too far last week at the Super Bowl. By practically defrauding a particularly hardy and devoted group of its followers, the league exposed the cold truth about itself.
It unintentionally let ordinary folks see it for the soulless, heartless machine it really is.
This projects badly in any case, but it's made worse by the timing. The kings who run the league are facing a labor battle in which they want to take money from employees -- the highly trained and heavily muscled gladiators busting up their bodies to earn good salaries, provide owners with great profits and deliver entertainment to fans.
Fans don't want to take sides on the labor issue. They simply want their annual "fix." They crave it so strongly that they'll stretch their budgets to grotesque proportions to financially support their teams.
More than 1,200 such paid a minimum of $600 each for tickets to Super Bowl XLV -- as well as airline tickets and hotels -- only to arrive at Cowboys Stadium last Sunday and be told their seats were unsafe, after which they were sent to watch the game from some place else.
Some were directed to folding chairs in a crowded room at field level, with a view of the backs of players and coaches standing along the sideline.
Others were led to bars, with the NFL offering to cover the cost of food and beverages.
None was pleased with the experience, though, so the NFL has spent the past week choking and coughing on an overdose of richly deserved comeuppance. It offered triple-value refunds and tickets to the next Super Bowl. Then it offered tickets to a future Super Bowl of the fan's choice, as well as paid airfare and accommodations.
I found these proposals perversely satisfying, like watching drug dealers bowing before junkies in hopes of making amends.
But the proposals weren't and aren't enough. When folks paying for the experience of a lifetime wound up receiving the fiasco they'll never forget, they got furious. Their fury led to venting, which led to a $5 million class action lawsuit.
The battered fan syndrome in the NFL has reached its tipping point.
The NFL Players Association has not issued a statement regarding this matter. It shouldn't. It doesn't need to. It's an innocent bystander.
Yet the NFLPA is nonetheless pleased that the league damaged itself by giving the very accurate appearance that its owners, led the Cowboys' Jerry Jones, are driven first and last by ego and profit, and that league's Park Avenue office, where sits the desk of commissioner Roger Goodell, is in lockstep.
The NFL says its desire to increase the schedule from 16 games to 18 is for the fan. Do you, the fan, believe this? It's certainly not for the players, who pay a steep physical price. That's why 82 percent of them rejected the idea in a recent Sports Illustrated poll.
The 18-game schedule is a highway to shorter careers. It's for the league and its bottomless pockets. It's a brazen attempt to grab more revenue from tickets and TV. It's about boundless greed, compounded by unmitigated arrogance.
A few years ago, when Americans were addicted to buying homes, at any price, developers built more homes and banks made them "easier'' to buy. The market was hot, the marketers capitalized and, in the end, millions of buyers were exploited.
The backlash has been fierce, with the consumer absorbing most of the punishment.
We're now hooked on football, particularly the NFL. It's more than twice as popular as MLB, nearly four times more popular than the NBA, according to a 2010 Harris Poll.
Super Bowl XLV, naturally, set another record for TV viewership and now is the latest football game to become the most-watched TV show in history.
The NFL is hotter than ever, and its owners are shameless in their attempts to capitalize. They want to give us more games, make them "easier'' to access.
Those feeding our addiction to the NFL would be wise to consider showing themselves as somehow more decent than the common drug dealer or the white-collar thieves who used economic con games to steal the trust and dreams of so many Americans.
In the wake of this Super Bowl ticket mess, the owners and the commissioner look incredibly selfish -- so much so that if there is no football in 2011, they'll end up choking on an overdose of well-deserved blame.
NFL fans want their football, want it every fall and winter, and they're willing to do almost anything to get it, including accept a measure of pain. This article was written by Monte Poole and appeared in The San Jose Mercury News.
Cheerfully aware of this craving, those peddling the game consistently take advantage of these fans, in a classic case of the greedy few exploiting the needy masses.
But the NFL's bully fleecing routine went too far last week at the Super Bowl. By practically defrauding a particularly hardy and devoted group of its followers, the league exposed the cold truth about itself.
It unintentionally let ordinary folks see it for the soulless, heartless machine it really is.
This projects badly in any case, but it's made worse by the timing. The kings who run the league are facing a labor battle in which they want to take money from employees -- the highly trained and heavily muscled gladiators busting up their bodies to earn good salaries, provide owners with great profits and deliver entertainment to fans.
Fans don't want to take sides on the labor issue. They simply want their annual "fix." They crave it so strongly that they'll stretch their budgets to grotesque proportions to financially support their teams.
More than 1,200 such paid a minimum of $600 each for tickets to Super Bowl XLV -- as well as airline tickets and hotels -- only to arrive at Cowboys Stadium last Sunday and be told their seats were unsafe, after which they were sent to watch the game from some place else.
Some were directed to folding chairs in a crowded room at field level, with a view of the backs of players and coaches standing along the sideline.
Others were led to bars, with the NFL offering to cover the cost of food and beverages.
None was pleased with the experience, though, so the NFL has spent the past week choking and coughing on an overdose of richly deserved comeuppance. It offered triple-value refunds and tickets to the next Super Bowl. Then it offered tickets to a future Super Bowl of the fan's choice, as well as paid airfare and accommodations.
I found these proposals perversely satisfying, like watching drug dealers bowing before junkies in hopes of making amends.
But the proposals weren't and aren't enough. When folks paying for the experience of a lifetime wound up receiving the fiasco they'll never forget, they got furious. Their fury led to venting, which led to a $5 million class action lawsuit.
The battered fan syndrome in the NFL has reached its tipping point.
The NFL Players Association has not issued a statement regarding this matter. It shouldn't. It doesn't need to. It's an innocent bystander.
Yet the NFLPA is nonetheless pleased that the league damaged itself by giving the very accurate appearance that its owners, led the Cowboys' Jerry Jones, are driven first and last by ego and profit, and that league's Park Avenue office, where sits the desk of commissioner Roger Goodell, is in lockstep.
The NFL says its desire to increase the schedule from 16 games to 18 is for the fan. Do you, the fan, believe this? It's certainly not for the players, who pay a steep physical price. That's why 82 percent of them rejected the idea in a recent Sports Illustrated poll.
The 18-game schedule is a highway to shorter careers. It's for the league and its bottomless pockets. It's a brazen attempt to grab more revenue from tickets and TV. It's about boundless greed, compounded by unmitigated arrogance.
A few years ago, when Americans were addicted to buying homes, at any price, developers built more homes and banks made them "easier'' to buy. The market was hot, the marketers capitalized and, in the end, millions of buyers were exploited.
The backlash has been fierce, with the consumer absorbing most of the punishment.
We're now hooked on football, particularly the NFL. It's more than twice as popular as MLB, nearly four times more popular than the NBA, according to a 2010 Harris Poll.
Super Bowl XLV, naturally, set another record for TV viewership and now is the latest football game to become the most-watched TV show in history.
The NFL is hotter than ever, and its owners are shameless in their attempts to capitalize. They want to give us more games, make them "easier'' to access.
Those feeding our addiction to the NFL would be wise to consider showing themselves as somehow more decent than the common drug dealer or the white-collar thieves who used economic con games to steal the trust and dreams of so many Americans.
In the wake of this Super Bowl ticket mess, the owners and the commissioner look incredibly selfish -- so much so that if there is no football in 2011, they'll end up choking on an overdose of well-deserved blame.
Owners and players headed for a "cliff" and SB notes
Monday, February 14 2011
NFL executive Jeff Pash raised the possibility at a Super Bowl news conference that the league could “stop the clock” in the negotiations with the players’ union if progress was being made. This article was written by Vito Stellino and appeared in the Florida Times Union.
“It’s not a Thelma and Louise-type situation where you just go over the cliff and that’s all you can do,” he said.
Well, it now seems that the cliff is in view, and the owners will impose a lockout March 4.
The two sides met last Tuesday, then canceled a session planned for Wednesday. And the owners canceled a meeting scheduled in Philadelphia this week.
What exactly happened at last Tuesday’s meeting is a matter of dispute.
There were reports the union made a proposal for a 50-50 split, which is basically what it has now. Technically, the union gets 60 percent of the revenue, but the owners get $1 billion off the top.
That supposedly prompted the owners to walk out, although the league, which at first refused to make a statement, eventually said that characterization was inaccurate. But it didn’t offer an alternate version.
Sports Business Journal reported the negotiators downplayed the cancellation of the session in a conference call with the owners.
“These kinds of things — ups and downs, bad sessions and good ones — are an inevitable part of a messy process,” a management source was quoted as saying. “It is like watching the sausage being made. It is 'normal' in that sense.”
The problem is that the two sides don’t appear to be making any sausage.
“If we put the effort into negotiating that we have put into litigating, news conferences and pep rallies and everything else, we really could get something accomplished,” Pash said.
Assistants have issues
The league’s labor troubles won’t be over even if it gets a new collective bargaining agreement with the players.
The assistant coaches have their issues, but they have decided to put them on the back burner while the owners deal with the players. If the league doesn’t eventually address their issues, the assistant coaches would consider forming a union.
Larry Kennan, the head of the assistant coaches’ association, said the major concern is that 11 teams, including the Jaguars, have dropped the defined benefit pension program for coaches and front-office personnel.
He said it is not good for the league because the teams that kept a pension program will have an advantage in attracting coaches.
“It will affect competitive balance over a period of time,” he said.
Another issue is not letting coaches interview for jobs that are promotions. For example, the Jets denied permission for the Titans to interview offensive line coach Bill Callahan for the offensive coordinator’s job.
They’re also unhappy about the Jaguars’ assistants being on one-year contracts and yet being denied permission to interview for lateral jobs and that the Jaguars’ assistants pay for part of their health coverage, which is fully funded by some teams.
Owner Wayne Weaver said last week that he talked to the assistants and told them he’s never had a contract in his life.
Kennan said, “But we have contracts.”
Where's Jerry?
Jerry Jones is usually one of the most visible owners in the league. He even held his own Super Bowl news conference as the host owner.
But Jones has been invisible since the temporary seating fiasco, and now the question is who gets the blame.
The head of the company hired to install the seating, Scott Suprina of Seating Solutions, told Newsday he is being made a scapegoat.
“I think it’s an effort to hang somebody with the blame, clear the NFL, to let their fans have someone to be angry at,” he said.
Suprina said his workers didn’t have enough access to the stadium, and the ice and snow storms also slowed things down.
Still, the fans are upset at the NFL and have filed a class-action lawsuit against the league. And the way the league handled the situation was inexcusable.
One Packers fan, Peter D’Amico, told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that he arrived at the stadium at 10 a.m., 7 1/2 hours before kickoff. He received tickets a half hour before kickoff.
That was after being sent a few blocks to a ticket resolution center, then sent to the Texas Rangers’ main ticket office a mile away and then back to the ticket resolution center.
He said no one from the league or the Cowboys ever addressed the 1,200 fans to explain the situation with a microphone. Fans in the back of the crowd couldn’t hear.
D’Amico said it eventually became a “riot-type atmosphere” and he estimated that 200 to 300 fans got into the stadium by storming a fence.
The NFL’s answer to all this?
League executive Eric Grubman appeared on “ProFootballTalkLive” and suggested, “I think we need to keep this in perspective.” He noted 160 million fans watched the game. He said lawyers suing the NFL should “work on something like world peace.”
Huh?
It is that kind of attitude that created this mess in the first place. The NFL just didn’t get it that a once-in-a-lifetime trip for many fans was ruined.
Colts are on the clock
Last year, Jones talked openly about being the first team to play in the Super Bowl on its home stadium turf.
That didn’t work out too well as the Cowboys started out 1-7 and finished 6-10.
With the Super Bowl scheduled to be played in Indianapolis next February — assuming there is a season — Colts owner Jim Irsay isn’t making any bold statements.
“Honestly, I don’t even think of that [being first team to play the game in its home stadium],” Irsay said to the Indianapolis Star. “I’m not starting a mantra that didn’t work out well last year [for Dallas].”
Indianapolis figures to do better than Dallas in hosting the game. Even if there is bad weather, the city is used to dealing with it. The stadium, both teams and the media will all be downtown and many of the facilities are connected and within walking distance.
“It’s an outstanding opportunity for our city and our state,” Irsay said. “It’s something we want to do right and will do right.”
Topping the Dallas effort shouldn’t be too difficult.
Interesting Demographics
One of the interesting sidelights of the Super Bowl is that it draws a much bigger female audience than the NFL gets for the regular season.
During the regular season, only 33.5 percent of the viewers are women. For the Super Bowl, 51.2 million of the 111 million total viewers were women. Last year, 48.5 million women watched, and 44.1 million watched the previous year.
The league is also doing better with minorities. The Hispanic audience increased from 8.3 million last year to 10 million and the black audience from 11.2 million to 12.5 million.
To show how the demographics of America are changing, that means more women and minorities watched the game than white males.
NFL executive Jeff Pash raised the possibility at a Super Bowl news conference that the league could “stop the clock” in the negotiations with the players’ union if progress was being made. This article was written by Vito Stellino and appeared in the Florida Times Union.
“It’s not a Thelma and Louise-type situation where you just go over the cliff and that’s all you can do,” he said.
Well, it now seems that the cliff is in view, and the owners will impose a lockout March 4.
The two sides met last Tuesday, then canceled a session planned for Wednesday. And the owners canceled a meeting scheduled in Philadelphia this week.
What exactly happened at last Tuesday’s meeting is a matter of dispute.
There were reports the union made a proposal for a 50-50 split, which is basically what it has now. Technically, the union gets 60 percent of the revenue, but the owners get $1 billion off the top.
That supposedly prompted the owners to walk out, although the league, which at first refused to make a statement, eventually said that characterization was inaccurate. But it didn’t offer an alternate version.
Sports Business Journal reported the negotiators downplayed the cancellation of the session in a conference call with the owners.
“These kinds of things — ups and downs, bad sessions and good ones — are an inevitable part of a messy process,” a management source was quoted as saying. “It is like watching the sausage being made. It is 'normal' in that sense.”
The problem is that the two sides don’t appear to be making any sausage.
“If we put the effort into negotiating that we have put into litigating, news conferences and pep rallies and everything else, we really could get something accomplished,” Pash said.
Assistants have issues
The league’s labor troubles won’t be over even if it gets a new collective bargaining agreement with the players.
The assistant coaches have their issues, but they have decided to put them on the back burner while the owners deal with the players. If the league doesn’t eventually address their issues, the assistant coaches would consider forming a union.
Larry Kennan, the head of the assistant coaches’ association, said the major concern is that 11 teams, including the Jaguars, have dropped the defined benefit pension program for coaches and front-office personnel.
He said it is not good for the league because the teams that kept a pension program will have an advantage in attracting coaches.
“It will affect competitive balance over a period of time,” he said.
Another issue is not letting coaches interview for jobs that are promotions. For example, the Jets denied permission for the Titans to interview offensive line coach Bill Callahan for the offensive coordinator’s job.
They’re also unhappy about the Jaguars’ assistants being on one-year contracts and yet being denied permission to interview for lateral jobs and that the Jaguars’ assistants pay for part of their health coverage, which is fully funded by some teams.
Owner Wayne Weaver said last week that he talked to the assistants and told them he’s never had a contract in his life.
Kennan said, “But we have contracts.”
Where's Jerry?
Jerry Jones is usually one of the most visible owners in the league. He even held his own Super Bowl news conference as the host owner.
But Jones has been invisible since the temporary seating fiasco, and now the question is who gets the blame.
The head of the company hired to install the seating, Scott Suprina of Seating Solutions, told Newsday he is being made a scapegoat.
“I think it’s an effort to hang somebody with the blame, clear the NFL, to let their fans have someone to be angry at,” he said.
Suprina said his workers didn’t have enough access to the stadium, and the ice and snow storms also slowed things down.
Still, the fans are upset at the NFL and have filed a class-action lawsuit against the league. And the way the league handled the situation was inexcusable.
One Packers fan, Peter D’Amico, told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that he arrived at the stadium at 10 a.m., 7 1/2 hours before kickoff. He received tickets a half hour before kickoff.
That was after being sent a few blocks to a ticket resolution center, then sent to the Texas Rangers’ main ticket office a mile away and then back to the ticket resolution center.
He said no one from the league or the Cowboys ever addressed the 1,200 fans to explain the situation with a microphone. Fans in the back of the crowd couldn’t hear.
D’Amico said it eventually became a “riot-type atmosphere” and he estimated that 200 to 300 fans got into the stadium by storming a fence.
The NFL’s answer to all this?
League executive Eric Grubman appeared on “ProFootballTalkLive” and suggested, “I think we need to keep this in perspective.” He noted 160 million fans watched the game. He said lawyers suing the NFL should “work on something like world peace.”
Huh?
It is that kind of attitude that created this mess in the first place. The NFL just didn’t get it that a once-in-a-lifetime trip for many fans was ruined.
Colts are on the clock
Last year, Jones talked openly about being the first team to play in the Super Bowl on its home stadium turf.
That didn’t work out too well as the Cowboys started out 1-7 and finished 6-10.
With the Super Bowl scheduled to be played in Indianapolis next February — assuming there is a season — Colts owner Jim Irsay isn’t making any bold statements.
“Honestly, I don’t even think of that [being first team to play the game in its home stadium],” Irsay said to the Indianapolis Star. “I’m not starting a mantra that didn’t work out well last year [for Dallas].”
Indianapolis figures to do better than Dallas in hosting the game. Even if there is bad weather, the city is used to dealing with it. The stadium, both teams and the media will all be downtown and many of the facilities are connected and within walking distance.
“It’s an outstanding opportunity for our city and our state,” Irsay said. “It’s something we want to do right and will do right.”
Topping the Dallas effort shouldn’t be too difficult.
Interesting Demographics
One of the interesting sidelights of the Super Bowl is that it draws a much bigger female audience than the NFL gets for the regular season.
During the regular season, only 33.5 percent of the viewers are women. For the Super Bowl, 51.2 million of the 111 million total viewers were women. Last year, 48.5 million women watched, and 44.1 million watched the previous year.
The league is also doing better with minorities. The Hispanic audience increased from 8.3 million last year to 10 million and the black audience from 11.2 million to 12.5 million.
To show how the demographics of America are changing, that means more women and minorities watched the game than white males.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)