NFL owners getting way
New CBA will pass, but players still won’t get their fair share.
In the next couple weeks, NFL players will vote on a proposal for a 10-year labor agreement.
It will almost certainly pass. Unfortunately.
In the century-long battle between those who make the money and those who make sure they can’t keep most of it, chalk up another win for the owners.
Please spare me the background violin music for the owners having taken all the risk in running a business. Those risky days are long gone.
Bud Adams made a major gamble in funding the Oilers in the AFL. There was a better chance of an asteroid hitting NRG Stadium on opening night than Bob McNair losing a nickel on his NFL investment.
Unlike many of you who hate the players but love the game, I will always want the players to receive more. As I have long said, I go to games to watch the players play, not the owner own.
Many star-level veterans don’t believe the positive gains in the new proposal – including increases in minimum salaries, a reduction in the number of padded practices in training camp, and a guaranteed extra 1.5 percent of revenue – match what the players are risking in playing 17 regular season games.
Raising the players’ share of revenue from 47 to 48.5 percent – in the previous agreement from 2011, the percentage fluctuated from 47-48.5 percent – is projected to bring a net gain to them of $5 billion over 10 years. A 50-50 split would be better.
Oh, and I must mention that the owners are also able to shield hundreds of millions of dollars out of the revenue sharing formula, so the players’ true revenue percentage is even smaller.
Win or lose, NFL owners are not having any trouble making ends meet.
The NFL is fool proof. (Yes, two words.)
Ten years ago, the average NFL team was valued at just over $1 billion.
Forbes says the average now is $2.86 billon per team, with the lowest team on the chart being the Buffalo Bills at $1.9 billion.
The Texans’ value has increased by more than $1 billion in the last 10 years. So has that of the Cleveland Browns, who have not had a winning season or even made the playoffs in that time.
Fool. Proof.
Were this a standard negotiation, the owners’ original desire for an 18-game season would possibly have been thrown out for shock value, so that the 17-game schedule that will pass would be more palatable.
Um, no. The owners would play a 20-game schedule if they could get the players to agree to it.
What would happen when a couple more players per team broke down with injuries? The games would go on.
Players like J.J. Watt are irreplaceable in terms of star power and impact, but the Texans don’t lower ticket prices when he misses a game.
Adding a 17th game to the regular season schedule and two more teams to the playoffs is enough of a financial bonus for the owners, that the players should realize a significant gain in some aspect of the CBA for agreeing to it.
What they are picking up in this deal isn’t sufficient, which is why Watt, Richard Sherman, Russell Wilson and others have said they are against ratification. But it will have to do.
The NFLPA democratic process means Watt’s vote doesn’t count any more than a player on the Texans’ practice squad.
Were there an electoral college in the players’ union, this vote would be different.
Watt, a 10-year veteran, who has been named Defensive Player of the Year a record-tying three times, makes more in base pay than the 25 players at the bottom of the Texans’ payroll make combined.
An additional game check and a relaxation of the marijuana testing rules, are hardly incentives to risk further injury for Watt, who makes $15 million a year, but has missed 32 games in the last four years.
But for those 35 Texans who will make less than $1 million a year next season, a $100,000 bump in minimum salary and another payday represents a nice raise.
It is likely those players, most of whom will play in the NFL for three seasons or less, will vote for the new deal. They can’t afford to risk losing games due to a lockout or strike, and they can’t afford to pass up the money on the table.
The fear that the owners will come back to the bargaining table with a worse deal if they don’t get a yes answer to this one, is a scare tactic that might work.
The owners don’t have to bust the union, it can just threaten its members with a power play; a money play. Those who have the money tend to have the power.
A 17-game season will hurt more players, but will help the bottom line and that is what’s most important to the owners.
With a guarantee of a decade of labor peace, owners can again expect a major haul from new broadcasting agreements. That is a benefit to everyone involved.
Subbing a real game for a fake one is a plus. And sign me up for a couple more playoff games, even if mediocre teams will occasionally land a wild card spot.
While I wish the players were capable of forcing the owners to do the right thing, this is a game of big bank take little bank. And, rest assured, the owners will take more and more of your bank too.
The NFL will continue to thrive as long as fans continue to consume the product, by showing up at stadiums, and watching at home, in bars and on smart phones.
There is no such thing as too much football. For people who don’t play football, that is.
I’ll be right there for that 17th game and those potentially thrilling playoff contests.
I would feel so much better about it if the players were better compensated.