The potential NFL Lockout; Q & A and other insight

[Auggie]

From the San Francisco Chronicle / January 31, 2011

Q: In a nutshell, what's all this talk about a lockout?

A: NFL owners want to pay players less and have them play more games. Players want the same amount of money for the same amount of games.

Q: What brought this potential lockout about?

A: Two years ago, NFL owners opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement, effective after the 2010 season. If they don't get a new deal done by the end of the league year, the owners can choose to lock out the players with no pay or benefits until the players agree to a different deal.

Q: Why did they do that just two years after agreeing to a CBA extension?

A: They felt players got the better end of the deal in 2006, and even players generally agree the deal was favorable to them. Players' salaries account for roughly 60 percent of total revenue, and owners want to pay them less, citing the owners' debts for stadium construction and other costs in a slumping economy. They're still making plenty of money but want a "healthier" deal to promote league growth.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/29/SPJ51HBIRT.DTL#ixzz1CXOn8sdp

In a related story (print exclusive, no link), Chronicle columnist Gwen Knapp points out how the "enormous local revenue" producing teams, like the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots, inflate the salary cap for smaller local revenue producing teams like the Packers. That's why the Packers (the only publicly-owned team) reported a drop in operating profit of just over $10 million from 2009 to 2010 — even though they made $10 million more in revenue during that time period players costs increased by $22.1 million because of the inflated cap increases caused by teams like the Cowboys. Knapp further points out that greater revenue sharing would solve that problem for teams like the Packers, but that owners, like Jerry Jones, would rather have that revenue come from the players (I'll post the link this link when it becomes available Tuesday — Knapp does a great job of laying it out).

So it helps to understand there's probable dispute here among owners as well — those that make huge sums from local revenue and drive up the salary cap, and those who don't and are seeing profits dwindle. Instead of doing what's right -- share the wealth among their own tight-knit group -- they'll take from the guys who actually do the grunt work while asking them to put their health at greater peril.

March 3rd is the deadline to complete a new deal... owners, and players, are on the clock.

[madinmaryland]

1. Funny, but two threads down, there is a thread about the Great Experiment in Socialism called

funnily enough, The NFL!

:P

[Auggie]

2. I saw that the other night...

it was a funny bit, but Maher's writers didn't get it quite right.

[Auggie]

3. NFL labor trouble isn't players' fault

By Gwen Knapp, San Francisco Chronicle / Sunday, January 30th 2011

Blame the owners.

If the NFL shuts down for even a fraction of the 2011 season, it will be their fault.

They've demanded that the players, as a group, take a smaller portion of the league's revenue. They've asked to expand the regular season, which players believe would increase the risk of injury. The owners are counting on fans to dismiss the current labor dispute with the cliched: "It's millionaires against billionaires, and a pox on both their houses."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/29/SPRD1HFT6A.DTL#ixzz1Cj1leB1J

Second link to my O.P., unavailable until now.