NFL owners unanimous, will opt out of labor deal

I'm not saying it's all on the owners, I"m saying both sides are at fault. Don't just hate on the players...

 

just look at the comment the NFLPA rep says about the "extra" game... he's all talking like it's really an extra game, which it isn't, it's just to make it count, to increase revenues so they can pay the players that fat *** MAJORITY they are beotchin' about. My God, they have 60% of practically everything... they whine about the preseason being too long and you offer to shorten it and add one regular game and their representation acts as if they are being asked to work overtime on the Fourth Of July that falls on Sunday or something. They are just talking about playing one more that counts. The players still dress 20 times. What's the big deal? That's just crazy greed. The owners are trying to figure out a way to make the games more profitable so they can meet the pay demands. The players only see more revenue so they can make a new money grab. If anything the highest paid players should make a bit less so that the guys who don't make a whole lot can do a little better. The rookie contracts need a new process. I'm with the idea that the vets should get some kind of good pay... by playing out a rookie contract and then signing for big bucks once their worth is established. Vick and others keeping money they didn't earn is garbage.

 

The players only bring a time-limited skill into the equation. They have liquidity and the ability to walk away with no liability short of "time-lost". Their assets are not dependant on the success of the product- they have no venture risk/reward. They can (and will after a few years) be replaced. Their market value is only 2-3 years from expiring. I understand they want "their piece". But, the business truth is, they didn't risk anything short of time lost and disability (which is insured).

The owners put their perennial livelihood at risk in the form of venture capital. They are very difficult to replace. Business economics suggests they should be rewarded in a standard fashion. 60% of revenue going back to labor is NOT standard in efficiently run businesses. These owners are business savvy people. They can, and would be wise, to put their assets in other venues with higher profit margins. The owners took a hit to avoid a work stoppage in '06 and keep the product on the field. They did this in order not to sacrifice the momentum of the NFL's popularity.

The owner's are in it for the long term, the players only for a few years. It is understandable, but irrational IMO, for the players to be stalwart on the positions they have taken. They should at the very least be willing to have a standardized rookie pay scale as well as agree to play in games that allow the owner's to "normalize" the profit distribution.

 

I think I would have to agree that the league would survive and eventually prosper without the players if it had too. The NFL has very few players who you pay to see. Vince Young happens to be one of them. The NFL has branding, and that comes in the form of the team name. Players come and go all the time. Players get replaced. We would watch and root for scab players in my opinion because they are Titans, and for no other reason.

Even in the face of a competitive league ( like a USFL ), the NFL brand would dominate. Vince Young playing for the Memphis Showboats would draw, and People would watch, but I assure you the allegiance of the TN fans would remain with the Titans, and that team would be the one who draws the most interest of the two.

This will never happen, but if it did, you would end up with 2 very strong products, but the NFL would still win even if every single current player went to the USFL. I strongly believe the brand name would still dominate the players of a new league.

I would strongly argue that even the Oiler Fans that turned Titans fans, did not do so because of the players, they followed the franchise name. I would bet that most of those fans who crossed over remain Titan fans long after the players left. I believe they were loyal to the franchise and remain so.

Now you take the other side of that equation, and you have total loyalty of the fans that dumped the Titans for the city of Houston. For them, it wasn't about the players either, but about the city. Which is basically the same thing as the franchise. They chose the city over the players.

Very few players have the kind of appeal that fans will follow more strongly than the franchise; I can name only a few;
Yao - China will follow him no matter where he goes
Ichiro - I believe his fan base would go with him too. But not sure.
Vince Young - to a small extent has a very strong Texas Following

Not even Michael Jordan could do it. He couldn't pull Bulls fans away from the Bulls when he became a Wizard. They watched, but they did not transition.

The NFL is not about the players in my opinion. Whoever our qb was, we would pull hard for him no matter how bad the product is.

The only example I can think of that contradicts this line of thinking is the wnba. The product was clearly inferior, and no allegiance to the league was ever developed despite their appeal to the nba's fan base. The league had an inferior product and has for the most part failed. But you could argue that there was no fan base to begin with.

The NFL and MLB would surivive without it's players. The NBA would have a more difficult time in my opinion because that league is for the most part player driven, and the face of the franchise is more important for long term success because the athletic ability of the player is often the draw. Tennis would also die. They rely on their big names. As would golf. But the NFL would in my opinion roll ever onward if the players were permanently locked out and left.