The NFL has a serious problem when the NFL Players Association puts top players like Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady out in front of the battle over a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. If the NFL attacks its top players it’s truly damaging itself.
When they make Brees, Manning and Brady look bad, they’re damaging the images of guys who get people to watch and listen to NFL games and buy NFL merchandise. If these Superstar quarterbacks are portrayed by the league as being greedy, ungrateful employees, then the league suffers.
Both the NFL owners and players must remember that they don’t want to kill the Golden Goose. Never has a league prospered the way the NFL has yet, the owners want to make more money by getting a higher percentage of the revenue and they want to play extend the season to 18 regular season games.
Yesterday it was Brees out front going after the NFL for not being genuine during the negotiating of the last few weeks, “I think it was
all a show, with no real intent to get a deal done, other than just to say they made a proposal — that was no different than anything else that they proposed over the last couple years, couple months, couple weeks,” said Brees, who is one of the players named as plaintiff in the players’ antitrust lawsuit against the league.
Now what does the league do. Do they attack Brees and damage the reputation of one of their most accomplished and visible players? How do they go after DeMaurice Smith and the union without going head to head with Brees, Manning and Brady? That’s a 
tough question to answer and it’ll be interesting to see what they do going forward. It’s going to take some skillful communication.
I give Brees credit for standing up and speaking out because he’s not fighting for himself. He’s got the megamillion dollar contract. If the players give back billions of dollars to the owners, Brees will still never want for medical care down the road. It’s the players who are in the league for two, three and four years, which is the norm, who might need help getting medical care for replacing knees and hips. Those are the guys who will benefit most from guys like Brees standing up for them.
Both sides need to be negotiating right now. They can’t be foolish and ignore all the money which is sitting on the table. Remember it’s $9 billion dollars a year in revenues that they receive from the television networks. They have the entire offseason to get this thing worked out before they get back to work. If they start missing games in the fall, you know that there are idiots running the league and the players association.
The Top Players of the NFL will definitely win the PR battle for the NFLPA over the Owners hands down.. One think I do ask, If I worked at a Company (by my own choosing for 3-4 years) and then 30 years later develop a hip problem. Does anyone think that employer I worked at for 3-4 has any liability and should pay for some of my medical bills 30 years later…
This is getting ridiculous.. All jobs/occupations have some type of inherent risk and if you are uncomfortable with these risks, then find another occupation..
Paulman, The answer is yes to your question. People sue their jobs all the time for injuries sustained on the job. Kevin Turner played what 15 years ago? Now the guy is a physical mess because of his time in the NFL. I cant believe you think he shouldn’t be compensated with medical benefits. If you do that says more about you than any one of your many other posts ever could.
Obviously if the injuries are incurred while playing for you employer, you should be taken care for life (as far as medical bills,tests,rehab,etc,etc)
But as an example, I played High School Footbll some 30 years ago..
If i now start getting migraine headaches, do you think it’s right that I can sue
my olf High School for being a potential cause of my migraines and that they are partially responsible… It open’s up a big can of worms and just creates from frivolous law suits in my opinion.. You get injured while playing, well that’s obvious, but long term health issues are difficult to diagnose as the root cause of them and to expect the NFL to pay for them 30-40 years later is crazy I think…
Paul
If a player’s injury progressively worsens, should a player not be cared for down the road? Was the league negligent when it allowed players to play with concussions? Was it negligent when it pushed them to play through other painful and debilitating injuries?
I recall DeSean Jackson saying that the Ealges pushed him to play with a concussion. And what about Bradley and Kolb returning to a game after suffering concussions? Was the team negligent? Should they be sued? The owners still make money 30-40 years later, why shouldn’t the players be cared for?
On the topic, it was a great move by the NFLPA to put those guys out in front.
If this current situation leads back to 2010 rules there is a benefit for the Eagles that hasn’t been mentioned. There are limits and rules applied to the top 8 teams regarding free agent signings. It would disallow Green Bay to get into the Nnamdi or other top free agent sweepstakes. 8 teams being restrained only helps the Eagles during what will be chaos during free agency.
Mesothelioma – Employers are still being sued for the asbestos-related injury. When’s the last time people worked around asbestos?
Why should players not be afforded the same rights as others?
Drummer, I understand your point but the league has done basically all that can be done in changing the game to make it safer. What are they going to play touch? They fine and suspend players for taking big hits on others all the time and what happened. More and more players complained that the NFL was ruining the game they grew up playing. Numerous players called out the NFL for making the game soft. How do you justify that? Hell, you can barely tackle a QB now when he is in the pocket. You cant hit him low or high.
In my opinion, they should stop paying unproven rookies 50 million and give those millions to retired players. But as far as the on field action goes today the only other thing the NFL can really do is tell players their playing with flags on Sundays.
Players should not be cared for life for injuries. They should be cared for a fixed amount of time and that’s it.
Paulman, I agree with you because 20 years later who knows if a guy develops migraines because he played in the NFL or because he was doing housework and fell and hit his head. I think players should be afforded a certain amount or time period for which they receive medical benefit. I think they definitely needs some coverage after they leave the game, but seriously, how much is too much? Some of this stuff is greed.
And then don’t complain about league rule changes regarding hard hits and continue to hit hard and then say you want more money to be covered for the hits while you played.
And owners need to do a better job of caring for these players after they retire (even though they do get a substantial amount of coverage now). People either ignore it or don’t care but the players had a chance to get better health care coverage for older players in 1993 but they didn’t want it because they wanted the money for themselves. The owners are looking out for themselves and the players are looking out for themselves. Both sides are greedy. We can sit here all day and argue over who is less greedy and which side of greed is more important. But I don’t care. All of them are greedy and I won’t feel sorry for any of them when they go broke.
pheags, I agree. You can’t complain about the rule changes that will keep you safer along with keeping medical costs down and then say you want the owners to pay for more medical care. People who say these things just want the players to play as reckless as they want but want the owners to pay for it later. No dice. You play by the new rules and don’t complain OR the owners shorten the limits of the coverage. Point blank.
Even though the owners are greedy bastards I still don’t think it would be right to let the players play as reckless as they want while still making the owners pick up the tab 20 years later. Cut the rookie salary down and split that money between health case costs for past and present players, give the players more of the 9 billion tv money by putting it into pension funds and health care as well.
Well – lets look at this from a government perspective shall we – when you leave the Armed Forces, you go over your medical records. You find every operation, take x-rays, complain about your sore back, and the VA then takes a look at all of this and says – bam – here is what we think is wrong with you that your service in the Armed Forces caused..
Now – fast forward 10-15 years, it is extrmemly difficult to go back and say – hey, now my hip is bad, and its becuase of this reason. The Armed Forces would say – show me in your records where it got hurt, what medical treatment you got for it, and oh by the way, why did you not tell us when you left.
Very, very difficult in the world to get compensation for degenerative injuries. You can go back for things like black lung, asbestos, etc. but most of those are class action lawsuits filed by lawyers on behalf of groups of people to hold companies liable for placing grups of people in dangerous positions, and oh by the way, the compnay had to know they were dangerous and hide or ignore the fact.
Jump ahead to football – if a good college player or high school player get injured, are the parents and/or student able to hold the high school or college liable? Sure you can sue (hey I ref and I have insurance in case someone gets hurt and I have to get diposed). That’s 8 years of football in HS and College – how are you going to tell if the issue came from playing college or from playing in HS or from playing in the pros?
Other issues – what do you do about players that refuse to wear all the pads (do players wear thigh pads anymore) or a moutnhpiece or button chinstraps or play with loose chin straps……………………….
All kinds of issues.
Players get free medical care while playing. There is no reason they should not be able to buy into an insurance pool that provides them continuing care after they retire from football. I think it goes back to the inability of many of the players to properly manage money and set aside money for the post playing days.
navy, I’m with you. Players should not be covered for any and everything years and years down the line. Now if a guy had concussions while playing then sure he should receive coverage for years later because they can determine if certain things come from the history of concussion. But if a players doesn’t have a history of injuries in football that could potentially cause issues in the future then I don’t see how the owners should pick up the tab. A guy tear his ACL, broken hand while playing in the league…. the owners have to pick up his tab because his knees are bothering him? Come on now. The coverage to go as far as injury history and potential effects from those injuries and that’s it. For other things, you are on your own.
Ike Reese was on yesterday and he said currently players are covered by 25k x years of service. He had 9 years of service so he has 225k available in medical coverage besides what he can get from WIP.
These players know exactly what they are getting themselves into and I agree that owners need to provide better coverage but I definitely think there should be a limit. Don’t get mad when they change all the rules, make you wear more pads (or fine you if you don’t) and still want them to pick up the tab. You cannot have it both ways.
And navy you’re right, the stuff about asbestos is about people who didn’t know the environment they were working in and employers knew about it and hid it from them. Way different than players who’ve been playing a violent game for most of their lives.
navy, I’ll make them wear all kinds of padding, mouthpieces, crack down even harder on the hard hits etc… You’re not going to go out there and play reckless, without protection and want me to pickup the tab. You abide by the rules, don’t complain and wear what we say wear. The players like any of us need to have a portion of the money (ideally from the rookie salaries) go into some kind of a fund to help cover medical costs. Much like we all contribute to social security for the future. So the money is there when it’s needed. The players need to invest in their future. Just like we need 401Ks, IRAs and social security which is all for our future security, the players need to realize that if you want some kind of security in the future it starts with you. They care about signing bonuses and what they can get now. Owners care about getting the most of the TV money. Both want everything without giving up anything. Both sides are greedy and pathetic.
scorp – good point I didn’t think of – it is many of the players complaining about the new ‘hitting’ rules, the horse collar penalty came from players hurting other players, the ‘crackback’ block, the ‘chop’ block, the rules to protect the QB. Many times it was the players complaing about ‘the changes ruinging the game’
Both sides are greedy – how about max tix price $25 per seat and BOTH the owners AND the players take less and parking can be $5 per car, hot dogs a buck fifty (with a soda like Costco)……
Exactly. Both sides take a pay cut and lower the prices for fans. Bit I’m sure they don’t really care about what the fans really want. Just using the fans for PR.
Paulman and his advisors are thinking about Suing G.Cobb for worsening and furthering my “Post Carpal Syndrome” since G-man has had his site up and running…
“I am going after everything, Babes& Braces included ” Paulman said,,
“but I will donate all “Diesel Mercahndise” to Songs since he really likes those guys”..
If the players were earning anything close to what the owners rake in, I’d be in favor of both taking cut, but such is not the case.
Employees aren’t going to make anywhere near what the top of the organization makes. That’s football and more importantly, life.
My whole team at work should be pissed because the CEO makes our yearly salary in a day even though we do all the leg work.
I doubt that you work on a percentage basis. Further, I doubt that it is your individual services that the customers seek. Lastly, I doubt that your employer has asked for any give-backs while the business thrives.
Normal jobs just don’t compare with that of an NFL player.
Also the owners made concessions. Exactly what concessions did the NFLPA make?
The NFL has offered concessions: 16 game season for 2 years (any expansion needs NFLPU approval), spit the difference on money, adjustment of 1st round compensation, round 2-7 remain the same, rookie pay savings get added to veteran compensation, $82 million added to past players pensions and medical.
Where is there any give on the union’s side. The player’s are going to be the losers in the long run.
. . . at least in my humble opinion.
There is already a 16 game schedule in place. How is that a concession?
Is the extra billion dollars also a concession?
I find it amazing that people complain about prices, but don’t hold those who take most of the money accountable. I just don’t see how it’s a good idea to go after those who earn the least.
There was already an agreement in place, but the owners weren’t happy earning all of that money, despite a projected growth of more than double their current revenues.
in the next 5 years.
drummer, an football players don’t put the same financial risks that owners do into their teams. So acting like they deserve a piece of what someone worked hard for is dumb. You get paid the salary you agree to and that’s it. How about telling some of those overpaid players to give back some money to give to underpaid ones? No, but that wouldn’t be right. Let the team overpay everyone. Afterall, it’s not our money who cares what happens to the owners money, right? Whatever. Owners sacrifice a lot in building an organization and just because it isn’t physical doesn’t mean their sacrifice is any less. They go millions into debt to build a product and take a huge risk. Players don’t want to give up anything. They want to play half speed in preseason games WHERE FANS PAID FULL PRICE FOR. They want to play the game the way they want and still want the owners to pay their bills. How about some of these guys actually do something smart with their money? You can put Drew Brees and Brady on the front line all you want. They aren’t the ones hurting if there’s no season. They made absolutely no concessions but want everything their way. No sense at all.
Furthermore, our group is the only group that handles this specific functions for the entire bank so yes they do look for our personal attention. But that doesn’t stop us from being paid pennies compared to the top execs.
The concession is backing down on what you originally ask for in negotiations. So when you ask for 18 games and then go back down to 16, you conceded what you wanted. You can complain about who takes the most money but players take some of it too. Whether they take 25 percent and the owners take 75 percent they both still take some. I blame everyone and not just one side which you continue to not do. I said it before and I’ll say it again, BOTH SIDES ARE GREEDY BASTARDS.
What risks? The NFL is a sure-fire money maker. Name an owner that’s gone bankrupt, or for that matter, who hasn’t turned a hefty profit.
“Risk” is just a four-letter word wherein the NFL is concerned.
So, if the owners ask for 100% of the money and settle for only 90% of the money, that’s a concession? I think not. How can the owners say they care about players’ health, then ask to add an additional 2 games? It isn’t bad enough that they charge full-price for pre-season games?
Scorp
No need to throw darts. I respect your opinion, but I also respect mine. I try to remain open-minded, but I’ve heard nothing to sway my opinion.
The risks are in places like Jacksonville where they can’t fill the stadium and may consider moving. Some teams are more profitable than others. All owners are making money but some are in more debt than others and not making much. Every owner isn’t making money like Jeff Lurie.
What’s the difference between NFL players who hold fans and the season hostage if their demands aren’t met and the NFL owners who hold the fans and cities hostage if their corporate welfare demands aren’t met? Nothing.
It’s easy to throw blame at the owners because they make the most. And you know what, they should. I don’t care who agrees with that. They should make far beyond what ANY players makes. Period. They spend the time building this product. As players come and go, it’s the owners who are working constantly to keep their product relevant. I’m sorry but a guy that come in and gives 8 months of his life for 10 years is not and never going to be on par with the people who work daily, around the clock building their brand.
It’s the players who take the risk. Nothing is more valuable than health.
Not trying to sway your opinion. But I look at both sides. I’m neither for the owners or players. Like I said I see them both as being greedy. I don’t care who makes more they both want more. And I agree on points with both sides. But I can look at it as a business owner and employee and understand both sides. And in my opinion both sides want some things that aren’t fair and just doesn’t make sense.
Yet Jacksonville still operates in the black. Otherwise, they’d move to a more viable location in a heartbeat. No, they’re not making as much money as say Philly, but they’re still making money hand over fist.
I don’t consider not making as much money as your peers a risk.
I’m not saying that you’re trying to sway my opinion. I’m trying to sway my own opinion, that’s what being open-minded is all about.
Yes if they ask for 100% can agree to lower, that’s called a concession.
And by the same token, if you want the owners to pay for your medical coverage, complain about rule change but then bitch about playing 2 more games.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you get the money you are asking for medical coverage AND agree to play more games and abide by the rules OR keep everything like it is and shut your mouth.
But that’s the point. When you’re in business you’re in it to make the most money possible not just to be in the black. So just like all the players aren’t millionaires, all the owners aren’t billionaires. And I’m sorry I just can’t feel some type of way about owners making a lot of money. They’ve invested a lot and deserve to do so. SOME players deserve to make more as well but how many of these players are actually investing in themselves? It’s like they want the owners to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Not saying they actually feel like that but that’s just the way it seems. I actually can care less about the owners or players money. In my opinion you care too much about what players make. From Desean’s contract to this. I personally can give a flying flute about the amount of money they make and that they want more. Want more money? Be good, and get a good agent. Otherwise, manage your money like the rest of America. If the NFLPA got everything they wanted this league would turn into the NBA. A half baked product controlled by the players because of the money they get.
I also “try” to look at both sides.
Part of the reason American is in such bad financial shape is that employers focus too much on making money, rather than being fair or caring about employees. China now produces many things that we used to produce ourselves. Employers found cheap labor, ran with it, and as a result, we struggle as a nation. Our government has the nerve to ask China to charge more for its goods, then are surprised when they reply “Are you crazy?”
I’m not pro-employee. I’m pro success.
How many companies have gone out business because they sought the “cheaper” way, when in the long run it costs them more? Even companies like Tastykake, who once had a great product. They changed their recipes, undoubtedly to cut costs, and their products now suck and they almost went out of business. Their products were nationally sought after, but not any longer.
Making more money at the top does not equal business viability.
Scorp, you’re not exclusive in viewing things from both sides.
drummer,
I agree that making more money at the top does not equal business viability but you are acting as if player contracts haven’t been getting bigger over the years (as the salary cap increases) and the NFL has been losing money. The players just want more money and that’s what it is. Same with the owners.
You can have your theories about why the country is in bad financial shape but if you gave more money to the employees they would do nothing but buy houses and cars they cannot afford then beg for someone to give them relief because they are in over their head. Talking about America is different than talking about the NFL. I’ll leave it at that.
Owners put up their own money, use their business savvy to build their brand while players skate through college (many for free) so they can get paid hundreds of thousands (if not millions) to play a game. Just doesn’t add up to me. But again, that’s just me.
Ah! And therein lies the difference in our opinions.
I’m obviously a bit older than you. There was a time when people worked for a company for 25-30 years then retired. That time has since passed.
In recent years, I’ve seen too many people who have devoted their lives to a company only to get pink slips.
I feel sorry those have now put in 10-15 years. Many will soon see how it feels to be unemployed and unemployable. Experience used to be a selling point in a resume. Now, it’s reason to not hire someone. Many firms would rather hire 2 raw employees straight out of college, than someone with experience. The work product suffers and in the long run, so does the company. Immediately, however, there’s a windfall.
When you’ve given your life to a company — showed up sick and/or tired, put in the extra time and you are let go prior to retirement, the last thing you’re thinking is I should have “managed my money better.”
I already turned down my season tickets for next. Even though the lockout may cut into it, I’m not interested in paying anymore money to go see any games.
Like I said, many fans view the NFL as “just a game.” In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. There are billions of dollars at stake and those guys are literally “fighting” to earn. Most don’t come close to earning millions. In fact, most play for 3 years at close to the league minimum.
Frankly, I believe many fans are jealous. In reading some of the posts, that’s the sense I get. Yes, most of these players were coddled in high school and skated through. They got all the girls and their lives were somewhat easier. That’s the American way. When you’ve got an extraordinary talent for which there is a great demand, you’re treated as such. I don’t necessarily agree with that philosophy, but that’s the way it is.
I agree with you about the hiring practices of companies. It’s much cheaper for them to hire a kid fresh out of school and team them how to do a job at a lower salary that to hire the experienced one who can do a better job straight from the beginning. It’s unfortunate but it’s much more understandable in the game of football as your skills decrease while getting older unlike other industries where you get better. But as a business owner, I understand it as well. Why pay a guy that is 45 years old 60K (if that’s what they are asking for) when I can pay the 23 year old 45K. Not to mention save on medical expense since the 23 year old is more likely to need less medical care. Not saying I agree with it, but I totally understand it.
drummer, I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think anybody is saying they shou8ldn’t get paid. But the notion that they should be set for life after retiring in their 20s or 30s is utterly ridiculous.
Yeah I also agree with you about the way people look at athletes. I think it’s hard for people to not relate the situation to what they see or experienced. And it’s not just athletes, it’s movie stars or anyone else that are celebrities. With all the hardship going on in the world everyone is concerned only about themselves.
I for one wish the world would make more of an effort to ensure the betterment of everyone. But in this case since it involves 2 parties, I can only base my opinion on these 2 and not what I think their responsibility is to society. I for one, don’t think the players owe anyone anything and should feel sorry about the money they make. Hey, take the money. Same thing with the owners. I don’t really care. I just care whether they play or not. I can care less about one player’s contract or whatever. But that’s the me. The bible let’s us know that the love of money is the root of all evil and whether a person agrees with the owners or players, doesn’t make a difference to me. All I see is greed.
ha, frikin typo, I’m just trying to emulate the great Garry Cobb
Sure, owners put up their money, but so do the municipalities and the fans.
How many cities were held hostage for “sky boxes?” The threat of relocating a team to another city was common for quite a while. Even the Eagles came close to moving, despite years of intense fan loyalty.
I also recall the City of Philadelphia trying to recoup money from Lurie and complaints from the fans about money given to the Lurie by both the City and the State. Let’s not even talk about personal seat licenses, and who could forget “Hoagiegate?”
There’s just no way I can side the owners. Look at how fast Lurie became a billionaire. Not a single player – regardless of how great he was, has ever come close to being a billionaire.
Lurie learned a lot from Braman – Give the Philadelphia fans just enough to believe that you’re “all in” when it comes to winning and they’ll hand over their money before they even receive their paychecks. They’ll put up their houses as collateral. Their like stupid, stinky, smelly sheep (as my pastor would say when referring to Christians). Did you know that sheep will run into an electrical fence time and time again? That’s how some fans act. No matter what, the Kool-Aid always tastes great!
schiller, I agree with you there. I think they deserve more money and I also think they deserve better medical care BUT not for the rest of their lives. I don’t care what sport you play, you chose it and you have to deal with the future consequences of it. Do something smart with your money or get another job if necessary but acting like you can’t do anything after football and want the owners to pick up your tab for the rest of your life is a little ridiculous.
drummer, seems like you’re upset with Lurie for being a good business man LOL. No but seriously, I don’t think the owners are right in everything they do either. But the same jaded attitude you say people have against players you seem to have against owners.
Schiller
I don’t think it’s any more ridiculous than Charlie Sheen being set for life. The laws of supply demand dictate who gets what, not I.
In my opinion, if the fans are paying X amount of dollars, then the “stars of the show” should get a certain amount, especially when their health is on the line.
Just think about it. If the owners are asking for an additional billion, where’s that money going to come from? It’s not the players asking for more, it’s the owners.
But I can disagree with the owners and players on specific issues. Just because I don’t like something an owner did before doesn’t mean I have to think their wrong about everything afterward. Same thing with the players. I can pick and choose which ones I think the players are right and ones I think the owners are right. Which is why I dislike both sides. Because they are both being unreasonable.