2011 Lockout

by Auz on Sep 9, 2010 12:33 AM MDT

The possibility of a 2011 NFL lockout looks to be likely. Millions of hard-working people pour a good portion of their income, time and energy into this sport. The NFL not only provides entertainment to many, it also creates an avenue of escape for those that are going through and experiencing difficult times. Most of the athletes in the NFL will earn between 5,200.00 to 80,000 a week. The United States is in one of the worst economic collapses that we have ever seen. People are losing their homes and yet we see millionaires gripe about not being paid enough. I wonder what it would take to get all of the athletes, in every major sport, to donate eighty percent of their income for a year back to the public that adores them. This is obviously not a well thought-out plan, but it could at least provide some perspective on the times we face. The 2011 lockout is a frustrating ordeal for many, but the fans are the ones that suffer the most. I will personally lose respect for the entire NFL if the 2011 lockout becomes a reality. Do you really want to come back as a diehard fan in 2012? I would, if the entire NFL organization gave back to the community in a big ($$$) way. The entire league is overpaid and we should not continue to support a game that encourages youth to believe that this type of behavior is acceptable. If athletes want to be role models, then they should give back to the community that helped them have an opportunity to play a game for a living.

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 39 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Partially agree with your sentiment...

However, the money goes to the athletes or the owners, so why complain about the millionaire athletes instead of the billionaire owners. I think a lockout would be absolutely horrible, but at the same time it is a business.

Someone making $1mil/year in the NFL doesn’t consider themselves wealthy, cause they run around with guys making $2mil/year; who don’t consider themselves wealthy cause they run around with guys making $5mil/year and on and on. I believe I’ve read the average NFL career lasts just over 3 years. As much as I’d like to complain about what these players make, I would do the exact same thing in their position.

One last point, that I rarely see made, would be that the NFL is in the business of entertainment. Take the highest paid NFL players, and their salaries don’t even come close to the highest paid people in the entertainment industry. Why people single out athletes as overpaid, and never look anywhere else has always confused me. These guys are the best in the world at what they do. In any other profession, if you are the best in the world, you are making money equal to or greater than any of these players.

So, I agree with you that it would completely piss me off if we have a lockout (although I would still live and die with every game a group of scrubs comes in and plays for the Broncos) it would be hypocritcal of me to say that they should give a HUGE portion of their salary back as I have a hard time expecting others to do something I would not be willing to.

by Kgrone on Sep 9, 2010 4:24 AM MDT reply actions

Meh...too early to have my thoughts in order...

I don’t mean to make it sound like I’m against the owners, either. If I had a billion dollars of my money tied up in a business I would expect returns of 10%+. That’s a simple business concept. $1,000,000,000 invested with a 10% ROI would provide $100mil/year. I’ve never had a billion dollars, but I think if I did 10% would definitely be on the low end of what I would expect I could make. I figure I’ll keep it on the low end. cause…….well, how cool would it be to own an NFL franchise. :D

by Kgrone on Sep 9, 2010 4:30 AM MDT up reply actions

a lockout is a lockout (to use Yogi language)

no scrubs, no players of any type, NO GAMES, no NFL football

by cohiker on Sep 9, 2010 5:19 PM MDT up reply actions

I would rather see "Scrubs" play than no one

the team is about who is on it… it is about the logo, the community, the honor. Players come and go, the the team lives on.

daaayuuuuum! you gonna take that KB?!? lol -Broncs55
Absolutely not. KB is a function of aggression and rage, the derivative of which can be traced back to my childhood.-KentuckyBronco
PS3 ID: KoRnHo|ed

by Broncs55 on Sep 10, 2010 9:32 AM MDT up reply actions

the owners do not have that option now

The owners would have that option if the players were striking. However the owners initiated the end of the CBA (and the players are not striking), so the owners options are to reach a new CBA or a lockout.

by cohiker on Sep 10, 2010 12:05 PM MDT up reply actions

the owners have a third option, continue next season under the current CBA terms, but they have already rejected that option.

by cohiker on Sep 10, 2010 12:09 PM MDT up reply actions

Just a thought

Sandra Bullock acted in the movie “Blindside” about the Life of Michael Oher. She made over 30 Million for her less than one year of work. Michael Oher, on the other hand, will make 14 Million in 5 years of work if he completes his contract. Which job is worth more?
Does Sandra get beat up every week and lose the loss of use of some of her limbs?
Is her job longevity 3-4 years long?

Sports are part of the entertainment business. Actors, singers, and players all have extremely special skills. Without them fewer people would watch or care about that particular type of entertainment. If no one watches or listens the owners of that particular entertainment business will make less money. The owners have to pay these people well and should pay these people well. Without them the owners have nothing. With them the Owners make good profit and so do the workers.

Why did Sandra make more than Michael? Because there are fewer with her skills than the skill of Michael Oher. But neither was overpaid.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Sep 9, 2010 6:27 AM MDT reply actions 2 recs

well, just for debate

you could say that the entire “professional entertainment industry” is overpaid.

Nurses, EMT’s, Firefighters, police officers, military, etc are the true heroes, and many of them are volunteer (which make no money) or make near minimum wage, some can make upwards into just over triple digits depending on where you live and what kind of time you put in, but thats only pocket change for the “professional entertainment industry”

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 7:25 AM MDT up reply actions

True

But in a capitalistic society we don’t pay people based upon their value to society. We pay them purely based on how much profit they can generate. If only one worker (Bullock) can bring in 350 Million in box office receipts, then she gets paid accordingly. There are many people that can qualify to be a teacher or firemen. They get paid accordingly.

I’m not saying that is the correct way. I am saying that is the way.
They are not overpaid unless society believes everyone should have a cap on their wages.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Sep 9, 2010 7:54 AM MDT up reply actions

very true

but most of these pro athletes would play the game for what our teachers and firemen make and be happy with it, if that was the normal payscale.

I for one think professional entertainers are overpaid while the true heroes in society are underpaid. But also understand what you just stated and accept it – not much you can do about it anyhow other than post up a fanpost on MHR. It won’t change anything lol

I was just throwing it up there for debate – even though I understand why it is the way it is. However it is pretty sad why it is the way it is, at the same time.

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 8:25 AM MDT up reply actions

With all due respect this is not correct.

but most of these pro athletes would play the game for what our teachers and firemen make and be happy with it, if that was the normal payscale.

It is a fan theory that players would sacrifice their bodies and watch owners get filthy rich off of their labors of love. But it isn’t true. Look at the wages paid to athletes for the last 75 years. Did Babe Ruth make $100,000 a year because he wanted to play for less? No. Players know their worth to the owners. They know their economic value.

Few fans recognize that any player that gets cut prior to three years receives $0 in health benefits. None. No continuing health benefits for the injuries received. Does a minimum salary of $350,000 sound like to much if you have to pay for your own lifelong health care from injuries that are Guaranteed to happen?

As fans we want players to play for less than they are worth just so we can guarantee great players on our teams. So we can guarantee our owners a profit. So we can have a football team. But that isn’t fair to the players.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Sep 9, 2010 9:49 AM MDT up reply actions

no, you took that a little out of context

what I was saying was that if professional athletes payscales were the same as your every day joe – they would be more than happy to play for that.

Do I want to work in construction for 50k a year…. or play game for 50k a year??? Gee…. lemme think. Playing football is way more fun than working contruction.

But I agree, due to the payscale in today’s society, they would not be willing to take a cut that substantially significant to play the game… they’d retire with their millions. But they definitely wouldn’t say…. “You know what…. I’m gonna go lay concrete instead!”

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 10:14 AM MDT up reply actions

+1- Yes I did misinterpret.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Sep 9, 2010 10:30 AM MDT up reply actions

This is a false dichotomy

Some might still choose to play the game for 50k a year, if that was really the pay-scale. But many of people who are hard-working and disciplined enough to become NFL football players could be expected to become highly paid white collar professionals.

Back in the early portion of the 20th century, when a person could expect to earn more money as a doctor, lawyer, or investment banker than as a football player, many of the best college football players chose against playing the game professionally.

by sports_monkey on Sep 9, 2010 10:40 AM MDT up reply actions

well of course

that goes without saying.

Not every player would choose to play football. But I would venture a good majority would. There would also be a good chunk that never would have ventured down that path in hopes of making more money, and come up short.

Everything is relative.

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 10:45 AM MDT up reply actions

CFL - Just to reinforce Broncs55's point

The Canadian Football League players do not make nearly the same amount of coin as their counterparts in the NFL. Still they choose to play football rather than go to school or work in construction. Even if it a stupid game with stupid rules. LOL, only kidding CFL fans, there are a few.

I guess there are some that go from the CFL to NFL, so there is always that dream that you can still strike it rich.

It takes neither courage nor intelligence to cheer for a team only when that team wins. The true test of a fan's mettle is the same as it is for a player: Were you there when you were needed?

aka Solace

by Jason Witte on Sep 9, 2010 12:55 PM MDT up reply actions

thanks homie for the concretion!

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 12:57 PM MDT up reply actions

I would agree with some of the responses. I would like to jump in and state that singers/musicians are not millionaires. You have a few singers/musicians out there that are making some good coin (Paris Hilton, Madonna, etc), but most of the groups that you hear on the radio make a very low wage. Just thought I would make that point. =)

by Auz on Sep 9, 2010 8:08 AM MDT reply actions

I'm sorry

but did you just refer to Paris Hilton a a singer/musician? Egads.

And while you’re right that most musicians/groups out there are not wealthy, if they’ve reached the point where they’re getting some serious airplay, then most likely they’re doing just fine.

by Broncologist on Sep 9, 2010 11:56 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

Egads, had to rec you for the call out... Paris Hilton? singing/writing music?

I was wondering if I missed something. xD

That's quite a long handle there, G Funk. - That's what she said.

First (and only, in our lifetimes) team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! ( =

by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Sep 9, 2010 12:42 PM MDT up reply actions

Right but keep in mind

That the vast vast majority of talented musicians never even sniff the radio. Yes I know this is way off topic but I wanted to clarify that ;).

by scooter17 on Sep 9, 2010 3:29 PM MDT up reply actions

You are right about Paris not being a musician. I can’t believe I didn’t clarify. There seems to be two things that she is good at: Sucking off and gaining attention. I should of stated that most talented musicians/musical entertainers struggle, unless they sell themselves like a Paris Hilton.

by Auz on Sep 10, 2010 2:50 PM MDT up reply actions

Yeah

At least the musicians have talent to peddle. Paris is the emptiest kind of celebrity who represents an insult to anyone who is driven by genuine artistic passion.

by Broncologist on Sep 10, 2010 6:18 PM MDT up reply actions

And semi-pro football players don't make near the money, either....

by Kgrone on Sep 9, 2010 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions

I agree with this post

I think the issue of any new CBA is not necessarily just how to handle next year, but for many years in the future. Both sides do not want to make a mistake now that will cost them later. In that regard, I’m surprised they can’t find a way to put together a temporary agreement just to keep the sport moving next year while they continue to negotiate. I think it is in everyone’s (players, owners, fans) best interest to NOT stop the game.

"I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never ever possibly destroy us. Mr. Stay Puft!"

by afeather on Sep 9, 2010 11:56 AM MDT reply actions

The idea of a temporary fix is good,

However I think both sides would be scared to give an inch for a temporary fix when that would set a precedent when negotiations resumed later on. Tough problem, and I hope they get things worked out.

by Kgrone on Sep 9, 2010 12:31 PM MDT up reply actions

unfortunately they are running into the same issue any union ran organization runs into

Unions destroy companies, eventually they will destroy the NFL as well. Here is how they work:

Unions come in acting as a savior to a companies issue. 50% + 1 elects to have a union. The union then demands that a company buy into the union, if not the courts will order it to be done.

Unions demands a certain wage, medical, dues, etc.

Once these are met, owners raise prices which their consumers (the viewers) subscribe to (tickets, merchandise, cable and satellite). They make the most off of television. They charge $XXXXXX.XX amount in order for select stations to air the game. People at home are able to watch.

Eventually this process continues to happen each time, with the organization charging cable and satellite more money each time. Those stations turn around and charge us for their services a little bit more each year, as well as the commercial’s charging more for their product in order to keep up with the marketing. This is called inflation.

Eventually the consumers (us) get sick of paying prices…. they drop their cable t.v. which is now costing them $200 a month and quit buying stuff they don’t need. Eventually the players union is demanding so much that teams cannot afford to keep up with payroll. Companies go bankrupt.

it happens with almost every union company out there. The players union demands more, ergo the NFL must charge more to their customers, who are charging more to the consumers. “Crap rolls down hill until enuff crap has gathered that when it reaches the bottom of the hill, it goes right back up due to momentum”

You will see the rise of fall of many union companies, including eventually the NFL. However I hope and pray that I do not see that in my lifetime!

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 12:42 PM MDT up reply actions

A load of crap

I criticize specific unions all the time, but I acknowledge that in most cases they serve an important protective function for workers.

If you believe that cable TV prices are driven by unions (specifically the NFLPA) and not by monopolistic practices, then your lack of economic knowledge renders your argument worthless.

And if you believe the NFL will inevitably fail because the players are unionized(!), then may I just say, “That is a lovely tin-foil hat you’re wearing.”

by Broncologist on Sep 9, 2010 1:25 PM MDT up reply actions

lol

how can you say that my lack of economic knowledge renders my arguement worthless??? I could say the same about yours. You’re not bringing anything to debate, all you are saying is I’m wrong.

I love rebuttals like this, they have no supporting evidence as a debate.

It’s common sense, if prices for the consumers (us) keep raising, eventually the consumers aren’t going to buy as it will be too expensive. What raises those prices more than anything??? Cable companies.
Why do cable companies raise their prices? Demands from their networks.
Why do the networks need more money? Demands from whom they are subscribing from (such as the NFL).
Why does the NFL need more money? Demands from the unions.

Can the NFL take less money and give more to the players? Yes.
Are they willing to? Probably not as they like to see the same steady income.

I never once said that Cable TV prices are driven solely by unions, however what gets the highest TV ratings in the United States? It’s definitely not “America’s got Talent” or the “Days of our Lives” or even “Wheel of Fortune”. Oh no. Statistically the highest rating television show is The Super Bowl. How much do networks pay to host that? Where do the networks get their money? Where does cable TV get their money to air the networks?

Just like any relationship, things go both ways. People don’t work without the big guy giving them the job, and the big guy doesn’t sell anything without the people buying.

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 1:56 PM MDT up reply actions

also

the one thing I learned in Economics and Government is that every government rises and falls, every privatized company, and every unionized company.

Nothing lasts forever.

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 2:06 PM MDT up reply actions

Cable companies

raise their prices because there is virtually no competition within the local markets. The lucky few customers with more than one option to choose from do pay lower prices. It’s one of the beauties of capitalism.

For the Super Bowl, which is a special, once-a-year TV event, networks charge exorbitant ad fees that are much higher than for regular season games. Advertisements are where networks make most of their money.

As for the NFL, the owners want to increase revenues mostly because of costly new stadiums or because the bigger revenue teams subsidize the lower revenue ones, and that’s not a player issue.

As for payroll, there is a salary cap, plus there will be a rookie wage cap in the next CBA, which is long overdue, since paying an unproven rookie far more than a proven veteran is ludicrous. And the NFLPA will have to make concessions to get a new CBA done, no doubt. But it is the owners making the demands this time, not the NFLPA.

by Broncologist on Sep 9, 2010 4:11 PM MDT up reply actions

Another thing missing in this discussion

While the discussion rightfully involves the disagreement between the players and owners, people seem to forget that if there is a lockout, many thousands of ordinary people will also be out of a job. Think about all of the ordinary people that work behind the scenes: Concession workers, groundskeepers, security, souvenir vendors, etc, will all be out of work. I bring this up because in the current economic environment, laying off a large number of average Joes over what amounts to a spat between rich people could very well turn into a public relations disaster for the league.

Le me be very succinct: The League has a very good thing going here. Ratings, popularity, profits, and salaries are at all time highs. The owners and players need to sit down and work this out, soon, or they risk doing serious damage to their business and reputations.

by ITPro on Sep 9, 2010 1:26 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs

"Let me be..."

Come on, SB Nation. Is an “Edit” button too much to ask for?

by ITPro on Sep 9, 2010 1:30 PM MDT up reply actions

lol amen my brethren

it be too mcuh too ask fro!

by Broncs55 on Sep 9, 2010 2:10 PM MDT up reply actions

Goodell

always says the CBA will not be a stopgap fix. Instead, it will last for years and do the best for both parties. It is a mere pittance to sacrifice short term monetary windfalls for sustainable prosperity down the road

Brad James

by the new Bradfather on Sep 9, 2010 2:46 PM MDT reply actions

Choose to support... [just my opinion]

Pick your side Owners or Players as fans we can only wait and see if there’s going to be a lockout in 2011.

That said, if there is a lockout the fans can flex their muscles and not attend ANY games involving scrubs to send a message to the NFL, owners, and players. Though we fans will suffer most especially football idiots like myself its time we fans stand pat by not attending ANY games! The last time this happen was last horrible when we used scrubs until eventually the players returned and we finished with a 5-11 won / lost record in 1990 [??] sandwiched in between 2 Western Division titles.

I think it comes down to; 1. The players giving back % points to the owners from the current 60% / 50% split.

2. Reduce the % split and approve the 18 game schedule for 2012 season.

3. Create and approve rookie cap starting in 2011

The current economy dictates change in the way the NFL & PA approves the CBA’s future agreements without a players strike or lockout. The owners have already taken insurance out to cover any loses for a lockout. It really means the players are under the gun to approve changes in favor of the owners if they want to collect & play the game they love.

I refuse to pay for games involving scubs or CFL players and if there is a lockout this time it will ruin NFL like it did Baseball once American’s National past time sport. It will leave scars that will take years to repair & recover from. It will change the game as we know it today.

Summary if any combination of two from the above list is approved in the CBA no lockout but it looks like none of the above will happen by March of 2011. As a fan I’m already preparing for 2011 without professional football and will just be content with Pac 10 Football season tickets.

oc60

"I'd rather have a lot of talent and a little experience than a lot of experience and a little talent." John Wooden

by oc60 on Sep 10, 2010 10:59 AM MDT reply actions

Addendum... to above

Correction to typo on #1. Reduce 60% players take to 50%

*Note: The 2006 CBA has decreased NFL profits from about 10 percent each year to only 4 percent. The NFL’s 2006 CBA increased the players take from 55.5 percent of NFL revenues to 60 percent. That’s down from a record high of 69% in 1993 (the last uncapped year).

Fox News

oc60

"I'd rather have a lot of talent and a little experience than a lot of experience and a little talent." John Wooden

by oc60 on Sep 10, 2010 11:24 AM MDT reply actions

It is in no one's best interest to have a lockout.

This whole thing is about money and everyone will get less of it in a lockout situation. The players union and the owners are playing a corporate game of chicken. In the end, they will come to an agreement even if it is a temporary one because no one wins in a lockout.

by rollinthunder on Sep 10, 2010 12:47 PM MDT reply actions