Breaking: NFL owners opt out of labor deal
The official statement from the NFL
"The NFL earns very substantial revenues. But the clubs are obligated by the CBA to spend substantially more than half their revenues…on player costs. In addition, as we have explained to the union, the clubs must spend significant and growing amounts on stadium construction, operations and improvements to respond to the interests and demands of our fans. The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the costs of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest share; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially – and at an ever-increasing rate – in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country. As a result, under the terms of the current agreement, the clubs’ incentive to invest in the game is threatened."
It broke over the weekend that this was more or less a foregone conclusion that this would happen. If you want the whole story about what it could mean, be sure to check out the story I wrote on Saturday . In short, nothing whatsoever will change for the next two seasons.
0 recs |
11
comments
Read Related
Comments
gene upshaw
is the biggest fucking douche ever. i know his grimey ass was behind this
by Joe_D on May 20, 2008 12:59 PM EDT 0 recs
This was all on the part of the owners… It sounded like Upshaw wasn’t happy about it.
by JasonB on
May 20, 2008 2:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
i dont get it
what does this mean in the long run…sorry guys, but im really confused
I smell Super Bowl!
by anuj on May 20, 2008 2:23 PM EDT 0 recs
For now?
Nothing. NOthing at all in the next two years. THere are some possible long term implications, but it’s unlikely it will ever get to that. There are provisions in place to basically force the sides to work out a new deal.
by JasonB on
May 20, 2008 4:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Players deserve the money they get because they drive the revenue that pays their checks. It’s only fair that they get the majority of the money, when the owners don’t do much (besides often getting in the way of good football).
Destroyer of Subject Lines :3™
by yomjoseki on May 20, 2008 5:03 PM EDT 0 recs
ok i agree somewhat yom
but THERE NEEEDS to be a rookie cap in place. no fuckign way should players be getting FAT ass contracts for not playing a single down in the nfl
by Joe_D on May 20, 2008 6:30 PM EDT 0 recs
rookie cap could be sticky
I agree there should be some kinda cap for rookies but also when a club does sign a high profile rookie their tickets sales i can almost assure goes up that season so even a rookie that didn’t play a down in the league still helps the team revenue.
by Buckwampum Birds Fan on
May 20, 2008 11:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don’t really see much wrong with rookie salaries. Only first round picks make huge $$$, the rest are compensated pretty fairly. Owners can structure the contracts so that they have an out if the rookie doesn’t pan out, so they have no one to blame but themselves if they get stuck paying a bust.
Destroyer of Subject Lines :3™
by yomjoseki on
May 20, 2008 11:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not for high picks
Matt Ryan got more guaranteed cash than any QB in football right now. THat’s ridiculous. If he isn’t a great player, that contract will be an albatross for that franchise.
by JasonB on
May 21, 2008 8:41 AM EDT
up
0 recs
AGREED
these kids are proven only in college they should have no bargaining power. The should get rookie salaries not 10 year vet salaries.
by Whodie126 on
May 21, 2008 3:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs








