When I wrote my post yesterday saying that I believe Owners are entitled to everything they earn I meant it.I have always been a person that believes in the free market system and nothing anyone writes will make me change my mind; however because my post generated so many comments I find that I need to expound upon a few points. I would also suggest that you read the stories of some of these owners as it is quite interesting.
All owners are not born rich.Art Rooney, the first owner of the Steelers lived in the second floor apartment of his father’s saloon.He won between 2500-250,000 dollars gambling and then invested in a football team.I have included two different links which give varying amounts for his race winnings.
Alex Spanos, the son of Greek immigrants, had two children and no money in 1951.He borrowed $800 and started his catering business selling sandwiches to construction workers.Using all of his business savvy he built this business into his real estate and construction conglomerate of today and he purchased the Chargers.
Edward DeBartolo Sr. was also an immigrant who is credited with building one of the first strip malls in Ohio and later made a fortune in the development of malls.His son went into the business with his father and also bought the San Francisco 49er’s. The point is that the DeBartolo family were also immigrants who worked hard to earn the money their family has. They were not handed a the things they have, they did it the old fashioned way, "THEY EARNED IT!"
Red McCombs or Billy Joe McCombs was born in 1927 in Spur, Texas as the son of an auto mechanic.Hardly a rich family, he served in the military, played college football, and then went to business school.He started his own auto dealership at the young age of 25 and never looked back. He was one of the only successful dealerships for the Edsel automobile. He is also cofounder of Clear Communications Network and was the owner of the Vikings, Spurs, and Nuggets.
Al Davis was a coach for a college team that went on to be the lineman coach for the Raiders.Later on he became the head coach for 3 seasons before becoming the AFL commissioner.He worked his way up through the organization all the way to the top. Can you imagine being a football player in college then the owner of the team you coach one day?
These are just a few of the owners I chose to mention but the point is that not all owners are bad people that come from rich and wealthy families.These were men who invested in things they believed in, the American Dream.They went from rags to riches and quite honestly by sheer hard work and determination.
As to the players, most of them went to school on a free ride.They have never worked a day in their life except to work out in a weight room.They are given huge signing bonuses which unless they learn to be savvy businessmen like the John Elways, they will lose it all when they retire.I do not begrudge any player his salary nor do I necessarily believe in a salary cap, but the fact is I do not feel sorry for any player.The argument is always made that the poor lineman does not make as much as the QB.Do you think in this new CBA the disparity between the pay of linemen and QB’s will change.It will only get larger.That argument has no merit in my book.People go into a career knowing what they want to do and accept what comes with it.
Let’s look at my business, education, for a prime example.A school is made up of secretaries who are the lifeblood of any school, janitors, teachers, and coaches.Which one do you think makes the most?In most high schools and colleges it is the coach after stipends are applied, then teachers, secretaries, and lastly janitors.Are they all important?Most definitely!Should the janitors rise up and demand more of the pie or the secretaries?It would not matter.
Let’s look at professional fields.Doctors and lawyers are two good examples.If you are a general practitioner vs. a neurosurgeon, who do you think makes more?Which one works harder?Well I would say on a day to day basis they both put in the same hours but if my life was on the line that surgeon is going to get more of my money.They both went to 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and probably a residency in general medicine and surgery, but each knew what he wanted to do or more importantly what his gifts were.A lineman does not have the same gifts as a running back or a QB.He is paid differently and the two will never be paid the same.
Lawyers all go to school for the same amount of time, but the ones willing to be public defenders and district attorneys will never make what an experience personal injury attorney will make.
Again, I hope the players play and sign a new deal but when will the percentage be enough.Every time the CBA needs to be renewed the players want more of the pie.It has been said they deserve raises.Absolutely, but no one is saying they should not get a raise, but does that means owners should take a loss?Do owners ever deserve a raise?
Lastly, if it is truly a revenue sharing then all revenues should be shared.I said this in my last post on this topic, but every player should throw in their individual endorsement deals with shoe companies, tv ads, and any other revenue into the pot and divvy it up.NFL players want the revenue from their jersey sales for themselves and do not want to share it nor does Peyton Manning want to give up his ability to earn money on the side.What about the fame that comes with playing in the NFL?Should players chip in all their appearance fees into the pot?Just a thought, but playing in the NFL has many perks that the owners do not try and stop the players from enjoying.By the way, the NFL owners have taken losses in NFL Europe every year just to help develop the game.Any and all thoughts welcome.
Sorry guys, my wife wants me off the computer. Rather than lose this post, I left it, but I will come back and clean it up and add photos later on today.
Good post again socal. I'll refrain from commenting as I've already made my postion known. Too bad your wife booted you off the puter, I have some rambling sports questions on my new post you might enjoy.
Thanks Johnny and feel free to comment again. Like I said, I am not opposed to voters building stadiums if the voters agree and it benefits the tax payers. These men all rose to power by being shrewd businessmen and they would all try to get things for free, but that does not mean we should give it to them. As for what they earn, I think that is the key word, they earned it. Also, if you can lock up a team for 30 years, then it is makes it more attractive.
Here's how I feel about revenue sharing: eliminate it. The thing about these "percentages" are so you can have a "fair" salary cap. I say get rid of the cap and owners can pay as much or as little as they want to. They can share 100% or 2% of their income. It would be like baseball, but that's ok. Arizona won't be competitive either way, so why does it matter?
No way should they eliminate revenue sharing in the NFL or the cap. There is a reason that the NFL is America's number one sport. Parity. The fact that any team can have their day in the sun is what makes it a national sport. I love baseball, but find it infurating to see the Yankees and Red Sox waltz their way into the playoffs each year. It's like oh the players arbitration is up so they will be in pin stripes or in Bean town next year. I'm not saying small market teams can't compete, it's just a lot more difficult or if you will unfair.
Dr. Crab, I think that is the fairest way to make it for owenrs and players, but I understand some of the apprehension that Johnny and TFOM have. I do not necessarily agree with them. The Yankees and Bosox spend much more than most, but teams like the Marlins and Diamondbacks show that it can be done with good management and farm systems. For that matter in the last 6 years the Yankees and Bosox have 2 titles. The Angels and Whitesox have just as many in the last few years and none of those teams are big spenders like NY or Boston. Spending does not always equate with winning it all. It does help to be competitive.
It's not just titles that are important socal though. It's being able to field a team that is going to be competitive year after year using money rather then wise business decision. Ask yourself where Willis is going after this season. I know it CAN be done, but it is far more difficult.
View it like this. The Yankees spend four times more then many teams (Does anybody have a list of 05 spending?).
Now imagine we are shooting free throws. Suppose I get to shoot 10 and you get to shoot 40. Sure there is a possibility I could make more then you, but it's a lot more difficult.
TFOM, I am not disagreeing with you that it is easier to field a winning team/competitive team if everyone is held to the same dollar amount. Here is the rub, money does not always equate with wins, if it did the Yankees would win every year and the Bosox would as well, and well they just broke the curse a year ago so all that spending has been in vain.
As to the issue of spending caps, there is always an out called the luxury tax. Teams that want to spend more do and pay taxes, so you can never have true equity among teams willing to spend the money. As to no cap, that is just a philosophy that I think should work in a perfect world. We do not live in a perfect world so I do believe a cap of some sort is best. I just don't where players will stop of wanting a higher and higher percentage. Actually, I do know, they will never stop.
I do like the luxury tax, but it needs to be significantly lowered to have any effect. I believe the only teams affected by it are the BoSox and Yankees. Also saying dollars spent is not equivalent to wins is slightly incorrect. It does correlate to wins, just not necessarily championships. If the Yankees had better scouting and were better at building their farm system, they would be unstoppable. As it is now they haven't missed the postseason in 12 years. Only eight teams go each year and now the Yankees and seven others go. Think to the all-star break and trade deadline each year. The Yankees always have enough cash to buy there way out of trouble. Oh, we are short on pitching, someone will sell. Sure other teams have their magical year, free of major injuries, prospects coming up at the right time, and many other things go right, but not the Yankees. They buy their magic and it's a shame. As long as they keep spending the dough we will have a seven team playoff format + the Yankees.
heres a thought....not to put these guys down, or argue your point, but maybe shed some light on the current problems between some of the owners.
first of all, not every one you mentioned here fits into this category. i will say 1 thing about what seems to be dividing the owners regarding sharing revenues, and not allowing the more wealthy owners to spend whatever they have on players.
anyway, with many owners having made their fortunes by their own personal hard work and sacrifice, they should be able to understand what the smaller revenue teams have to deal with. struggling to earn billions of dollars isnt easy i'm sure, however, it is made slightly more realistic when you can expand into several different areas to create more sources of income.
for example, jerry jones, in a large market, can team up with many different corporate sponsors to bring in more and more moneys with which to "play with". it is here that the saying "it takes money to make money" applies best.
now, for the opposing theory, we can look at the green bay packers. owned by the fans, and without much in the way of a huge market for anything nearby, they continue to succeed (relatively speaking) by selling the "family" concept. there is little room for corporate partnerships with pepsi, nike, united airlines, microsoft, or other huge, multi-billion dollar companies. they rely on things such as the salary cap, tradition, and family ideals to remain not only competitive, but in 1 of the smallest revenue generating areas in the entire country.
i agree that owners have the right to make money as they see fit, however, i dont believe that trying to "buy" championships year after year is a good thing. its not good for the fans, the sport, or the owner himself in the long run. eventually, seeing the same team, or small group of teams with the only reasonable shot at winning gets old for the fans, they stop attending games, buying merchandise, or purchasing league wide ppv's on tv. then the league suffers due to revenue loss, and eventually, the owner(s) who started the free spending lose money too. its part of why some teams always seem to be up for sale. owners cant make money in the market they are in, and either want to move the team to a bigger city, or cut their losses and run. the packers were basically non-competitive until not just free agency, but a salary cap was in place, to give them as much chance as anyone at fielding a winner. it worked. there should always be ups and downs for teams based on players getting older or heading for greener pastures, rather than the small market teams becoming a minor league system for the big-money owners.
Some people have been brainwashed to think that anyone with a lot of money is "them" and that equates to "them" being the bad guy. I don't think there is any way, at least in this forum, that you will change people who think like that. Keep up the good writing though, it just might make a difference, you never know.
Hi SoCal - Thank you for putting down on "paper" exactly how I feel, in a much better way than I ever could. Great post, and hopefully it clarifies things a little....
Pat, I did not have time to research all the owners this morning so I just did the ones I knew off the top of my head.
As to everyone who keeps saying the owners are billionaires and making billions I think most of you are wrong. Billions may be involved in the overall TV Deals but it is all split up between players salaries, stadium fees, and all the workers. The owners do make money, but not billions. Many of them make a ton more money from their primary businesses like Daniel Snyder and Red McCombs, they have other lives. Pro SPorts is just a hobby for them and as much as people don't believe it, they love the fans and the teams they grew up watching.
Thanks Halfbaked and Stlrn.
As to the luxury tax TFOM, I think you meant it needs to increase. If it was lowered, then the Yankees would spend even more. As to the current 8 team format or 7 plus the Yankees, I thought that is what having a team was all about, fielding the best team you could. WHy hate the Yankees for giving their market a great product year in and year out. Again, the Braves do it with not nearly as much money, so it is possible to field competitive teams that win 90+ games every season without spending all the money. The Twins are successful most years and their payroll is not nearly as much either. The old Expos and now Nationals are another team that is competitive every year.
if they allow owners to buy themselves the best team, wont it eventually (sooner rather than later) make the draft obsolete? every player coming out will demand to play for who they think is going to be the team to beat. kinda like eli manning, only worse, if you can imagine that.
SoCal - Reference your comment about Pat Snyder and Red McCombs, you can add Patriots owner Robert Kraft to that list. He was a longtime season ticket holder when the Pats were just awful and saved them from being moved out of town, possibly to St. Louis, when he bought them. He also built Gillette Stadium with mostly his own money; very little public financing went into the stadium.
Hi Cuz - I get your point, but most players coming out of college don't have the kind of pull that Eli Manning did, and couldn't influence where they went. Every once in a while a guy comes along who can get away with it, but it's relatively rare - remember John Elway doing the same thing 20 or so years ago?
WEll you guys have Eli all wrong. San Diego did not want him anyway, but do you think they wanted it to sound like they were giving him up. How do you think it was leaked about him not wanting to go to San Diego, it was the Chargers who leaked it. They got cash and Rivers who they wanted all along. It was a two way street. He wanted in the opposite conference of his brother and Chargers needed to get something, but Eli is the bad guy. Don't buy that.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on March 5th at 8:59 PM.
cuz, owners already currenlty buy the best teams. That is my point, but they still do not win. The Colts were the best team this year, but lost. It isn't always about the money ask the Yankees.
socal--I agree with you about Eli...my guess is that certain teams felt Eli was a bigger gamble than the media let on. I don't know if Rivers is going to be good or not, but the jury is still out on Eli. For that matter, the jury is still kind of out on Peyton!
i dont remember the elway thing halfbaked, but it sure pi$$ed off my sister. i was 7 or 8 at the time.
socal, i didnt know that san diego didnt even want eli manning. also, if it had only been him stating his unwillingness to play there, i think it wouldnt have been such a big deal. the problem i had was that his daddy and big brother felt the need to get in their two cents worth. heck, even if it hadnt been family that was celebrity, i dont think it would have been such an issue. it just made me think that eli was like a 4th grader getting beat up by the big kid in class, and had to get his older brother to fight his battles for him.
sorry to say it, but i think he's a wimp, and what makes me most happy about the situation is that he is yet to prove his potential, which the Giants seemed to think was going to get them to the superbowl by now.
I agree in principle. Salaries across the board have gotten way out of hand. It has become a business instead o####ame the "Chief" and others like him became involved in. I played against Joe Willy in H.School and knew him & family well. He claims he started it when the Jets offered & gave that $300,000 contract that was unheard of then. Owners were stupid to begin offering big sums of money, it became a bidding war that basically destroyed major league baseball and will destroy the game of football. My Steelers can't pay the excessive amounts that have come to be demanded by pro players-they can't compete with the big money, deep pockets markets. Big Al
So CAL great fricken post except a couple things need to be worked on.
1. The owners that you mentioned are old school types who have not paid the cash that many of the new school owners paid recently and want to get their money to cover their debt. Guys like Synder, Jones, and other new school deep pocket guys who have a rising debt. Like Jones said sharing is like welfare if these small market clubs aren't hustling to make a buck.
2. It sounds more like the owners are the ones with the rift. See number 1.
3.players not working what world do you come from? Every player I know that is worth a damn has had to work to pay for things growing up.Since most players come from the middle to lower middle class I can tell you this as one of the middle class you had to work when you could to be able to afford the things you wanted. Because let's face it the NCAA div one big money schools aren't into its athletes working part time jobs anymore. Also it depends on what you consider work. How many players work concerts or security especially in So CAL. If its not hard work try standing in front of some drug crazed mosh pit in todays high strung climate.
Good post once again but the sweeping generalization moved this post from a lottery/ franchise pick to a late first high second round pick.
One other comment/not about the owners or the players. Officiating (so it is said, depending on who one is cheering for, or is whom?) has been causing a great deal of grief & always has. Comments to this suggestion/hire intelligent, honest, well-respected ex-football pros to officiate at the games. That may work out better than what is now happening. Why does the mlb have so little problems with bad calls etc. Comments, even if you think I'm stupid for the retired pro suggestion.
The problem with ex pros is this. I am not going to say all but the players are too big of targets. I think the wrong interests will be able to get to them. The refs are in and out and you never really notice them until they screw up.
Can you imagine an ex player with possible serious NFL high life debt and what not ,being encouraged to toss extra flags or not toss them? It sounds like if it isn't already a mix for disaster.
Bigbrutha: Yeah, I didn't think that, but it is a good chance that would happen, given today's need for speed, oops, greed. A cure has to out there somewhere though-is honesty passe?
The only way you can deal with it unfortunately will be the government. The reason I say so is because this becomes a government problem when stadiums are taking money from you and me even if we don't go to the games. So if the game gets to the point where fans are leaving the game because its fixed, and owners are selling left right and center then you can bet the the only people still paying for the stadium will be the the tax payer. Now thats a long shot but until we get the perfect officiating , wait to err is human then we will be second guessing the zebras and the system.
Bottom line the owners need to get their acts together before we find out who really can handle paying 100 million to 53 guys on their own dime and who can't .
Bigbrutha: Whoa! I like the comment/all too true. But the govt, at least the Fed, has always #### things up as of late; and talk about bribes!! And what's worse they won't/don't listen to the people who elected them. We need lobbyists who represent the poor taxpayers, and not the AARP! Added for point/what would happen if we all decided not to go to the games and quit supporting our teams, buying their NFL approved clothing etc and boycott those companies that support the payrolls?? Now I know that will never happen, but, WHAT IF???
if the NFl were a stagnant investment, i would agree with you. but over the last 10 years, they've experienced at least a 10% raise in revenue. Owners like Jerry Jones are packin away cash that will never be shared - that would be the revenue rift between big and small owners. the revenue sharing doesnt even include all NFL money - its not that the owners put everything they earn in the pot. there are stipulation - another owner rift. meanwhile, out of all that, the players want only 5%. and thats for the next decade, meanwhile the ownder will still see their annual 10% raise.
smart business practices arent why i watch the game - i watch the game for the players. Owners have no problems giving Peyton 40 million in cash as a bonus. but if they cut back the ridiculous QB bonuses, and spread the money more evenly around their team - players wouldnt feel the need to fight for more money. owners should be happy the stupid NFLPA isnt fighting for short term guaranteed contracts like every other league on the planet.
Big brutha and Davaal. You guys keep mentioning the jerry Jones and Pat Snyder, (It is Daniel, but I see you edited your comment) as deep pockets guys. The fact remains there are lots of Old School owners and the deep pockets guys came in and spent a fortune on their teams. Jerry Jones saved Dallas from going under and paid 180 million for the team. When you spend that kind of money, back in the late 80's, you deserve the reward. Again, you harp on Peyton getting a huge bonus by the owners, but what you fail to mention is that none of the high paid players will share their money with other players. Do you think Shaun A. will share his new big contract with his O lineman? I don't think so. No matter is the pie is 50-50, the specialty players will make more than linemen. That is no the owners fault. You want all the revenue to go into the pot, then take the appearance fees these guys get and their endorsement money and add it in. If you ask me the only fair system is one that is paid on incentives. Pay a QB for completions, TD's and deduct for interceptions. Pay a linemen for blocks and deduct for a missed assignment. Pay DB's for interceptions and so on.
Good post Socal. Here is how I look at this. The owners of each team want a championship team. They try and do this by spending on players they want and by trying to stay in the black at the same time. It is no different then any other company out there. All companies will tell you location, location, location. Same goes for sports teams. New York is a huge market as far as population and moneys coming in go. So it will have alot of money either way. It is up to the management of that organization on how they disperse that money. Some organizations can handle it better than others. That is why you see the Yankees w/ top notch players year after year. B/c their management is top notch and they have created the environment to succeed year after year. In the end it all comes down to who can manage their money better. There will always be a low end and a high end. That is the free market. I really dont care for revenue sharing(aka welfare or redistribution of wealth). Why should NEw York or L.A. have to share their moneys with Chicago or St. Louis? B/c someone thinks it is unfair that they make more?
Like I said in my first go round on this subject. The prooblem is more with the owners than the NFLPA.
The owners are infighting to figure out how to make more money and not share the money individuals like Jones squeezes every cent out of his stadium and he doesn't want to share with the bengals. The NFLPA wants some of that revenue also. I kinda don't think they are entitled to it.
THE BEST WAY TO PAY THE PLAYERS IS......the model ughh VINCE MacMahon used for the XFL. There I said it. Each player got the same amount and would get bonuses if the team won. Now the cool thing would be to add bonuses for plays made. The only way you are going to keep it fair is this model with some tweaking.
Otherwise who are we kidding why should everyplayer make the same cash?
A block is important but is it more important than the catch? You can argue back and forth on this.
Big, your plan is the only fair plan except one thing, the owners would love this plan but the players would never accept it. You think QB's and running backs are going to take pay cuts to the same level as linemen. It would be an increase for all of the other positions but a loss for those heisman trophy winners and they would never stand for it. Forget the owners, the NFLPA would never sign that.
As to owners LSU, I agree 100%. Why should Jerry Jones give away money if he squeezes it out of his stadium to the Bengals who may not do the same. Each team is independent of the others in their venues, their stadium deals, their local market tv programs, and what they give back to the community. I am against any plan that forces one owner to subsidize the other teams. That would be like making McDonalds pay Burger King to make it fair because they have a bigger market because they are better at selling their product.
As Rozzelle spins in his grave over these morons trying to screw up what he worked so hard for.
Hey if you want into the game which one owner said is the golden goose then you have to play by the rules.
Don't jump in and try to change the deal. The exception was luxury boxes they weren't around in 1961.
If teams start failing you'll get a CFL scene happening with shotty owners and the product will really falter.Look you have a model that works just keep the greed under control.
I know it's been a few comments now, but DaVal makes an interesting point here. The owners like Jerry Jones are enjoying the increase in revenues, right? Plus, as the owner of the Cowboys, he'll be the NFL version of the Yankees as far as revenue capabilities and TV deals, as well as merchandising goes. Therefore, I think Jones and Snyder and others are waiting for this so they can eventually get rid of the cap and make it a have's and have not's league, in a way. A little drastic, but it could be a possibility.
Excellent post socal. Let me make sure I understand, but you are for a no-salary cap, non-revenue sharing NFL? I understand your McDonald's and BK argument, it makes sense, except for the fact that each team is a semi-private entity specific to a city, whereas those restaurants are everywhere, so they compete everywhere. I like the Sports as a business mindset you are taking to this, it's just that I see a smaller market team competing for TV time against teams like New York, Dallas and Washington--because they draw a bigger market share. Now, suppose the small market team is selling out because it's a good season, then everything's fine. Bad season, then what happens to a team like Arizona that relys on revenue sharing so they can go out and sign the Larry Fitzgerald's, Kurt Warner's and whoever else they want? They turn into the NFl's version of the Kansas City Royals.
Last edited by MooreSports on March 6th at 10:43 AM.
Moore, I really am not into the whole revenue sharing thing from how it affects a team or town as much as I am just in favor of businessmen being able to conduct business without intervention based upon helping someone across the country. That is sort of rambling, but I think the current system has been working fine and the NFL product we have today is excellent. I do not think the players deserve more of the pie all the time. Also, if one team does a better job of marketing, should they then give their revenue to a team that has a poor managment style, say like Arizona. If the people of Arizone do not support that team, why should we. Also, I do not consider Denver a high population center like NY or LA. My main beef is if a team is able to pack out the stadium, sell more jersey's, have more luxury boxes, why should they give their money to say Green Bay. Then when Green Bay wins a super bowl, they should give part of their bonus checks back to Dallas for helping them win it all. It makes no sense to me that you try and build the best team possible but pay for other teams to get better. Should the Pats give up some of their bonuses the last few years? That is a small market team with great management.
High payroll like the Redskins does not equate with great teams every year.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on March 6th at 10:46 AM.
Something else to consider also. With satellite cable companies out there,we as consumers are able to buy the NFL NEtwork, which broadcasts every game out there for the year, so who gets to play on TV is going to be null and void in perhaps the next 10 years anyways. By this I mean that all the running and gunning for primetime TV spots, other than playoffs will become less and less.
Well, guys, I'm gonna weigh anchor here, I don't mind players receiving as much as they can. Its just that once you build a winning team as some have done, key players are bought and placed in other teams & they tend to not do as well as they did with their original team. Since I am a BIG Steeler fan I'll mention these players: Louis Lipps, Odonnell, Franco Harris (of course he was just about done anyway), Thigpen, etc. I watched the Steelers since the late 50's and have always been amazed how they did with mininal cash, especially in the 70's. Revenue sharing is not the answer, the concept of a team playing together as the Steelers, Pats, Bengals, Colts did, with team loyalty ruling the day, not how much cash is thrown around. Look how well the Eagles did until they bought that gem T.O.!!! Again, I feel that throwing cash at everything is not the ultimate answer-there has to be team spirit somewhere that makes a player stay, even though he could make 5 million somewhere else
Amen Fuzz. I am currently working on a post that shows how much teams have spent over the last 5 years and the startling facts are in that the teams that spend the most do not win as much as teams like the Patriots, Seahawks, and Tampa Bay. Money does not always equate with wins or more wins or championships.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on March 6th at 2:52 PM.
Hey, no more comments?? I hope they can compromise, y'know a strike/lockout did occur previously and the NHL lost a season. I sorta remember some kind of work stoppage in MLB also, but I'm old and things get fuzzy, that's why I'm called "fuzzboss" (not just because I was a Police Chief for years & years).
