Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Goodell To The Last Drop

In the point after of this week's SI, I wrote a little something about Bud Selig ... and how people cannot help but underestimate him. This has to do with Bud's almost mythical ability to look baffled. Who can forget the Bud after the All-Star Game tie? Who can forget his rambling press conference when he held up the rule book after the rain-delayed World Series game? Who can forget ... well, he's just Bud. One day, he will come out and say that maybe Abner Doubleday did invent baseball and he will come out another day and say that he had never even heard of steroids until two weeks ago and so on.

But Bud Selig has utterly transformed baseball. I'm not saying he's always transformed it for the better. That's a discussion for another time. But at the end of the day, baseball has been transformed -- expansion, wildcards, interleague play, increased revenue sharing, drug testing, relative labor peace, new stadiums, All-Star games that determine homefield advantage, the World Baseball Classic, on and on. Maybe baseball stumbled into some of these things. Maybe it was pulled kicking and screaming. But this stuff happened. And Bud, unquestionably, was a force behind this stuff happening. He works the back rooms. He coaxes and ponders and considers. And sometimes he boldly acts. When he rushed in and took the Dodgers away from Frank McCourt, he was not really doing anything out of character. Bud Selig might be the most influential baseball commissioner ever.

But he does not SEEM that way, does he? He just does not present that sort of image. You know that story about the difference between a schlemiel and schlimazel -- the schlemiel is the guy who spill the soup, and the schlimazel is the guy who gets the soup spilled on him. Bud Selig seems like, well, both.



I bring this up now for an entirely different reason: Roger Goodell is clearly no schlemiel or schlimazel. Roger Goodell looks, as the cliche goes, right out of central casting. He's a powerful looking guy, fills out a suit, gives every impression of being in charge at every moment of every day. If you were in a group stuck on an elevator with Roger Goodell, there is no question he would be in charge even if you had CEOs of companies and three-star generals. There are just people who exude authority, people who will walk down the street and people will just know that they are CEO of something or other. Goodell has that aura.

But, while watching this NFL labor mess, something has occurred to me, something that cuts completely against looks and aura and everything else. It has occurred to me that Roger Goodell might about 20,000 leagues over his head. It has occurred to me that while Bud Selig is destined to be underestimated because of the way he carries himself, that Roger Goodell is destined to be overestimated for exactly the same reason.

Here's my thinking: The owners, under Goodell's leadership, decided to go for broke as they try to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. They did this at a time when the NFL is, by far, the most successful sports league in America, perhaps the world. They did this at a time when the league is a $9 billion entity, when television networks are sending flowers and chocolate, and when reports are coming out constantly about the horrible damage football does to its players. Goodell, in representing the owners, had the gall to cry poor, to demand a billion more right off the top for their billionaire owners, to say that the game could not possibly continue like this, to take money away from players who seem to be dying young and suffering terribly in later years, to actually demand expanding the season.

At this point, the feeling had to be that Goodell knew what he was doing. The NFL is on some kind of crazy winning streak when it comes to building the game -- pro football just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Heck, the NFL DRAFT is now one of the biggest sporting events on the calendar. And that's just a bunch of people in a room writing names on index cards. The league seems invulnerable to harm, and destined only to get richer and more popular and more powerful. On top of that, Goodell just embodies confidence and certainty. If the league officials figured this was the time to take a bunch of money away from the players, hey, who could argue with their record.

Still, there were signs early on that things were not going as planned. In sports' work stoppages, at least in my view, the majority of Americans automatically tend to side with the owners ... or anyway they tend to side AGAINST the players. I think the reasons for this are involved and complicated and worthy of a 10,000-word post of its own. But generally people seem to get angrier at the players they know than the silhouettes of the owners they don't.

But not in this case. Oh, sure, there were plenty who blamed the players, almost out of habit. More than usual, though, seemed to realize that the players were not really asking for anything. It was the owners shrieking that the system was irreparably broken, that they needed more money, that they needed to add games, that they were in big trouble. And when the players asked them open the books and actually PROVE they were in any sort of trouble at all, well, suddenly crickets chirped.

So I think many people blamed the owners for this whole fight. I know I did. I think the NFL owners already have by far the best deal in sports and are driven by pure greed to get more. Roger Goodell's attempts to change this perception seemed to me pretty pathetic and unconvincing. He kept trying to call the attempt to add two games to the regular season a mere "reconfiguring" of the schedule (and he kept saying the fans wanted it though every poll suggested that fans overwhelmingly did not). He kept talking in vague generalities about the financial doom that the league would face if they did not rework the CBA ... and nobody really believed him. He sent what seemed to me an ill-conceived letter to the players association. He sent what seemed to me a ridiculous letter to the fans. And, as expected, he presided over a lockout of the players.

Right now, that lockout looks to be the most self-destructive move a league has made in a long, long time. The lockout was enjoined by a judge on Monday, meaning it's now over. The league is appealing Judge Nelson's ruling, but from what I can tell the league's appeal seems on shaky ground, and as our own Michael McCann says the league now has a whole lot to worry about. The players, assuming the ruling is not overturned, now have serious negotiating power. The owners, assuming the ruling is not overturned, now have a serious problem convincing anyone that they aren't already overflowing in money. This thing has a chance to become a major embarrassment for the NFL owners ... and perhaps more than just an embarrassment. It could be a financial catastrophe.

And based on Goodell's letter to the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. it looks like the impressive NFL commissioner is completely out of ideas. I wrote on Twitter that the only thing missing from this ludicrous letter was exclamation points. You could tell right away that this letter was untrustworthy when in the second sentence he wrote "For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage," as if that was caused by some sort of natural disaster and was not a result of the owners locking out the players. He then talks about how great the NFL system has been for everyone without even taking one sentence to mention the inconvenient fact that it was the owners, not the players, who wanted to blow up the old system in a bald money grab. He then offers an utterly unrealistic and devious doomsday scenario "if the players win," which he knows will never happen and is only in play now because of the owners greedy lockout that was slammed down by the courts.

It all screamed of desperation and, frankly, it felt a bit incompetent too. If Bud Selig ever wrote a stroy like that, people would be pulling out their torches and pitchforks. Roger Goodell is undoubtedly a brilliant guy, and he has a strong history with the league, and he is trying to represent a a group of very different owners who probably resent they have to give ANY of their money for the players. But that's the job of commissioner, and right now it looks like Goodell is flailing.

Of course, maybe he isn't. Maybe he has expected everything that has happened and has contingency plans that are not easily seen now. Maybe everything is going exactly according to plan. I have mentioned that I am reading Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate" about Lyndon Johnson, and the amazing thing about LBJ as Senator was how he manipulated people without them knowing it, how sometimes he wanted bills he supported to fail, and how sometimes he wanted people he differed with on his side, and how he had a clear plan that he did not want anyone to see until it was too late.

Maybe Goodell is like that too. That is is certainly the reputation he has built in many quarters. I am beginning to think, though, that reputation is way, way off. Bud Selig is clearly much more effective and authoritative than he lets on. I can't help but wonder if Roger Goodell is exactly the opposite.

55 comments:

  1. There is too much emphasis on persons and personality. Media always makes that mistake when writing about labor disputes between a union and a league.

    Goodell, the individual, has very little to do with this labor situation. The owners made a decision based on advice from attorneys and financial advisors (and perhaps from Goddell). He is simply implementing that decision.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is easily the smartest and most-logical piece I've read on the NFL labor mess. Bravo, Joe. Fantastic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When Roger got the job, some smart writer (Dr. Z?) suggested that he'd be a bad commissioner b/c he suffers from little man disease and needs to act tough all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Goodell leaves a bad taste with me, with wanting to expand the season, add a team in London and how he used to talk of adding headsets into the offensive players' helmets. I just get the feeling that it's profit over fans and it makes me not so excited about football this year. I'd be OK on them skipping a season just to cleanse my palette.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why would anyone think that Goodell, and not the owners, is calling the shots?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is known as the "Warren Harding effect" (as popularized by Malcom Gladwell in "Blink").

    ReplyDelete
  7. I want to see the supremely arrogant NFL knocked down a few pegs. The way I see it, the more chaos, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Excellent, excellent piece. I have felt for years that Selig is badly underestimated. He has been a remarkably effective commissioner, although effective doesn't always mean that fans and the press like what he's doing. It means that to an incredible degree his vision for Major League Baseball has come to fruition. Really, the only part of your description of Selig that I'd argue with is that he "might" be the most influential commissioner ever. To me it's clear that he is.

    I don't know that I would say that Goodell is in over his head. He's still only had the job for a short period of time and we won't really be able to judge his tenure for another, oh, 15-25 years. But it's clear that he has advocated a very aggressive position with regard to the CBA and right now he's getting his ass handed to him. And personally I think the owners deserve every inch of the beating they're taking. Their positions throughout this process have been cynical and unethical.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It seems to me that Goodell has always been about power plays and he is losing this one big time.

    You cannot try to negotiate a CBA based on a percentage of revenue and then refuse to open your books so that the people getting paid can figure out whether they are being screwed. Heck, maybe they weren't being screwed but when you try to hide your books it certainly looks that way.

    His letter that you linked looks like a desperate plea to sway public opinion. (a big difference from the arrogant statements of only a few months ago) At this point, public opinion does not matter. They are going to have to open their books and they now desperately need a new union and CBA to continue parity and keep the league successful.

    Besides the pending anti-trust suit, (and those of you with legal backgrounds can correct me on this if I am wrong, which is a distinct possibility) entering the season without a CBA and salary cap would open the league up to lawsuits by players currently under contract who had to deal with a negotiated salary cap structure and were denied the advantages that current free agents might have without a cap.

    This could end up in the complete chaos of having all the players up for grabs, with no maximum payroll, (he mentions no minimums, but fails to mention no maximums.) No PED policy, (and don't kid yourself, alot of players will take advantage of that.) a draft this week that will mean nothing, (all part of the free agent chaos.) and teams that will not be viable financially.

    As I see it, the owners are going to have open their books AND bend over backwards just to avoid this now. They are desperate, in a corner, and put themselves there, under Goodells misguided "leadership."

    ReplyDelete
  10. PED policy? What's that? 6'5", 280 lb. guys who bench press 6oo lbs. and run a 4.4 40, and someone thinks the NFL has a PED policy?

    Fascinating, penetrating observation on Selig. Schlemiel/schlimazel - absolutely brilliant. Definitely highly influential, definitely most competently incompetent.

    NFL? Who cares? It's baseball season.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ever since reading "Lords of the Realm" (about baseball's owners), I pretty much always take the players' side in disputes such as these. And my knowledge of how sports owners behave has had an impact on how I view capitalism, generally. I'm a little surprised that people don't instinctively side with the players. Perhaps if the owners' income (as opposed to their salaries) was as widely known as the players' salaries, things would be different.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, please do write that 10,000 word piece on why fans tend to side with management. It's an intereting topic and I'm not sure why fans react the way they often do.

    College basketball players are compensated far below their market value and many fans seem to think they're lucky to get anything at all. NFL players sign deals in which the team can sever the contract at any time and nobody seems to think this is unfair. Why? Is it general anti-labor sentiment or pure jealousy that these guys get paid at all to play a game or something else?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Has anyone ever seen Bud and Jerry Gergich in the same room?

    ReplyDelete
  14. For years now people have been bashing unions as job killers and corrupt and so on. I think there's a general consensus that unions had a place in America once upon a time, but that time has passed.

    It would seem the NFL owners could grab a hold of this anti-union sentiment and ride it into the sunset. But, the NFL has turned out to be a little different than your traditional work place. For one, the evidence clearly shows it's an unsafe workplace. There is a growing sentiment that health care for retirees should be a benefit for players, based on the amount of physical abuse players take throughout their career. People are starting to believe that players deserve larger pensions.

    I don't know why these ideas are creeping into the mainstream. In the real world, those kinds of thoughts have been aggressively quashed by the anti-union people. But in the NFL, here we are talking about concussions and healthcare and pensions as if they are viable options. Maybe when we watch large men literally crashing into each other, we can see how dangerous their work is. Maybe when we can see in super slow motion a guy tearing his ACL, it's obvious that the players need some type of protection. Maybe when we watch a player get conked on the head and then collapse on the field like a bag of bones, we understand the punishment these guys take.

    Whether Goodell is over his head or not is up for debate. Maybe he is. Or, maybe he and the owners have underestimated that, for a change, many people have an appreciation for the rights of workers in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is pretty simple why owners in sports are viewed more favorably than the players. They are the indispensable members of the team. These guys (or gals) are billionaires with or without the sports team. They are doing the community a favor by owning the sports team. If they all collectively quit the NFL, the league would fold, or at the very least be reconfigured in a very different way. The 32 most irreplaceable people associated with the NFL are the owners. In 10 years, Peyton Manning will have been replaced as the best QB in the league by someone who is now in High School. In 10 years, Jerry Jones will still own the Cowboys.

    In short, their money makes the league go round. And, again, almost all of them are super rich without the NFL. They would simply be making billions in some other venture if the NFL wasn't around. We can all think they collectively are a bunch a-hole capitalists, but we the fans need them more than we need any group of players. The current players need them even more.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Maybe it's because I live in the South but I know very few people who are siding with the players on this.

    I'm tired of hearing about the dangers of the sport. Coal mining is dangerous. Oil rig worker is dangerous, being in the armed services is dangerous. But you know what, these players have a choice. They don't have to take these jobs. And that's just it. They are jobs. The players are not partners in the NFL, they are employees. Shut up and get to work.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I think there's a general consensus that unions had a place in America once upon a time, but that time has passed."

    There are five Republican state senators and one governor in Wisconsin who are about to find out if that is indeed true.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The players are not partners in the NFL, they are employees. Shut up and get to work."

    Again, fascinating on the point of why people generally take the owners side: as it is the owners locking the players out -- the players are not on strike. Even after Joe makes that very point, people do not seem to be able to understand that very simple fact. The truth is that many players showed up to work yesterday and were turned away by their employers.

    I truly hope the players take the owners for a ride. I've never gone to a sporting event to watch an owner. I pay to see the players.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "It is pretty simple why owners in sports are viewed more favorably than the players. They are the indispensable members of the team. These guys (or gals) are billionaires with or without the sports team. They are doing the community a favor by owning the sports team. If they all collectively quit the NFL, the league would fold, or at the very least be reconfigured in a very different way."

    If they all quit, 32 other enterprising folks will rent stadiums and hire players, because there will always be money to be made in setting up a system to watch the best players in the world compete. The owners are complete replaceable. They are nothing without the players.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @brhalbleib
    "They are doing the community a favor by owning the sports team. If they all collectively quit the NFL, the league would fold, or at the very least be reconfigured in a very different way."

    If they decided to quit the NFL, other people with money to invest would band together to take advantage of the obvious business opportunity presented by the tremendous interest in football among the American public.

    They aren't doing anyone a favor. They are trying to make money. That's well and good, but we should stop short of worshiping them for it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This "business is doing us little folks a favor thing" isn't just in sports -- that has been an effective line for big business for years now. "Cut our taxes because we pay you or else we'll move, etc." The constant threats from big business to the rest of us who keep this country running, and we've eaten it up like slobs.

    Time to demand our fair share. I'm sick of being crapped on by 1% of this country.

    Sorry, going a bit of the deep end here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Mikey: "Really, the only part of your description of Selig that I'd argue with is that he "might" be the most influential commissioner ever. To me it's clear that he is."

    I'm not sure about that. I'd agree that he's the most influential commissioner since Landis, but short of some serious persuasion, I'm still plumping for Landis and his influence on the game meaning more than Selig and his. It's much, much easier to be more influential in the infancy (or maybe adolescence in this case) of anything than in its maturity.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks for writing an honest piece about Goodell and the NFL. You and Bill Simmons are the only prominent writers whom I've seen criticize Goodell and the owners for the way they've behaved. It seems like too many writers (i.e. Peter King) have sipped the "aura" Kool-Aid, and it's a little disgusting.

    King openly wondered in his Monday column why there isn't more interest in this year's draft, and it's obvious that fans are quickly growing tired of the NFL charade. We are not as dumb as we look Roger.

    ReplyDelete
  24. People tend to side with the owners because they're jealous of the players. "You get paid a million bucks to play a game, a freakin' game that I would play for free!"

    People are stupid a lot of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think many people agree that Roger Goddell doesn't have the aura of being in charge, but the command of being in charge. He is more Dan Snyder with how he uses his position to bully his opposition. His attack of Charles Woodson's 24 line was more about control than anything.

    Goddell finally got in trouble because in the labor negotiations, there is no single opponent. He has interests to protect on both sides and is proving that he a poor arbiter and negotiator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think the fascinating thing is that the owners are still in a position to get what should be regarded as a huge win. The players are ready to go to work under a collective bargaining agreement that is ludicrously profitable for the owners. They are ready to just continue along with the status quo when any other players' association would tell them they should be howling for better working conditions, more money, guaranteed contracts.

    So yes, Goodell has overreached. But even at that, it seems like the owners are going to be the big winners. I just hope that their hubris costs them fans and team support. But with personal seat licenses and all sorts of mechanisms to guarantee income even if the fans don't show up, I doubt the owners would care.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I just hope that their hubris costs them fans and team support. But with personal seat licenses and all sorts of mechanisms to guarantee income even if the fans don't show up, I doubt the owners would care."

    Well, that only works in the very short term, and many of the NFL owners are well aware of that.

    The truly indispensable part of the business model of professional sports is fan interest. Get rid of the owners, professional football will march on. Get rid of the players, and other players will move in. Get rid of the fan interest, and the whole thing dries up and blows away.

    ReplyDelete
  28. There has been a lot of research to Joe's point about leadership confirming what he says. People who look and carry themselves like confident leaders in our culture (read middle aged white men who can fill a suit) can blunder about and still regard themselves as authorities, and worse, others will continue to overestimate their leadership even in the face of disaster. The converse is also true.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with a lot of the posters here. I think the fact that people usually side with the owners is sort of a microcosm of the way capatalism is treated here. Middle and lower class people have been raised with narratives to not only think it's ok that CEOs make much much more then they do... the think it's right! It's very amazing to me to see how well big business has done to convince people that their salaries should be low for the sake of the business but that the upper level "need" high salaries. Sorry if this is too political

    ReplyDelete
  30. d713b640-70ee-11e0-a30c-000bcdcb5194, you are forgetting that big businesses are too big to fail. CEO compensation reminds me of Artie Ziff from the Simpsons. After he tried to molest Marge at the prom, he said to her, "Marge, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell anyone about my busy hands. Not so much for myself, but I am so respected, it would damage the town to hear it."

    The same could be said of CEO salaries - "I need to make an obscene amount of money. Not so much for myself, but because I am so important, it would damage the country if I didn't."

    ReplyDelete
  31. However this ends is going to bad for small markets. When the owners found replacement players in 1987, it broke the union, but it also allowed for the present day system in which any team, including the league's smallest market, could contend for a title.

    When Sonia Sotomayor (a Yankee fan it should be noted)ended baseball's efforts at replacement players, it resulted in the present system in which big market teams are routinely competitive and small market teams are routinely uncompetitive.

    What's going unnoticed, is that as momentum shifts to the players, we will more likely end up with a solution that will screw small markets.

    ReplyDelete
  32. brhalbleib ignores both history and reality. When there were too few NFL teams, the AFL arose. Then the USFL. XFL. There is still Arena Football. The leagues that folded without sending their best teams into the NFL did so because of competition from the existing NFL. If every NFL team owner quit, the television networks would happily fund every team that did not have owners, insisting (of course) that they started with the 25 biggest television markets before doubling up or serving smaller towns, and there would still be a football season. And I bet the networks would come out further ahead on the deal, since they wouldn't have to pay the owners their cut.

    Now the good owners, the guys like Jerry Jones, with vision enough to make the Cowboys a national brand, the Maras and the Debartolos and the Rooneys, they'd be hard to replace. And you know what they have in common? They treat their players well (so players want to come play for them) and treat their fans well (both in fan experience and in getting good players which tends to reward fans with winning teams).

    Nobody buys a Kraft jersey. They might buy a Patriots jersey with no player name on it, but they are more likely to buy a Patriots jersey with Brady's name on it. The smart owners know that it is the the combination of team plus player that leads to fan loyalty and higher profits. This lockout is being driven by stupid owners who don't realize that the game is about the players, the teams, and the fans, and not about how much money the teams make.

    If Goodell were acting in the best interests of the game (instead of the perceived best interests of the profits of owners who don't understand that) then there would be no lockout. And fans who think the owners are right deserve no football.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Tarnished Crown: "What's going unnoticed, is that as momentum shifts to the players, we will more likely end up with a solution that will screw small markets. "

    The NFL had limited free agency (good for small markets), enormous television revenue shared equally (good for small markets), a minimum player payroll (good for small markets), and a maximum player payroll (good for small markets). That was status quo until the owners instituted a lockout. Don't blame the players for being locked out.

    Still don't get it? Tomorrow night Cam Newton will get told that his right to work as a professional football player is owned by some team, but he cannot go to work for them because the owners have locked out the players. How is that not slavery? I know that if I were told I could only design games for Microsoft and nobody else, I'd have one hell of a lawsuit. And so far, the courts agree with the players.

    Still not convinced. NFL minimum salary is $400K. Median NFL lifetime earnings is under $3,000,000. If you make $80,000/year (which is middle class these days) and work 40 years, you'll earn more during your career than will half of the NFL players in the NFL.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I do not begrudge the owner's their money or even the player's, but how can the owner's cry poverty when this is what their executives make? This is the problem when certain employees are treated no longer as employees but as riskers of capital and titans of industry. They are employees same as the janitors. I am sure you could have thousand and thousands of people (with awesome credentials) willing to work at 1/10 of the Commissioner salary (do not tell me about his $1 trick, he will be bonused anything he gave up).
    Steve Bornstein, head
    of NFL Media and NFL Network: $7.44 million in total
    compensation.

    Jeff Pash, chief labor
    negotiator and general counsel: $4.85 million.

    Eric Grubman, executive VP who oversees marketing and sponsorships: $4.44 million.

    Former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, outside consultant: $3.3 million.

    Joe Browne, executive VP of communications: $1.7
    million

    Ray Anderson, executive VP of football
    operations: $1.12 million.

    Anthony Noto, COO: $853,000.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "They are doing the community a favor by owning the sports team."

    Really? I believe there is a Super Bowl championship team in Green Bay that might disagree with that statement.

    ReplyDelete
  36. When Roger Goodell became the NFL commish I had hopes that he would come to the job with the idea that he was there for "good of the game." That covers an enormous range of issues but the two that I care most about are: 1. Taking much better care of the former NFL players in terms of comprehensive medical treatment and a better pension/retirement plan. And, #2. Improved player safety for those now playing and future players.

    I think it's a pox on all three of the houses in this current labor battle (Players/Owners/Goodell). The current players are extremely out of touch if they aren't paying attention to former players with all types of debilitating physical conditions. The current players are heading down that same road. How they cannot take the lead on this issue is beyond me. It would win them even more favor with most of us bystanders. The same could be said for owners, who have built their businesses on the backs of these former greats, and who now ignore their presence. And, why Goodell has not stepped in and demanded that these former players get a bigger piece of the pie is very telling.

    I once loved to watch and follow the NFL. It's now almost too painful for me to watch. Now, it seems like a victory each week if no current player becomes paralyzed or no older retiree is reported to be homeless with dementia due to head injuries.

    Everyone involved in these negotiations should be ashamed of how they have treated or represented former players. I'm not sure why Goodell could not step in and plead for this issue to be near the top of the list when they are at the bargaining table. So far, he has been a huge disappointment - c'mon Roger, have some cajones and do what is right for ALL concerned!

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ brhalbleib

    I am not sure how you can see things this way, unless of course you are just playing devil's advocate.

    The NFL comprises almost 1700 athletes, that are the absolute best at what they do in the entire world. If we were to lose those athletes, and settle for the next best 1700, the quality of play would undoubtedly suffer and the sport would not be as enjoyable to watch. By contrast, the list of NFL owners could turn over 100 times and the majority of us would hardly even take notice. Millionaires and billionaires are a dime a dozen, and there will always be one willing to step in and own an NFL team. There is only one Tom Brady.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I agree that people usually side with the owners because of jealousy of the players. Most of us once had the dream of playing a professional sport before the reality of our genetics set in.

    Owners want to have it both ways. The draft this week is a perfect example. The owners are declaring exclusive rights to the player. With that right comes responsibility.

    If you or I work for a company and are unhappy, we can look for another job in a similar field. Could you imagine if all of us were subject to a draft. Congratulations non college bound senior! You have been drafted by Walmart! Doctor Jones you have been drafted by the VFW! Congrats on your teaching degree, you have been drafted by an inner city Detroit school! You move in a month!

    The owners have to give up ownership of the players before they become simple employees.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jason also makes a good point about being the 1700 best in the world, but it is even more exclusive than that if you break it down by position. There are 32 starting tackles. The worst one, the one you think sucks, is still in the top 32 in the world at what he does. The last scrub on the bench is one of the top 100 in the world at what he does. He is one in 60,000,000.

    None of us commenting here are that good at anything. There are things that I am good at, that impress my friends, that I consider skills. Those things I am better at than 99% of others, I am still only one in 100. That means that 60 million people in the world are just as good as I am. Even if you are someone special who has a one in a million talent, the worst pro football player is 60 times better at what he does than you are at anything.

    Something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Perhaps, like Messrs. Spalding and Doubleday, Bud is a Theosophist.

    ReplyDelete
  41. KAHZAD and Jason. American football is not played by the "world" so you can't use 6 billion people as your pool. It's strictly North American. Now that's not to say that those players are not good - of course they are - but let's not over credit them (like they need more worship that they already get).

    Also keep in mind that the entire 1700 players turn over every so many years anyway. It's a pretty short career. Every year the best in the country get drafted in. There really is an endless supply of the best in the "world". And if the potential pay packet is 7 mil instead of 8 mil they will still be lining up to get into it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The NFL blows. Its hard core fans are insufferable and the media...... I like to call the NFL media the "Omerta Media"...you can never get the MSM to say one bad thing about the NFL.

    College Football is a million times better than the NFL.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I [Joe] wrote on Twitter that the only thing missing from this ludicrous letter was exclamation points.

    I thought you were gonna say comic sans.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. t's hard to work up any sympathy at all for the owners. They start the season already in the black, with revenue sharing, season ticket sales, and TV money. They have the taxpayer pick up the tab for new stadiums and infrastructure, then sell PSL for more bucks. They pay no taxes whatsoever, because of "depreciation". The contracts are one-way-the player is bound for several years, the owner can cut him loose at the expense of a fictional "cap-hit". And they pay a pittance to the retired players who helped build the game into the marketing titan it is. Sorry, I know that union busting is blood sport, pensions earned are something to be scorned and defaulted on, and deriding the efforts and pay, large and small, of anyone who is labor instead of capital is the "in" thing to do, but I propose a little shared sacrifice. For every dollar the owners can wring out of the player's hands, let them return half of that to the fans who buy the tickets, the beer, and the jerseys. Then the owners can take the other half, kick in a dollar of their own, and start paying back the taxpayers who build their private gilded palaces.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think a reason some people tend to side with the owners is due to how they look at the players. The players recieve all of this money and look at the type of people some of them are..the guns, the holier than me attitudes, the numerous children with the numerous women, the general "thug" behavior. People see this and the money they are getting and I think they take the perspective that they dont deserve it.

    Why should we foloow a player or pay to see a player who by any other rights should be in jail. Now I am not saying that all of the players or even a majority are like this. But there are enough of them to create this type of attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is why I live the CFL. The players get paid about as well as canadian teachers and nurses, and two thirds of the teams lose money most years. It's a really great thing we have going up here in canada.

    ReplyDelete
  48. For what it's worth, I'd love to read that 10,000 word post on why people tend to side against the players. I've always found it to be a strange phenomenon, especially when you consider that a) the vast majority of the players are not making anywhere near Peyton Manning money, and b) probably every single one of the owners is making more than Peyton Manning money, without destroying their bodies in the process.

    Also, I noticed that they did that schlemiel and schlimazel joke on Parks and Rec...was that an intentional reference?

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Dinky

    I am not denying any of your points or saying the players are not getting screwed.

    Frankly, I am neither pro-owner or pro-player, I am pro-small market. I totally agree that the present system benefits small markets. My only point is that whatever changes are to come will likely make that much less so.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What about if Goodell/owners came in and said, "Okay, we'll cave on the money and the two extra games. But we all need to clean up the sport's image." And then demand a strong PED policy (including blood testing for HGH), mandate advanced helmet design, penalize players whose helmet comes off during play, and insist that all players (including practice squaddies) have baseline tests done for concussion assessments.

    I think the fight would be over. If the players didn't agree to that, they'd look bad. If they still wanted to fight about something, there's always the retirees' pension and healthcare.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I wrote a blog post about why fans are likely to side with the owners a little over a month ago. Some of you have touched on my reasoning. The link is here: http://unconventionalidiot.blogspot.com/2011/03/players-vs-owners.html

    But I'll summarize. Fans identify with players when they're young. Fans had dream of being a player taken away due to lack of skill or bad luck. Fans think they would love to play this game for money. Fans can't understand why players would turn down money to play this game.

    That being said, I'm on the players side in this dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The reason fans side with owners instead of players is that historically, players have been the ones causing labor stoppages to get better deals. The idea of rich people hurting fans to get more money to play a game most people would play for free seems grossly unfair to most people. However, in this case it is the owners who are causing the stoppage. When the NHL locked out the players most of the franchises were losing money and would have gone out of business if things hadn't changed. The NFL is awash in money and the only reason a NFL owner could be losing money is gross incompetence.
    The analogies to labor relations in other industries to football are invalid. If a company in most industries find a way to produce its products more efficiently it will eventually put its competitors out of business and grow enought to take over the market share of the inferior competitors. No matter how good the Patriots are they can only field one team and they can never put the Buffalo bills out of business.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The schlemiel-schlmozzle (yeah, sp.) joke, first time I heard it, was on Taxi. Louie was explaining that the Congressman, played by Jeffrey Tambor of Arrested Development fame, was a schlmozzle (except it was a drink, not soup). Tambor's character had won his seat--barely--because his opponent was up for murder.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It's hard to side with the owners because being an NFL player is one of the worst jobs in America.

    -- To get a job as an NFL player you need to work for 3 to 5 years as an indentured servant. NCAA football players can't work jobs to make money--they have to work long and hard hours to make money for their schools. Sure, they get room and board, but so do indentured servants. They risk crippling or life-altering injury every day at work (both at practice and on game day). And because they are only indentured servants, they don’t get long term disability insurance to protect against these injuries. If they try to actually get paid for their services (i.e., act like adults and not indentured servants) they are fired and blacklisted. They may get an "education" out of the bargain, but if you want to be good enough to be one of the rare few that gets to play in the NFL, you don't have the time or energy to actually learn enough of any subject for it to have any value [the fact that the exceptions to this phenomena are so rare and notable--such as Rhodes Scholar Myron Rolle--means that the exception only proves the rule].

    -- After many years of indentured servitude, they get drafted to go work somewhere. They don’t get to pick where to go. If they don’t like it, they can’t work anywhere else. The employer has all the bargaining power. Their only option is to go home and live off of all that money they made putting in 60 to 100 hour weeks for the past for years (oh, that’s right, they didn’t make any money). They go to work and do whatever their bosses tell them to do and don’t ask any questions.

    -- If you are a top 10 pick you get a huge signing bonus, congrats, you won the lottery.

    -- Everyone else gets some crappy unguaranteed contract. Don’t like you boss—tough, you’re fired and don’t get paid any more. Get injured so now you’re too hurt to work—tough, you’re out of luck. Your boss brings in someone else who’s better at your job—tough, you’re fired and don’t get paid any more. Boss wants to ship you to some other city—tough, you don’t want to move you get fired and don’t get paid any more. So all of that indentured servitude leads to more indentured servitude.

    ReplyDelete
  55. -- Free agency is largely a mirage. Most players don’t actually survive long enough to make it there. And if you do, you have like a 50/50 shot of getting franchised. That may not sound too terrible, but the free agent signing bonus (not the contract money—that’s not guaranteed and the vast majority of players don’t get their full contract value anyway) is the one big score that these guys get. That’s what they need to use for their whole life—that’s the house (not just the down payment), the savings, and the kids college. These guys don’t go on to make big bucks when they retire. They’re largely playing for that one payday so that they can take care of themselves and their families. Most of them never get there. [I don’t think people realize how much of a crap shoot it is even after you’ve made the NFL.]

    -- Most of these players get paid well—low to mid six figures—but not nearly well enough to compensate them for their horrific working conditions, risk of injury, and abusive bosses.

    -- Everyday at work the players risk crippling or life-altering injury. Only it’s worse in the NFL because you play more games, and the people hitting you are much, much larger and they hit you harder.

    -- After working as hard as you possible can to help your boss, your job has destroyed you physically and mentally. So your boss fires you and hires someone else. The average NFL service time is like 3-5 years. Which means, on average, NFL players spend as much time working in college—for no pay—as they will working in the NFL.

    -- Being an NFL player turns your brain into jello and turns you into a cripple. The helmets and pads don’t prevent injury—they just hide the injuries from the fans. Most NFL players have many concussions and other repeated, low impact brain injuries. This lowers their IQ, causes mental illness, and has resulted in high numbers of suicides and other anti-social type criminal activity in former players. Most NFL players also suffer sever joint problems, back problems, and early arthritis. Many of them can’t run or even walk 15 or 20 years after they retire. They are 100% uncompensated for their injuries. [It was awful for Michael Vick to run a dog fighting ring—but is the gladiatorial sport known as the modern NFL any more humane?]

    -- Rather than recognize the harm caused to former players, the NFL denies, denies, denies. They use “safer” helmets, which just means that NFL players can play harder and thereby suffer more latent, internal injuries that will be discovered in 10 to 15 years (at which point the NFL will again deny, deny, deny).

    -- NFL players are not educated people. They don’t know how to handle their money. More than half of them are bankrupt within thee years of retiring. Bankrupt: not meaning that they have no money; meaning that they have more debts than they have money. This means that it’s a better financial decision to work at Wal-Mart than to work for the NFL.

    A lot of this used to be hidden. But the more we learn about former NFL players, and the toll that being an NFL player has taken on their lives, the harder it is to feel sorry for NFL owners. I’d be happy if the players extracted every last dime out of the owners—the players deserve it. They’re the ones that literally risk life and limb every Sunday in the fall to give us entertainment. And for the NFL owners to demand that the players take a smaller cut not only sounds greedy, it also sounds morally reprehensible in a way. When someone risks their own health so that your business can make money, it feels like you have a duty to take care of them more so than in the usual employer—employee relationship.

    ReplyDelete