Labor Pains...

As a fan of the NFL and everything that embodies it, I could really care less about who wins in this power struggle between Billionaires and Millionaires so long as come August of this year I am drafting my dominating fantasy football squads, having some beers, eating wings and preparing for Thursday Night Football to kick the festivities off.

With now one day looming until the NFL inevitably locks the players out, there are three major issues that the two sides can't seem to agree on, but will inevitably have too. Aside from the fact that the the way the NFL has been operating has been working  as they have continually seen it's growth through the worst recession in this country since the 30's and shows no signs of slowing, but I guess that's not enough. Also though, I think all three issues can help each other in the long run. They need to worked out in combination and not in and of themselves...so here my take.

1. Money

The first and foremost issue in this whole nuisance is of course; money. The NFL already takes 1 billion off the top of all revenue's and is looking to take another $1 billion off the top for the next seven years. So in essence the players are losing $7 billion over the long run. Honestly though, I am surprised the NFL wants just another flat $1 billion. If ratings are any indication (advertising dollars are a huge revenue contributor) this years Super Bowl was the highest rated ever beating last years which was the highest rated ever beating the year's before and so on... So it's pretty safe to assume that with the economy seemingly bouncing back a bit that there's no reason the NFL isn't going to keep growing anyway, so I think if the owners would have said give me a percentage off the top rather than a flat number, they could have potentially made more money in the long run. Either way though, the NFL is definitely asking the players to give them more money claiming they are losing money but yet won't show them their books. Now of course, in almost any other job in America if your owner tells you that they want to cut your salary, they are not obligated to show you any proof as to why it is so because they probably know you'll take the cut or walk and they'll find someone else at the price they want. I get this argument too only, push come to shove, we the fans are the reason both of these parties can even be fighting, because basically they are fighting over who gets the bigger share of OUR money.

So now back to the money, if the NFL now takes 1 billion off the top already, basically when the everyone says the players get 60% and the owners get 40% that's really untrue. Lets say the total revenue last year was an even $10 billion. So the owners get 1 billion and they split the other $9 billion 60/40 so the players get $5.4 billion and the owners get $3.6. Add the $1 billion to that and its $4.6 billion for the owners. So roughly the players get 54% and the owners get 46%. Too me, I understand why the NFL owners are upset here, I don't know any business out there that would give that high a percentage to its workforce. So under what the NFL owners are proposing now, taking the same $10 billion, take $2 billion off the top. The owners also probably won't keep the 60/40 split on the rest of the money so lets say the players get forced into something like 55/45. So the players would get 55% of $8 billion which is $4.4 billion, meaning the owners would then be getting $3.6 billion plus the $2 billion they already took off the top. So basically they would flip sides as the owners would get $5.6 billion to the players $4.4 billion. Either way though, it seems that both side are still winning to the average man. But the other two main factors could help the players accept something like this which in the long run I think they are going to have too.

2. Rookie Wages

The second issue is the rookie wage scale. Inflating incomes in all sports as a whole is a pretty incredible thing given today's economic turmoil. As all companies out there are cutting salaries and jobs altogether, we have athletes now who year after year will only sign contracts that beat the player's the year before. In fact, St. Louis Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols was able to turn down a 10 year $300 million GUARANTEED contract and probably because he knows someone out there will pay him more. Craziness but he's probably right. In the NFL, rookies have been getting the best end of the deal as every single season, the #1 pick commands a percentage more money than the #1 pick the year prior without having any work experience in the league in which they are entering. Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture when Sam Bradford entered the league making money that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are now making without ever having thrown a pass. So lets say the first issued got resolved in the way put forth (because I have a feeling the owners will outlast the players and make them make the concessions) above with the players now only splitting $4.4 billion. If the rookie's coming in got very modest contracts (as they should) then there would be much more money to go around to pay the veterans who earned it by far exceeding the NFL average career lifespan of 3.4 seasons. So yeah, overall the salaries of the players go down, but the veterans worthy of the bigger contracts would have more of the money and isn't that how it should be? Also remember, the league is continually growing so no matter the percentage they have, they should always be dividing more money amongst them.

Now quickly too, I am not so scared of the owners getting more money, because as ESPN's Colin Cowherd put it, I care about how viable my owner is rather than how many more cars my running back is able to buy. Sure will some of the owners be greedy and keep their funds for themselves? Of course. The Bengals owner will love this. But that's part of why they are owners, for most of them its a business and business is about maximizing profits and cutting costs. I do however also believe that with more money at their disposal, a good amount of owners can and will better keep their franchises afloat and provide more ways for the fans to enjoy the game overall.

3. 18 games

The third factor in this whole debate is the looming 18 game schedule. Now here's the kicker. Of course 2 more games means 2 more weeks that players can injure themselves but the NFL is hell bent on cleaning up the game as we all saw how hard they came down on illegal hits this year. Sorry to tell all the fans of the game, this is just the beginning. If they can change rules mid season this year than they will keep doing so until they feel they "helped" the players prevent injuries better, whether we the fans or the players themselves like it or not. Players and fans will be forced to evolve. Now I am unsure what 2 more games will mean pay wise for the player but I am sure the owners hope to be able to pay them the same only stretch it over 2 more weeks but I think they will have to compromise on this. They should have to pay their players 2 more game checks at regular value. But they will also have much more money to do this. 2 more games means 2 more full priced sell outs, for most teams, also 2 more weeks of advertisers paying top dollar for commercial space as right now they don't because pre-season ratings, though pretty high, don't compare to regular season games. Basically it seems that the NFL would find no issues paying their players properly for 2 more games if that's what inevitably happens.

As fan, I could really care less about who wins this battle. I just want football on Sunday in the fall and I am sure they will manage to get a deal done but the players have to realize something. The NFL agreed to this CBA in 2006 but made sure to include the opt out feature. Why? Because they probably aren't stupid and realized that this deal wasn't in their best interests in the first place. The players should of realized that then and been negotiating this thing for the last 5 years rather than only start now at the zero hour.

I see good and bad arguments coming from both sides and I am sure they will get something done or else the real losers in this whole battle is WE the FANS.

* As of writing this article, I would just like to acknowledge that the first owner to show up to the negotiations is New York Giants owner John Mara. Kudos to Mara, his father was a pioneer in the NFL and now his son takes the first steps to helping this situation. Further adding to why the Giants are awesome.

* For great information on the subject, the economist authors of the New York Times Bestseller Freakonomics talked about this on there recent podcast. Very informative, you can find it here http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519