04/26/24
April 07, 2009
Does that make Adalius Thomas Che Guevara?: Michael Felger on the hidden meaning of Thomas' labor remarks last week.
'In reading Thomas’ remarks, I’m reminded of “The Godfather, Part II,” when Michael Corleone witnesses a Cuban rebel blow himself up on the streets of Havana. To his cohorts, it was an isolated incident. But to Michael, it was a harbinger.'
I think Brady put to rest any rumors about him going soft when he had guards shooting at reporters during his wedding.
posted by yerfatma at 02:20 PM on April 07, 2009
Howard, I do agree with some of what you're saying, but I guess we have to define "a skill set that made you too valuable to discipline"
In the current economic situation, many of us are being asked to take on extra work without pay, in order to make up the slack for workers laid off. Most of those left are happy to do it in order to keep their paychecks. Hell, some are even taking less pay while working longer. Now, most of us aren't in the skill set too valuable to discipline scenario, but I wonder if pro athletes really are as well.
Fans survive strike years, and in a very short time every player in the NFL can be replaced. Sure, maybe the next guy after Brady can't run the team...no wait, he could. Do I want to see a strike or a lockout? No, but I don't think going to an 18 game season is justification for an across the board 12.5% raise either.
posted by dviking at 02:31 PM on April 07, 2009
many of us are being asked to take on extra work without pay, in order to make up the slack for workers laid off. Most of those left are happy to do it in order to keep their paychecks.
Right, but if you had any leverage you would fight back. And no one's happy to work more, they're relieved to still have work. Normal jobs don't compare perfectly to sports: the owners will receive 12.5% more ticket revenue if and only if the players show up to play. So the players have a good deal of leverage about how the additional dollars should be split up. If nothing else, the league should at least bump the salary cap 12.5% so individual teams can compensate their players if they choose to. No one is obligated to pay up to the cap.
posted by yerfatma at 03:19 PM on April 07, 2009
Normal jobs don't compare perfectly to sports: the owners will receive 12.5% more ticket revenue if and only if the players show up to play
Perhaps, but as I stated we may need to truly define what too valuable to discipline really means. I doubt the owners are looking to expand the cap, so we'll see how much leverage the players have.
As to being happy to do more work, I think there are plenty of people that are truly happy to be working a bit harder. Relieved sure, but happy as well.
posted by dviking at 05:47 PM on April 07, 2009
I think there are plenty of people that are truly happy to be working a bit harder.
If you can prove that, you've got a Nobel in Economics coming your way, because it contradicts everything economists currently believe.
posted by yerfatma at 07:35 PM on April 07, 2009
Do I want to see a strike or a lockout? No, but I don't think going to an 18 game season is justification for an across the board 12.5% raise either.
Why not? If your boss declared that all employees must go from a 40-hour work week to a 45-hour work week without an increase in pay, who would accept that? NFL careers are short. Adding two games a season makes them even shorter. These players have to cash in while they can.
posted by rcade at 09:18 PM on April 07, 2009
If you can prove that, you've got a Nobel in Economics coming your way
Hopefully they'll spell my name correctly. Several rounds of layoffs at the company I work for has us in a leaner format that requires extra effort, but has cut out most of the Human resources/legal/etc. related bullshit that we used to deal with. Companies often layoff the staff people first, so those of us in the field now have less of them to deal with. So, yes I have a few more stores to deal with, but my job is more enjoyable so I'm fine. No pay increase either, so I guess I'm just nuts.
Of course, I've always been a salaried type of guy, so I really don't have a built in 40 hour week mentality.
posted by dviking at 11:42 PM on April 07, 2009
I'm not discounting the point that 2 more regular season games versus preseason games are different as far as the players and coaches are concerned (They require more preparation, have more effort in-game which could lead to more injuries, and have more playing time from the starters.), but are the owners actually making more money if that switch is made? Preseason games cost the same as regular season games, and season ticket holders are forced to buy those tickets, thus leading to one of the arguments for shortening the preseason and/or lengthening the season.
My vote would be to shorten the preseason and leave the season the same length. If they lengthen the season, I would agree that the players should be compensated. I don't have any problems with the new rules.
posted by bender at 08:30 AM on April 08, 2009
season ticket holders are forced to buy those tickets
They're not forced to show up though, so concession revenues, parking revenues, etc. are lower. During Pats pre-season games, the stadium is at least half-empty.
posted by yerfatma at 08:55 AM on April 08, 2009
In the current economic situation, many of us are being asked to take on extra work without pay, in order to make up the slack for workers laid off.
Your point is well-taken, dviking, but I did have a qualifier to my premise that pay should increase with hours worked. I said that if you worked for a successful and profitable firm, you should not be forced to work uncompensated hours. Of course, if your firm or industry is suffering from economic problems, and working the extra time is the difference between your paycheck and the unemployment line, by all means make the sacrifice for the good of the company. The NFL does not need a sacrifice! An uncompensated increase in the regular season schedule smacks of pure greed.
As far as having a skill set that keeps you employed goes, we all know what happened the last time the owners tried to bring in replacement players. Would you renew your season tickets to see that sort of product?
posted by Howard_T at 06:04 PM on April 08, 2009
One, I do work for a profitable firm, the layoffs were taken to ensure we stay that way!
I just don't think the two extra games will increase total revenue by 12.5%, so I don't see the players getting the extra money.
I guess we'll see how it plays out.
posted by dviking at 10:18 PM on April 08, 2009
I just don't think the two extra games will increase total revenue by 12.5%, so I don't see the players getting the extra money.
Well, the revenues will increase, right? And it feels safe to predict that at least some, if not most, of the increased revenue will be profit, since the costs were already being covered by the 16 game season (so only marginal costs would rise). Where do you think that profit should go?
posted by yerfatma at 10:38 AM on April 09, 2009
I guess it comes down to how much you think the owners should earn on their investments.
I personally think owners are within their rights to earn as much as they can. Players are within their rights to ask for as much as they can, that's what the collective bargaining is all about.
Just because the owners might make a bit more (we don't really know how much more, but i think it's significantly less than 12.5% due to the reasons stated prior) doesn't mean that half, or even any, of the money needs to be shared with the players.
Based on 2007 operating income (that's operating income, not net) there are quite a few teams that don't make all that much money. Sure, we can blame the losses the Lion's took on fielding a crappy team, but some of the bottom teams are playoff teams from smaller markets.
Given today's economic realities, I wonder if they'll make the same for 2008 and 2009.
posted by dviking at 06:26 PM on April 09, 2009
doesn't mean that half, or even any, of the money needs to be shared with the players.
Except that sports are the one place where Marxism is true: the entire value of the enterprise lies with the labor force. It's confusing to me why so many fans complain about a player holding out for millions while not minding owners who take in an order of magnitude more.
Based on 2007 operating income (that's operating income, not net) there are quite a few teams that don't make all that much money
The problem with those figures is they are reported by the teams. People who were already rich began buying sports franchises because they're a good way to show a loss on paper that can be used to write off taxes elsewhere, so the teams have more of an incentive to under-report revenues and overstate costs than a normal business. And they have tax rules (like how they can depreciate player salaries) that help them show losses.
I've no doubt revenues have shrunk for teams, but you really have to question teams reporting little or no income. To start with, they're dividing up a TV contract worth over $20 billion. The link doesn't say when that contract started, but let's say it's over 5 years for the sake of round numbers. That's $4 billion a year before anyone plays a game. Take away a whole billion for the league itself, costs, etc. That starts each team with about $100 million, which covers the salary cap. The only major fixed cost that I can think of is service on stadium debt and most teams either have an older stadium or got their local municipality to foot the bill.
But yeah, I will be standing on a street corner raising funds for NFL owners this Christmas. Hopefully I don't get punched in the face too much.
posted by yerfatma at 08:05 AM on April 10, 2009
It certainly sounds like the days of Gene Upshaw's caving in to the owners are over. I understand the new NFLPA head is a shrewd and experienced attorney. The NFL is in for some very rocky negotiations, and I would not be surprised to see a work stoppage. As much as I like professional football, I don't think I'd really miss it. After all, there's baseball's post-season and college football to fill the fall, and by the time the bowl games are done, the NBA and NHL are just getting to the stretch run. That makes for plenty of sports action to talk about.
On the issue of extra pay for the additional 2 games, I have to completely agree with Thomas. If you were to work for a firm that was successful and profitable, a leader in its industry, and were informed by the firm's board of directors that you had to work an extra 5 hours per week without further compensation in order to make more money for the owners, what would you say? If you were unionized or had a skill set that made you too valuable to discipline, you can bet you'd tell your bosses to go to hell. Comparing actual competition to pre-season games is ridiculous. How many snaps do your starters take in the exhibition games? The majority of the snaps are taken by players who are trying to make the team and probably won't. If you want 12 1/2 % more work, then fork over 12 1/2% more pay, and bump the salary cap by the equivalent amount. It looks like the NFL owners are looking at the goose to see if they can get more golden eggs.
I do have to disagree with Thomas on the rules changes. The only one that is really different is the rule about going after the QB's legs once you are on the ground, and even that doesn't impose too much of a burden on defenders. The rules on crackback blocks and head shots on receivers make sense. You can still make the play without endangering a career.
Will Tom Brady take the field at practice wearing a skirt and carrying pom-poms? I wouldn't put it past him. Giselle will make sure he never gets soft.