I keep hearing about this NFL lockout deal. Whats up with that?
From everything I have read the lockout seems imminent.
Here is the .02 cent tour.
A lockout is by the owners. Owners made a deal (a shitty one based on their view, both sides are rolling in money so fuck em) that Paul Taglibue pushed because he knew he was retiring and did not want his legacy to end among lockout issues.
The owners now want to renegotiate that deal. Their claim is that due to rising players costs, facilities, etc and the economy going to shit, they are hurting. The players reps are saying ok fair enough open your books up....show us that you are hurting and perhaps we will work with you. The owners refuse to do that.
The only club whose books can be examined are Green Bay's because they are a public company. The Packers cleared 37 million profit in 2007 in 2008 it was down to 21 million and in 09 it was 9 million in profit (that is a decent decline, but remember it is still profit).
The renegotiation deals with an 18 game season, salary caps on rookies, etc. However the main crux of the contract deals with revenue sharing. The owners share a percentage of tv deals, and other incoming revenue with the players. ( I don't know the percentage, nor what it entails) I am assuming a portion of this revenue probably funds pensions and player benefits. The owners don't want to reduce the players % of revenue share, what they want is for the revenue share to come from a smaller pot.
Who can outlast it? You would think the players, however the owners are in a better position. See DirecTV and other broadcasting companies have to pay the NFL whether a game is shown or not. So the Owners would continue to get the bulk of their revenue while cutting the majority of their expenses (ie players salaries) by 50%. The Owners would have to repay the broadcasting companies by extending their deal (the amount of time the lockout runs) and not receiving money for the same period.
16 Replies
1989 Views