How does the RB ‘pay scale’ problem get solved? (1 Viewer)

[eighsse2]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

But if there is still a salary cap, that wouldn't happen, right?

 

[JohnnyU]

I don’t see a problem. Supply and demand people. The market sets their value, just as it does for those with BS degrees and wonder why they are bartending.

 

[-OZ-]

Would most people who seem to care even notice if RB wasn’t such a valuable position in FF?
RB tags are only slightly less than TE and double kicker / punter. It’s just supply and demand.
Don’t like getting paid $10M for being one of the best at the position? Go elsewhere.

The only way this changes is if a team wins a Super Bowl or two based on its run game. I nominate the titans, let them win with Henry carrying the team on his shoulders. Then maybe the next grease RBs can make more.

 

[-OZ-]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

The biggest difference is whether you consider the NFL to be the employer or the team. For whatever reason, sports leagues are legally able to fit in the middle ground.
Players can go play another sport or for another league

 

[Chaka]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

Now this I can understand. The draft is very exciting, but I don't think it makes sense.

It does if you hate America.

 

[Chaka]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

So it's okay because parity?

That argument is 100% contradictory to the notion of "RBs are just getting what the market dictates."

Pick a lane.

 

[Chaka]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

The biggest difference is whether you consider the NFL to be the employer or the team. For whatever reason, sports leagues are legally able to fit in the middle ground.
Players can go play another sport or for another league

Now there's the problem.

We wouldn't tolerate this in any other industry. Why do we accept if for the NFL?

 

[Joe Bryant]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

In this scenario, Microsoft is the NFL. They are one company with 32 equal divisions all working very closely together.

Players are welcome to play professional football with other companies and apply to the Canadian Football League, the XFL or anywhere else they like.

 

[Chaka]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

But if there is still a salary cap, that wouldn't happen, right?

Negotiating the salary cap against 31 other owners and labor looks a lot different than negotiating all owners vs all players.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What they have now is a sham that we are okay with so long as we don't have to work for them.

Not me. I'd love to work for them.

 

[Chaka]

What they have now is a sham that we are okay with so long as we don't have to work for them.

Not me. I'd love to work for them.

Would you if they blocked you from taking a better deal from, for example, NBC?

 

[JohnnyU]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

In this scenario, Microsoft is the NFL. They are one company with 32 equal divisions all working very closely together.

Players are welcome to play professional football with other companies and apply to the Canadian Football League, the XFL or anywhere else they like.

Joe Namath signed with that inferior league the AFL

 

[Chaka]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

In this scenario, Microsoft is the NFL. They are one company with 32 equal divisions all working very closely together.

Players are welcome to play professional football with other companies and apply to the Canadian Football League, the XFL or anywhere else they like.

Joe Namath signed with that inferior league the AFL

Jim Kelly & Steve Young signed with the USFL. Warren Moon played in Canada. That option doesn't exist anywhere in the world ATM.

But when the Saudi's, and their unlimited capital, come knocking on Patrick Mahomes door, or Josh Allen's, or Caleb Williams, or the next generation is f talent. The NFL owners will realize how precarious their position truly is.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

For all the talk about players "honoring the contract" Saquon and Josh Jacobs are explicitly not playing under a contract they signed. They are restricted from negotiating new contract by the tag. The Franchise Tag is the real problem and the fact that the RB Tag value is so low is a component of that problem.

I think a lot of people miss that the timing of the deals and their age is a major component of this. If you could just sign a player out of school or the rookie pay scale wasn't so restrictive, RBs would likely be getting much larger contracts. Giving a 21 or 22 year old RB the bag is a good decision. Giving a 26 or 27 RB a long term deal is a bad decision.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I don’t see a problem. Supply and demand people. The market sets their value, just as it does for those with BS degrees and wonder why they are bartending.

We're Americans. Laissez-faire is a core foundational belief. In a free market economy, self-interested individuals operate through a system of mutual interdependence.

The invisible hand will decide the fate of RBs and their salary structure.

 

[Chaka]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

 

[Chaka]

I'm going to say the quiet part out loud: We don't care about markets or anything else we "value" so long as we get good football.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

So it's okay because parity?

That argument is 100% contradictory to the notion of "RBs are just getting what the market dictates."

Pick a lane.

I haven’t said “RBs are just getting what the market dictates.” So no, I don’t have to pick from one of your lanes.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

But if there is still a salary cap, that wouldn't happen, right?

Negotiating the salary cap against 31 other owners and labor looks a lot different than negotiating all owners vs all players.

No doubt. Completely agree with your position that the NFL isn’t a free market.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

DeMaurice F. Smith Head of NFLPA

 

[-OZ-]

a a

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

But if there is still a salary cap, that wouldn't happen, right?

Negotiating the salary cap against 31 other owners and labor looks a lot different than negotiating all owners vs all players.

No doubt. Completely agree with your position that the NFL isn’t a free market.

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

The biggest difference is whether you consider the NFL to be the employer or the team. For whatever reason, sports leagues are legally able to fit in the middle ground.
Players can go play another sport or for another league

Now there's the problem.

We wouldn't tolerate this in any other industry. Why do we accept if for the NFL?

Is the MLB, NBA, NHL, WNBA, etc any better?

Some of us are okay with the league being the entity. If you don’t want to play in the NFL, don’t. Go coach high school or get started coaching college ball. Go get another job.
We’d also be happy getting like 2% of the RB franchise tag.

 

[Chaka]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

So it's okay because parity?

That argument is 100% contradictory to the notion of "RBs are just getting what the market dictates."

Pick a lane.

I haven’t said “RBs are just getting what the market dictates.” So no, I don’t have to pick from one of your lanes.

Are you sure you didn't delete a post?

 

[Chaka]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

DeMaurice F. Smith Head of NFLPA

Vague.

What was nailed? Honest question.

 

[Chaka]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

In this scenario, Microsoft is the NFL. They are one company with 32 equal divisions all working very closely together.

Players are welcome to play professional football with other companies and apply to the Canadian Football League, the XFL or anywhere else they like.

Joe Namath signed with that inferior league the AFL

Jim Kelly & Steve Young signed with the USFL. Warren Moon played in Canada. That option doesn't exist anywhere in the world ATM.

But when the Saudi's, and their unlimited capital, come knocking on Patrick Mahomes door, or Josh Allen's, or Caleb Williams, or the next generation is f talent. The NFL owners will realize how precarious their position truly is.

You might want to bookmark this one @-OZ- so we can talk about it in 10-20 years.

 

[JAK Straw]

Here's another angle, though one that will get angry reactions. Instead of raising RB pay to equal other positions, bring the other positions back down close to RB pay. How? We all collectively stop giving so much of our money to millionaires and billionaires. The increase in salaries, ticket prices, concessions, and TV revenues are way out of hand, and pretty much our own fault, because there is apparently no price we won't pay. If we could stop paying up, there would be less discussion about the "outrage" of a poor RB making "only" $10mm for one year.

Since instead we are talking about Monopoly money, we don't focus on how absurd all of these amounts represent in our society compared with the cost of other things. Nobody needs to have a $100 contract unless they are literally saving the world. And every year it goes up. A lot. How much is enough?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Would you if they blocked you from taking a better deal from, for example, NBC?

I don't understand what you mean. Every NFL player today could quit and go to work for NBC if they could get a job there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm going to say the quiet part out loud: We don't care about markets or anything else we "value" so long as we get good football.

I think everyone would say out loud that having a product of good football to consume as entertainment is important. You saw that with how much folks disliked the replacement referees.

Whether it's watching high school players play (presumably) for free, college players playing for NIL deals or some NFL players playing for millions, what most of us are interested in is the game. That's what we "value". Or at least that's what I think most people value.

 

[Chaka]

a a

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

But if there is still a salary cap, that wouldn't happen, right?

Negotiating the salary cap against 31 other owners and labor looks a lot different than negotiating all owners vs all players.

No doubt. Completely agree with your position that the NFL isn’t a free market.

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

The biggest difference is whether you consider the NFL to be the employer or the team. For whatever reason, sports leagues are legally able to fit in the middle ground.
Players can go play another sport or for another league

Now there's the problem.

We wouldn't tolerate this in any other industry. Why do we accept if for the NFL?

Is the MLB, NBA, NHL, WNBA, etc any better?

Some of us are okay with the league being the entity. If you don’t want to play in the NFL, don’t. Go coach high school or get started coaching college ball. Go get another job.
We’d also be happy getting like 2% of the RB franchise tag.

If you were good enough to warrant 2% of the franchise tag I doubt you would have the same opinion.

And players are aware of the "Play here or nowhere" nature of the job, that's why they play. That isn't a unique take. And it is deeply flawed

That take simply wouldn't be accepted in, perhaps*, any other industry. Neither would a draft.

Rhetorical question because we all know the answer is the public finds the NFL so entertaining they are willing to sacrifice their "values" so long as they get competitive football.

Why are we so desperate to prevent Mike Brown and Mark Davis having to openly compete with Jerry Jones and the Walton's? And at the same time we don't care if Josh Jacobs has to compete with Patrick Mahomes for limited salary cap dollars?

Why are we good with this?

 

[Chaka]

Would you if they blocked you from taking a better deal from, for example, NBC?

I don't understand what you mean. Every NFL player today could quit and go to work for NBC if they could get a job there.

Because every Cincinnati Bengals can't quit and go work for the Dallas Cowboys. But the Bengals and Cowboys call themselves separate business entities.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Because every Cincinnati Bengals can't quit and go work for the Dallas Cowboys. But the Bengals and Cowboys call themselves separate business entities.

The Bengals and Cowboys are separate branches of one company. The NFL.

The Canadian Football League or the XFL are separate business entities from the NFL.

I think that's where the disconnect is.

 

[Chaka]

I'm going to say the quiet part out loud: We don't care about markets or anything else we "value" so long as we get good football.

I think everyone would say out loud that having a product of good football to consume as entertainment is important. You saw that with how much folks disliked the replacement referees.

Whether it's watching high school players play (presumably) for free, college players playing for NIL deals or some NFL players playing for millions, what most of us are interested in is the game. That's what we "value". Or at least that's what I think most people value.

100% agree. The problem I have is when we cache that argument in the veil of "market economics". Players are not subject to market economics. They have no alternatives to their NFL earnings potential because the 32 separate businesses don't have to negotiate against each other except in very limited circumstance.

I love the NFL but I would also love to see it face the realities of true market economics.

 

[Chaka]

Because every Cincinnati Bengals can't quit and go work for the Dallas Cowboys. But the Bengals and Cowboys call themselves separate business entities.

The Bengals and Cowboys are separate branches of one company. The NFL.

The Canadian Football League or the XFL are separate business entities from the NFL.

I think that's where the disconnect is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Bengals and Cowboys are considered entirely separate business entities. They have many revenue streams that are not subject to the NFL company even if they do business under that label.

If they weren't why would the idea of collusion ever enter the picture to the point of hat Congress would examine it, or at least pretend to glance at it?

 

[renesauz]

Shouldn't do anything about it. Let the market work

It's not market. The idea that it is is an illusion.

Can't find it in me to agree with you. Playing in the NFL is still a very lucrative choice. And players have significant negotiating power. It's unique in that while there may be 32 "franchises" the initial agreement to play is made with the LEAGUE, not a franchise, when players go into a draft.

While a draft may on it's face be anti Capitalist, so what?! Again, highly lucrative, and a huge factor into how and why the league is so successful (IE LUCRATIVE!) in the first place.

ON the issue of RB salaries, I do agree the market is broken in their case. Unlike literally every other position, their best years are inevitably covered by the rookie deals and franchise tags are artificially deflated because of it. Franchise tags are one thing that should be done away with. ESEPCIALLY for RBs

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

DeMaurice F. Smith Head of NFLPA

Vague.

What was nailed? Honest question.

The question of who’s fault it is that the running back salary situation is in the state that it is in.

 

[renesauz]

By the way, if you really insist on the CAPITALIST! mantra, all unions are inherently anti-capitalist. The NFLPA is no different.

The NFL more closely resembles a single company then it does 32 individual companies.

But again....doesn't mean the RBs aren't getting the shaft here. Ditch the franchise tags

 

[Alex P Keaton]

If you were an graduating engineer and Microsoft offered you a contract, you would still likely try to market your services you say Google to see if they make a better offer. And Apple etc. No one sends their resume to only one company.

But what if Microsoft said "You can't do that because we have an agreement with Google that says you can't. Apple too. All the Big Boys actually, you can't work for any of them but us.

But you can go market your services to Jimbo's Computer Barn in Northwest Upper Butt Crack so...fair, right?"

You think that would fly in America?

We know how this would end. It would look like baseball with a few times outspending everyone else by 3-10x multiples. Man, that sure would be fun.

So it's okay because parity?

That argument is 100% contradictory to the notion of "RBs are just getting what the market dictates."

Pick a lane.

I haven’t said “RBs are just getting what the market dictates.” So no, I don’t have to pick from one of your lanes.

Are you sure you didn't delete a post?

I don’t delete posts

 

[Chaka]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

DeMaurice F. Smith Head of NFLPA

Vague.

What was nailed? Honest question.

The question of who’s fault it is that the running back salary situation is in the state that it is in.

Dude, I love you but what is that argument Waldman nailed with that post? I honestly don't know how to work the twitter, was there something more than the three pictures? If so, what? If not what do the three pictures "nail"?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Because every Cincinnati Bengals can't quit and go work for the Dallas Cowboys. But the Bengals and Cowboys call themselves separate business entities.

The Bengals and Cowboys are separate branches of one company. The NFL.

The Canadian Football League or the XFL are separate business entities from the NFL.

I think that's where the disconnect is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Bengals and Cowboys are considered entirely separate business entities. They have many revenue streams that are not subject to the NFL company even if they do business under that label.

If they weren't why would the idea of collusion ever enter the picture to the point of hat Congress would examine it, or at least pretend to glance at it?

They are separate in some ways but unified in others. For players, it's effectively one big company with ability to move collectively bargained.

And I'd still love to work for them as a player.

 

[eighsse2]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

DeMaurice F. Smith Head of NFLPA

Vague.

What was nailed? Honest question.

The question of who’s fault it is that the running back salary situation is in the state that it is in.

Dude, I love you but what is that argument Waldman nailed with that post? I honestly don't know how to work the twitter, was there something more than the three pictures? If so, what? If not what do the three pictures "nail"?

The NFLPA agreed to the system currently in place. So it's partly their "fault" if something is wrong with it.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

DeMaurice F. Smith Head of NFLPA

Vague.

What was nailed? Honest question.

The question of who’s fault it is that the running back salary situation is in the state that it is in.

Dude, I love you but what is that argument Waldman nailed with that post? I honestly don't know how to work the twitter, was there something more than the three pictures? If so, what? If not what do the three pictures "nail"?

The NFLPA agreed to the system currently in place. So it's partly their "fault" if something is wrong with it.

Exactly.

 

[Chaka]

By the way, if you really insist on the CAPITALIST! mantra, all unions are inherently anti-capitalist. The NFLPA is no different.

The NFL more closely resembles a single company then it does 32 individual companies.

But again....doesn't mean the RBs aren't getting the shaft here. Ditch the franchise tags

I mostly agree. Unions are anti capitalist on many levels. On many other levels they are the same as a corporation.

The union is doing what they can for their workforce. I may not be pro-union but I completely support their decision to operate as one to increase their power in a market economy. A big problem I have is the concept of a union competing against an illusion.

There are certainly many posters on there s board who knows far more than I do about the structure of the 32 NFL teams vis-a-vis the NFL as a whole (I acknowledged I am on an 8th grade level here, upstream).

As I understand it is, on a Federal level, the NFL is treated as 32 individual companies who have a revenue sharing agreement.

If they were a single entity why would the question of collusion ever enter the picture? A single entity can't collude with itself. Why would people start to wring their hands at the prospect of small market teams having the compete with large market teams (or the Walton family competing with the Brown family)?

 

[Marauder]

Because every Cincinnati Bengals can't quit and go work for the Dallas Cowboys. But the Bengals and Cowboys call themselves separate business entities.

The Bengals and Cowboys are separate branches of one company. The NFL.

The Canadian Football League or the XFL are separate business entities from the NFL.

I think that's where the disconnect is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Bengals and Cowboys are considered entirely separate business entities. They have many revenue streams that are not subject to the NFL company even if they do business under that label.

If they weren't why would the idea of collusion ever enter the picture to the point of hat Congress would examine it, or at least pretend to glance at it?

I don't think they are considered separate business entities. I would describe them as Franchisees. I'm not sure about this but I think all revenue streams the teams have using the team name or logo's are part of the revenue sharing agreement they have with NFL corporate.

 

[Chaka]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

DeMaurice F. Smith Head of NFLPA

Vague.

What was nailed? Honest question.

The question of who’s fault it is that the running back salary situation is in the state that it is in.

Dude, I love you but what is that argument Waldman nailed with that post? I honestly don't know how to work the twitter, was there something more than the three pictures? If so, what? If not what do the three pictures "nail"?

The NFLPA agreed to the system currently in place. So it's partly their "fault" if something is wrong with it.

Of course it is. They are working with the hand they've been dealt. Just like we all do.

 

[JohnnyU]

I think punters should go on strike.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't view it to be a problem, not even a little bit.

 

[Chaka]

Because every Cincinnati Bengals can't quit and go work for the Dallas Cowboys. But the Bengals and Cowboys call themselves separate business entities.

The Bengals and Cowboys are separate branches of one company. The NFL.

The Canadian Football League or the XFL are separate business entities from the NFL.

I think that's where the disconnect is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Bengals and Cowboys are considered entirely separate business entities. They have many revenue streams that are not subject to the NFL company even if they do business under that label.

If they weren't why would the idea of collusion ever enter the picture to the point of hat Congress would examine it, or at least pretend to glance at it?

I don't think they are considered separate business entities. I would describe them as Franchisees. I'm not sure about this but I think all revenue streams the teams have using the team name or logo's are part of the revenue sharing agreement they have with NFL corporate.

Again, we're getting into a level of nuance I cannot speak confidently about.

However they are most certainly not franchises.

 

[Chaka]

I think punters should go on strike.

Don't #### with my draft board man!

 

[Chaka]

Matt Waldman nailed it.

Sorry, I don't do the twitter.

I see a picture of a guy I don't recognize, Le'Veon Bell & Todd Gurley. Was there more to it? If not I don't see whay he nailed.

DeMaurice F. Smith Head of NFLPA

Vague.

What was nailed? Honest question.

The question of who’s fault it is that the running back salary situation is in the state that it is in.

Dude, I love you but what is that argument Waldman nailed with that post? I honestly don't know how to work the twitter, was there something more than the three pictures? If so, what? If not what do the three pictures "nail"?

The NFLPA agreed to the system currently in place. So it's partly their "fault" if something is wrong with it.

Exactly.

Partially.

 

[Chaka]

Because every Cincinnati Bengals can't quit and go work for the Dallas Cowboys. But the Bengals and Cowboys call themselves separate business entities.

The Bengals and Cowboys are separate branches of one company. The NFL.

The Canadian Football League or the XFL are separate business entities from the NFL.

I think that's where the disconnect is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Bengals and Cowboys are considered entirely separate business entities. They have many revenue streams that are not subject to the NFL company even if they do business under that label.

If they weren't why would the idea of collusion ever enter the picture to the point of hat Congress would examine it, or at least pretend to glance at it?

They are separate in some ways but unified in others. For players, it's effectively one big company with ability to move collectively bargained.

And I'd still love to work for them as a player.

Yeah, it is a weird union the teams have with each other. Under scrutiny it's also shady AF.

Wouldn't be tolerated in any other industry.

And, as I said to someone else above if you were talented enough to play for them I think you would not have the same opinion.