Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The Media Continues to Miss the Point in the NFL Lockout Debate

Let me say right from the outset of this post that nothing about the NFL's current work stoppage makes any sense to me. The fact that the owners have found enough just cause to lock out the players in the first place is iffy enough, but the way the lockout has been covered by the media calls into question how subjective their coverage is at all. For example, take into account yesterday's news that the owners were willing to negotiate a 48 percent share of revenue to the players:

Among the details NFL commissioner Roger Goodell revealed to owners Tuesday at the league's meeting in Rosemont, Ill., is that in the next proposed agreement players will receive a 48 percent share of "all revenue," without the $1-billion-plus credit off the top that had been a point of contention in earlier negotiations, according to sources familiar with the presentation.

Under the new formula being negotiated, players will receive 48 percent of all revenue and will never dip below a 46.5 percent take of the money, sources said.

In the previous collective bargaining agreement, players received approximately 60 percent of "total revenue" but that did not include $1 billion that was designated as an expense credit off the top of the $9 billion revenue model. Owners initially were seeking another $1 billion in credit only to reduce that amount substantially before exercising the lockout on March 13.

Ultimately, the two sides have decided to simplify the formula, which will eliminate some tedious accounting audits of the credit the players have allowed in the previous deal. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent.

So you take $9 billion in revenue last year, chop $1 billion off the top to give to the owners for "expenses" (stadium repair, construction, whatever the fuck else they want) then the players receive 60 percent of the remaining $8 billion. Now, just five years after agreeing to said deal, the owners lock out the players and are holding out for an additional $1 billion off the top, just because? How is no one seeing how arbitrary and unfair this is to the players? Considering that the league just grossed the most money in one year in the history of American sports, why are the owners of its 32 teams entitled to any more than the players?

John Clayton went on "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on ESPN Radio earlier today and the three of them discussed the negotiations (the segment can't be embedded, but you find it in the archives here). Mike Golic was an NFL player during the 1987 players' strike, but he seemed mostly concerned that everything get resolved in order for training camps to open on time. Greenberg said that yesterday's talks showed that the two sides were getting away from "needing to win" and were now just working on a deal everyone could agree on. Both of them failed to acknowledge how we ended up in this situation; the owners and commissioner Roger Goodell deciding to stake a larger claim, among other demands.

At one point, Clayton mentions that the league hopes to get this done before the start of preseason games so as not to miss out on a potential $700 million. Just think about that for one second. The NFL stands to generate $700 million from games that don't even count, yet still believes the 32 owners deserve a larger cut of the overall pie for some reason.

The argument has been made countless times that NFL fans shouldn't care about how this gets resolved because this is all just a bunch of billionaires fighting with millionaires over money. However, that argument doesn't hold any water. The players, the league's actual workforce, and the ones who lay their bodies and brains on the line, are being asked to take less money because the owners decided it was a good time to grab a larger share. I ultimately want to see football start back on time too, but anyone who isn't seeing this current work stoppage for what it is either isn't paying attention to facts, or doesn't care to.

The greatest take on, and easiest explanation for, this whole mess came from former Redskins coaching legend Joe Gibbs:
“I have a solution for the strike right now,” Joe Gibbs told Vinny Cerrato on the radio Tuesday morning. “Here’s the solution. Let me solve it, ok, put the power in my hands. I’ll take that $9 billion, I’ll put one-half to the players, and one-half to the owners, I’ll take one percent for doing that, and we’ll be done in 10 minutes.”

My thoughts exactly.

1 comment:

  1. Great post.

    I think a lot of NFL reporters (Adam Schefter (I think) basically said this on the BS report) don't want to report it "too much one way other the other", at fear of angering one of the parties for future scoops and so on.

    This, as you point out, is completely insane. There simply aren't two sides to this debate. There is one side that opted out a insanely profitable deal because they were greedy and wanted an even bigger share. Reporting it in any other way is just fucking dishonest.

    At least some of the biggest columnists (simmons, big daddy drew) written great stuff on this, but most of the EPSN "reporting" on the lockout has been what you described, just hope that it gets done, without much analysis of how we are here.

    It's enough to drive you insane.

    ReplyDelete