View Full Version : What I Heard on NFL Network this evening..
I came in on this interview late but they were interviewing a player named Lincoln Kennedy in the studio..it was a 3 person interview and I don't know who the other guys were.
Anyway he was talking about the Player's Association voting on some new contract soon. He said the owners were making much more than ever before and he would be very surprised if the players did not strike next time they come up for an agreement.
I missed much of the interview but he is obviously a strong union guy and he said he wants to get the word out to other players to be strong and stick together.
I was surprised at talk of A STRIKE! First I'd heard of anything remotely like this happening in the future. I don't know if he's just blowing smoke or serious but it's a thought worth discussing.
Oh lord.... not another one. It's things like this that tend to just kill fan base over time. NFL is "lucky" that it has a pretty strong following nation wide that a strike won't severly hurt the league (hockey), but it's defintely not going to raise the spirits of the common population.
If basketball follows with a strike this offseason, then football heads down that road...
So what if the owners are making more than ever before... if players are happy with what they're making (save for the "I had a good year, now pay me" re-contract) who gives a flip?
Better be careful... pro sports is gonna price themselves out of the fan's ability to pay for tickets.
I wish I had seen the whole interview...I don't know if that topic was the focus of the whole program or even why they were talking about a strike.
I just hate to hear that word regarding the NFL.
Perhaps Mr. Kennedy is just a hard line union guy and just blowing smoke but he said he expected the players to strike and they must all stick together.
05-24-2005, 11:06 PM
yeah that were talking about that on pti today aswell. if you look at it nfl players have the worst contracts of all major sports including hockey and actually their average contract is below hockey's. they also said that the union won't have as much leverage as the other sports because of the popularity of the nfl. the fan base is so large that replacement players would still interest fans just because it is football, but to a lesser extent.
05-25-2005, 12:47 PM
Now hold on here. The NFL has one of the lowest salary-per-player averages because there are 53players on each team. Basketball, baseball, and hockey have much smaller numbers to spread the wealth around. To look at a stat without understanding the basis of it is to make a mistake.
The trouble with the NFL right now is you have differences in opinion as to what revenue counts toward the kitty that is divided up. Naming rights and suite revenue are two examples that go to the owners alone, and not the players. The union is saying that revenue needs to be shared as well.
05-26-2005, 07:13 AM
Don't forget. Baseball teams have 162 games. Basketball has 82. Football has just 16 games. I know baseball has 25 players and basketball has 12 players (not sure about basketball).
I remember the president of the NFLPA stating that the Houston Texans are one the teams whose revenue is just overwhelming. It is apparent that he has not taken many economics or accounting courses. There is revenue and expenses. I gaurantee you Reliant costs more to operate than Proplayer; therefore more of the revenue is dedicated to maintenance and less PROFIT. If you notice the NFL players and analysts always state things in terms of revenue. They need to see the profit before they say that the owners are earning more than ever.
Here is a quote from McNair:
"The union is using published information on gross revenues, and we are looking at net income," Houston's Bob McNair said. "The high-revenue teams are also the ones that have invested heavily in their franchises, so when you look at what money we have at the end of the day, the disparity isn't of the significance that some people would have you believe." (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7834035)
I am sure the owners of these teams are not in the business to give it all away to the players. If I owned a franchise, then I would keep as much to myself as I could. Its human nature in todays greed driven culture. Thats why the players want more. The only ones who get shafted in this situation are the loyal fans. That why the benefit of a strike is relatively small in comparison to the loss of loyal fans. Football fans can turn to college or high school if they want.
Any strike is bad....I had season tickets at the team of the last one a long time ago. The football wasn't very good and believe me you can't just slap a uniform on a player and expect it to be as exciting. I do remember some of the old Cowboys players like Randy White crossing the picket line and playing. Those type players essentially "broke" their union if you want to say that. I'm not much for unions so I was glad to see the REAL players playing.
Anyway it was not fun football.
05-26-2005, 06:16 PM
lincoln kennedy is retired and works for the NFL network as an analyst. i believe he played for the falcons and raiders.
NFL | The Threat of a Lockout in 2007? - from www.KFFL.com
Mon, 30 May 2005 10:54:49 -0700
The Bergen Record reports with the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the Players Association set for 2007, the threat for a potential lockout remains until an agreement can be reached. "That could conceivably happen," Giants chief operating officer John Mara said. NFLPA chief Gene Upshaw told The Washington Post he would decertify the union if the uncapped 2007 season ever arrived, making all players free agents, which would ultimately result in owners locking out the players before that would transpire. Nonetheless, Mara believes that both sides will eventually agree on how to share local revenues and extend the CBA. "I don't think it will come to that," said Mara. "There are a lot of good people working to get this done."
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.