The NFL has long been the most successful sports venture in America. Every franchise is solvent, and most are competitive. Unlike baseball, every team has a legitimate chance to compete, so long as the ownership is willing to try. Unlike hockey, every team has a relatively large and dedicated fanbase. Unlike basketball, any franchise (well... maybe not Cincinnati) can be home to an MVP-type player for multiple seasons. Unlike soccer, the league has national recognition and a built-in TV audience, including folks who really aren't even paying attention to the game. The NFL works. The NFL is popular. The NFL is beloved.
The upshot of all this is that the NFL makes money and entertains its fans. It has done so without any significant interruption for almost 25 years. But at this moment, a "labor dispute" is threatening to not just disrupt league proceedings, but potentially kill off the entire 2011 NFL season. Why on earth would all those involved, players, owners, and league officials, risk hurting such a demonstrably lucrative venture, especially during a rough economic time? As always, it boils down to pride and ego. However, the core issue is actually not one of players vs. owners, but of successful owners vs. unsuccessful owners. Let me explain, and then attempt to choose a "side" in this debate, if there can be a "good" side of a labor dispute.
The immediate reaction of folks who hear that the league's owners might "lockout" the players is one of disbelief. We all know that the NFL is rolling in TV money. Their contracts with the networks is lucrative, to say the least. On top of that, ticket prices have been climbing much higher than the rate of inflation for a long time. Parking, concessions at the stadium, and merchandise have never been pricier. And yet attendance continues to remain steady, or even climb in almost every location. The owners are absolutely loaded with money. LOADED! So it doesn't pass the smell test when they cry that (unspecified) "costs" are killing their balance sheets.
Which is where we dive into the details. Most franchises are making money hand over fist. For them to be crying foul is nothing short of a lie. That said, there are a few places that are legitimately struggling. Teams like Buffalo, Jacksonville, and Cincinnati might actually be in danger of losing money. A few more teams are making money, but not nearly at the rate they would like. So what gives? Why does imbalance exist when the NFL's highly-touted "revenue sharing" system has been in place for so long?
It turns out that the NFL does not share all revenues among its members. It only shares TV revenues and some portion of merchandising and ticketing revenues. Parking, concessions, local media deals, luxury suites, and a hefty chunk of merchandising revenue belongs to the individual teams that sold those items. Therefore, a team like say.... Dallas is raking in money. Not only do they get their share of the TV money, but they're getting ridiculous income from a bevy of luxury suites, local media deals, and a large fan base eager to purchase anything with a star on it. Contrast that with say.... Buffalo. Even if the Bills were to sell out every Sunday (which they no longer do, apparently), Ralph Wilson stadium (named after the current Bills owner) simply doesn't hold as many people as Cowboys stadium, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't have nearly the number of luxury suites.
So while Jerry Jones (owner of the Cowboys) is making more money than he knows what to do with, Ralph Wilson can legitimately say that his franchise is just barely making ends meet. As the owner of a business, if you are struggling for profits, you want to cut costs. What is the biggest cost for an NFL team? Player salaries. Therefore, Wilson and other NFL owners want to force the players to take a pay cut even while the league's overall revenues (and profits) are through the roof.
This is why the owners are asking the players to take the fall. This is why the owners are proposing such unwanted changes as the 18-game regular season (more games == more ticket/parking/concession/suite sales). It's really only a few owners who need these changes. Most of the owners would be fine with the status quo, but they don't want to antagonize their buddies in the club (plus lower salaries for players just means even more money for them).
The obvious reaction from the players (and many fans) is to ask why these "struggling" owners don't just ask the other owners to chip in a little more to the community pot. It's not like there isn't enough money to go around. But that would never be the first choice for these guys, for reasons of pride.
You see, the owners are big-shots. They are used to being treated as big-shots. A big-shot does NOT go to another big-shot and ask for a handout. That would be too humiliating. These struggling owners would much rather have a showdown with "labor" than to grovel for money from their fellow, more successful, owners.
And for all you wondering why the more successful owners don't just volunteer to carve out some extra funds to prop up the struggling teams, consider their point of view: They've worked hard to get new stadiums built (although usually with significant public monies). They've worked hard to sell suites and local advertising. They've invested a lot of time and energy into promoting their team and making it as lucrative as possible. Why should they throw money to guys who apparently can't get the job done (or in the case of Cincinnati, just don't care)? They would rather those owners make way for new blood (or move their teams to LA) so that the league would have more successful teams, rather than paying out for failure.
So should the players yield to the owners' demands? Why should they? They are paid a healthy sum of money, but it remains that only a few players make the kind of money that lasts a lifetime. Most NFL players last only two or three seasons, making far less than the millions of dollars given to Peyton Manning and such. They're certainly still well-compensated for their time, but does it seem fair that they take a "hit" when the league is so successful? Does it seem fair that the players should take the hit when overall NFL revenues and profits continue to climb? Should they take that "hit" just so a few bad owners can literally keep up with the Joneses?
In the end, of course, somebody will have to give in. I expect that this time it will be the owners. Why? Because public sentiment is overwhelmingly behind the players. Unlike a lot of other pro athletes, NFL players take an obvious pounding to do their jobs. Unlike most other pro sports, NFL rosters are loaded with "rank and file" players who aren't making millions every season. And most importantly, people aren't stupid. They see the owners crying about money, yet drive off in Bentleys while the TV networks shower the league with enormous sums of cash. It doesn't add up.
For further proof, check out these articles for the general mood:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6177574
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=gallo/110217_nfl_labor_goodell_smith&sportCat=nfl
I'll grant you that all those links are from one site, and that Rick Reilly is always somewhere to the left of Mao and Lenin, but I think they represent a pretty broad section of NFL fans. Of course, there are plenty of people who still can't believe anyone could be "paid" to play a game, but they are in the minority.
So what will happen? I expect that the owners will either agree to some new revenue sharing that includes more items, or that they'll have to axe/move some of the underperforming franchises. They'll never do this without the players giving up SOMETHING, if only to save face after such public negotiations, but I expect to see the players "win" this showdown. Let's just hope that no matter what happens, pride doesn't cause us to miss the always-entertaining NFL season.
SAH
