“Attempted to collude” vs “talked about it”.
Owners meet and discuss things.
1 Like
There’s also the definite possibility that the Browns’ front office is just really inept/desperate and Ravens’ is not.
2 Likes
I’m just repeating what the arbitrator found, your issue should be taken up with his report, not me.
1 Like
No that’s what Florio is trying to spin it into.
The 61 page report found that the NFLPA didn’t prove collusion and found in favor of the owners.
At the NFL owners meeting the NFL presented a slide presentation on why fully guaranteed contracts are bad for the NFL but the end slide even said that each owner can make their own conclusion and decision on it.
Florio is trying to say that this slide presentation proves collusion.
"There is little question that the NFL Management Council, with the blessing of the Commissioner, encouraged the 32 NFL Clubs to reduce guarantees in veterans’ contracts at the March 2022 annual owners meeting.
However, the evidence did not establish a clear preponderance that the Clubs agreed to do that or participated in such a scheme. There are many Clubs whose only connection to his proceeding is the attendance at the Owners’ meeting, and the expert evidence of aggregate and average changes in various measure of spending, guaranteed and otherwise, is not sufficient, even when considered with the other evidence presented, for the NFLPA to meet its standard of proof.
This is what the arbitrator wrote, not Florio. In the arbitrator’s findings, he felt the NFL Management Council’s slide presentation went to far and stated:
However, the NFLMC’s message was not purely educational and informational as the NFL contends, it unmistakably encouraged the owners to reduce the trend of increasing player guarantees.
1 Like
That is definitely a factor. The Browns have no idea what they are doing.
1 Like
Of course they did and I pointed that out in both my posts. This was the NFLPA’s entire case. As the judge stated. This is not collusion. Talking about it. Is not collusion. Agreeing to not do it is. This is why he stated they had not met the burden of proof.
Here are the facts that matter.
The judge ruled in favor of the NFL and concluded the NFLPA did not meet the burden of proof that NFL had colluded.
The rest is meaningless and is just Florio trying to stir the pot for clicks.
The arbitrator said Roger Goodell and NFL Management council attempted to collude, but he couldn’t find evidence that the owners complied.
Most of what Florio says is meaningless.
There’s no such thing as attempted collusion.
You either colluded or you didn’t.
You have every right to talk about what’s good or bad for your league.
That’s why the arbitrator had to rule
in the leagues favor.
1 Like
Well, tell that to the arbitrator, because that was his finding.
He ruled in the leagues favor because their wasn’t enough evidence to convict, not that the owners were necessarily innocent, but he couldn’t find them guilty.
3 Likes
Andrew Brandt, who has a law degree from Georgetown, currently teaches sports law at Villanova, offered his reaction to the document on his podcast at about the 16:20 through 23:45…
Says basically that the arbitrator found collusion by the league, but the preponderance of evidence wasn’t proven by the NFLPA, so we’re not going to do anything about it.
“Did they collude? Of course they did . . . Could they prove it? I guess not”
4 Likes
One of the better videos I’ve watched about it.
1 Like
It was well done, Taylor does a good job explaining things. Sounds like the “Clear” preponderance of the evidence, that no one has heard of before kind of screwed the NFLPA. Apparently somewhere above “preponderance of the evidence” and below “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It’s embarrassing to watch how badly the owners screw the players over.
2 Likes
The heart only knows …
Talking as a group about things…. With the hidden intent to try to motivate the group overall to do something…. Sound to me like attempted collusion
But it didn’t work
I can ask you or suggest for you to do something but you don’t have to do y
And they didn’t imho
League minimum was $230k when Goodell became commissioner.
2025 league minimum will be $840k.
Salary cap was $102 million when he took over. 2025 will be $279 mill.
The increases in salary have far outpaced that of most Americans.
The players have done fantastic under Goodell and owners.
You are comparing apples to oranges. They are in the entertainment business, it’s a different animal. What they get compared to what the NFL brings in is embarrassing.
Their union since Upshaw passed is very weak, there is zero chance that the players will miss game checks and the owners know that. They use that against them as they rake the NFLPA over the coals.
You do realize the owners under Paul Tagliabue took home more than 60% of the revenue while the players got less than 40%.
The Players now are bringing home close to 60% of the total revenue while the owners are getting closer to 40%.
The players are doing pretty well under the current profit sharing numbers. That’s far better revenue sharing than any union job in America is making.
2 Likes
Wow, where do you get your information, that isn’t even close. You literally come up with the poorest information. The players get 48%-48.5% of all revenue. All revenue isn’t really all revenue, the owners have backed out revenue that they don’t want to share (luxury seating, as well as stadium credits and local revenue). So the percentage is less than 48%.
Revenue and player costs (players cash salaries, pension, health care, etc) for the Lions pre 2006 (Taglibue), according to Forbes was:
| Lions | Player | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | Costs | Percent | |
| 2005 | 168,000,000 | 92,000,000 | 54.76% |
| 2004 | 159,000,000 | 75,000,000 | 47.17% |
| 2003 | 116,000,000 | 71,800,000 | 61.90% |
| 2002 | 109,000,000 | 85,900,000 | 78.81% |
| 552,000,000 | 324,700,000 | 58.82% |
Since the 2011 CBA, according to Forbes, the Lions revenue and player costs (players cash salaries plus pension, health care, etc) are:
| Lions | Player | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | Costs | Percent | |
| 2023 | 495,000,000 | 275,000,000 | 55.56% |
| 2022 | 452,000,000 | 239,000,000 | 52.88% |
| 2021 | 330,000,000 | 236,000,000 | 71.52% |
| 2020 | 411,000,000 | 250,000,000 | 60.83% |
| 2019 | 385,000,000 | 195,000,000 | 50.65% |
| 2018 | 361,000,000 | 248,000,000 | 68.70% |
| 2017 | 341,000,000 | 189,000,000 | 55.43% |
| 2016 | 321,000,000 | 151,000,000 | 47.04% |
| 2015 | 298,000,000 | 156,000,000 | 52.35% |
| 2014 | 254,000,000 | 180,000,000 | 70.87% |
| 2013 | 248,000,000 | 162,000,000 | 65.32% |
| 2012 | 231,000,000 | 150,000,000 | 64.94% |
| 2011 | 210,000,000 | 139,000,000 | 66.19% |
| 4,337,000,000 | 2,570,000,000 | 59.26% |
The Lions pay virtually the same in player costs now as they paid back pre Goodell.
But if you look at a higher market team that makes more revenue that the Lions, like the Packers, the percentage is worst.
Pre 2006
| Packers | Player | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | Costs | Percent | |
| 2005 | 168,000,000 | 91,000,000 | 54.17% |
| 2004 | 152,000,000 | 78,000,000 | 51.32% |
| 2003 | 132,000,000 | 89,400,000 | 67.73% |
| 2002 | 119,000,000 | 73,100,000 | 61.43% |
| 571,000,000 | 331,500,000 | 58.06% |
2011-2023
| Packers | Player | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | Costs | Percent | |
| 2023 | 577,000,000 | 294,000,000 | 50.95% |
| 2022 | 543,000,000 | 225,000,000 | 41.44% |
| 2021 | 371,000,000 | 255,000,000 | 68.73% |
| 2020 | 485,000,000 | 230,000,000 | 47.42% |
| 2019 | 456,000,000 | 245,000,000 | 53.73% |
| 2018 | 434,000,000 | 218,000,000 | 50.23% |
| 2017 | 421,000,000 | 193,000,000 | 45.84% |
| 2016 | 391,000,000 | 177,000,000 | 45.27% |
| 2015 | 347,000,000 | 159,000,000 | 45.82% |
| 2014 | 299,000,000 | 171,000,000 | 57.19% |
| 2013 | 282,000,000 | 136,000,000 | 48.23% |
| 2012 | 276,000,000 | 150,000,000 | 54.35% |
| 2011 | 242,000,000 | 147,000,000 | 60.74% |
| 5,124,000,000 | 2,600,000,000 | 50.74% |
Higher market teams have a higher disparity than the Packers (Dallas, NE, Washington, NY Giants, LA Rams, San Fran), while lower market teams, similar to the Lions (Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Tennessee, Jacksonville) are similar to the Lions i.e. roughly the same now as pre 2006.
Cowboys player costs were 38% 2002-2006 and 25% 2011-2023.
A simpler way to look at it is, according to the Sports Business Journal, For FY 2024, the NFL made more than $23B in total revenue. The player costs for 2024 were $329.4M per team ($255.4M salary cap + $74M in player benefits). ($329.4 x 32 teams)/$23B Total Revenue = 45.8% to the players, 54.2% to the owners.
2 Likes
And the plot thickens . . .
Would love to know why both sides felt the need for a confidentiality agreement to keep information from the players and their reps.
1 Like