Richard Sherman: Players need to be willing to strike

[chris98251]

I look at the share of revenue that goes to players in MLB and NBA and also notice they are the two leagues that have the greatest difference between competitiveness between teams, a few elite in the NBA and few Elite in the MLB and everyone else training grounds for the Free Agents signed by those elite few. It's the owners sure but lower revenue teams pay less to their players and have a less competitive team. Unless your the Mariners and your just bad at evaluation and cursed.

I can't remember but the NFL shares revenue and I am not sure the other leagues do off the top of my head which also would add to the difference in competition.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Not only that, but the owners aren't going to make less because the players start taking a larger chunk. They will simply increase prices to compensate, passing on the player's pay raise (plus some) to the fans.

No, they won't. That's not how economics works.

Whether you are selling an NFL ticket or a carrot, the price is set by what the *buyer* is willing to pay for it. The seller may choose to sell for less to attract new clients, to undercut a competitor, or other reasons, but he can't sell for more without losing clientele.

Some companies are happy to sell for more money to a fewer number of clients, to maintain exclusivity of a product, or because that's the sweet spot in their costs vs units sold, but in order to do so they need to convince the buyers that the product is worth more via advertising. See: Fashion, exotic cars. etc.

However, NFL teams don't operate that way because if they don't move the units (tickets) they get blacked out and lose TV revenue. They have to sell tickets, so they have to make them affordable, but to maximise profits they sell them for as much as they can.

Buyers determine what a product sells for. Costs determine how much profit is made, and whether or not it is feasible to continue selling the product, but have little to do with price.

Yes, there are some stores that work on a markup basis. They take the cost, double it, and that's what they sell it for. However, they are mainly retail businesses that don't do any market research to see what they can get away with, and sell products from companies that *have* done that research and know what the public will pay for their product, post-markup.

 

[JustTheTip]

Not only that, but the owners aren't going to make less because the players start taking a larger chunk. They will simply increase prices to compensate, passing on the player's pay raise (plus some) to the fans.

No, they won't. That's not how economics works.

Whether you are selling an NFL ticket or a carrot, the price is set by what the *buyer* is willing to pay for it. The seller may choose to sell for less to attract new clients, to undercut a competitor, or other reasons, but he can't sell for more without losing clientele.

Some companies are happy to sell for more money to a fewer number of clients, to maintain exclusivity of a product, or because that's the sweet spot in their costs vs units sold, but in order to do so they need to convince the buyers that the product is worth more via advertising. See: Fashion, exotic cars. etc.

However, NFL teams don't operate that way because if they don't move the units (tickets) they get blacked out and lose TV revenue. They have to sell tickets, so they have to make them affordable, but to maximise profits they sell them for as much as they can.

Buyers determine what a product sells for. Costs determine how much profit is made, and whether or not it is feasible to continue selling the product, but have little to do with price.

Yes, there are some stores that work on a markup basis. They take the cost, double it, and that's what they sell it for. However, they are mainly retail businesses that don't do any market research to see what they can get away with, and sell products from companies that *have* done that research and know what the public will pay for their product, post-markup.

And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.

 

[Seymour]

And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.

I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

 

[DJrmb]

And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.

I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

That's only one stadium. Most stadiums are not as healthy as Seattle. Owners aren't making all that money on selling tickets to the games. Most of the money is coming from TV etc. I doubt they could make up 3-9% revenue of 14+ billion through ticket sales.

 

[Seymour]

And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.

I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

That's only one stadium. Most stadiums are not as healthy as Seattle. Owners aren't making all that money on selling tickets to the games. Most of the money is coming from TV etc. I doubt they could make up 3-9% revenue of 14+ billion through ticket sales.

The discussion was "would our ticket prices go up?". Our stadium is the only one that matters when dealing with that question.

 

[DJrmb]

And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.

I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

That's only one stadium. Most stadiums are not as healthy as Seattle. Owners aren't making all that money on selling tickets to the games. Most of the money is coming from TV etc. I doubt they could make up 3-9% revenue of 14+ billion through ticket sales.

The discussion was "would our ticket prices go up?". Our stadium is the only one that matters when dealing with that question.

Well then in that case we're talking about Paul Allen and I believe the argument that it will hurt the fans is even less likely. Paul Allen isn't one of the "stick it to the fans" type of owners nor does he need the money.

 

[Seymour]

I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

That's only one stadium. Most stadiums are not as healthy as Seattle. Owners aren't making all that money on selling tickets to the games. Most of the money is coming from TV etc. I doubt they could make up 3-9% revenue of 14+ billion through ticket sales.

The discussion was "would our ticket prices go up?". Our stadium is the only one that matters when dealing with that question.

Well then in that case we're talking about Paul Allen and I believe the argument that it will hurt the fans is even less likely. Paul Allen isn't one of the "stick it to the fans" type of owners nor does he need the money.

Sounds great, and at a quick glance I would agree, until you figure in the secondary market. If they are too cheap, people will buy them solely as an investment, then make a huge profit in the secondary market. Some of that already is happening in high demand games now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessel...secondary-market-up-9-from-2014/#5eacaef9178e

 

[Popeyejones]

I look at the share of revenue that goes to players in MLB and NBA and also notice they are the two leagues that have the greatest difference between competitiveness between teams, a few elite in the NBA and few Elite in the MLB and everyone else training grounds for the Free Agents signed by those elite few. It's the owners sure but lower revenue teams pay less to their players and have a less competitive team. Unless your the Mariners and your just bad at evaluation and cursed.

I can't remember but the NFL shares revenue and I am not sure the other leagues do off the top of my head which also would add to the difference in competition.

There's a lot of factoare, but the one that never gets talked about is that if the NFL had an 82 or 162 game season and best of five and best of seven playoffs (I know all of this is impossible for football) you'd see a TON less variation in who is winning the Super Bowl each year.

And the same thing works in reverse for MLB and and the NBA. It was a weird year for the NBA this year with the two championship teams rolling through the playoffs almost undefeated, but if either of those leagues had a one and done playoff structure and sixteen game seasons you'd have a ton more parity.

 

[chris98251]

I look at the share of revenue that goes to players in MLB and NBA and also notice they are the two leagues that have the greatest difference between competitiveness between teams, a few elite in the NBA and few Elite in the MLB and everyone else training grounds for the Free Agents signed by those elite few. It's the owners sure but lower revenue teams pay less to their players and have a less competitive team. Unless your the Mariners and your just bad at evaluation and cursed.

I can't remember but the NFL shares revenue and I am not sure the other leagues do off the top of my head which also would add to the difference in competition.

There's a lot of factoare, but the one that never gets talked about is that if the NFL had an 82 or 162 game season and best of five and best of seven playoffs (I know all of this is impossible for football) you'd see a TON less variation in who is winning the Super Bowl each year.

And the same thing works in reverse for MLB and and the NBA. It was a weird year for the NBA this year with the two championship teams rolling through the playoffs almost undefeated, but if either of those leagues had a one and done playoff structure and sixteen game seasons you'd have a ton more parity.

Well there was a lot of parity before the current format and Contract structures, sure Boston and the Lakers had strong teams always, but pre ABA merger you had a lot of new teams pushing every year, Bucks, Bullets, Pistons, Knicks, 76ers, Trailblazers, SuperSonics, Bulls, before Jordon, Cavaliers had a few good years as well, Rockets Kansas City Omaha Kings I could go on but there was a chance and opportunity every season for teams to break through, Oh don't want to leave out the Golden State Warriors as well.

 

[tacomahawk]

So the fans should exercise their value to the market.

Stop paying for tickets. Stop going to games. Stop buying jerseys. Stop watching games on TV. Stop paying for football sports channels with your cable package. Stop playing fantasy.

Etc. etc. etc.

Fans have a say in all of this. From ticket prices right down to salaries.

There unfortunately is a problem with this, if the players did go on strike, I would want to go on strike as well. However, I have had season tickets for going on 20 years now, and if I stop paying for them then they will just find someone else to take over my seats. I can't just tell them piss off without losing something that I would never get back when they get done with their shenanigans.

 

[KiwiHawk]

There unfortunately is a problem with this, if the players did go on strike, I would want to go on strike as well. However, I have had season tickets for going on 20 years now, and if I stop paying for them then they will just find someone else to take over my seats. I can't just tell them piss off without losing something that I would never get back when they get done with their shenanigans.

That moment you realise that season tickets exists to keep you paying when the team is down, not to guarantee your seat when the team is up.

 

[Popeyejones]

There unfortunately is a problem with this, if the players did go on strike, I would want to go on strike as well. However, I have had season tickets for going on 20 years now, and if I stop paying for them then they will just find someone else to take over my seats. I can't just tell them piss off without losing something that I would never get back when they get done with their shenanigans.

Absolutely, but remember though that in narrating your weak bargaining power almost all of the players who hypothetically are going to go on strike are in an even more precarious situation than you.

It would suck for you to have to decide if you want to give up your seasons tickets or not, but we're talking about a group of people who have spent their entire lives getting ready for an occupation which in all likelihood will last three to five years in total.

For most of them, to go on strike they're basically agreeing to give up 20% or more of their lifetime earning potential in their profession.

We already know the owners are MORE than willing to force a strike and have the cash reserves to do so because the last go around they couldn't get the players to strike (which would have been a PR win for them) and instead locked them out (which wasn't NEARLY as much of the PR hit as it should have been).

And don't forget WHY the owners went on strike (i.e. locked out the players): they did so to make sure that neither the players nor anyone else would ever be able to know how much profit they had been generating (those books come open and you unequivocally can't argue for the owner-friendliest revenue split in professional sports, or that taxpayers should be paying for your revenue generating buildings for you).

 

[Smelly McUgly]

I'm a teacher, and I'm not silly enough to think that I should make as much as an NFL player. Until I pack a stadium and my place of employment can sign a billion-dollar TV deal for people to watch me teach, I'm not worth that much in the free market. Americans love free markets until football players want more money! (And LEOs should definitely get less money if anything, but that's a whole 'nother story).

I wish that the players would strike, but they don't have the spine or discipline to do it. MLB players lost a year, but they saved their salaries and now dudes are headed toward half-a-billion dollar contracts, and since the league makes the revenue to sustain it, good for them. Like I care that some billionaire wants to extend his profit margins. NBA players weathered lockouts and strikes and now players are getting up to quarter-billion-dollar contracts, and they are STILL underpaid relative to the revenue they generate, but at least they're not getting played for suckers.

Football players are the lamest dudes out there, though. They can't even get guaranteed contracts; pathetic. If football players would save their money until 2020 and then just wipe a year out to get fully-guaranteed contracts and a higher cap, that would be a win for them, but they have no discipline or sense, so they won't.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Sherman needs to shut the hell up. I'm getting sick and tired of his antics, and outspoken nature. I didn't mind it for the last few years, but now it seems like he has the need to make headlines every, single, week.

I wish the legions of sports fans who think that everyone needs to hear their moronic, ill-thought-out hawt taeks about the opinions of sports players would shut the hell up, but that's not going to happen, either, so I guess neither of us will be happy.

 

[LolaRox]

In my opinion the players make all the sacrifices and take on all the risks (short & long term). If they want a bigger slice of the pie, I won't hold it against them. In fact, I'd be rooting for them to get it even if they strike to get it.

Bottom of the chain is the consumer...the paying fan. I have my doubts if fans will pay $200 a game to sit in the nose bleed section( Row GG) of the #300 section.....but what do I know....a fool and his money are easily separated.

Not sure what this has to do with my comment. My comment was supporting them getting a bigger piece of the pie not the overall size of the pie or how the pie is made.

The pie could be $13B or $13 dollars, if they want a larger % I would root for them to get. I'd rather they have it than the owners.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Here's my take on what needs to be done:

Salary cap needs to be divided in three parts. Part one goes to the owners, part two goes to the players and forms the salary cap, just like now.

Part three is the new bit. This part is placed in trust with the NFLPA to be distributed among players after the season. This money gets paid out in the form of bonuses to players who out-perform their contract (see: Russell Wilson, rookie deal), injury settlements to players who are forced to retire due to injury, fringe players who are on and off practice squads, and perhaps some golden handshakes to retiring veterans who were consistent starters but who somehow never got the big deals.

The goal is a more equitable distribution of funds among the players without eliminating money as an incentive, and compensation for players who lose income from not being able to hold a regular job directly as a result of participation in the NFL.

 

[LolaRox]

Here's my take on what needs to be done:

Salary cap needs to be divided in three parts. Part one goes to the owners, part two goes to the players and forms the salary cap, just like now.

Part three is the new bit. This part is placed in trust with the NFLPA to be distributed among players after the season. This money gets paid out in the form of bonuses to players who out-perform their contract (see: Russell Wilson, rookie deal), injury settlements to players who are forced to retire due to injury, fringe players who are on and off practice squads, and perhaps some golden handshakes to retiring veterans who were consistent starters but who somehow never got the big deals.

The goal is a more equitable distribution of funds among the players without eliminating money as an incentive, and compensation for players who lose income from not being able to hold a regular job directly as a result of participation in the NFL.

Don't they already have something like that? Performance Based Bonuses, they get distributed at the end of each season.

 

[Seahaaaawks]

Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

IDK.

I DO KNOW THIS.
The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

I get it, at least I think I do.
But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

Football players on strike, ok.

What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

What if our grocery workers went on strike?

It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

MLB
NFL
NBA
All went on strike and refused to play?

I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
Would yours?

Dude... 100% spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself. My company profited some crazy amount like 15 billion last year. We got a candy bar wrapped in a wrapper that said thank you on it. So I don't wanna hear it when they say they want more millions. When is more ever good enough? I can't even imagine what it would be like to have 1 million dollars... but 30, 40, 50 million? And it's still not enough? Please... it's way out of hand. Everyone is so worried what other players are making instead of focusing on themselves, being thankful for what they have, and remembering where they came from.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

IDK.

I DO KNOW THIS.
The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

I get it, at least I think I do.
But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

Football players on strike, ok.

What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

What if our grocery workers went on strike?

It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

MLB
NFL
NBA
All went on strike and refused to play?

I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
Would yours?

Dude... 100% spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself. My company profited some crazy amount like 15 billion last year. We got a candy bar wrapped in a wrapper that said thank you on it. So I don't wanna hear it when they say they want more millions. When is more ever good enough? I can't even imagine what it would be like to have 1 million dollars... but 30, 40, 50 million? And it's still not enough? Please... it's way out of hand. Everyone is so worried what other players are making instead of focusing on themselves, being thankful for what they have, and remembering where they came from.

See, this is the issue: Instead of thinking, "Why don't I get more from my company for the value that I helped create," you think, "I didn't get as much money as I should have gotten from my company, so football players shouldn't either."

No, you're both workers and you both generate profits. You both should be eating better than you are. Just because Sherm makes 10M a year and you make 60K a year doesn't mean that you both probably deserve to be compensated more for your labor.

Honestly, if farmers and ranchers want to hold out, they can. In fact, they do, because farmers often vote for whomever will give them subsidies to farm. Frankly, if farmers held out, they would get crushed by competition from other countries. What they do can be duplicated by farmers in Mexico or Peru or Canada. What Richard Sherman does can only be duplicated by like five other guys. That's why Sherm is worth 50M and a corn farmer in Iowa isn't worth nearly that much.

If some of you guys are against market forces being the major determinant of value, that's fine. Just say that this is what you believe and share what sort of planned economy that you prefer over a free market economy. Me, I think that when it comes to pro sports, the free market is the best determinant of value. I'm totally against salary caps of any type. All they do is keep players from getting fair value for their labor. That's why I'm also in favor of programs that allow all workers to get the highest value for their labor possible (such as a baseline universal income that would allow people to negotiate for wages for their labor without worrying about having to take a crappy job to eat or put a roof over their heads), but now we're getting too political.

However, I reject the idea that just because you don't think that you get fair value for your labor, other people should just shut up and be happy with their lot even if they're also not getting fair value for their labor.