The NFL CBA and the National Economy: Why We Will Have Football in 2011
Doug Pensinger/Getty Images
For quite some time now, the NFL world has been consumed with talks of whether or not there will be a 2011 football season. I am here to tell you that there is no reason to believe there won’t be football next year, and here’s why.
For many of us fans, the current state of affairs concerning the NFL and the NFL Players Association appears to be one of billionaires fighting with millionaires over amounts of money that can only be described as obscene.
Owners argue over profit sharing. Players fight over additional monies for adjustment to an 18-game season, as well as several other issues, and we the fans seem to be left out in the cold watching at the mercy of their squabbles.
How many of us as fans have said amongst our peers that if the NFL and the Players Association boycotts the fans by refusing to come to terms, then we as fans have a duty to boycott them?
How many have claimed to want nothing more to do to with this game we have all come to love if we are so shunned? I must admit that upon hearing the news of a possible lockout that I, too, was tempted to lay down the colors of my own beloved team.
However, as I sat contemplating the thought of no football come fall, I was struck with the following realization:
The NFL is a business—and a huge one at that. This year the NFL generated somewhere near $9 billion in total revenue. It is estimated that if there is no lockout next season, that number can grow up to $9.8 billion in annual revenue, according to IBISWorld analyst Dmitry Kopylovsky.
Will there be football in 2011?
This dollar figure, while staggering, pales in comparison to the disastrous effects this will have on those affected by a work stoppage in the coming year.
In what appears to be an attempt to relate to fans and NFL employees, commissioner Roger Goodell as well as chief negotiator Jeff Pash have vowed in a supposed document reported by the NFL Network in late January of 2011 that if a stoppage in work happens, they would reduce their salaries to $1.
I am sure this comes as little to no comfort to those to be affected.
This leads me to my point: With those who fatten the pockets of these owners and players—not to mention the $800 million that would be left on the table—can the NFL and the Players Association afford to not play in 2011?
The answer is emphatically no.
As I said before, this is a business—it happens to be one that at $9 billion annually would rank around No. 260 on the Forbes 500 list.
I am here to tell you that no business that would hope to thrive in the future and maintain such status would essentially bite the hand that feeds it.
If the NFL and the Players Association should decide to engross themselves with their own greed, I offer this question: How long before the government decides to stick its all intrusive nose into it?
Who is at fault for the current state of affairs?
When big businesses fail, it not only displaces countless workers, it upsets the economies at both the local and federal levels. Believe you me that the revenue generated by all involved in this theatre of sports entertainment are subject to taxation, just like the rest of us.
In these times of economic uncertainty, the government will not stand for a decrease in its piece of the pie.
So, whether it is in an effort to inflate bank accounts, appease an already offended fan base, or to avoid government intrusion, it is in the best interests of all involved to come to an agreement for a new CBA as soon as possible.
If for no other reason than those listed here, we will have football in 2011.
This, just as all articles I write, is open to debate, so let me know what you think.
Will there be football next year? Is the commissioner doing all he can? Is the Players Association being fair?
I will attempt to answer these and any other questions you might have just as fast as I can and as always thanks for reading.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?