1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NFL owners vote to opt out of labor contract

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by ondeadline, May 20, 2008.

  1. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    It was more about timing. Rozelle got the owners to agree on revenue sharing in the infancy of televised sports -- before large-market owners fully understood how much they would be giving up. If the league had waited a couple more years, it might not have happened.

    Same with Selig getting MLB owners to share Internet revenue. It couldn't happen if he had waited until now.

    Personally, I think the lead should let individual owners control more of their local marketing efforts. As it stands, the individual club brands are getting lost in a homogenized NFL.
     
  2. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    The arms race between Jerry and Danny in 2010 is gonna be chips-and-salsa stuff.
     
  3. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    8-8 and still the biggest money grubber in a league with Jerry Jones in it
     
  4. steveu

    steveu Well-Known Member

    Wowee.

    Tell ya this: If the NFL allows the players to walk following 2010, then the league deserves whatever fate it gets. Talk about potentially killing the golden goose.
     
  5. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Maybe, but Wellington Mara could have complained about how much money he would lose being in the biggest media capital. He didn't, because he knew it would be best for the league.

    Mara also wanted to bring back Vince Lombardi as head coach after the 1960 season. The league persuaded Mara, and Lombardi, that it would be in the best interest of the Packers that Lombardi stay in Green Bay.
     
  6. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    The NFL loves to embellish these stories about the unselfish, forward-thinking league pioneers of the day, but there just wasn't much money in local TV at the time. If the bigger market guys really understood how much they'd lose in the long run, they wouldn't have gone along.
     
  7. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    Meanwhile, they do want to take away a preseason game, and make the regular season 17 games.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3405076
     
  8. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    That would be a step in the right direction.
     
  9. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    Eliminate a preseason game = good.
    17 regular-season games = stupid.
     
  10. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    Bet you the games around the world come in as the 17th game so teams have even home and road games to maintain competitive balance.
     
  11. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Everybody would have to play one neutral site game to keep it equitable.
     
  12. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    Once they get to an uncapped season, why the the players association ever allow a cap again?
    The "small market" greedy fucks who are complaiing about not enough shared revenue could get crushed by this if the PA shows any balls.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page