A potential NFL lockout is a few weeks away but if we're going to stay sane through all this, we'll need someone to take the blame. And for that job, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson has all the credentials we're looking for.
Feb 15, 2011 - On March 3rd, the NFL's current collective bargaining agreement expires, and professional football will officially begin a work stoppage. The NFL Players Association knows this. Roger Goodell knows this. You know this. The only question is, when it happens, who will we blame?
That's the only way this can be any fun. I mean, there's no way a lockout can ever be fun, but at the very least, we can create some heroes and villains in all this, and make this entertaining.
You know, give ourselves a storyline other than just, "The owners and players are all greedy, and none of them care about depriving us of football. Really, all that matters is the percentage of profits that they get." That'd be terrible and depressing, and I'm not going to stand for it.
And to that point, here's a pretty solid breakdown of what's driving a potential lockout, and it paints a clear picture of who's more blameworthy between the players and owners. One sentence distills things better than anything else: "The owners overspent on unnecessary stadiums, and now they want the players to work more for less pay to help pay down the debt."
So at least until one of them says something phenomenally insensitive, let's say we'll side with the NFL players. Because put it this way: When the television rights to one game each week nets the league close to $2 billion-a-year, it's hard to step back and claim poverty with a straight face.
So let's focus on blaming the owners. Which brings us to Jerry Richardson...
Richardson owns the Carolina Panthers, he's the co-chair of the NFL owners' negotiating team, and I mean... just look at him! He's like a caricature of everyone we've learned to hate from corporate America. Old, rich, and really angry-looking, for some reason.
Of course, he was ranked the league's third most powerful owner by Yahoo! Sports' Michael Silver, who relayed this anecdote from owners meetings a year ago:
... Richardson, the management council’s point man on the labor front, made an even more emphatic statement, opening a session on the first day with a fiery speech that had some of his peers ready to run through a wall. Recalls one witness, "Jerry said, ‘We signed a [expletive] deal last time, and we’re going to stick together and take back our league and [expletive] do something about it.’ He was practically yelling. It was amazing, and it set an incredible tone."
Yes, an incredible tone.
If you're looking to antagonize the players into a lockout and deprive football fans of actual football, it was an incredible tone. See, there's going to be an NFL lockout in the next few weeks. We all know this. But Jerry Richardson wants this. As far back as last March, he's been setting a tone that divides everyone.
Nothing says, "Let's work together" like "We're going to take back our league!"
But hey, at least he's consistent! Just this past week, at more labor meetings between players and owners, Richardson reportedly went after Peyton Manning. From Yahoo! Sports again:
"[Richardson] was extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton," a source said. "[Richardson] was the only person on either side who was contentious. Everybody else was respectful. They might have said, ‘I disagree with your point,’ but at least they were respectful. [Richardson] was not."
Apparently, Richardson was particularly sarcastic when Manning started to talk about players’ safety. At one point, Richardson evidently said, "What do you know about player safety?"
Wait a second, this guy is downplaying player safety concerns? Get outta town!
As Jay Feely asked incredulously of everyone's favorite billionaire: "Jerry Richardson . . . he’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday? And sit there and say dismissively to Manning ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you know how to read that?’"
Ah, but that's just the point. Jerry's an expert at this, and there's a reason he's the co-chair of the NFL owners' negotiating team. He's got certain virtues that come in handy with disputes like this. Take his complete and utter lack of shame, for instance.
While the league is supposedly in the midst of a revenue crisis, and on the verge of what became a 2-14 season with the league's worst team, Richardson's franchise decided to begin lobbying for a new stadium in Charlotte earlier this season. Which would be fine, except that Charlotte's Bank of America stadium was built in 1996, and because Richardson refused to spend money on the Panthers, the games have been routinely lifeless. And he thinks it's the stadium's fault?
But then... That's why he's our guy. The perfect villain!
He's the NFL tycoon that helped put Roger Goodell in power, and now he's actively galvanizing Goodell and the owners against the players to win back profit shares, while simultaneously asking players to play more and disregard safety concerns. And when he's not talking down to Drew Brees or Peyton Manning about revenue models, he's asking North Carolina taxpayers to bankroll a new stadium.
Finally, one more time from that labor piece mentioned above:
The franchise operators don’t just want to maintain their status quo, they want to maintain the illusion that their product has inelastic demand and they can continue consuming at will from local governments, fans, television networks, etc. This isn’t about maximizing profit. It’s about maximizing consumption for the sake of consumption.
It would be too good to be true if Richardson, the guy lecturing players about profit margins and laughing off health concerns as the game gets bigger and more dangerous... Oh, wow. Of course, the owners' chief-negotiator made his fortune with a string of fast food restaurants.
Over the next few months, Jerry Richardson will do his best to explain the NFL's need for wealth redistribution and increased profitability and all sorts of other abstract concepts. Whether it's talking down to someone like Peyton Manning, or talking to fellow owners, who take their pleas to the media. But as we get closer to a work stoppage, it's important to remember.
Nobody embodies the laughable audacity of these arguments better than Jerry, himself. And in the end, that's a good thing. The cartoonish fast food tycoon grilling players about profit margins and player safety? Someone like that makes this whole thing a lot easier to digest.
22 comments
Comments
What your also not pointing out...
is JR was a player too. The only owner that can make that claim. So he understands need for player safety. While the owners are putting their money into making the game experience better (the new stadiums you pointed out) The players are complaining about taking a pay cut and asking what the money has been spent on. I would like to revers the questioning. What have they spent it on? While Richardson used his money from his playing days (which was substantially less than what they make now) to start a chain of fast food restaurants that would sustain his lively hood, what are a majority of the players spending their money on? Cars? houses? guns to shoot themselves in the leg with?These guys want to use the argument that it’s how they feed their families? Really? So these select men need 100 MILLION dollars to feed their family? The cost of each player will rise more and more…until it’s at an unreachable amount. I can see where a rookie straight out from college, making 78 Million to perform a job that no one is certain that he can do..would be laughable to a business savvy person like JR ….Not to mention Brees came out and said there was not condescending spats or no more that would be expected in these kinds of negotiations. Also Jay Feely wasn’t even in the meeting. So take the hear say for what it’s worth. If there is going to be a fall guy..it will likely be the NFLPA pres. From all reports the have been just a difficult if not more underhanded than the owners. Then again…it’s all hearsay…just my opinion…
Now where's my REAL fans at?!
by UNCMattyt99 on Feb 15, 2011 12:07 PM EST reply actions
He played one year, in 1959. So he knows more about player safety today than the players themselves?
Yeah, that makes sense.
by Packers3485 on Feb 15, 2011 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
He played in the NFL for 2 years, he played in 1960 as well.
I've got a feeling that Buffalo is going to the Super, er, going play hard and lose in a gutwrenching fashion -
by 78sackdance on Feb 15, 2011 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
It doesn’t change the fact that his intimate understanding of safety standards in the NFL is very antiquated.
Oh, and he’s a complete waste of carbon and DNA – a heart attack waiting to happen, to boot.
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
Current song recommendation: Ween "Mr. Richard Smoker"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 15, 2011 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
it’s not about need. do the owners NEED the bigger slice? no.
do the players NEED 100 mil? no.
the issue is, is that some players (say the 5 who make 100 mil) make 3 tomes that amount for the owners.
say you work for a company, and they make record profits off your back, wouldn’t you feel the need for a raise? the only difference is that with entertainment the money made is astronomical.
so would you rather see the guys we pay to see and idolize get their due reward for going out on the field and entertaining us every sunday, or fat cat billionaire owners who are already ridiculously rich get even fatter pockets?
it’s a no brainer to me.
Bradford to Onobun!
by Infemous on Feb 16, 2011 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you're absolutely right
there is NOTHING here about need…
Every time I hear someone side with the owners, with the same argument: “the players make millions of dollars just to play a game”, I cringe…
The players do play a game, and they generate wealth for the owners. They should be compensated according to the value they add to the product. It’s not about WHAT they do, it’s about how easy it would be to replace them. I can afford to pay a saute cook $10/hr because if he doesn’t like it, I can replace him tomorrow with someone equally skilled. I’d be forced to pay Peyton Manning a pretty unique salary for the skill he has because replacing him would be near impossible.
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
by jalarsen1 on Feb 16, 2011 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Ayn Rand would roll in her grave
I’m a good capitalist and one that appreciates the ability of skilled people to earn immense wealth for a product or service that sells in the free market
and I cringe EVERY time I hear some fat-cat argue that they need help beyond the scale of the market to maintain their product (I.E taxpayer revenue, or labor cuts)
If you’re a brilliant businessman, and you’ve played the game and gotten rich, awesome. But DON’T take my money against my will. I’ll give you my money in ticket sales and merchandise purchases freely, but the minute you start saying that you need MORE of my money simply to keep your business afloat, I say, “Go scratch!”
If you can’t run the business on its own merits, then let it fail, because YOU FAILED!!!!
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
by jalarsen1 on Feb 16, 2011 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
"what are a majority of the players spending their money on?"
Who cares? Once they cash the check, what they do with it is their business and has no bearing on the negotiations. If a player spends himself into personal bankruptcy, it means nothing to the game. If the owners waste taxpayer money on needless new stadiums and then try to force the players to make up the difference, that has a huge bearing on the negotiations.
"Smell the perfume but don't drink it because it might kill you." Erin Andrews recounting advise from Gary Pinkel
by Gaknar on Feb 15, 2011 12:33 PM EST reply actions
Figures...
old white rich labor hating republican prick… just what you would expect!!!
He is what is wrong with America!!!
We need a strong labor movement in this country to save the American middle class and the American Dream!!!
by NorCalFaithful on Feb 15, 2011 2:26 PM EST reply actions
I really hope I sensed sarcasm there
at the expense of innovation? Greed is not the enemy of labor, greed is the engine of labor. Nobody opens a factory because they really just want to create jobs for disenfranchised folk. They open a factory to get rich. Greed opens businesses, it expands production and it spawns innovation. That’s the key element that Marx missed altogether.
Isn’t the American Dream the idea that anybody can make something of themselves? Isn’t the American dream the reactionary child from old European caste systems that locked you in to a lifetime social standing from your birth? The middle-class is not the American Dream…yes, we need to save and preserve it, but that doesn’t come from taxing the rich to give to the poor
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
by jalarsen1 on Feb 16, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
greed is not the 'engine of labor',
Humans’ need to produce and utilize material goods is the engine of labor.
Greed’s interests go in the opposite direction of labor, because greed wants to hoard— greed wants more for ME, and paying out money to other people means that I don’t get as much.
Yeah, greed can motivate people to innovate and reorganize, if the financial incentive is there, but that’s only part of the picture (Marx didn’t “miss” that, he just saw it as comparatively small). Greed motivates people to do ANYTHING that maximizes financial gain, whether it is pro- or anti-social. It makes owners desperately want other people to buy what the owners produce, but contrarily want to pay as little as possible in wages to THEIR employees— they want people to buy their stuff, but sure as hell don’t want to be the ones to have to put that money in their pocket in the first place.
and so that leads to wage repression, which makes the expansion of credit (and according debt) “necessary”… and that’s how we are where we are. But remember, kids, it’s those darn unions that are to blame for our problems.
In the context of the NFL (that’s what we were talking about anyway, right? cough), it seems like a weak argument that the Owners aren’t going to “innovate” (what innovation is there to make, out of curiosity) if they’re getting a paltry 50% of the profits, and that they are suddenly going to be inspired to make a better product when they get 60%… come on, be reasonable. Greed makes them perpetually want as much as they can possibly squeeze out of everyone else, but what exactly do you see as the vast improvements to the on-field product directly resulting from Jerry Jones collecting an extra $20 million annually?
by hahasound on Feb 16, 2011 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
The brilliance of Adam Smith's argument
was that wealth doesn’t need to be hoarded, because it can be created.
Let the owners get all they can, let the laborers get all they can. If I’m a good laborer, and you won’t pay me, I’ll go to the next guy, who will. If he won’t pay either, then maybe I need to enhance my skill set so I’m more marketable. I certainly don’t blame players that fight to get every single dime they can out of their contract negotiations.
It’s a great conversation, and I get what you’re saying. Greed is not a virtue by any means, and it definitely gets out of hand (Bernie Madoff as a recent popular example)…but I just can’t help my ‘gut’ response every time I hear the programmed mantra for some “laborer’s movement” or other socialist jingle as if that will simply solve all our economic woes.
As far as the NFL, you’re absolutely right. Nobody’s innovating, these guys just made investments and are fighting for the best return on them. In some cases they invested too much, and are getting worried that it won’t pay back. I’m certainly not siding with owners here; since I’m a good capitalist they have no right to invest money and then look for means outside of consumer market to pay it off (i.e. tax revenue or player pay cuts…players shouldn’t have to pay b/c owners overspent). As far as I’m concerned, if a particular owner can’t make it work, he should sell it to someone who can, or let it sink.
Then again, maybe they can just apply for a bailout…that seems to work for large companies who suck at management:)
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
by jalarsen1 on Feb 16, 2011 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
I don't have a problem with the owners playing hardball and trying to increase the amount of profits they make from their teams.
They have every right to pay their players as little as possible and to squeeze every last dime they can out of the fans, network, sponsors, and governments.
Just stop the hypocrisy; ie. player safety, integrity of the game, serving the fan base and especially over some teams losing money. If it is true, so what? If this is a free market let them sink and go bankrupt. Someone will step in and buy them for a song, rebuild them or run it as a second rate franchise. Or they will be moved to a more profitable location. Some fans bitch, some rejoice, life goes on. Who cares if some small market teams cannot be competitive at the highest level? The fans can still enjoy the NFL experience. How many college football teams have a realistic chance of EVER winning the national championship? The fans still enjoy going to the games, so what’s the problem?
But the illusion of an even playing field is very important to the NFL, so it is as much in their interest as the players and fans that all teams are relatively equivalent with respect to financial resources. The most painless way of increasing all teams’ take home is to cut employee wages [seems like I have heard of that before]. Then, everyone wins. Well, all the owners anyway.
I really wish the owners would just come out and publicly admit that they feel their employees are overpaid and that they need the money more than the players. The players? Yeah, they make a truck load of dough, no doubt about it. If I was in their place I would negotiate the best contract I could. Wouldn’t you?The fans? Well, we are the cash cow that drives the whole thing, but I don’t see us as a group ever giving up this habit.
Now maybe if we went cold turkey for awhile…….hmmmmmm.
by NorthLeft12 on Feb 15, 2011 2:27 PM EST reply actions
You are obviously some bs fan of a continuously successful team to have the mindset that it doesn’t matter if a team moves from a city. Some teams mean a whole lot more to the city than your ignorant outsider mind might think. A lot of people here wouldn’t watch because they “enjoy the NFL experience”, a lot of people just like our one team and if our team was to dissolve I and many other people wouldn’t give a rat’s ass for the NFL and especially not for their petty arguments when everyone is rolling in dough.
by trademark on Feb 15, 2011 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
no, he's not some BS fan ... he's an intelligent consumer who's fed up with the greed and corruption
yeah, it is hard to feel sorry for millionaires like the players, but it’s harder to feel sorry for the billionaire owners
Winner: 2009 Nostradamus of Arrowhead Pride Award (I'd like to thank my producer, my director, all of my wonderful fans ... )
"I shall conquer untruth by truth" - Mahatma Gandhi
"It's always easier to sell 'em some shit than it is to give 'em the truth" - Shel Silverstein, The Perfect High
Come back, Jason!
hi, Mo! 5 minutes!!!
by upamtn on Feb 15, 2011 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
what part of
that led you to the conclusion that he feels sorry the billionaire owners?
I agree with him…in a free market, the owners can do whatever they want. If their greed drives the sport into the ground, sucks for all of us, but it’s their puppy to do with what they wish
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
by jalarsen1 on Feb 16, 2011 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
Actually I am a Detroit Lions fan.
I guess I am trying to point out to you how real businesses actually work. But the NFL wants it both ways; they want guaranteed, always increasing profit margins for EVERY team and they want a completely level playing field, so richer teams don’t have an overwhelming advantage. The rich teams do have an advantage, but the NFL does not want to focus on that.
Did the world end when the Colts moved? The Browns? The Raiders? The Raiders? The Rams? By being held hostage to the greed and whims of the NFL owners, local governments are selling out their taxpayers. It’s a big con.
by NorthLeft12 on Feb 16, 2011 6:09 AM EST up reply actions
agreed completely
the owners can do whatever they want, it’s a free market
but local governments would be wise to keep themselves separated from the whims of a single person. Let the owners make their money from football, let the government make its money from taxes. Last thing we need is for the government to take over football, or for the owners to take taxpayer revenue.
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
by jalarsen1 on Feb 16, 2011 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
Who'd a thunk it
That there’s an owner named Jerry who could potentially ruin the league and his last name isn’t Jones?
Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble.
-John Madden
by Willgfass on Feb 15, 2011 10:04 PM EST reply actions
nfl lockout
NFL is going through a very hard times, players already paid so high compared to majority of sports throughout the world. Ultimately it is the fans who are worried because they are not getting the chance of watching it and enjoy to the fullest. The link here shows live video of fans commenting and showing their distress towards NFL. http://fms.nu/h2xbqq
by rajz2011 on Feb 15, 2011 11:09 PM EST reply actions
It's amazing
how owners are the ones paying out player contracts, and then bitching at the same time about how high they’re getting.
Yes, contracts are continuously breaking new ground. BUT, nobody bent the owners arm and forced him to make that ridiculous offer! If you want player salaries to go down, let them play out their contracts and then make them an offer for less. If a guy wants to pay Peyton $100M, let him, and let him bitch about salary.
If you want to keep a level playing field, put a salary cap in place and let contracts do what they will. If an owner wants to invest VERY heavily in a couple players, only to have cheap back-ups, hey, it’s his team to run.
I don’t get how they made the offers on one hand, and then bitched about it on the other.
"EFF YOU, WE'RE WINNING ANYWAY!!!!!!" (Bye, Dawk)
by jalarsen1 on Feb 16, 2011 12:46 PM EST reply actions
My wife does all the admin work for a small, local business, and the owner is always crying about how much the employees make.
She has not got a raise for a couple of years now, and has to fight for any pay if she has to work overtime to get extra work done.
I am sure there are a lot of business owners and corporations that moan and bitch about how much they have to pay in wages. Probably mine too.
It is what they do.
by NorthLeft12 on Feb 16, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed