Bloody Thursday

Bloody Thursday is a reference to the maritime strike of 1934 in San Francisco, CA, which is appropriate since the main topic of the day is labor strife.

It's been a week since I've posted anything, and with the today shaping up to be a very interesting day sports-wise, no time like the present.

The NFL's Labor Situation

Mark my words: A deal will get done today. There's simply too much at stake right now for a deal not to happen.

As we mentioned last week, the main sticking points are revenue sharing among the owners, and what percentage of that revenue will be used in calculating the annual salary cap.

Salary Cap
The players get a percentage of the league's revenues, and right now, the owners are offering 56.2%. The players want 60.3%. What may appear to be a slight difference is actually $320M per year over the course of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Since the league has announced that the 2006 salary cap will be $96M per team, you can figure that if a CBA is agreed to, and at the percentage requested by the players, the new salary cap will grow to about $106M per team. Go ask Sam Adams, Sam Madison, Brentson Buckner and the host of other veteran players who were released yesterday in anticipation of $96M cap if they'd be unemployed today if the CBA was already agreed to.

Revenue Sharing
There are reports that the league's 32 owners are divided into 3 segments.

1. The uber-rich owners, who own high-profile teams that generate millions of dollars locally and are emphatically opposed to sharing that revenue.

2. The super-rich owners, who own mid or big market teams that don't generate an obscene amount of money locally. They're not overly hurt, or helped, by expanded revenue sharing, so they'll go along with it.

3. The very rich owners, who own low market franchises. They don't generate much local revenue, and they feel that sharing of locally generated revenue will help bridge the gap between the haves (group 1) and the have-nots (them).

I link up more with the first group, because the last time I checked, capitalism is sort of what America prides itself in. If the New England Patriots (a group 1 team) can generate millions upon millions of dollars locally, there shouldn't be anything stopping teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh or Jacksonville from emulating that business model, and being as successful. These teams already get a fat check from the league revenue, so why should they get a taste of what the Cowboys, Redskins (who are the biggest loser under this plan), Eagles and Patriots create on their own?

I'll tell you why. Because the NFL isn't structured with capitalism in mind. It's purely a socialist system. The league divides its broadcast money equally, even though it's shown that certain teams produce higher rating than others. The league shares licensing revenue, even every year, Darren Rovell over at the Worldwide Leader does his Mr. Blackwell impersonation by letting us know whose jerseys are flying off Pro Image shelves (if they're still around).

The NFL has shared its revenue for a long time now, and adding more revenue to the pot won't spoil what's been brewing for decades. These owners need to do this, for the good of the league. They need to think long and hard about why a guy like the late Wellington Mara, who was the conscience of the NFL, would say in regards to these billionaires who are threatening to tear down what he spent his life building.

And if they did so, the answer would be painfully obvious. Share babies, share.

And share they will. An 11th-hour deal will be agreed to, because nobody wants to be known as the guy who cooked the golden goose.