Playing in the NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL is a privilege?

[guava_wrench]

How can anyone say that players in sports leagues aren't employees? Of course they are!

In every field, there are elite individuals. There is competition to gain their services. The employee wants to find the best situation for them, and the employer wants to get employees that will help them remain profitable.

I don't see the relevance of anyone feeling 'privileged'. People are doing their jobs or running their businesses. Employees need not feel privileged, because they are offering their valuable labor and earning their pay. What they should feel is a sense of responsibility to do the job they are paid for.

All of this can, of course, be reversed if we want to talk about how the employer should feel. We could say that whichever team signs Lebron should feel privileged since they were chosen over competing teams. I just don't see how framing discussions this way is helpful.

[Eja117]

I have never completely agreed with so many completely different arguments and view points in my life.

Everyone is totally spot on in this thread.  It's like a thread of the year.

[steve]

How can anyone say that players in sports leagues aren't employees? Of course they are!

In every field, there are elite individuals. There is competition to gain their services. The employee wants to find the best situation for them, and the employer wants to get employees that will help them remain profitable.

I don't see the relevance of anyone feeling 'privileged'. People are doing their jobs or running their businesses. Employees need not feel privileged, because they are offering their valuable labor and earning their pay. What they should feel is a sense of responsibility to do the job they are paid for.

All of this can, of course, be reversed if we want to talk about how the employer should feel. We could say that whichever team signs Lebron should feel privileged since they were chosen over competing teams. I just don't see how framing discussions this way is helpful.

They are products as far as the league is concerned.  They are employees as far as the team is concerned. 

[steve]

Blame the NFLPA, not the owners.  They agreed to, and likely pushed for no rookie scale, without actually thinking about how it would affect the veterans.  Do you really think the owners wouldn't love for there to be a rookie pay scale, so that they don't need to pay ridiculous amounts of money to guys who have never played a down in the NFL?

I agree about the non-guaranteed contracts though.  However, I also chalk that up to terrible negotiating by the players association. 

When it comes down to it, its a business.  The owners are paying the players millions of dollars.  There is a CBA in place that was agreed to not only by the owners, but by the players as well.  If things favor the owners in it, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means that they did a better job of negotiating.

You are right about one thing, the players are the product, and in that sense, they should get more respect within the CBA...but that is only going to happen if they are united, and they negotiate it. 

The owners are going to pay the same amount of money weather they're paying the rookies or veterans.  And they aren't going to lose profits.  Detriot has been awful for sooo many years but the fans keep coming back. 

Negotiations shouldn't be win/lose.  If no rookie scale was agreed upon by everybody and then it turns out that it was a bad idea for veteran players then the league shouldn't sit back and say, "Ha ha, you guys wanted it this way, now suck it" 

There shouldn't be a winner and a loser in negotiations with the product.  Because if there is a winner and a loser then both parties actually lose because the product will lock out. 



 

 

[Chris]

Blame the NFLPA, not the owners.  They agreed to, and likely pushed for no rookie scale, without actually thinking about how it would affect the veterans.  Do you really think the owners wouldn't love for there to be a rookie pay scale, so that they don't need to pay ridiculous amounts of money to guys who have never played a down in the NFL?

I agree about the non-guaranteed contracts though.  However, I also chalk that up to terrible negotiating by the players association. 

When it comes down to it, its a business.  The owners are paying the players millions of dollars.  There is a CBA in place that was agreed to not only by the owners, but by the players as well.  If things favor the owners in it, it doesn't mean they are evil, it just means that they did a better job of negotiating.

You are right about one thing, the players are the product, and in that sense, they should get more respect within the CBA...but that is only going to happen if they are united, and they negotiate it. 

The owners are going to pay the same amount of money weather they're paying the rookies or veterans.  And they aren't going to lose profits.  Detriot has been awful for sooo many years but the fans keep coming back. 

Negotiations shouldn't be win/lose.  If no rookie scale was agreed upon by everybody and then it turns out that it was a bad idea for veteran players then the league shouldn't sit back and say, "Ha ha, you guys wanted it this way, now suck it" 

There shouldn't be a winner and a loser in negotiations with the product.  Because if there is a winner and a loser then both parties actually lose because the product will lock out. 



 

 

The owners are absolutely losing money by having to guarantee 10s of millions of dollars to completely unproven players.  You are right that the money would just go elsewhere, but it would go to players who have proven they are NFL players, which means there will be less of a chance the money will be wasted, so they don't need to then cough up more money to replace the worthless rookies who are guaranteed millions.

[CoachCowens]

interesting take on the NFL rookie scale

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/05/the-case-against-a-true-rookie-wage-scale.php

[Eja117]

Ummm, I think I am missing your point.  How is the NFL disrespecting its players?

With the strength of unions in pro sports, the players always have the ability to change things.  But they know they have a [dang] good deal. 

Anyways, can you be more specific about what the problem is?

It seems to me like the last two big player strikes (the NBA one, which I guess was technically a lock out, and the MLB one in the 90s where the replacement players saved the day) were lost by the players and they found out people cared more about the teams than the players

[Eja117]

How can anyone say that players in sports leagues aren't employees? Of course they are!

In every field, there are elite individuals. There is competition to gain their services. The employee wants to find the best situation for them, and the employer wants to get employees that will help them remain profitable.

I don't see the relevance of anyone feeling 'privileged'. People are doing their jobs or running their businesses. Employees need not feel privileged, because they are offering their valuable labor and earning their pay. What they should feel is a sense of responsibility to do the job they are paid for.

All of this can, of course, be reversed if we want to talk about how the employer should feel. We could say that whichever team signs Lebron should feel privileged since they were chosen over competing teams. I just don't see how framing discussions this way is helpful.

They are products as far as the league is concerned.  They are employees as far as the team is concerned. 

I personally kind of think of the players as tools, and the games and merchandise as the product.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

How can anyone say that players in sports leagues aren't employees? Of course they are!

In every field, there are elite individuals. There is competition to gain their services. The employee wants to find the best situation for them, and the employer wants to get employees that will help them remain profitable.

I don't see the relevance of anyone feeling 'privileged'. People are doing their jobs or running their businesses. Employees need not feel privileged, because they are offering their valuable labor and earning their pay. What they should feel is a sense of responsibility to do the job they are paid for.

All of this can, of course, be reversed if we want to talk about how the employer should feel. We could say that whichever team signs Lebron should feel privileged since they were chosen over competing teams. I just don't see how framing discussions this way is helpful.

They are products as far as the league is concerned.  They are employees as far as the team is concerned. 

I personally kind of think of the players as tools, and the games and merchandise as the product.

I find this all very interesting, and just wanted to throw out another viewpoint.

What's the single most important thing for a league (and a team specifically too) to be financially viable? In my opinion, it's corporate sponsorships. That's where the real money is made for any franchise, and why the WNBA still exists in some form. That's why the LPGA head got bounced out, and why the NHL was so close to folding.

With that idea in mind, the audience that watches the games are the real product. The teams put together the best attraction they can to garner the audience, and then in turn sell that gathered audience to TV/radio stations for broadcast rights and corporate sponsors for in stadium advertising and high visibility sponsorship.

Using the buyer-seller-product model, it's:

Buyer- Media, corporations, potential sponsors
Seller- Teams and leagues
Product- Captive audience / fan base