Marx was very concerned with the concept of estranged labor, but he always seemed to apply to concept to the working class. I was wondering what he would have to say about the labor of a group of people who no one would allege to be low income or working class.
A recent article on ESPN.com describes a Labor vs. Management issue of the highest order. The current NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, which dictates the procedures involved in determining player compensation and stipulates a minimum and maximum salary per team, is about to expire. If the NFLPA (players union) and the NFL owners cannot agree on a new CBA, the next season will be “uncapped” (no max, and more importantly no min) and there will be a lockout (read: strike) in 2011.
The idea of no football can be slightly jarring at a time when the NFL is arguable the most successful business model in recent history. Even someone who takes no interest in sports cannot help but notice that the football machine seems to rule the airwaves for 6 months out of the year. However, the sticking point in negotiations is the owners’ desire for the players to an estimated 18% pay cut, reducing their share of revenue from 59% to 41%.
I wonder what Marx would have to say about this. It is extremely difficult to measure the precise contributions of different groups to the NFL’s success, but I doubt Marx would like the idea of such a large pay cut. However he would undoubtedly disapprove of the leagues so-called “lockout insurance,” which takes the form of a $5 billion annual television contract that the owners get to divvy up even if there is no football. This would seem to be even more of a blow to labor than the UMWA no-strike clause because it undercuts to effectiveness of a strike rather than fueling it.
On the other hand, Marx might have no sympathy at all for the NFL players. They don’t exactly fall into his view of the proletariat, and the NFL isn’t exactly a productive industry (it doesn’t make toasters or grain or shoes, just money).
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4887844
There is a saying where you do not want to be rich, you want to be wealth. This seems very silly: The Billionaires Vs. The Millionaires for NFL's ATM Bowl! Out of all 4 major sports that are played in United States, the NFL owners always the first to moan about losing money. This past NFL season shows that recession can't put a dent into the owners' wallets but it can definitely put a hurtin' on the small market teams (See Jacksonville). After seeing New Orleans Saints winning the Super Bowl, owner Tom Benson is happy not only for the Big Easy, he is also happy that he has a champion caliber team that could have been a winner if they moved to San Antonio! Either way he would have been paid! I have no sympathy for this squabble and I hope they can come to a resolution because if they don't, I'll be playing Madden on my PS3 during the lockout!
ReplyDeleteThe prospect of no football in 2011 is not just jarring; it pretty much sucks the only reason for living right out of life. We will still have baseball, but nothing to help us get over the pain of the Cubbies knifing us in the heart yet again; the only thing we can look forward to is that they will find a newer and more creative way to blow it when September comes. That being said, I do not see anyway the NFL and NFLPA do not get a new CBA signed in time to prevent a lockout. The owners want an 18% reduction in salary, and there is an easy way to do that that should benefit everyone, A ROOKIE SALARY CAP.
ReplyDeleteFirst, rookie contracts have skyrocketed in terms of guaranteed money over the last five to ten years. For example, Matt Stafford, the first overall pick in last year’s draft, signed a deal containing 41.7 million in guaranteed money. The deal was for 6 years and could be worth as much as 78 million. That’s more guaranteed money than Haynesworth got as a free agent from the Redskins, which set a record before last season, and Haynesworth was arguably the best DT in the game. Stafford had not even set foot on an NFL field! To put this in perspective, when the Cowboys were sold in 1984, the team and the lease to Texas Stadium went for 85 million. So, it’s easy to see why missing on a “franchise player” like Alex Smith or Jamarcus Cheeseburger Russell just once can set your whole franchise back 5 to 10 to 15 years.
A rookie salary cap would curb this issue, and immediately allow the owners to recoup way more than the 18% they want in salary reductions. Not only would the futures of franchises no longer hang on the hopes of 22-year-old kids, but also this would free up money for players who have played in the NFL and deserve higher salaries because of their play. Because incoming rookies have no voice when it comes to the NFLPA and the CBA, I cannot see a way this is not done without some sort of rookie cap.
Marx would probably have no sympathy for either group on this issue, but I am sure he would have even more hate in his heart for the owners. I suppose he could make a case for the owners imposing the estrangement of labor onto the players, even though they are still receiving massive sums of money for what they do. The fact that the owners exist within the system at all would be repulsive to Marx, and he would undoubtedly advocate some sort of system where the inmates were running the asylum; regardless of the negative effects that this might pose with regard to the future value of the NFL product.
I personally like football, but honestly all entities from the football player to the owners are "overpaid". It is very difficult to conceive that Karl Marx would care less about as Deesoul said, Billionaires and Millionaires feuding about money for the sole purpose of entertainment. On the other hand if the NFL players went on strike a lot of smaller business would not be able to make a living, i.e. concession stands, sales of game paraphernalia, city revenue and vendors that cater to the NFL directly and indirectly. So maybe looking at it from that aspect Marx would disapprove with the dispute between owner and player. The little people will suffer from revenue not being gained.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting indeed to see what Marx would have had to say about these already overpaid players. The capitalist business model is that of supply and demand, and because basically all of america enjoys watching football, and because companies would pay out the ass to advertize during football airtime, the people supplying the entertainment get paid a lot. The over payment of these players comes from the competition between franchises, and who can put the highest amount of money to get the best running back for the upcoming season. The performance of the player durring the season they are signed for does not effect how much they are being paid. This is a quality of Marx's arguement. So this estrangement of performence and pay might be something Marx's would turn his nose at.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great article cause it brings up so many points. One thing I thought about is at least in the NFL you get paid for your productivity. Just like in all other sports. A lockout would be awful for the NFL. The most recent sports lockout was the NHL in 04-05. That ruined hockey. 6 years later the NHL is still recovering and teams struggle to get fans at games because the lockout turned a lot of them away from the sport. This lockout for the NFL would most likely be not beneficial for both sides.
ReplyDelete