NFL-Union

Interesting article in yesterday's NY Times about the NFLPA's attempts to have the owners open their books to prove their poor mouth claims and the meager financial information they are able to get from the publicly-owned Packers' required, albeit limited, financial reports.

The key info from the Times:

The Packers earn much less than they did four years ago. Their operating profit fell 71 percent from $34.2 million in the year ended March 31, 2007 (which coincides with the start of the current collective-bargaining agreement), to $9.8 million in the year ended last March 31. Revenue rose 18 percent in that period to $257.9 million.

The primary reason for the sharply reduced profit was player costs (salaries and benefits), which swelled in those years to $160.8 million from $110.7 million....Murphy said, "Our player costs are growing at twice the rate our revenue is growing."

These are some interesting numbers and the reporter fails to put them into context.

For starters, their was no salary cap this year - which was the result of the owner's prematurely opening up the collective bargaining agreement. So yes, of course salaries went up or "swelled" as the Times' reporter puts it, especially in the most recent year. Until then, however, salaries were kept remarkably stable and pegged to league revenues. Indeed, the salary cap prevented player costs from growing at twice the rate of revenue growth. The league can't complain that salaries are skyrocketing when it is the owners themselves who eliminated the barrier that had previously prevented it from happening.

Second, where did this $160.8 million figure for player salaries and benefits come from? According to the salary information resource page from USA Today, the Packers "total payroll" was $113,959,603 in 2009-10. That is salaries, not including benefits. Is it really the contention of the Packers, league, and NY Times that player benefits add another 41% to their labor costs, especially when they are considered independent contractors?