CFLPA finally growing a pair.

Here's just how you can compare.

For the grocery analogy it works very simply.

Groceries cost $20 total.
Person A makes $100

Person B makes $1,000,020
Groceries still cost $20

Person A gives up 50% of profit for a total of 40 Person B does the same and is left with $500,000

Its exactly the same. Its just one made more money than the other. Neither one is at a loss.

A sports example:

The NFL has MUCH, MUCH higher revenues than the NHL.
Yet, their players take less of a percentage of revenues than the NHL players do. By that logic the NFL should be paying a higher percentage because they make more money, but they don't.

Now Im not saying the CFL should be the same as other big leagues but it can do better than what the current situation. The PA specifically hired a labour lawyer(s) to finally address this issue. The final step is to hire a proper Association head (not a former player)

The problem is the rich league was running at a profit all along, while many of the teams in the CFL were running at a loss (sometimes substantial), and new owners weren't lining up to absorb the losses like they seem willing to do in American leagues. Plus we want them to invest in marketing, ancillary items like games, improved communication, etc, with money that doesn't exist in order to compete against the much richer leagues.

I think this was a good stepping stone deal that leads to stability for all involved. The players get a bit of a raise, and basically all owners enter the black on the ledger. The next deal I fully expect the players to get a better deal. We might actually have new owners that want to own teams at that point (for example the 8+ interested buyers for the Lions, and the possible sale of the Argos)...

I see what your saying, and that was definitely true if this were 2005. But its 2015. Most CFL teams were likely profitable before this TV money rolled in. Teams would have definitely have been sold even before the TV money, its just that the current owners were unwilling to sell. Offers were made for BC & Winnipeg, and Calgary did sell twice during that time period; the second time being for a much, much larger price. The Toronto situation has lasted as long as it has because the current owner is asking far too much for a hurting enterprise. Why would any of those parties been so eager to lose money?

Also, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the owners will use new found money to better promote their individual teams. Heck in Toronto, they’re scaling back their marketing efforts, not improving them.

I hope your right about the next round of contract negotiations, but it just might prove far too tempting for the league to steamroll the players again. They are a divided bunch at the best of times, and without proper representation (i.e. not a former player) history might just repeat itself.

with it co ing out that the Argos were not even drawing 10000 paid fans a game... I'm not so so sure that the Argos made money last year..Even with next to free labour, 100K times 50 is like 5 million .

The median salaries of CFL players is higher than the median income in Canada. So I guess all of Canada has next to free labour (must be why all those companies are off-shoring to Canada now). Good old exaggeration.

But yes... Clearly they weren't making money... But at least the rest of the equation has finally drawn in some interested parties that think they can make the current dynamics work. The Lions also had 1 or 2 people kicking the tires before... now they reportedly have 8-9.

More interest in owning teams is what the CFL has needed for a very long time. Individual private owners need an exit strategy (people don't live forever), and expansion can't happen without it.