PDA

View Full Version : New CBA with players might not be the only NFL problem


Mr. Laz
02-17-2006, 12:51 PM
REVENUE SHARING STILL A BIG ISSUE

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Although we're hearing that progress is continuing toward a new CBA without regard to the fact that the owners have not agreed on a plan to expand revenue sharing, it appears based on information we've gathered that the issue remains a major point of contention among the 32 members of the Billionaire Boys Club.

As we understand it, seven teams are adamantly opposed to the notion of sharing revenue beyond the revenue that already is shared: the Eagles, the Patriots, the Jets, the Giants, the Redskins, the Cowboys, and the Texans.

Several franchises are pushing hard for it, with the Jaguars, the Steelers, the Packers, the Cardinals, and the Bengals believed to be among that group.

Though the rest are mainly up in the air on this one, the simple fact is that the seven who want no expansion of revenue sharing need only to recruit two more franchises to block any votes on changing the system, since 24 "ayes" are necessary.

For the "haves," who are realizing local unshared revenues grossly disproportionate to the unshared money earned by the "have-nots," the notion of coughing up the fruits of their labor, creativity, and/or business savvy is highly objectionable. Over the past year, we've heard (and read in published reports) a variety of arguments. For example, the Bengals should sell the naming rights to their stadium in order to generate more income.

More recently, we've heard rumblings along the lines that a popular team like the Steelers should simply raise prices across the board.

So that's the root of the problem. The teams who are making the most money believe that other teams can do the same, if they choose to try. Sharing all revenue can remove the incentive for teams like the Bengals and Cardinals and Jaguars to improve their financial position, since they'd know they'll be subsidized to a certain extent by high-earning teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, and Texans.

The other side of the coin, however, is that as teams like the Redskins continue to reel in huge revenues that aren't shared on a year-in, year-out basis, the competitive balance eventually will be affected, despite the fact that there is a hard salary cap in place.

Even now, the 'Skins are dumping millions into the coaching staff. Over time, the differences will also become increasingly obvious in other expenditures not regulated by a spending limit.

Frankly, we're not sure where we come down on this one. On one hand, businesses shouldn't be penalized for fairly and legitimately enjoying success. On the other hand, the "business" here is much broader than any one team, and a disruption of the competitive balance eventually would hurt everyone financially.

Our guess is that, in the end, nothing will be done until there is solid evidence that the earning disparity is affecting the on-field product. After all, the millions that Bob McNair has earned isn't translating into many Texan wins, and the relatively lack of local cash flow in Pittsburgh hasn't held back the Steelers.

MOhillbilly
02-17-2006, 12:53 PM
to be honest, its kinda of a commie thing this CBA.

Mr. Laz
02-17-2006, 12:54 PM
to be honest, its kinda of a commie thing this CBA.

how's that?

Brock
02-17-2006, 12:56 PM
to be honest, its kinda of a commie thing this CBA.

As any CBA is.

pikesome
02-17-2006, 01:02 PM
I think that the focal point for changes to the shared money problem will come from the player's union. They want more money and increasing the pool from which their percentage comes would do just that. If the union forces the issue, owners will have to do something about it or the problem will get bad quick.

beavis
02-17-2006, 01:07 PM
to be honest, its kinda of a commie thing this CBA.
Not if they look at it from the standpoint that they are 1 entity selling a product, instead of 32 individuals competing against one another.

cdcox
02-17-2006, 02:06 PM
The two issues (CBA and revenue sharing) are the same issue. Players want a bigger share of the local revenues. Doing so will up set the competitive balance unless revenue sharing is put in place.

The article indicates that the teams not in favor of revenue sharing need just two more votes to block any revenue sharing plan. What it misses is that the revenue sharers need just 4 more votes to block any CBA.

Tags needs to come up with a comprimise, pronto. To me revenue sharing, with a minimum per team contribution, needs to be put in place to keep competitive balance which is the only thing I care about. If teams can't generate enough local revenue to meet the minimum, the owner has to cough it up out of his own pocket. Maybe that would drive some of the inept owners out of the sport if they could not consistently field a competitive and financially profitable team.

Hydrae
02-17-2006, 02:10 PM
The Texans have been in business (on field) for what, 5 years or so now? But they are one of the big money earners? This points to just how much locale has to do with revenue. It is not like they are selling shirts and hats as fast as an established team like the Cowboys or Redskins. The only reason I can think of why the Texans are in this group is due to the size of the market they are in.

cdcox
02-17-2006, 02:21 PM
The Texans have been in business (on field) for what, 5 years or so now? But they are one of the big money earners? This points to just how much locale has to do with revenue. It is not like they are selling shirts and hats as fast as an established team like the Cowboys or Redskins. The only reason I can think of why the Texans are in this group is due to the size of the market they are in.

Stadium deals are probably at least as important as market size. Teams with new stadiums and lots of luxury boxed can generate a ton of cash that way. KC doesn't have the corporate headquarters needed to sell a ton of high $ luxury boxes, even if they had them. The Chiefs and several other teams will have a permanent competitive disadvantage if local revenue is included in the CBA, without sharing it.

kc rush
02-17-2006, 02:35 PM
Tags needs to come up with a comprimise, pronto. To me revenue sharing, with a minimum per team contribution, needs to be put in place to keep competitive balance which is the only thing I care about. If teams can't generate enough local revenue to meet the minimum, the owner has to cough it up out of his own pocket. Maybe that would drive some of the inept owners out of the sport if they could not consistently field a competitive and financially profitable team.

The only bad thing about this is that teams like the Packers and Chiefs are going to have fewer revenue opportunities than the Giants or Cowboys, so the burden will be shifted to the fans. The big market teams can generate more revenue from TV and Radio contracts than small market teams.

htismaqe
02-17-2006, 03:04 PM
I told my friend this two days ago.

There's not 2 sides this time -- there's THREE.

Leave it to the NFL to **** up the best thing going.

Mr. Laz
02-17-2006, 03:20 PM
Leave it to the NFL to **** up the best thing going.
the nfl has done things pretty good so far ... you act like they are the MLB.

i have more confidence in the NFL to get things worked out than any other major sport.

htismaqe
02-17-2006, 03:31 PM
the nfl has done things pretty good so far ... you act like they are the MLB.

i have more confidence in the NFL to get things worked out than any other major sport.

The NFL has done things pretty good so far because they've been able to avoid the Steinbrenner-type owners. There's more of them in the NFL now than ever before.

I'm not acting like they are the MLB. I'm acting like they're just greedy enough to allow themselves to become like MLB.

HemiEd
02-17-2006, 04:16 PM
I'm acting like they're just greedy enough to allow themselves to become like MLB.

I would be free to watch Vegas on Monday nights.