Quote:
Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO
i asked several times about this yesterday. NOT ONE person responded.
|
This has been gone over before, but let's walk through it again.
The given reason for owners to opt out of the previous CBA was a loss of profitability due to the CBA. That was obviously bullshit. However, the claim was that some teams would start losing money because costs were rising faster than revenue for those teams.
The reason that was so is because of the uneven split on the
owner side. For example (very basic and leaving out some parts), while a team like the Cowboys was bringing in $400 million, another team might only be bringing in $200 million. Since all the revenues were counted, this would be a $600 million stream divided in half (player/owner), but not half (owner/owner). Therefore, the Cowboys shelling out $150 million was not a big issue since they're still clearing $250 million, but the other team shelling out $150 million meant that they were more financially pressed, clearing only $50 million.
The next year, the Cowboys might bring in $450 million while the other team only brought in $210 million. Well, the pot then goes to $660 million, with each team needing to pay out $175 million to the players. Instead of working with $50 million, that team is now working with $35 million, while the Cowboys are now working with $275. The Cowboys are making money hand over fist and are basically unaffected by the revenue sharing, but the other team is getting pinched
because of the Dallas success.
In other words, the top teams were hurting the rest of the league. It wasn't player revenue percentage that was the problem, it was the uneven owner split.
The problem for the players is that this should always have been first priority, yet they seem to have let it slide. That's poor work on the part of their negotiating group, and it's probably too late in the day to fix it. That seems to leave the inclusion of the opt out as the next best thing for them.