Mellinger: Clark Hunt must stand up to big-market NFL owners

[Tribal Warfare]

Clark Hunt must stand up to big-market NFL owners
By SAM MELLINGER
The Kansas City Star

Cross your fingers and knock on wood and maybe even throw some change into a fountain. These things have a way of turning with frustrating quickness, you notice, but there is real reason to expect an end to the NFL lockout that will hit its 100th day this week.

Good signs: they’re bickering less in public, holding overnight meetings, and leaking hints this whole thing will be over soon. People in the know can imagine an agreement in place as soon as the end of the month.

When and if that happens — keep those fingers crossed — you will see NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and players union chief DeMaurice Smith in a predictable photo op, brothers in arms, celebrating a good day for the league and the country.

But, really, in Kansas City there will mostly be two reactions.

Hooray for football!

Is this good or bad for the Chiefs?

The Chiefs are honoring the NFL’s gag order on public comments, but with the help of a league source and a few players, the answer to that question starts to materialize.

Some of it may surprise you.

And it’s disproportionately on one person to make sure the outcome is good for Kansas City.

• • •

Leave your politics at the door. Maybe you’re rooting for the owners because the players have it good enough and you don’t want higher salaries passed along to you through hikes in ticket prices and such.

Or maybe you’re like me and hope the players get every dollar possible plus 10 percent because they are the ones we want to watch and the ones risking their health.

Whatever. Forget it. To paraphrase Obama, for the rest of this column, we are all Kansas City football fans.

If you can get yourself to that point then Chiefs fans might be motivated to root for the owners against the players, but more importantly the right owners against everyone else.

This is an oversimplification of an incredibly complex process, but strictly from a selfish Chiefs point of view, the percentage of revenue given to the teams instead of players is inconsequential compared to how the teams distribute revenue among themselves.

And because Chiefs’ owner Clark Hunt just happens to be heavily involved in negotiations, Kansas City’s interests will be represented in both debates.

Here’s how it works: if the owners get the large annual credit for investing they’re demanding, then that is more revenue available to distribute. More money generated in Minnesota or St. Louis, to pick two places that could use new stadiums, means more money shared throughout the league.

This is especially important in places like Kansas City, where even after the heavy renovations to Arrowhead Stadium, local revenues are still in the league’s bottom 25 percent.

The Chiefs rely more on revenue sharing than most teams, so it’s in their interests for as much revenue to be shared as possible.

The key point of this, though, is that the owners agree to continue the most equal revenue sharing system in major professional sports. More money to share doesn’t help the Chiefs if it’s shared unequally, and this is a battle that is much less players union vs. owners than it is Clark Hunt vs. Jerry Jones.

Jones, the outspoken Cowboys owner constantly pushing for individual teams to control more of their own revenue, is influential enough throughout the league that any deal probably needs his approval before enough other owners agree.

So in that way, the key part of the negotiations for the Chiefs’ future will be Hunt and others representing smaller markets to keep Jones and others in larger markets true to the NFL’s traditional all-for-one and one-for-all revenue system.

There is a reason the Packers were able to win the Super Bowl out of the smallest market in major American professional sports, and why places like Pittsburgh, San Diego and Kansas City can field winning NFL teams but mostly sorry Major League Baseball franchises.

The Steelers’ best years in sponsorship and media revenue are dwarfed in-state by the Eagles, for instance, even though the Steelers are perhaps the league’s most successful franchise.

Continuing to allow those teams an equal chance of winning games is critical to the Chiefs, and should be a much bigger priority here locally than personal rooting interests for the players or owners.

Remember: what’s good for the owners is generally good for Kansas City, but what’s good for the right owners is what’s best for Kansas City.

• • •

Some of this may be hard to digest. Some of it may go against what you believe in.

Hunt, in particular, has cut pay for all Chiefs employees making more than $50,000 per year. He’s held up as an example of greed gone wild in the NFL. Some of the criticism is warranted, some of it over the top, but when this lockout is over it will be mostly true that what is good for Hunt will be good for the Chiefs and their fans.

The Chiefs have one of the deepest and most talented groups of young players in the NFL, which can partially explain why they also had the league’s lowest payroll last year.

That’s all fine, at least at the moment, but this is a critical time for Hunt. Help frame this new CBA in a Chiefs-friendly way, then spend enough to make sure the team’s young talent stays in Kansas City.

Everything is in front of him, starting with the negotiation table. Chiefs’ executives and employees like to talk Hunt up, even privately, when there’s no chance they’ll be quoted. They talk about him being a college athlete and graduating at the top of his class and the whole thing is an obvious shot at the perception by some that Hunt’s only qualification for running the Chiefs is his last name.

There are strong views on both sides of this issue, and maybe this moment right now — the lockout and its resolution — is the one that makes the best case.

Hunt is part of the owners’ core negotiating team, along with Jones and a few others. He is there ostensibly to represent the interests of the Chiefs and other small-market teams.

When this is over, we know what the important parts will be for the Chiefs.

And we’ll know who to give the credit or blame.

[Mr. Laz]

bullshit, if the small markets can't pay then they should just get out /Brock

[Titty Meat]

I thought the argument was about a salary floor?

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

I thought the argument was about a salary floor?

Wrong.

But that's par for the course with you.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

Wrong.

But that's par for the course with you.
Posted via Mobile Device

Wrong. The Bengals and Bills have both been outspoken about the salary floor.

Quit being such a piece of shit Jason.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Wrong. The Bengals and Bills have both been outspoken about the salary floor.

Quit being such a piece of shit Jason.

Lol okaaaaaaay billay
Posted via Mobile Device

[Hammock Parties]

I was hoping Sam Mellinger had drowned or something.

[Backwards Masking]

This new CBA could be an excellent thing for the small market teams. Of course the leauge will always pander to the owners who tow the company line and stick up for the obscure rule calls and officiating no matter how bad it is (Dan Roony, cough, Pittsburgh, cough, Super Bowl XL cough cough). But if done correctly, the NFL could have as much parity as everyone says it does. This could also help eliminiate East Coast bias.

It's kind of damned if you do damned if you don't for the small market owners. Stick for keeping the Big Cities on the PrimeTime games (a year or two ago both Redskin's / Eagles games were Sun and Mon nighters even though neither made the playoffs the year before.) in order to generate revenue, you won't see KC, Seattle, Minn, Jax etc play very often. Stick up for your small market team and go against the grain you get punished for getting out of line.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking

This new CBA could be an excellent thing for the small market teams. Of course the leauge will always pander to the owners who tow the company line and stick up for the obscure rule calls and officiating no matter how bad it is (Dan Roony, cough, Pittsburgh, cough, Super Bowl XL cough cough). But if done correctly, the NFL could have as much parity as everyone says it does. This could also help eliminiate East Coast bias.

It's kind of damned if you do damned if you don't for the small market owners. Stick for keeping the Big Cities on the PrimeTime games (a year or two ago both Redskin's / Eagles games were Sun and Mon nighters even though neither made the playoffs the year before.) in order to generate revenue, you won't see KC, Seattle, Minn, Jax etc play very often. Stick up for your small market team and go against the grain you get punished for getting out of line.

I think people want to make this a sob story for small market owners, but my guess is, you'd have to try really, really hard to lose money given the amount of ridiculous revenue sharing they get from the league.

I don't blame Jerry Jones at all. He actually cares about his team and sinks money into it. People talk a lot about how the salary cap has created parity in the NFL. I call BS. What's created parity in the NFL is the salary floor.

[Backwards Masking]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think people want to make this a sob story for small market owners, but my guess is, you'd have to try really, really hard to lose money given the amount of ridiculous revenue sharing they get from the league.

I don't blame Jerry Jones at all. He actually cares about his team and sinks money into it. People talk a lot about how the salary cap has created parity in the NFL. I call BS. What's created parity in the NFL is the salary floor.

Very good points. Totally agree with Jerry Jones, he's a lot like Mark Cuban (same city ironically) in that he's a fan first, and a businessman second. And it shows.

Hard to call the game one of partity when you're rooting for a team in a confernce that's sent 3 teams to the SuperBowl in the last 8 years.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think people want to make this a sob story for small market owners, but my guess is, you'd have to try really, really hard to lose money given the amount of ridiculous revenue sharing they get from the league.

I don't blame Jerry Jones at all. He actually cares about his team and sinks money into it. People talk a lot about how the salary cap has created parity in the NFL. I call BS. What's created parity in the NFL is the salary floor.

Same could be said about George Steinbrenner and he was horrible for baseball. I hear all the things about the parity in baseball, but the Yankees have only missed the playoffs once since '96 and in that span have won more World Series than all but a handfull of franchises have done in their whole history.

Jerry Jones has made no secret he wants to bring about a similar inequity for football. He pushed against the league to try to get his own sponsorships. He pushed to get merchandise taken out of a community pool, which is one of the big reasons for the inequities.

These owners didn't make all their money because they aren't competitive. Jerry Jones can afford to sink money into the product because he has a cash cow with his organization. Someone like Jerry Jones wants to make his own rules. Small market vs big market is a problem in every sport. Competitively its not as big a problem in football because any small market team can compete if they don't care about the bottom line for the short term, up to a point. If they can build a brand around their name like the Steelers or the Packers, they can eventually make some money. The question is why should they knock themselves out to break even while Jerry Jones is making hundreds of millions each year?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Same could be said about George Steinbrenner and he was horrible for baseball. I hear all the things about the parity in baseball, but the Yankees have only missed the playoffs once since '96 and in that span have won more World Series than all but a handfull of franchises have done in their whole history.

Jerry Jones has made no secret he wants to bring about a similar inequity for football. He pushed against the league to try to get his own sponsorships. He pushed to get merchandise taken out of a community pool, which is one of the big reasons for the inequities.

These owners didn't make all their money because they aren't competitive. Jerry Jones can afford to sink money into the product because he has a cash cow with his organization. Someone like Jerry Jones wants to make his own rules. Small market vs big market is a problem in every sport. Competitively its not as big a problem in football because any small market team can compete if they don't care about the bottom line for the short term, up to a point. If they can build a brand around their name like the Steelers or the Packers, they can eventually make some money. The question is why should they knock themselves out to break even while Jerry Jones is making hundreds of millions each year?

I think there's more parity in baseball than there is in football. A lot more. How many times have the Steelers, Colts, or Patriots missed the playoffs? And the Yankees have won as many championships as the Patriots have over the past 20 years. The Yankees are a powerhouse, but no moreso than the NFL powerhouses.

If anything, Steinbreinner is one of the few things that kept baseball going. What killed attendance was the player's strike... popularity was artificially spiked by juiced up players hitting exciting home runs, then deflated after the steroid scandal. Like or hate the Yankees, they fill stadiums at away games, and people tune in to root against them.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think there's more parity in baseball than there is in football. A lot more. How many times have the Steelers, Colts, or Patriots missed the playoffs? And the Yankees have won as many championships as the Patriots have over the past 20 years. The Yankees are a powerhouse, but no moreso than the NFL powerhouses.

If anything, Steinbreinner is one of the few things that kept baseball going. What killed attendance was the player's strike... popularity was artificially spiked by juiced up players hitting exciting home runs, then deflated after the steroid scandal. Like or hate the Yankees, they fill stadiums at away games, and people tune in to root against them.

I must have missed two of the Patriots five Super Bowl victories then. The Yankees have won more World Series since '96 than all but five other franchises have in their whole history. I must have also missed the football franchises that have won 27 titles in their history like the Yankees. Since '96 the Steelers have missed the playoffs five times, the Patriots four, the Colts three. The Colts only had one playoff appearance from 1978-1994. The Patriots were not a powerhouse franchise before 1996 having lost at least 10 games in 6 of the previous 7 seasons prior.

I don't think that outside New York you could make any sort of statement that Steinbrenner has done anything positive for baseball. He was at the forefront of the free agency movement. He skewed the payroll scale which cost millions for mediocre players who were judged in arbitration by what they could have made if they played for the Yankees. They made it so that many franchises were not able to keep their stars once they became free agent eligible, so were forced to trade them for prospects. Even before the free agent market they commonly bought players from other teams and the joke was that the Senators and Athletics were their farm teams.

The Yankees payroll is $40 million more than their closest competitor. Their payroll is more than total revenues for most teams.

[Brock]

Jerry Jones, fan-first? Are you high?

[Backwards Masking]

Originally Posted by Brock

Jerry Jones, fan-first? Are you high?

Compared to Clark Hunt? I'm dry as a bone.