They aren't asking for 50% of profits. They are asking for 40-50% of revenue. It's not unheard of for payroll percentage to be that high in a company. Especially a company where the employee is the product.

I'd like to see them ask for a portion of net profit of each team, in lieu of a a hug chunk of revenue. Revenue less profit equals cost. Profit is return on risk. No risk, no profit.

Like, no players understand that./sarcasm

I'm for the fans, and neither party is for them, at this point.

I certainly believe that it is possible for an nfl team to be losing money. I certainly don't have an adequate expertise of their revenue and cost structure to discount the possibility. However, even looking at green bay you can see the return on a good team is nominal.

It is, indeed, the end of the weekend, and football and idiocy are still one and the same...

The problem is, it's pretty easy to hide "profit" and make the books look like you are barely clearing anything. That's why almost any such contracts are now based on gross revenue instead of profit. It's a more honest number to use.

For a retail operation you'd shoot for 25% of gross sales to be your payroll. Big chains have smaller numbers and small mom and pop shops are more likely to be in the 30-35% range. Over 50% is usually considered a danger zone for a business, but once again you have to take into account the type of business. If you're running a consulting company or a professional services firm you can bet your sweet ass that payroll is going to be a bigger piece of the pie.

i'm gonna start following the Royals pretty closely, cuz that may be all we have to talk about all through the summer and possibly later than that. C'mon Royals. WHEEEWWW!!!

The owners would cook the books until they were unrecognizable to avoid paying the players one penny of profit under that deal.

This isn't exactly accurate. The 60/40 split was AFTER a cut had been taken off the top by the owners to go toward various operations costs. The 50/50 split proposed by the players would have REMOVED that cap and been a pure 50 percent of revenues. It was a slight reduction overall, but it's not near the 10% reduction that it seemed like.

i don't know why

in what other business do the employees get 60% of the profits?

the fans gain nothing by the players making more money but have a chance to gain something by the owners having more free cash. Especially in smaller markets like Kansas City.

I'm not doubting you, but I'm looking for an example of this and specifically one that relates to the fact that a large portion of these "products" make millions already.

I'm just having a hard time supporting the players in this instance. Like I said, maybe I'd feel a little more for them if the majority didn't make millions anyway. Heck the minimum salary is somewhere in the neighborhood of $350K and that's nothing to shake a stick at.

I know the teams in MLB receive revenue sharing, but does the MLBPA or the players?

The owners have plenty of cash. Yes, even in KC.

I just don't see how the players can sit out a year. They stand to lose to much income that they'll never get back. If a player makes $500thou a year how can he just let that much go? That time will be gone and he will never have a chance to make that money again. That's a half a million dollar opportunity gone. With such a short career they have to make hay while the sun is shining. No matter how good of deal they get from the Owners it won't make up for a years lost income so I suspect they'll show up to work before summers over.

The owners know this.


PhilFree:arrow:

Just what I was thinking. The Royals are gonna be huge this year without any football. GO ROYALS LOL!!!!

Its only more if you don't know how to do math. Actually its a break for the owners of about $300 million.

exactly