Interesting Article on How Revenue Sharing (between owners) is real fly in ointment

[morningwood]

NFL Lockout 2011: Revenue Sharing Is The Elephant In The Room Nobody Wants To Talk About - Blogging The Boys


That is a link to the first in a three part series, you should be able to link the other parts from there.

 

[Raptorman]

Very interesting. Any football fan should read it. Particularly those who support small market teams. Jerry Jones would like nothing better than to see some of these teams fold so he can get a bigger piece of he pie.

 

[Vikeman]

Very interesting. Any football fan should read it. Particularly those who support small market teams. Jerry Jones would like nothing better than to see some of these teams fold so he can get a bigger piece of he pie.

Amen brother!

 

[neilfii]

If this is true it does put an entirely new light on the labor dispute. Nice find and thanks for posting.

 

[GreenBayGal]

And the rich get richer. (political sneer)

 

[Darth Garfunkel]

The NFL better be very careful handling this, parity is whats made the league the most popular sport around. Let Jerry have his way and he'll die a richer man but screw up the league in the process.

 

[PackersRS]

Great post man!

Absolutely, Jerry Jones is the cancer of football. His greed, if not contained, will destroy the NFL as we know it.

 

[Raptorman]

Removed.

 

[SpartaChris]

And the rich get richer. (political sneer)

Admittedly I haven't read the article yet, but this comment always makes me laugh. Yes, the rich get richer while the poorer stay poor, or improve less. Do you know why this is?

It's because the rich are smarter and more focused on the right things. They make sacrifices to get what they want. The poor? Not so much.

A PERFECT example of this is our very own Green Bay Packers. You have no idea how many times I heard "The rich got richer" with every single draft pick we made. We stayed focused on the right things (Drafting well,) we're good at what we do (Developing talent,) and we're willing to make the necessary sacrifices (Not trading away our draft for free agents and instead develop our talent) to stay on top. Moving on from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers is a perfect example of making a sacrifice to move ahead.

So yes, the rich do have a tendency to get richer. Rather than whine about how unfair it is, try asking yourself how you could improve your station in life so that you too can get richer, rather than stay poor.

Edit- I should state I am speaking in generalities. Specific instances where one guy wants it all and wants to shut everyone else down is just being greedy, but in general, the rich get richer because they make smarter decisions than the poor.

 

[GreenBayGal]

LOL! I had a feeling you would jump on that one, SpartaChris.

 

[SpartaChris]

Ok, just read the article, and I agree it is a great piece.

Couple thoughts about where the "haves" are coming from: It is patently unfair for small market teams like Green Bay, Carolina and New Orleans to support teams in larger markets like Minnesota and Cincinnati when they literally do nothing at all to increase their own revenue. Minnesota, Cincinnati, San Diego and San Francisco are in much larger markets than New Orleans or Green Bay, yet they can't generate near the revenue? Please. It's more like those teams are just sitting back and collecting a handout rather than trying to better themselves.

Seems to me the solution should be simple- Share only the league generated revenue the teams keep whatever they generate on their own. Ticket revenue, broadcasting revenue including Direct TV and radio, and anything generated by NFL Shop is shared. Base the salary cap and floor on this number. Anything generated by the teams above and beyond that gets to stay with the team. Everyone wins.

 

[SpartaChris]

LOL! I had a feeling you would jump on that one, SpartaChris.

Heh, glad my reputation precedes me.

In general I just hate the finger pointing and excuse making you see all the time. The whining about how successful people stay successful while poor people stay poor. I'm not rich, not by a long shot, but I will be some day. I don't make excuses for my current situation in life, and I also don't blame my problems on those who have found success. I know I need to make better and wiser choices and I need to work harder (And smarter) if I want to make something of myself in this world. It's up to me to succeed and blaming others for having success won't get me there.

 

[Raptorman]

Ok, just read the article, and I agree it is a great piece.

Couple thoughts about where the "haves" are coming from: It is patently unfair for small market teams like Green Bay, Carolina and New Orleans to support teams in larger markets like Minnesota and Cincinnati when they literally do nothing at all to increase their own revenue. Minnesota, Cincinnati, San Diego and San Francisco are in much larger markets than New Orleans or Green Bay, yet they can't generate near the revenue? Please. It's more like those teams are just sitting back and collecting a handout rather than trying to better themselves.

Seems to me the solution should be simple- Share only the league generated revenue the teams keep whatever they generate on their own. Ticket revenue, broadcasting revenue including Direct TV and radio, and anything generated by NFL Shop is shared. Base the salary cap and floor on this number. Anything generated by the teams above and beyond that gets to stay with the team. Everyone wins.

Do nothing to increase revenue? You know how Green Bay increased it's revenue? They re-did Lambeau field. You know how the Vikings want to do it? They want a new stadium. You make it sound so easy to just increase revenue. You have to see were the revenue is coming from. Do the Packers own the parking lots around Lambeau and charge to park on game day? Well the Viking don't own the parking lots around the Metrodump. Hence, no income from it. Does Jerry Jones get the money from parking around the stadium, yup. Do the Packers have sky boxes, yup, the metrodump, nope. If the Packers had not rebuilt Lambeau field 15 years ago they would not be in the position they are now. Learn how the income stream is generated before you criticize a team for not having one.

 

[SpartaChris]

Do nothing to increase revenue? You know how Green Bay increased it's revenue? They re-did Lambeau field. You know how the Vikings want to do it? They want a new stadium. You make it sound so easy to just increase revenue. You have to see were the revenue is coming from. Do the Packers own the parking lots around Lambeau and charge to park on game day? Well the Viking don't own the parking lots around the Metrodump. Hence, no income from it. Does Jerry Jones get the money from parking around the stadium, yup. Do the Packers have sky boxes, yup, the metrodump, nope. If the Packers had not rebuilt Lambeau field 15 years ago they would not be in the position they are now. Learn how the income stream is generated before you criticize a team for not having one.

For starters, this wasn't meant to be a criticism of the Vikings specifically. The fact of the matter is you have teams in smaller markets than Minnesota subsiding Minnesota. That's not anti-Vikings propaganda, that's fact.

Next, I don't need to know how the stream is generated before criticizing a team for not having it because it simply doesn't matter. There are more ways to generate income outside of luxury boxes and parking lots. For example, the Patriots have Patriot Place- a series of restaurants and shops that they make money from. The Cowboys have licensing deals with private clothing manufacturers and beverage makers. Why haven't the Vikings or Bengals explored these types of revenue streams?

Finally, it wasn't until recently that the Vikings sold the naming rights of the Metrodome. Why did it take so long? That's a revenue stream that could have been generating income for at least the last decade or so. What about lottery tickets? I dunno if the Vikings are doing that or not, but that's another potential revenue stream.

There's plenty of opportunity for teams to exploit, but the sentiment is some teams are just fine letting others pay their way. That's where Jones' objection comes from.

 

[GBPack2010]

That puts another realm of things into current CBA negotiations. Nice post.

 

[Raptorman]

For starters, this wasn't meant to be a criticism of the Vikings specifically. The fact of the matter is you have teams in smaller markets than Minnesota subsiding Minnesota. That's not anti-Vikings propaganda, that's fact.

Next, I don't need to know how the stream is generated before criticizing a team for not having it because it simply doesn't matter. There are more ways to generate income outside of luxury boxes and parking lots. For example, the Patriots have Patriot Place- a series of restaurants and shops that they make money from. The Cowboys have licensing deals with private clothing manufacturers and beverage makers. Why haven't the Vikings or Bengals explored these types of revenue streams?

Finally, it wasn't until recently that the Vikings sold the naming rights of the Metrodome. Why did it take so long? That's a revenue stream that could have been generating income for at least the last decade or so. What about lottery tickets? I dunno if the Vikings are doing that or not, but that's another potential revenue stream.

There's plenty of opportunity for teams to exploit, but the sentiment is some teams are just fine letting others pay their way. That's where Jones' objection comes from.

Because they were not allowed to due to the fact that the Twins used the metrodump as well. See it's easy to question why something wasn't done when your team is the only tenant of a facility. And you know for a fact that the Vikings haven't tried any of these other marketing deals? Just because one team does it does not mean another can do the same thing with the same results. I do believe the Vikings have tried everything they can to do to bring in revenue without a new stadium. It goes to show you how important that stadium is.

And as far as revenue streams go, sure the Packers are doing fine now, but will that always be the case? Oh, and Jones didn't have any objections to the revenue stream until his team made it to the top of heap. When he was in the middle of the pack everything was fine. If the crap hits the fan and he can't sell a t-shirt to save his life, his attitude about the revenue streams will change in a heartbeat. Jerry Jones doesn't care about the parity and the smaller market teams. He only cares about the Cowboys an winning the Super Bowl. If he had it his way there would be no draft, FA would be what ever you could afford and the Cowboys would be the equivalent of the Yankees.

 

[Raptorman]

Sparta, I don't think we are that far apart on the issue. All teams should make it on their own, however the owners don't seem to want to deal with each other on the issue so they want to take some away from the players. If a team can make more money in it's own market so be it, but if teams are struggling to survive during certain periods of their existence it benefits all that they stay in business.

 

[SpartaChris]

Sparta, I don't think we are that far apart on the issue. All teams should make it on their own, however the owners don't seem to want to deal with each other on the issue so they want to take some away from the players. If a team can make more money in it's own market so be it, but if teams are struggling to survive during certain periods of their existence it benefits all that they stay in business.

I agree completely. Again, I wasn't criticizing the way the Vikings have done business, or at least I wasn't trying to. I don't live in the area so I don't know all the details about what they can and cannot do in terms of generating extra revenue.

I believe the simple solution is to base the salary cap and floor solely on league shared revenue. TV and radio deals, NFL Pro-Shop, gate receipts, etc. Anything privately generated stays with the owners themselves. This levels the playing field and keeps the salary cap from exploding every time Jerry Jones figures out how to squeeze another dime out of Dallas fans.

Of course the one complication with this plan is the anti-trust exemption the league currently enjoys. The leagues stance is they're one business made up of 32 parts, and as such, ALL revenues are shared amongst the teams. If they take the approach I laid out, they would be admitting they are not ONE business made up of 32 parts, but are instead 32 separate business. This view point would impact the draft and would kill the salary cap as implementing those things would be collusion as is a violation of the law. Unless the NFL can get yet another exemption, like they got for the TV rights. In this day and age, I don't see that happening.

 

[Raptorman]

I agree completely. Again, I wasn't criticizing the way the Vikings have done business, or at least I wasn't trying to. I don't live in the area so I don't know all the details about what they can and cannot do in terms of generating extra revenue.

I believe the simple solution is to base the salary cap and floor solely on league shared revenue. TV and radio deals, NFL Pro-Shop, gate receipts, etc. Anything privately generated stays with the owners themselves. This levels the playing field and keeps the salary cap from exploding every time Jerry Jones figures out how to squeeze another dime out of Dallas fans.

Of course the one complication with this plan is the anti-trust exemption the league currently enjoys. The leagues stance is they're one business made up of 32 parts, and as such, ALL revenues are shared amongst the teams. If they take the approach I laid out, they would be admitting they are not ONE business made up of 32 parts, but are instead 32 separate business. This view point would impact the draft and would kill the salary cap as implementing those things would be collusion as is a violation of the law. Unless the NFL can get yet another exemption, like they got for the TV rights. In this day and age, I don't see that happening.

Depending on how this current court case comes out it may not be their choice in how that is viewed in the near future.

 

[Wood Chipper]

honestly if your team is consistently having good seasons then you will make more money.

 

[Raptorman]

honestly if your team is consistently having good seasons then you will make more money.

Yes and no. If the team has a lousy deal with the stadium authority or an older stadium they don't always make the good money teams that don't have those problems do. Very few teams own their own stadiums, Green Bay, the Redskins, and I think the Patriots. So these teams get to take what they can from the deal. Jacksonville has so many people not coming to their games they actually covered 10,000 seats so they can qualify for sell outs. Even if they have a good season those seats have been covered for NFL games for years.