Skip to content

Ominous words on revenue sharing from Jerry Jones

There’s a line of thinking that the NFL opted not to tell Cowboys owner Jerry Jones that his video board needs to be lifted in order to keep Jones on the same page with the league office regarding the approach to the unfolding struggles with the NFLPA over a new labor deal.

We’d hate to see what Jones would be saying if the league hadn’t given him his way.

Speaking prior to a preseason game in Minnesota, where Vikings owner Zygi Wilf has been unable to finagle a new stadium, Jones talked tough about the future of revenue sharing.

“Right
now, we are subsidizing this market,” Jones said, according to Sean Jensen of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.  “It’s
unthinkable to think that you’ve got the market you got here — 3 ½
million people — and have teams like Kansas City and Green Bay
subsidizing the market.  That will stop.

“That’s going to stop.  That’s on its way out.”

 

Yikes.

The league has done a nice job to date of keeping the labor focus on the fact that the union gets nearly 60 cents of every dollar generated, and not on the simmering acrimony among owners regarding the notion that low-revenue teams can pick the pockets of those who are generating the most money.  Jones’ comments prove that the truce is as tenuous as the union suspects it is, and in turn the Cowboys owner has given the NFLPA some ammunition for driving a wedge among the owners.

But there’s good news.  If/when the Vikings can get a new stadium subsidized not by the rest of the league but by the taxpayers at large, we’ll get to take the ’69 VW bus to the North Pole for Super Bowl week.

Permalink 60 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
60 Responses to “Ominous words on revenue sharing from Jerry Jones”
  1. Mr. Irrelevant says: Sep 4, 2009 9:51 PM

    Jerry “The NFL bows down to me” Jones, ladies and gentlemen!
    Come on, Jerry, you’re just trying to cover up your stupidity about the videoboards. You think after spending 1.5 billion dollars and having years of planning that somebody would think the screens would be a problem

  2. antneejay2 says: Sep 4, 2009 9:53 PM

    “It’s unthinkable to think …”
    Huh?

  3. bigfog says: Sep 4, 2009 9:58 PM

    Good thing he speaks only for nutjob meddling owners who have nothing better to do than spend money and not for the league as a whole…at least I hope.

  4. PJW says: Sep 4, 2009 9:58 PM

    Jerry POS Jones validates the acronym.
    Mortgage payments gotya down (in the pocket)?

  5. JimmySmith says: Sep 4, 2009 10:01 PM

    Its unfair to pick on Minnesota, they don’t have any fans so somebody has got to subsidize that mess. LA will not make the same mistake.
    And the Superbowl will never be at the North Pole, although it would represent a new venue for the Vikings to lose in, they lost everywhere else.

  6. JuicyMelon says: Sep 4, 2009 10:03 PM

    I want the Vikings to get a new stadium in the worst way. However, it is a really hard sell up here. The fact that the Vikings only play 8 home games per year, and that’s if they don’t go to London for one of them. Zygi and Mark always talk about the possibility of having a Super Bowl and other events if a new stadium is built…But do Vikings fans/taxpayers want to pay for a stadium that they might not get tickets to if the big game does come to town? No. The Twins got their stadium because the Twins play at home a lot, tickets are reasonable price, and it’s fun. Vikings games are, for the most part, boring in the stadium. Why pay for a new stadium when you can watch the game at home without paying outrageous prices for everything? Most fans wouldn’t.
    On the other hand, it would create jobs and it would work great for the State of Minnesota. The Wilf’s are just selling the idea very, very, badly. Talk more about the created jobs and show us how the stadium would be used on a yearly basis. (Concerts, Sports, Events, etc…) If the Wilf’s focus more on that instead of possible empty promises, then it will go through.

  7. urbusted says: Sep 4, 2009 10:05 PM

    Jerry Jones has ruined pro football. He’ll end up with six teams in the league at best. Greed.

  8. Bob S. says: Sep 4, 2009 10:07 PM

    “We are subsidizing this market”!
    AND what are the sucker season tickewt holders subsidizing? And forced to pay seat licenses? For scab games coming up in 2 years?
    Don’t dare say on twitter someone just made a good sack or whatever or Jones NFL will sue you!
    These NFL greedball owners will soon kill their own golden goose!

  9. mustbechris says: Sep 4, 2009 10:09 PM

    Does this mean that Vox Veritas can go troll up every Kansas City and Green Bay article posted on here with his awkwardly obsessive Jerry love and stop showing up every time an Eagles article is posted?
    Please?

  10. IanWhetstone says: Sep 4, 2009 10:10 PM

    Jerry… just shut up, please. You’re about three rough years away from being Al Davis.

  11. darrius_heyward-bey-butterfingers says: Sep 4, 2009 10:13 PM

    3.5 million football hatin’ soccer lovers up there in Minneapolis!

  12. DanSnyder says: Sep 4, 2009 10:19 PM

    Ruined football? I am a skins fan but He does more for the league then you realize. Alot of fans of smaller market teams should be thankful that the larger market teams even agreed to revenue sharing. Without it teams like the bengals, chargers, 49ers, etc etc would have been gone awhile ago and replaced by new teams and owners who have more money and are in bigger markets.

  13. NCEaglesFan says: Sep 4, 2009 10:24 PM

    PJW — It’s not Jerry’s mortgage payments that’s got him so up tight. It’s the skin on his face and those costly plastic surgery bills!!!

  14. unmasked says: Sep 4, 2009 10:34 PM

    I’ve already experienced the “pleasure” of going to a superbowl in Minnesota. Why would anyone else want to do that?

  15. aj says: Sep 4, 2009 10:37 PM

    Somewhere, Pete Rozelle is turning in his grave…

  16. praveen says: Sep 4, 2009 10:38 PM

    Actually , despite being a Steelers fan, I agree with the likes of Jerry Jones and Kraft on this issue. It is one thing to support a small market that is earning revenue proportionate to their market size on a healthy basis. But it is stupid to share revenues to such an equal extent with owners who do not pull their weight such as Mike Brown.
    If you noticed Jones statement, he made reference to Green Bay subsidizing MN. His point was that low revenue alone should not determine revenue sharing.
    My proposal would be to have basic revenue sharing at some level so there won’t be baseball level inequities. However beyond that point, each team qualifying for further revenue sharing MUST prove to the league that they are pulling their weight proportionate to their market size. Metrics could include winning seasons over a period of time, improvement in team perception in the region which could be conducted by simple polls. Stuff like team merchandising should be shared only to a small extent because of all the leagues, the NFL merchadise sales is based on team branding more than the market size alone.
    Also teams which partake in getting revenue sharing funds should not be allowed to profit more than a million or so each year. Why should teams that need revenue profit more than that? Mike Brown is making millions per year while his teams fans suffer.

  17. Zaggs says: Sep 4, 2009 10:44 PM

    Wellington Mara, Jerry Jones is not. The New York teams subsidize a good portion of the league as well. Yet when it first came up the Mara’s were behind revenue sharing. Jones would be perfectly happen with a 6 team league so long as he got his money.

  18. spyboots says: Sep 4, 2009 10:44 PM

    He’s bad for the NFL.

  19. Agamemnon says: Sep 4, 2009 10:49 PM

    Maybe Jones can have his own league and take the Cowboys with him. Without teams like Minnesota, the Cowboys wouldn’t have very many teams to play against.
    Maybe Jones is mad that Minnesota has a better team than he can buy right now?

  20. WickedKoala says: Sep 4, 2009 10:53 PM

    Jerry, I say this as a Packers fan and with the utmost respect – GO F*CK YOURSELF.

  21. rifraf66 says: Sep 4, 2009 10:56 PM

    Wilf????? thats a broad subject…Women I’d Like to Fu…..errrrrrr aaaaah aaaaa never mind

  22. Bob Nelson says: Sep 4, 2009 10:57 PM

    Minnesota has been the last place franchise for many years. Only last season did Detroit manage to do worse.
    Green Bay is one 35th the size of the Minnesota market yet makes 22% more revenue.
    No wonder Jerry Jones is so angry at lousy freeloading franchises like the vikings that are not pulling their weight and are a drag on the whole NFL. The vikings act like low life no load welfare types that never want to work are a parasite upon the productive teams in the league.
    When a team full of criminals is repulsive to the fanbase it is really a sad situation.
    Every other team seems to have upgraded their stadiums recently but the vikings are unwilling to clean up their mess.
    Jones has every right to call them out for their poor performancce and being a financial eyesore and embarrassment to the league.
    Jerry has a new stadium to pay for and doesn’t want to be paying for a parasite fanchise sucking life from the Cowboys to just stay afloat.
    Kansas City and Green Bay can step up but they should not be subsidizing weak and worthless scum like the vikings.
    That’s telling them the truth Jerry!!

  23. SlaveToBankers says: Sep 4, 2009 11:01 PM

    Jerruh needs only 5 more seasons without a playoff win, and a new track suit, to replace Al Davis completely.
    Luckily for him, no one dares to ask who is subsidizing those bad Central-American face-lifts he seems to be getting on a monthly basis.
    In all seriousness, though, Owner Jerruh needs to immediately stop subsidizing G.M. Jerruh, at least if the Cowgirls hope to play a meaningful game in January ever again.

  24. east96st says: Sep 4, 2009 11:03 PM

    JuicyMelon says: “Why pay for a new stadium when you can watch the game at home without paying outrageous prices for everything? Most fans wouldn’t.”
    Remember that quote when they leave.

  25. Diomedes says: Sep 4, 2009 11:06 PM

    Typical of rabid capitalists, Jones thinks his good fortune has been earned without any luck, and that the Cowboys have achieved their fiscal success without realizing any benefit from the support they give fraternal partners like Minnesota and Buffalo.
    It can’t be a league full of Cowboys and Redskins. You get rid of small market low profit teams and the entire league will suffer. Jones is too short sighted to realize that. Or too stupid.

  26. 10mm says: Sep 4, 2009 11:08 PM

    OH Woe Jerry the evil billionaire will destroy the NFL. OH WOE IS US what will we watch on TV then. The world as we know it is over. Goodbye NFL and it’s all Jerry’s fault.

  27. ItalianArmyGuy says: Sep 4, 2009 11:11 PM

    It seems that you are taking Jones’ words out of context. He is clearly talking about the out of date stadium that does not generate nearly sufficient revenue for the local team, and he is right, it is ridiculous if KC and Green Bay are subsidizing a much larger metropolis because of stadium issues. The Vikings have had this problem for years – at one point they considered moving the team to San Antonio for the same problem. Jones is wrong on a lot of issues, and his Cowboys are a terrible team to hold up as any kind of a business model (unless you agree that making huge profits off the fans despite very poor recent efforts at putting together a professional management team that can produce a championship caliber team), but I think any knowledgeable football person would tell you the same thing – Minnesota either needs a modern stadium with reasonable revenues, or they need to find a new town to play in.

  28. DCViking says: Sep 4, 2009 11:31 PM

    Bob –
    You forgot to call out the Viking’s corrupting “non-Christian” owners like you did in a previous post….
    BTW — Did you see who our quarterback is this year???

  29. hrudey says: Sep 4, 2009 11:33 PM

    The problem with this is that, thanks to the CBA that the owners got themselves into, that excess money that teams like Dallas and the Giants rake in means that teams like the Vikings are forced to spend more to meet the salary floor. Small-market or cheap teams are licking their chops over the prospect of an uncapped year, since they can spend what makes sense financially on players, not some figure that gets inflated because the big ticket clubs are pulling in massive windfalls.

  30. IanWhetstone says: Sep 4, 2009 11:37 PM

    “Alot of fans of smaller market teams should be thankful that the larger market teams even agreed to revenue sharing. Without it teams like the bengals, chargers, 49ers, etc etc would have been gone awhile ago and replaced by new teams and owners who have more money and are in bigger markets.”
    A lot of new owners should be thankful that the old guard even agreed to let them and their shortsighted greed mongering into the club in the first place. There are 32 teams, and only so many large markets. How big do you think the 30th-largest market in the country is, exactly?

  31. Doohickey says: Sep 4, 2009 11:46 PM

    It’s not about market size, genius. If it were, Los Angeles would have a team. Do you think Pittsburgh is bigger than Minneapolis-St. Paul?
    If Wilf thinks a new stadium is more important to his customers than the product he puts on the field, then he ought to buy the damn thing himself instead of expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab. If the market can’t support a football team, then it ought to be moved to a market that can. Same thing goes for Jacksonville and San Diego.

  32. praveen says: Sep 5, 2009 12:06 AM

    If owners of clubs like Bengals insist on such equal revenue sharing, then they should be forced to sell the team if they can’t have even 3 out of 10 .500 seasons over a decade. Would they take such a deal? I doubt it.
    I think markets like JAX should not have had a team in the first place. While I support revenue sharing for JAX, it should not be to the extent where they can get away with non sellouts even during years they are contending. They rely on visiting fans to sell out some of their games. THey are college football towns first. I think owners like Mike Brown do not deserve to have a team. though Cinci deserves a team. Revenue sharing merely hides that fact.
    Support revenue sharing, but there needs to be some inequity to encourage teams to get better. But the inequity should never approach baseball levels.

  33. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 5, 2009 12:09 AM

    First of all, there was a Super Bowl played here in Minneapolis already. It was one of that the Bills were in I believe. I’ve lived in Minneapolis for half my life and I must admit, for the size of the metro area, it really is a ridiculous fairweather fan base here. I’ve never seen anything like it.
    Basically, unless you’re in first place by a long shot, they will support you. Fielding a playoff caliber club isn’t enough to get people to support or pay for tickets. Of course, all you have to do is look at the history of franchises that have fled this city. Even the Twins owner tried to take the MLB contraction offer. The new stadium will be cool for a year or two so people can talk about how awesome it is and tell their friends they’ve been there, then the novelty will wear off and it will be lucky to be 1/4 full for most games unless the Yankees come to town.

  34. pwoeckener says: Sep 5, 2009 12:27 AM

    In 1994 Major League Baseball players went on strike and the season was canceled. I haven’t supported MLB since.
    If the NFL is foolish enough to have some sort of work stoppage – no matter the cause – then I will cease to support their league anymore as well.
    I’m unemployed and hoping to find a job making potentially $50k a year. When I see athletes like Crabtree complaining because they don’t feel they are getting a fair offer from the team that drafted them, then I do have a problem with that system. I also have a problem when season tickets cost $5,000 annually, because not only do you have to buy the tickets, but a Personal Seat License. PSL is just a fancy term made up to milk more money out of ignorant fans who will kill their own children before giving up their Giants or Redskins seats.
    Folks, we’ve got a false religion on America. It’s called the NFL. You reap what you sow.

  35. east96st says: Sep 5, 2009 12:41 AM

    IanWhetstone says: “How big do you think the 30th-largest market in the country is, exactly?”
    The 30th market as ranked by Nielsen is Hartford & New Haven with just over a million “TV homes” (Nielsen’s terminology, not mine). That is considerably below Minneapolis-St.Paul which is ranked 15th with 1.7 million. Just as a reference point, Jacksonville is 47th, Buffalo is 51st, and New Orleans is 53rd. Kansas City is 31st and Green Bay-Appleton is all the way down at 70th.

  36. Hail2ThaRedskins says: Sep 5, 2009 1:16 AM

    I don’t think Jones comments signal any departure from what the owners have been thinking all along. The owners did not like the terms of the revenue sharing almost from day one, they didn’t have a good chance t fully explore the terms prior to approval because the last CBA was negotiated at the 11th hour.
    I believe it was given the revenue sharing component was going to blown up (there may be some revenue sharing in the new CBA but not based on the current format). The lower revenue producing teams will not be receiving hand outs from their breathern owners, but that will be made by concessions from the players. So, I don’t see the comments as any benefit to the NFLPA. Remeber Jones was one of the owners who led the push to approve the last CBA, the fact that he is vocal about not liking the terms is bad news for the NFLPA in my mind.
    The bottom line is that the top earning teams want to cut the purse strings to lower earning teams. The only way the lower earning teams can make up that lost revenue is to get it back in concessions from the players. (Oh, and in the process the higher earning clubs will increase their margins as well as their player expenses will drop as well)

  37. Los Gigantes says: Sep 5, 2009 1:45 AM

    With the huge swell that the Vikings are placing on the other NFL teams I’m surprised that Wilf isn’t to busy campaigning for social health care to care about building a new stadium…
    In all seriousness Jerry should just be glad that he has a fan base stupid/hopeless enough to follow the shit team he fields every year so blindly that he’ll never have to worry about not being able to afford the payments on his new stadium…
    Making money > Playoff wins in the past 15 years > Cowboy fans opinions

  38. VoxVeritas says: Sep 5, 2009 2:53 AM

    “his Cowboys are a terrible team to hold up as any kind of a business model”
    Initial investment $150 million
    Current value $1.65 billion
    Must be doing something right. You’re going to bag on him for not winning a Super Bowl lately? There are a whoooole lot of owners that aspire to reach the levels of success that Jerry Jones has had both in terms of accomplishments of his team and the financial performance of his franchise. If the guys that own your favorite team are not named Rooney or Kraft you probably need to chiggity-check yourself.

  39. bleed blue says: Sep 5, 2009 5:33 AM

    “If you noticed Jones statement, he made reference to Green Bay subsidizing MN. His point was that low revenue alone should not determine revenue sharing.”
    This is the key mike!!
    jj are not talking about revenue sharing at large, only the fact that small market teams like Green Bay should not subsidise teams in medium markets like minnisota.

  40. Bwa Ha Ha says: Sep 5, 2009 6:39 AM

    It looks like Jerry is having a picnic, and he just offered the rest of the league blowme sammiches

  41. JuicyMelon says: Sep 5, 2009 6:44 AM

    east96st says:
    September 4, 2009 11:03 PM
    JuicyMelon says: “Why pay for a new stadium when you can watch the game at home without paying outrageous prices for everything? Most fans wouldn’t.”
    Remember that quote when they leave.
    Did you read my article? My point was that the Wilf’s are trying to sell people from Minnesota on a future Super Bowl and the “New Stadium Experience.” They should be selling Minnesota on jobs, other uses of the stadium year round, and cheaper prices at games. The Wilf’s, in my view, have failed to do that. Plus, if this is an indoor stadium without a retractable roof, I don’t want this. Get the cold weather back to the games!
    I highly doubt Minnesota will relocate. LA has proven to be a failed market for football. If any team is in threat of moving its Jax, San Diego, or San Fran. Personally I would like the NFL to expand by two teams.
    and east. I was not talking about myself. I am talking about a Vikings team that had trouble selling out a playoff game.

  42. 4BITS says: Sep 5, 2009 8:49 AM

    There is something very important that Jones didn’t mention, or conveniently “forgot”. As the article mentions, the union gets 60 cents of every dollar generated league wide. Those figures determine tha salary cap and the minimum amount teams must spend on player salaries. So, when the Cowboys, or any large market team increases revenue it increases the amount that all teams MUST spend. That increase is spread evenly among all teams, however revenues are not. In other words all franchises share player costs equally they certainly do not share revenues equally. Jerry Jones should get off his high horse.

  43. Filbertkiwi71 says: Sep 5, 2009 9:03 AM

    The Chargers are doing all they can to stay in San Diego. The Spanos’ have been quite reasonable. There fan base is solid. IMO, the problem is the stadium. Where do you put the new stadium.
    If the number of NFL teams shrinks, so won’t the fan base. I don’t think there is any question about that.
    When the Colts were moved to Indianapolis, the Baltimore fans had no team to route for until the Browns were moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Then Cleveland fans had no team to route for until they got a new team.

  44. prgsdw says: Sep 5, 2009 9:07 AM

    Jerry Jones is right on here. The Vikings can’t support themselves in that market then that market doesn’t deserve a team. Let them move to LA.
    I agree that the TV money should be evenly split – sales of merchandise too. But I disagree on the other advertising items like stadium names. The reason is simple – take Rich Stadium in Buffalo. You have a case where the owner has decided to name the stadium after his father. That’s fantastic and admirable. But don’t put your hand out for money from the Patriots, Redskins, (soon to be) Cowboys, etc when you’re not doing anything to raise that cash but expect that the people that are working for it should share it. There needs to be some incentive for running this business – the players must get X% of every dollar generated. You can’t expect people like Jones to put in $900 million of their own money – think about that – and then work to raise revenue and get to keep 1/32nd of it.
    It’s not anything any of YOU would be willing to do with you OWN money either.

  45. colin says: Sep 5, 2009 9:24 AM

    Somebody should tell Jerry if there wasn’t revenue sharing the Cowboys wouldn’t exist. The whole league should kiss the Mara’s ass.

  46. Bob Nelson says: Sep 5, 2009 9:49 AM

    If the vikings had the first home playoff game in many years and it took 3 extenstions to avoid a blackout.
    Only 61,000 show up for the playoff game.
    Why should Minnesota build a bigger stadium if they can’t fill the one they have?
    The fact is that the franchise has turned off fans and fans just won’t support such a rotten organization.
    The vikings have done so much to offend Minnesota that they are hated and despised.
    Tice Ticket scandal, Criminal Cruise, viking players burning 2 year old childrens ears with cigarette lighters, The Williams in court saying they are not responsible for what they eat, McKinnie beating people with a pipe in Florida, multiple bar brawls, fights at gas stations, Erasmus James locker room fights, DUI’s like Koren Robinson’s high speed chase, drafting a druggie like Percy Harvin, etc. etc.
    Every year, for over 25 years, there have been multiple vikings arrested. People do not want to cheer criminals. The vikings reputation really sucks among Minnesotans.
    The Chiefs and Packers in contrast have built up a lot of good will in their communities and have support. It takes decades but a good reputation is worth much.

  47. Beer Cheese Soup says: Sep 5, 2009 10:29 AM

    LA has been more of a “futbol” town than a football town for quite some time.
    However, Minneapolis has been more of a hockey town than a football town, and Goodell seems hell bent on putting a team in LA, God knows why. Someone’s bound to move there, and if it isn’t the Jaguars it will almost certainly be the Vikings. Wilf is a businessman. He doesn’t want to continue losing money with no support from the team or (and I use the term loosely) fans.
    Of course, if we continue to see miracles like Jerry Jones and Bob Nelson both making sense on the same page, the world will probably end long before they even get the chance to move. Oh well.

  48. east96st says: Sep 5, 2009 10:52 AM

    JuicyMelon says: “Did you read my article?”
    I did and you’re ignoring basic economics. 1) the job creation thing is a scam. Sure, you get TEMPORARY construction jobs, but after the construction is over, the vast majority of the jobs associated with new stadiums are crappy minimum wage jobs that are seasonal. Cleaning toilets, selling hot dogs, etc. Stadiums are NOT job creation factories anymore than opening a couple of McDonalds are. 2) the product Wilf owns is in high demand, short supply, which means the market favors him 3) the recession will end. They all do, no matter what governments do or don’t. governments can speed the recovery or slow it down, but it will come. the stock market is showing signs of life, houses are starting to sell, in a year or two some city will feel flush enough to make a move on the Vikes. I think spending taxpayer dollars on stadiums is a crime and any money spent on a stadium by a city or state should result in a corresponding loss in federal money. However, I am in the minority with that view. Wilf has what people want. If Minneapolis doesn’t pay up, he WILL leave. There’s a lot of mayors out there that are more than willing to spend their constituents money freely and he or she will call Wilf as soon as they feel doing so won’t cost them being re-elected. That is EVERY politicians number one priority and what is good for the city, state, and the country is usually blindly ignored by both parties. Minnesota can pay or say good bye. It’s blackmail, but it is effective. I’m sure San Antonio and dozen of cities like it would love to have the publicity and visibility that having a NFL franchise provides.

  49. Beer Cheese Soup says: Sep 5, 2009 10:56 AM

    Nevermind what I said about Bob. His second post ruined that whole “making sense” bit. The world is safe after all.
    Go to hell Bob. You make all the decent Packer fans in America look bad. Not everyone shares your anal-retentive religious opinions, not to mention your blind homerism.
    Every team has had its share of scandals and criminals, sadly including our beloved Pack. The Vikings’ scandals are usually a hell of a lot funnier than ours, and they make better headlines, but I digress.
    The Vikings lose money simply because they have historically sucked, they’re known for choking in every big game throughout their history, their stadium is hands-down the worst in the league, their coach belongs in Pop Warner and their ownership is too stupid to fire him, they only have fans in the offseason, their merchandise is all purple and no one wants to be caught dead in it, and the local economy is too poor for anyone to want to waste their money on the crappy product they field…
    …NOT because their owners aren’t devout Pentecostals or because they have players with criminal records (what team doesn’t). Get it right Bob.

  50. VoxVeritas says: Sep 5, 2009 11:06 AM

    “So, when the Cowboys, or any large market team increases revenue it increases the amount that all teams MUST spend. That increase is spread evenly among all teams, however revenues are not. In other words all franchises share player costs equally they certainly do not share revenues equally. Jerry Jones should get off his high horse.”
    Actually higher revenue teams have been subsidizing lower revenue teams for years now. Jones’ point is that the Vikings marketing area is large enough that they shouldn’t need this subsidy. It’s ludicrous that a small market team like the Green Bay Packers must subsidize a large market team like the Minnesota Vikings. Jones seems to think that a big part of why it’s been happening is that the Vikings need a new stadium. Get off his high horse? Jerry Jones is constantly putting his money where his mouth is. I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention but the guy just spent about $800 million of his own money on a new stadium in a terrible economy.

  51. DCViking says: Sep 5, 2009 12:02 PM

    @Beer Cheese –
    I’ll take your Viking insults any day — I won’t like ‘em and I won’t agree with all of them (unfortunately, some are legit), but I’ll take ‘em, and I’ll fire back when I can.
    You and several others I have seen give me reason to believe there is hope for Packers fans after all…

  52. JuicyMelon says: Sep 5, 2009 12:07 PM

    @East,
    I’m not ignoring basic economics and how can you say that the job creation thing is a scam? You defeated your own argument on that later in your post. The construction workers/electricians/cementers/etc…will get about 2-3 good years of work. When the economy picks up after those 2-3 years, more jobs will be available for these workers. Not to mention the routine maintenance that goes along with a new stadium. Plus those minimum wage jobs you talked about are in demand right now. Not to mention the numerous Public Affairs opportunities, Events for other items, and surrounding businesses would receive.
    I don’t think spending taxpayer dollars on a stadium is any more of a crime then spending it on people’s vehicles or simply handing out checks. If the taxpayers want a stadium, they will get it. The fact is that Minnesota has a fan base of bandwaggoners and the Wilf’s haven’t touched them with their plan.
    As I said earlier, I highly doubt the Vikings will move. Wilf will the sell the team before he moves it. But that won’t matter, the stadium will be under construction in the next year or two.
    A new football stadium in Minnesota makes tons of sense. Unfortunately, bad timing and lack of a plan to attract others than diehard fans have destroyed this plan so far.

  53. east96st says: Sep 5, 2009 1:18 PM

    JuicyMelon says: “I’m not ignoring basic economics and how can you say that the job creation thing is a scam? You defeated your own argument on that later in your post”
    Read it again. You’ll see that I point out opening a couple of McDonalds creates the same jobs. McDonalds need to be built too, The company doesn’t send a pre-fab building to the franchisee. In fact, you can make a strong case that several McDonalds are better, since there are hundreds of stories of kids going to work at McDonalds who get inspired to open their own store or stores later in life. How many hot dog vendors at the stadiums go on to open their own hot dog place? A study by Marquette University of all the stadiums in the US came to this conclusion:
    Fear on the part of public officials that they will be held responsible for losing a team is not the only motivation for stadium deals. Subsidies to sports franchises are also justified in terms of economic development. As with other forms of government-assisted investment, proponents of publicly funded stadiums have tried to make the case that these sports palaces are job generators.
    This is a difficult case to make. A professional sports team does not operate on a continuous, year-round basis. Each sport is limited to its season, and half the games are played out of town. The most egregious example is football, with games played only once a week for five months. A stadium devoted exclusively to professional football will be in use only about ten days a year.
    Then there’s the question of the quality of the jobs created. Aside from the small number of athletes with astronomical salaries, the jobs directly associated with stadiums tend to be part-time, intermittent positions with low wages and few benefits. Hawking hot dogs and beer or cleaning up after the fans go home is not a sure-fire route to prosperity. The construction of stadiums does generate better-paid work for masons, carpenters, electricians and the like, but this is of limited duration. The construction jobs evaporate once the stadium is built.
    Read “Sports, Jobs, and Taxes” by Roger Noll for a more in depth review.

  54. praveen says: Sep 5, 2009 1:54 PM

    Let us not confuse the issue of revenue sharing with blind equal revenue sharing. I dont think even the Jerry Jones types are against any kind of reasonable revenue sharing with clubs that deserve it. Even a respected owner like Kraft expressed the same sentiment.
    The current revenue sharing formula is one big reason why the Bengals are so bad. Without it , Mike Brown would have lost money and been forced to sell the team to a better owner. With the current formula, Brown has no incentive to actually spend money on a good management team.
    Look at the 49ers for proof how a bad management team can sink a franchise when profitability becomes the overriding factor. Under Eddie Debartolo, it was a premium franchise that didn’t need revenue sharing. Under his sister’s ownership, that franchise has become mud. They were even counting cups in the offices to save money.
    Here is why merchandising should not be shared equally – it is the biggest indicator of team loyalty. Steelers and GB are routinely among the biggest sellers despite being in a small market. You want to force owners to pull in their weight in cultivating loyal fans by not handing them out NFL merchandise money. I would do cap the sharing at 25% for merchandising and the rest goes to individual owners.
    TV revenues should be shared equally . BUt there should be penalties for the Tv money prorated to a specific game whenever a team fails to sellout a home game.
    With this kind of revenue sharing, teams that pull their weight will do just fine regardless of market size. The bad teams will lose money and will be forced to sell. I see that as a good thing. I think relocation fines should be even higher to discourage franchise movement.

  55. Cowboydick says: Sep 5, 2009 11:41 PM

    Bob Nelson, do you ever put down the crackpipe? I’m serious. I’ve known a few crackheads and your train of thought is always rolling down the same tracks.

  56. Beer Cheese Soup says: Sep 6, 2009 9:59 AM

    DCViking says:
    @Beer Cheese –
    I’ll take your Viking insults any day…
    ________
    I’ll be sure to keep them coming then.

  57. 980110 says: Sep 6, 2009 9:44 PM

    Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are not better marketers than everyone else in the league! They have the luck of geography. Washington used to have the entire southeast in the old NFL, and Dallas was given the southwest by the NFL to compete with the upstart AFL. These large followings remain despite that fact that Mr. Snyder is an incompetent owner, and Jerry Jones’ past successes were largely dependant on Jimmy Johnson.
    This is a power grab, plain and simple. Both Jones and Snyder bought into this league knowing full well the NFL’s philosophy regarding revenue sharing. If they didn’t like it they should have bought a baseball team!
    Good Luck

  58. 980110 says: Sep 6, 2009 9:54 PM

    Incidentally, Jerry Jones DID NOT spend $800m
    of his money on this staddium. $933m was raised by the city of Arlington through higher taxes- i.e. higher taxes on regular Joes- and another $150m was supplied by the evil revenue-sharing NFL. Considering the stadium cost $1.15b, you do the math and figure how much Emperor Jones put up!
    Good Luck

  59. TominNH says: Sep 9, 2009 6:10 PM

    It is revenue sharing that made the NFL what it is! It has brought a kind of parity and excitement of knowing that a team can turn around in 1-2 seasons if it manages the cap well. It scares me what the Jerry Joneses may do to the NFL! They might be the first to say they dont care if there’s no cap!!
    PS……. I HATE the idea that owners are blackmailing cities into building them new stadiums. In Massacusetts, NO public money has EVER been used to construct arenas; ONLY for some infrastructure to handle the crowds. The celts, Pats, Bruins and Red Sox ALL pay their way and always have.

  60. jdhatchet says: Sep 10, 2009 1:03 PM

    Jerry seems to forget it was Minny. that was dumb enough to trade all those pick’s for Walker and the reason they had that great run in the 90’s he owes them big time

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!