first off, the packers revenue is higher than half the teams in the league (tied for 14th). second, there HAS been an increase in non-player salaries expenses for some teams since many are having to purchase their own stadiums. that would account for the small operating profit for both the jets & giants in 09. third, the cap on player revenue has been increasing every year since 07. THAT’S the problem that it’s gone to far. the 50% of revenue is essentially the cap minimum.

you can’t take the avg league income for all teams, use that as your starting point and say “see, all the teams are making enough money.” just like you can’t take the the 4.5 billion, divide it among the 1696 players on active rosters and say “see, nfl athletes make $2.65 million/y.” you have players like manning making 20 mil in a year & other players making 500k. the same is true for nfl teams & that’s a major part of the issue.
you ignore that the packers spent more than the “$140/team” allotment by $21 million on player salaries or other teams that do so. you also didn’t mention how their revenue only went up 5.5% but their total costs increased by 8.8% & player costs increased by 11.8%. that doesn’t point towards long term sustainability. that points towards player revenue increasing too fast.

and to counter any arguments that all owners are making so much they can afford to allow player salaries to continue to expand at this rate: the packers are a very well run, well supported albeit small market team & had a successful season in 09. according to forbes, in 09 the packers were 6th to last in operating profit. 29 players made more money than them that year (going by cap valuation so signing bonuses will be treated more fairly) and another 5 made within 500k (or <5% difference of profits). so 34 players in the league made equivocal amounts or more than 20% of the league owners in 09…the same league owners that have 100's of millions of dollars invested in their teams.
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playersbyposition.aspx?pos=135
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html

and don't give me this crap that "financial risk doesn't outweigh health risks." i bet almost any younger man in america would be willing to trade concussions, contusions, an increased risk of dementia and eventual knee replacements & arthritis in exchange for what ANY nfl team would sell for. i know i would.

And let’s be clear about something else…. $4.5 billion divided by 32 comes out to a bit more than $140 million. These are successful businessmen, not foolish 20-something kids with giant paychecks. I would love for someone to detail to me how the operation of a football team requires $140 million per year when the price of the players’ contracts are subtracted.
————————-
I’m not going to look it up but the easiest place to get that answer would be the Green Bay Packer’s financials as they are public. If you take the time get an answer please let us know.
————————————-

Thank you for the obvious…. I guess I will.

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2010/7/15/1570671/the-packers-financial-report-is

According to this, the cost of operating the Green Bay Packers organization, outside of player salaries, was an estimated $87 million in 2009. Now, while the net profit of the organization is small, it should be pointed out that so is their gross revenue compared to the league average, which, at $9 billion divided by 32, would be $281 million.

So, if we use $87 million as the mark for operating the franchise, against the average of the $140 million owner’s share of our proverbial pie here, that equates to an average net profit of $53 million. Until another team shows undoctored and verifiable books that present a substantially larger figure for operating costs, I think I can understand why players would cry foul over owner’s claims that they can’t afford to continue operating under the present business model.

Also, if you look more closely at the report as stated in this article, while player costs rose $22 million, overall operating costs (including player costs) only raised $20 million, indicating a 2.25% DECREASE in non-player operating costs.

The point is this: By tying the player’s revenue directly to a percentage of gross league revenue at an even split, they insure that player salaries will not outstrip gross revenue. The only way that owners can claim that a 50/50 split is unsustainable is to claim that either a) non-player operating costs will increase at a rate greater than gross revenue, or b) gross revenue will decrease. The Packer’s financial report suggests neither.

Therefore, with no other information available to us, the contention that owners need a greater percentage of gross revenue leads to only one logical conclusion: they want more money in their pockets.

If the owners want that $1 billion off the top, than I think it should have a stated and monitored purpose. For example: each owner’s share of that money will be inversely proportional to their gross revenue against average team gross revenue. i.e.:

Team A has a gross revenue of $200 million, or appr 71.2% of average team revenue. Therefore, they receive an inverse proportion, or 140.5%, of the team average of $1 billion (31.25 million), or 43.9 million. This redistribution will help insure that all teams are keeping payroll closer to the salary cap and not the minimum salary cap, meaning more money eventually finds its way into the players hands.

No, I’m not employed by the players’ trade association. But as a contract writer, I’d be thrilled to take them on as a client. It’s always nice to work on materials you can support.

Been to any third-world countries lately? You might want to visit a couple before you decide our (dramatically holds hand to heart) once great nation has fallen from glory. Even in hard times, most Americans hear “banana republic” and think “clothing store.”

Why, yes, I do believe in the free market. That’s why I believe the players should be paid commensurate with the revenue they generate.

And let’s be clear about something else…. $4.5 billion divided by 32 comes out to a bit more than $140 million. These are successful businessmen, not foolish 20-something kids with giant paychecks. I would love for someone to detail to me how the operation of a football team requires $140 million per year when the price of the players’ contracts are subtracted.
————————-
I’m not going to look it up but the easiest place to get that answer would be the Green Bay Packer’s financials as they are public. If you take the time get an answer please let us know.

“But you forgot to mention that it’s also more heroic than the financial risks some fat cats voluntarily took to own a football team”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You seem very well versed in player propaganda. Your posts outline the union’s talking points perfectly, I applaud your attention to detail. If your employed by the former NFLPA* wink wink… you are worth every cent. I’m guessing from the above comment that you are not a supporter of capitolism and/or our free market system. It’s just that type of socialist mentally that is turning a once great nation into a third world economy or a banana republic if you will.

I agree: The work soldiers and firefighters perform is more heroic than the risks football players voluntarily take to be on the field. But you forgot to mention that it’s also more heroic than the financial risks some fat cats voluntarily took to own a football team.

I also agree that this is about GREED. That’s exactly why the owners opted out of the current CBA, significantly low-balled projected revenues for years to come, then told players they need to cut back on their share–which also covers health care and pensions for retirees–without supporting their projections.

BTW, as a longtime PFT regular, I’m flattered that someone who only registered with the site last week to post pro-owner comments keeps singling out my posts. Nice to know you care.

THEY ARE THE PRODUCT.

The players are the raw materials that are turned into the finished product that is put on the field and on our tvs. The employees are the coaches and front office personnel who are hired to put the best PRODUCT on the field. It just so happens that this product happens to be human beings.

It’s simple…. Without the players, there is no business. We pay all this money to watch these players because they are the best at what they do, just as we pay extra for the very best quality of any other product. We are paying for Ferraris, leather jackets, the best cuts of steak, high-end mattresses, etc etc…. If the owners put Hondas, windbreakers, chunks of fat and gristle, and cheap metal-spring boxes in front of us and try to get that $9 billion, they are in for a rude shock.

And let’s be clear about something else…. $4.5 billion divided by 32 comes out to a bit more than $140 million. These are successful businessmen, not foolish 20-something kids with giant paychecks. I would love for someone to detail to me how the operation of a football team requires $140 million per year when the price of the players’ contracts are subtracted.

The owners have NOT offered to show 5 years of their books so please stop saying that.

What they have offered is a set of books with a bunch of unspecified information deleted.

———————————-
Can we stop with the player propoganda yet? The misinformation the player supporters put out is absolutely staggering. The union refused to look at what the league gave them and yet you still blame the owners. Unbelievable.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6196585

“… Earlier this week, the NFL agreed to disclose league-wide profits and to show how many clubs had declining profits over the course of the most recent CBA, agreeing to a request NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith made in October and it had originally balked at. When the NFL did, the NFLPA declined to see it, a source familiar with the process told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter, because it would compromise their public position on financial transparency. …”

are owners rich and can they be bad guys? sure. but someone has to own the teams.

and it sure looks like union types get violent, whereas unionbusters did 90 years ago. most of those speaking for the union shouldnt be allowed near a microphone.

duh was hired to do a sham decert. that was his plan all along. the owners otoh had the right to call the deal over based on the original agreement. tags did cave.

and lets get this straight – the players want more $ too. read what duh says.

the players are not equal partners and can all be replaced much easier. and apparently cheaper.

t1mmy10 says: Mar 20, 2011 1:06 PM

Magic blueberry says: Mar 20, 2011 12:56 PM

It is that simple. The owners need to be completely transparent with their books in order to convince the players that their expenses are legit.
————————————————–
They don’t have to be “completely” transparent with their books. They just need to hire a 3rd party auditing group (not one biased towards the players) and every year have the teams submit their books to them. that firm calculates total revenues & legit costs for the owners & players to split & thus determines the cap for the next year. that way neither the other owners nor the players/public will ever see the owners books. proven legit numbers without public scrutiny of how the private companies runs their businesses.

*****************************
Offered and refused by the union!

How many times does this have to be written!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
not exactly. the key part is LEGIT costs. they offered to have a firm to the profits and show ONLY the avg profits of a team per year to the union. problem is, it’s been proven that some owners like mike brown pay himself an annual GM salary even though he’s not officially listed as the GM & doesn’t do any actual GM work. yet any body with any training in accounting knows that, that would be counted as operating cost when it really should be counted as profit for brown. things like that need to be weeded out otherwise the players will never agree to it.

don’t get me wrong, i’m pro-owners as you can see from the rest of my comments, but i want things to be fair.

Your post is spot on, Mike, but it seems most of your audience is of the belief that the players deserve nothing and should continue to kill themselves for our entertainment. Perhaps these idiots should talk to former Pats/Eagles FB Kevin Turner & see what he’s got to say. Ya better hurry though, he’s only got about 6 months to live…
———————-
People who live in glass houses .. etc.

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Sam Dana, who was the oldest living former NFL player and once played football alongside Lou Gehrig at Columbia, died in his sleep late Monday night. He was 104. He even played with Lou Gehrig, imagine that?

A football player who lived to the ripe old age of 104. Who would’ve thought? Did you send your condolences to him when he died 3 years ago?
…
(from a medical article on ALS)
At this time, it is not known why ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) occurs. It’s also unknown why the disease occurs in some people and not others. ALS research scientists are still examining a number of possible causes associated with ALS, including genetic mutations, glutamate, autoimmune responses, and the environment. Future research may show that there are many possible ALS causes.

It’s always easier to try to gain support if you are able to trot out a victim but there’s no proof that football is the cause or if it was whether it’s the only cause. All you know is that he’s an ill exfootball player that you can exploit.

I do not believe the owners want the players to have much or any share in the explosive revenue growth that they privately project.

So they are NOT interested in any deal that commits the players a percent of all future revenue.

That’s whatever that percentage may be (30, 40, 50).

Bottom line: the owners want a permanent league salary cap that goes up slowly enough to allow them to keep most if not all of the billions in the huge revenue growth they foresee.

Bob Kraft, Jerry Jones etc do not want to see revenue growth in Europe or Asia going toward 100 million dollar Haynesworth type player contracts.

Period.

Personally I’m not sure the big potential overseas revenue is there but I am convinced the league/owners think it is.

But then again I just got back from a few weeks in Asia and the few NFL jerseys I saw for sale were all on clearance racks. Manchester United and Liverpool FC jerseys, on the other hand, could be seen and bought everywhere.

Your post is spot on, Mike, but it seems most of your audience is of the belief that the players deserve nothing and should continue to kill themselves for our entertainment. Perhaps these idiots should talk to former Pats/Eagles FB Kevin Turner & see what he’s got to say. Ya better hurry though, he’s only got about 6 months to live…

The owners have NOT offered to show 5 years of their books so please stop saying that.

What they have offered is a set of books with a bunch of unspecified information deleted.

So they could, for example, remove information that the owners were paying themselves big salaries so give the appearance of lower profits.

–

Strictly true, but Mark Murphy represents the Packers and he played. Not only did he play, he used to work for the union.

Using the same logic, then the violinist deserves to make 10.5 million a year.

Just pointing out the ridiculous logic for ya. Look, it’s ok for the players to leverage for a better deal. But it’s kinda dumb to say they deserve it because they have “skills.” Please. Lots of people have skills. The players are blessed with having skills in a wildly popular sport. They should treat that golden goose with some respect. Most “Skilled” people aren’t so lucky.

Actually, you player worshipers are embarrassing yourselves. For the most part, I think people don’t worry that the players make money for their “skills.” (Show me a player who can play a violin in a professional orchestra by the way)”

Show me a violinist who can endure a single play as a defensive lineman.

Show me a violinist who has the physical endurance to take the ball and try to hammer it past a defense for 20-30 plays a game and actually gain yardage.

Show me a violinist who has the coordination to catch a ball one armed, in mid air, on the edge of the field and manage to get both feet down inside the lines all while being drilled by a defender and having forward motion.

Is this really a fair way to compare to skills? I don’t think so.

Let’s also have a philosophical debate over owner pay. It’s hard to see why exactly most owners get paid anything at all.

Furthermore, let’s have a philosophical debate over costs to the fans. Perhaps owners and fans should both consent to lowering stadium beers to under five dollars.”

They own the business and they run their business to make a profit, as do almost all business owners. Is everyone that posts on here this stupid?

Furthermore, let’s have a philosophical debate over costs to the fans. Perhaps owners and fans should both consent to lowering stadium beers to under five dollars.

The problem is when they act like the victim while more money than any employee on earth. Please. Lots of people have skills, but cry me a river on the lockout. The players made a power-play, business decision. They walked away when the owners had moved on every issue. Any whining by them is just irritating. Especially when most of us would play for free.

Magic blueberry says: Mar 20, 2011 12:56 PM

It is that simple. The owners need to be completely transparent with their books in order to convince the players that their expenses are legit.
————————————————–
They don’t have to be “completely” transparent with their books. They just need to hire a 3rd party auditing group (not one biased towards the players) and every year have the teams submit their books to them. that firm calculates total revenues & legit costs for the owners & players to split & thus determines the cap for the next year. that way neither the other owners nor the players/public will ever see the owners books. proven legit numbers without public scrutiny of how the private companies runs their businesses.

*****************************
Offered and refused by the union!

How many times does this have to be written!!!!!

Terrific post bronco12st, you nailed it. This is essentially what is being proposed by owners who refuse to have revenue splitting remain flat. Oh and for people who think they are so clever by comparing the players situation to their own work situation, you are just embarrassing yourself. First off, guys that can throw a ball 60 yards on a rope are not replaceable, but you sure are. Also, do you face a high risk of permanent paralysis every time you step into your cubicle?

Now that’s some unintentional comedy gold right there. Jerry Richardson is the ONLY owner in the NFL who is qualified to speak from a player’s point of view since he did in fact play the game as a WR for the Colts…you know, back before the wussy Competition Committee soft as a baby’s butt passing game rules were put in.

The players have specialized talent that cannot be reproduced by another person. There are only 5 guys on the planet that play the quarterback position at the highest level. Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees are the only five people on the globe that can do what these guys can do.

There are another five or so who can do it close to these guys.

Thats it. The Owners complain about paying 50% of revenue to these specialist who can do what no other person on the planet can do. Without the greatest players on the planet the NFL would be the UFL.

First offer from owners: Take a billion out and split it among themselves, then the remaining goes 60% to owners, 40% to players.

Players retorted: 50% of the Entire revenue, or open up all the books and show the reason why all the players shouldn’t be entitled to that full billion.

Owners rejected.

NFLA decertified, here we are.

I understand this is simplistic breakdown (as thats the intent), but then again -this is the core issue. A 50/50 split sounds pretty dam fair to me,and thats how it should be imo.

For those of you that are “pro-owner” – Why?
———————————————–
i think both sides have been a$$es, but i’ve made mainly pro-owner comments. I think the players never offered any sort compromise in negotiations despite them acknowledging they got a very pro-player deal the last time. in fact, the players have demanded MORE from the owners than they got in the last deal by wanting complete access to financial statements for the past 10 years. plus, the players were the ones who walked away from negotiations (thus causing the lockout) & are currently refusing to negotiate by saying it’s in the lawyers hands now. despite their claims of “wanting to play” their refusal to negotiate has pushed everything back & implies that they intended to go the route of litigation the entire time. furthermore, 29 players made more money in 2009 (based upon their cap number) than the well run & well supported GB packers. and another 5 players were within 500K. so there is a legitimate basis for the owners deserving more of the pie because it’s crazy when 34 players (more ppl than the starters on one team) make more or an equivocal amount to ppl who have invested 100′s of millions of dollars into the exact same business.

i do get why 99/100 (with the exception being ppl paid with taxes) blue collar workers support other blue collar workers in their fight against “da man” to get an increase in benefits. but these multi-millionaire players aren’t “blue collar” workers (you don’t see any players making league min making public comments). these “slaves” are pampered celebrities who are paid to play a game & it’s outrageous to hear them talk like they are bigger than the game.