Skip to content

New CBA without revenue-sharing changes could be bad news for small markets

gty_cash_bills_cc_110421_wg Getty Images

Some believed that Tuesday’s ownership meeting in Chicago would become a gripe session of the owners who don’t like the path on which the current labor negotiations is moving.  Apparently, however, there’s a fundamental difference between griping to a reporter on an off-the-record basis and standing up in the company of one’s peers and poking holes in the promise of progress.

The proverbial elephant in the room remains, for the owners, revenue sharing.  As one source with knowledge of the situation tells us, it’s still a big issue for the small-market teams, but so far no one has been willing to bring it up.

Details leaked Tuesday regarding the league’s proposal will make revenue sharing an even bigger sticking point.  Giving players 48 percent of all revenue means that the per-team responsibility will be skewed by the significant unshared revenues generated by large-market teams.  As a practical matter, this drives up the relative labor costs — and eats into the profit margins — of the small-market teams.

In the past, a cap floor at less than 90 percent of the spending maximum gave the small-market teams some relief.  With the league now willing to commit to a minimum annual cash expenditure that, according to ESPN.com, could approach 100 percent of the spending limit, the low-revenue teams will be forced to sacrifice profit in order to comply.

In the short term, that’s good news for each team’s fans.  No longer will franchises like the Bucs be able to play games with the cap figures, using phony “likely to be earned” incentives to push cap dollars from one year to the next, building up an excess that, thanks to the uncapped (and unfloored) season of 2010, never was spent.  Instead, the money must be spent on signing new players and/or keeping guys already on the team.

Absent improvements to the current revenue-sharing system, the fans of some teams could face heartache in the long haul.  This new system, if adopted, will make small-market teams far less profitable in their current markets, forcing them to consider looking for greener (literally) pastures.  Indeed, the only way to remain financially competitive will be to max out revenues.  And if a higher revenue ceiling exists in, say, Los Angeles than in, say, Buffalo, it eventually will make good business sense for the team to move.

It all means that the business-minded owners finally have taken over.  It never was going to happen via an edict from 280 Park Avenue; it was destined to occur organically, with nature taking its course after Mother Nature rewrote the rules.  And so, without expanded revenue sharing, teams from the lowest-revenue markets eventually could migrate to large markets, with Los Angeles getting one or two teams, with a franchise moving to Toronto (if/when the Bills leave Buffalo), with a team moving to London, and with markets of a certain size, like Chicago, possibly picking up another team.

Of course, before teams move out of Buffalo or Jacksonville or any other underperforming markets, the NFL could attempt to extract Saints-style concessions and subsidies in order to stay put.  Given that the public has developed a distaste for contributing taxpayer money to building new stadiums, perhaps the next frontier in NFL-style government cheese will entail sticking up cities and states to cut sweetheart deals for teams in small markets that have suitable stadiums.

Either way, the proposed CBA will change things dramatically for small-market teams.  Without changes to the current revenue-sharing system, the drama eventually could include moving vans.

Permalink 66 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
66 Responses to “New CBA without revenue-sharing changes could be bad news for small markets”
  1. trbowman says: Jun 22, 2011 2:25 PM

    “with a team moving to London”

    Scary thought.

  2. hobartbaker says: Jun 22, 2011 2:29 PM

    I think that should read “WILL be bad news for small market teams.”.

  3. ravensfan4life52 says: Jun 22, 2011 2:32 PM

    as long as my Ravens stay put I don’t care.

  4. jebdamone says: Jun 22, 2011 2:34 PM

    league needs revenue sharing, both to keep more teams competitive and to keep only large markets from enjoying teams. the nfl is a great sport because it is competitive year by year and because more cities and states enjoy the benefits of a team. should LA have a team? probably, but taking away smaller market teams and adding extra teams to the major hubs of the country is only going to hurt the widespread fandom. of course, if the teams are making more money that way, no one should be foolish enough to believe that the owners or probably goodell would care…not like the fans have ever been the priority.

  5. profootballwalk says: Jun 22, 2011 2:40 PM

    The NBA had teams in Rochester, Fort Wayne and Moline. Time to move on – Jack Benny’s not on the radio any more. The NFL is a big-boy’s game – time to move out of Podunk and into the big city.

  6. Southpaw says: Jun 22, 2011 2:41 PM

    Can you please stop labeling everything as “the proverbial…” – I constantly read you do that (a couple times just today), and it’s redundant… as if it weren’t identified as the PROVERBIAL elephant in the room, some readers would think that opening an NFL Zoo was part of the new CBA

    …you can just say “The elephant in the room remains, for the owners…”

  7. yzguy431 says: Jun 22, 2011 2:44 PM

    at least there will be football, and for that we should all be grateful.

  8. duanethomas says: Jun 22, 2011 2:45 PM

    It all becomes clear, this wasn’t about the players this was more about big market vs small market teams. Jerry Jones has gotten his way and will not have to share revenue with The Bills of the league. The anti-trust lawsuit filed by Brady and Co. was a leverage play. This non revenue sharing issue will shift the power to Big Market teams. Let’s see the pro-owner shill defend that. Get ready for the NFL to look like MLB in the coming years.

  9. georgeanderson2 says: Jun 22, 2011 2:46 PM

    Can’t wait to see the documentary in about 10 -15 years about the collapse of the NFL.

    There so needs to be another league. The NFL has gotten too greedy. I am a fan of football and football has become an afterthought for this league.

  10. hedleykow says: Jun 22, 2011 2:46 PM

    LONDON? That will never work! You can’t cook shepherds pie on a parking lot barbeque grill.

  11. asarabi says: Jun 22, 2011 2:47 PM

    Great! The NFL can have 16 teams in Southern California and 16 teams in New York. That’ll be loads of fun. The reason the NFL dwarfs the other major sports is because revenue sharing. You take away small market teams with a rich history like Green Bay, Pittsburgh or Buffalo then what you’re left with is MLB. Small pockets of intense interest from fans (NY, Boston, Chicago, LA) and massive disinterest from everywhere else.

  12. ebenezergrymm says: Jun 22, 2011 2:47 PM

    What will we call the Bills when they move to Toronto?

    Toronto Maple Syrups
    Canadian Bacons
    Ontario Omelettes

    Suddenly I’m in the mood for breakfast…

  13. illyistic1 says: Jun 22, 2011 2:48 PM

    this sounds like they are trying to send two teams to l.a because it would increse revenue dramatically

  14. kire562000 says: Jun 22, 2011 2:48 PM

    Now we are finally getting to the root of the problem. Revenue sharing has been the gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about. The main reason why owners didn’t want to open up their books was because large market teams do not want to disclose all of their earnings, exposing them to revenue sharing questions on how much should they be actually sharing. Fix that and this whole thing goes away quickly.

  15. wheresmyjuice says: Jun 22, 2011 2:49 PM

    This whole thing sounds and smells a whole lot like baseball. I hate baseball.

  16. kire562000 says: Jun 22, 2011 2:50 PM

    Now we are finally getting to the root of the problem. Revenue sharing has been the gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about. The main reason why owners didn’t want to open up their books was because large market teams do not want to disclose all of their earnings, exposing them to revenue sharing questions on how much they should actually be sharing. Fix that and this whole thing goes away quickly.

  17. pocketsstraight says: Jun 22, 2011 2:51 PM

    I guess I don’t quite understand why 48% of the total revenue is worse for the small markets than 50% of total revenue.

    Is this just the issue with the salary floor? This is ridiculous. Small markets don’t exist in the NFL. The one “small” market team is: Green Bay which has a population of 306,241.

    Jacksonville has a population of 1,525,228. Buffalo has a population of 1,135,509 (without Toronto). Tampa has a population of ~4M.

    Mean while the “Big Market” teams:
    Washington, 5.5M
    Dallas 6.4M
    Boston 4.5M
    San Fran 4.3M

    Tampa is roughly equivalent to Boston and San Fran. They are not small market.

    and Green bay is a third to a fifth the size of Jacksonville and Buffalo yet they have no problem spending money and making money.

  18. yzguy431 says: Jun 22, 2011 2:55 PM

    at least MLB let’s it’s small market teams make money. maybe they can’t compete on the field, but a guy like bob nutting will make a decent buck in pittsburgh. goodbye steelers.

  19. netherscourge says: Jun 22, 2011 2:56 PM

    No offense, but there should not be NFL teams in small markets.

    Those owners should be forced to sell to people with more resources or move to bigger markets to become more profitable.

    Business is business.

    Wealthy teams should not have to carry unsuccessful teams and wealthy owners should be making sure that’s clear and concise in their private meetings amongst each other while they negotiate for a new CBA.

  20. tumsman2 says: Jun 22, 2011 2:57 PM

    Revenue sharing is a necessary evil to keep the league competitive. Without it, most games on Sunday will be blowouts and not fun to watch.

  21. ravensfan4life52 says: Jun 22, 2011 3:01 PM

    I don’t like the idea of the league expanding, but I do like the idea of a team in London.

  22. frostbelt says: Jun 22, 2011 3:03 PM

    Dear NFL,

    Please move teams with no fan bases…

    this means…

    DO NOT MOVE THE BUFFALO BILLS OUT OF BUFFALO.

  23. Chris Guest says: Jun 22, 2011 3:06 PM

    Pocketstraight:

    Small market/big market isn’t based on population necessarily but on earning potential which does coincide with a cities population but also in the corporate base a team can tap that will buy luxury boxes which a team doesn’t have to share with the league. It also means teams with fan base issues particularly in the dying rust belt that have lost numerous F500 companies can compete for talent.

    That means high revenue teams can drive the floor up to a point it isn’t competitive in an existing market.

    The NFL’s attractiveness was built on Pete Roselle convincing Wellington Mara that sharing the money with everyone would work in the long run because the pie would get bigger instead of giving a proportional ratio to the big owners like the New York Giants. Essentially, the NFL has gone back on this deal.

    I.e. Jerry Jones is the antithesis of Wellington Mara – but that doesn’t shock anyone.

  24. zerored78 says: Jun 22, 2011 3:10 PM

    Wish the books were open so we could have an informed opinion on this. My initial reaction is that this is a good thing to force owners of small market teams to maximize their revenue. The only city I don’t think can truly support their team with proper ownership in place is Jacksonville. There’s only so many cities teams can move to for a quick cash grab. LA and maybe Mexico City or London if the league is OK with the extra travel. So teams will be forced to either make more money, sell, or fold. If I’m wrong and the small market teams can’t squeeze out more money, then that is going to put a lot of pressure on the large market teams to share more revenue. So hopefully in that case they’ll try to work that out rather than go after the players for more money.

  25. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 22, 2011 3:10 PM

    Mike Brown objected to the last deal in part because he didn’t want to subsidize Jerry Jones. It goes both ways.

    I wonder how much the Thursday Night deal impacts this.

  26. marty2019 says: Jun 22, 2011 3:15 PM

    Right now, after the billion the owners take off the top, the players’ share is about 52% of the total. The new CBA would have the players getting 48% of the total.

    IF they also institute a rookie salary scale that takes away the huge financial risk in high first round draft picks, and IF they also manage to grow the SHARED revenue like TV rights, I don’t really see how the small markets would be hurt by this deal.

    The problem the small markets have is the big markets’ unshared revenue which drives up the salary cap. But TV money is all shared equally, so if they put the Thursday night package out to bid, then the increased TV rights money would help the small market teams.

    The key is to maximize the shared revenue. If they can do that, the small market teams should be okay.

  27. nahcouldntbethat says: Jun 22, 2011 3:18 PM

    If this CBA goes through as envisioned and the NFL does not create a more stable revenue sharing base we’re going to see 3 or 4 teams move almost immediately in the aftermath, say within 3 seasons or so.

    It’s a lot more profitable to be in LA than it is to be in Buffalo, Jacksonville, Cincinnati or Cleveland. In fact it’s a lot more profitable to be in LA than it is to be in Arizona, Detroit or Minnesota.

    Being the second team in LA is more profitable than being the first in any of those cities.

    This is just money talking. Most of the cities listed above would not get a team if the NFL was forming today unless a very rich local patron wanted to own an NFL team and decided to subsidize it’s existence.

    The Seattle Seahawks wouldn’t be in Seattle right now if Paul Allen wasn’t one of the richest men on eart.

  28. kwken says: Jun 22, 2011 3:30 PM

    Could someone please provide a reason why so many NFL teams have left L.A.? It is suppose to be the 2nd largest market but for some reason they cannot keep a NFL team.

    Al Davis even moved out of there.

    What gives?

  29. jimmysee says: Jun 22, 2011 3:30 PM

    This year’s SuperBowl — with one small market team and one miniscule market team — was amazing.

    Screw up the revenue allocation and there will be no more of that.

    If the Cowboys couldn’t win it on the field, try the board room.

  30. pftstory says: Jun 22, 2011 3:32 PM

    What those missing in the small large comparison is this. the 48$ vs 52% doesn’t matter because if all teams have to spend the same % it does not matter what it is.

    Extreme Example. 2 team league. Dallas and Cncy. Dallas’ revenue is 200 mil. Cincy revenue is 50 mil. Total revenue is 250 million
    48% of that is 120 million. So they each much spend 60 million. But wait Cincy only made 50 million.

    Now the numbers I used are just to show what they are talking about. They probably wont fall where the 48% forces Cincy to spend more then they make, but it could force them to make a low enough figure that they can easily ask ‘why should I stay and make a small amount in Cincy when I can make much more elsewhere.’

  31. bradshawlives says: Jun 22, 2011 3:35 PM

    What would become of the Packers if they can’t compete financially? Not trying to pi$$ off Packer fans, but if they can’t relocate because they’re community owned would they become perennial doormats?

  32. stavreafavre says: Jun 22, 2011 3:37 PM

    May or may not be penny-wise for some. Definitely dollar-stupid in the long run for the business.
    Fans? We don’t need no stinking fans!

  33. harmcityhomer says: Jun 22, 2011 3:44 PM

    I think there should be an NFLDL that keeps NFL affiliated pro football in those smaller markets. Maybe the NFL should buy the UFL.

    I like that aspect of MLB, and every year teams cut down from 80-53. Those fringe players along with the other CFL and UFL types would be more NFL ready if they were playing every week on a farm team instead of working a job waiting for that call. There are a lot of college players every year that can play football, but not in the NFL, and I think it would improve the level of play in the NFL when those late season call ups are guys that have been playing football all along and not just in camp.

    I also like the E

  34. harmcityhomer says: Jun 22, 2011 3:45 PM

    I was not finished. i like the Euro model of dropping the lowest A league team and bringing up the B level champ every year.

  35. footballfan says: Jun 22, 2011 3:51 PM

    I keep hearing small and large market teams with the small market teams moving to large market cities. Here is what I don’t understand. If these large market cities exist why haven’t the teams moved to them already? Everyone talks about LA. but they couldn’t support the teams they had! If a city like Chicago got a second team I doubt they would be able to support it. You have to have more than a large amount of people to support a team , you need a fan base! A fan base needs to be built, it is not just there. Teams like Baltimore and Cleveland have fan bases because they had teams from the past. Teams like Arizona and Jacksonville have no real fan base because they don’t have a past.

    I might be barking up the wrong tree, but I still can’t see how moving teams around will help.

  36. firethorn1001 says: Jun 22, 2011 3:52 PM

    The Packers are in the middle on revenue. When they get near the bottom, maybe I’ll worry. Until then I think fans of other teams should be more worried.

  37. uvebeenfavred says: Jun 22, 2011 3:52 PM

    People need to stop looking at city limits as the definition of small market or big market. Remember some teams have national fan bases whereas some do not. In the case of the Packers they have a national fan base which means more merchandise sales among other things. I believe they finished second in the league in merchandise sales. If I recall correctly the Packers finished 10th in revenue a year ago which would hardly make it a poor team. They also have projects in the works to increase revenues that regardless of a revenue sharing agreement would only go straight into the pockets of the Packers. It’s not just a regional fan base like you might have with other teams- it starts statewide and branches from there. There’s no question the Packers have benefited from the current revenue sharing agreement but that is why it was so critical in the early 2000’s to do the upgrades to lambeau to make it a year round moneymaker and as a fan- is also why we paid 200 bucks for a share of the team. How much would a Buffalo fan be willing to pay to ensure that his or her team couldn’t be moved? Realize that yes, on the surface, the stock doesn’t mean a whole lot aside from a wall decoration and a vote for the board of directors, but the people who paid the 200 bucks also own businesses in town and around the state and if not- are in some way directly impacted by the Packers being in town in some financial way. The uniqueness of the Packers and the history of the team in general have allowed it to succeed in a much smaller region but applying city limits to the argument is thinking too small.

  38. newsome22 says: Jun 22, 2011 3:57 PM

    @ netherscourge

    No offense, but you and other Jerry Jones-shills are idiots.

    The reason that the NFL annually generates $9 BILLION in income is because the forefathers of the league had the wisdom to recognize that revenue-sharing fosters competitve balance, which in turn yields a product extremely attractive to consumers – a top-flight league where every franchise, at least within a five-year span, has a chance to succeed on the field, and many franchises with rich histories can survive, even though their hometowns are no longer major industrial/financial hubs.

    Sorry, but it seems to me that professional sports leagues are NOT like other businesses in industry – as an owner, you want your competitors/partners to succeed, because that’s the product you’re selling – COMPETTION. Those owners who seek to move away from the principles of the original NFL model will ultimately kill the golden goose.

    So F-off with your “business is business” crap. It’s the mentality that’s damaging sports leagues all around the globe – MLB, NBA, the English FA…. And NFL owners – WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH (ie, Snyder selling beers in the bathrooms)?

    Rant over, stepping off soap box.

  39. blackheld says: Jun 22, 2011 4:00 PM

    Just a thought.

    Small market teams like Green Bay have 6 year waiting lists for season tickets, huge amounts of official NFL gear sales, and a willingness by local voters and governments to help the team…because…

    …wait for it…

    …they field a competitive team, and win football games.

    Teams like Cincinnati, Cleveland and Buffalo…

    …wait for it…

    …DON”T.

    There might be a correlation here.

    The proverbial note written in blood.

  40. micronin127 says: Jun 22, 2011 4:01 PM

    The big market teams share plenty of revenue. The fact that we have all TV revenue split evenly and that this is the majority of the revenue makes that pretty clear.

    The Yankees get over $300 million a year from the MSG network for local cable broadcast rights.

    The fact that the NFL markets itself to TV networks as a package and evenly divides all that revenue is huge. On top of that there is additional limited revenue sharing.

    Most small market teams cannot compete because they have lousy stadiums and/or lousy stadium deals, insufficient luxury and club seating, and a thin fan base that won’t show up in person if the ticket is too expensive.

    The Colts and the Packers seem to be the exceptions to the rule and have figured out a way to make it work in a small market.

    Minnesota would be an instant powerhouse if they can figure out a new stadium deal.

    If a team relocates from a small market to Los Angeles, the TV deals will become even more lucrative and all that dough will be split evenly.

    Teams should relocate and/or figure out a way to build a modern stadium and the problem will go away.

  41. yessams says: Jun 22, 2011 4:08 PM

    BTW, Green Bay proper’s population is just slightly over 100,000 people, not 300,000.

    Certainly a large market team has more portential for revenue, but if run well, the small market teams will do just fine.

    The Packers announced the development of a “Entertainment District” which they have been acquiring land quitely over the past several years. Their hope is to develop a steady stream of revenue to assist them in their ventures.

    The Green Bay Packers cannot be moved, if they are, all assets are to be sold and the Packers Charitable Foundation would be the recipient.

    The good news for the Packers and Steelers, is they both have a strong following across the country.

  42. dcbronco says: Jun 22, 2011 4:18 PM

    Owners need to learn how to make money. Some of the other owners believe the same. They have the most popular sport in the country and seen to have an issue selling it. Sell the Thursday package, sell individual games on game day, sell them on tablets, cellphones and gaming consoles. Stop acting as if the league is fragile glass and use it. Sell old games on DVD. Do some of those teams and share that money. Charge reasonable prices for some of your NFLP items and they will sell better.

    Let Jones or Snyder show you how to do things. Well, to a certain extent.

  43. jcg23 says: Jun 22, 2011 4:20 PM

    Why on EARTH would a team move to London? The entire playing one game in London has done nothing but piss off fans here and not exactly garnered a ton of desire for them to have a team or 10 of their own. I mean if Europe wants to create it’s on NFL and have 32 teams that compete against each other, have a super bowl and then we put our super bowl winners against theirs in a location that is neutral to both for the WORLD BOWL.

    I’m all for it. But until then, can we just stop this bullcrap? It robs actual fans of a home game with their own team.

  44. EJ says: Jun 22, 2011 4:25 PM

    asarabi says:
    Jun 22, 2011 2:47 PM
    Great! The NFL can have 16 teams in Southern California and 16 teams in New York. That’ll be loads of fun. The reason the NFL dwarfs the other major sports is because revenue sharing. You take away small market teams with a rich history like Green Bay, Pittsburgh or Buffalo then what you’re left with is MLB. Small pockets of intense interest from fans (NY, Boston, Chicago, LA) and massive disinterest from everywhere else.

    I totally agree with everything you have just said…
    Lets all try to kick Roger Goodell out of his seat, maybe we can move you into his office, good post.

  45. descendency says: Jun 22, 2011 4:36 PM

    All owners like Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson were doing was leeching on it anyways.

  46. rolandsloan says: Jun 22, 2011 4:38 PM

    netherscourge says,

    “Those(small market) owners should be FORCED
    to sell to people with more resources or move to
    bigger markets to become more profitible”.

    1.You can’t “force” someone to sell or move their
    business or franchise.

    2. Your ideas and suggestions are very un American and defy free enterprise and capitalism.

    3. Large market does not necessarily equal
    success. Small market does not always mean
    poor.

  47. melonnhead says: Jun 22, 2011 4:42 PM

    “As a practical matter, this drives up the relative labor costs — and eats into the profit margins — of the small-market teams.”

    That’s not a small market team issue. It’s a small market OWNER issue. i.e. Mike Brown may have to learn to get by on $10 million profit per year.

  48. melonnhead says: Jun 22, 2011 5:11 PM

    I.e. Jerry Jones is the antithesis of Wellington Mara – but that doesn’t shock anyone.

    ——————————————————

    Mara’s big accomplishment was to agree to share TV revenue, and that revenue will always be shared revenue. You’re kind of stupid to say that Jerry Jones is the antithesis of Mara, since Jones was instrumental in building the TV contracts up to the level they are today. That revenue is not and has not ever been a bone of contention for Jones. My gosh people, he’s said it several times… he has a problem with subsidizing teams that exert very little effort in maximizing their profits. Answer this, if Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are so against stadium sponsorship deals, why do they want a cut of everybody else’s stadium sponsorship deals? If they are content to leave brand marketing to their high school dropout cousins, why do they feel that they deserve a share of marketing money from teams that employ a dozen or more marketing specialists?

    Keep it up. Instead of teams being sold, teams will fold because you’re creating a bad business environment by restricting the ability of teams to maximize and keep unshared revenue like stadium sponsorship and premium seating just because a few are unwilling or unable to exert much effort for their own betterment. Good luck finding potential buyers that are willing to spend upwards of a billion bucks on a team and/or many millions on a stadium to buy into an organization with such a backwards approach to business. Some of these owners never had to work to make a profit in their lives and had virtually everything given to them.

  49. melonnhead says: Jun 22, 2011 5:13 PM

    “Your ideas and suggestions are very un American and defy free enterprise and capitalism.”

    —————————————————–

    Yeah well so does the idea that ALL revenue must be shared. It’s called socialism, look it up sometime.

  50. cappa662 says: Jun 22, 2011 5:21 PM

    No clue why big markets would want to give/ share money to small market teams. The small market teams are just hoarding cash.

  51. melonnhead says: Jun 22, 2011 5:25 PM

    The reason that the NFL annually generates $9 BILLION in income is because the forefathers of the league had the wisdom to recognize that revenue-sharing fosters competitve balance

    ——————————————————

    Quick, somebody tell Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson that their teams are competitively balanced against the rest of the league.

    Bills = one winning season out of the last 11.

    Bengals = one winning season out of the last 20.

    Must just be bad luck, eh?

  52. melonnhead says: Jun 22, 2011 5:33 PM

    as an owner, you want your competitors/partners to succeed

    ——————————————————

    Again, Ralph Wilson put over $20 million in his pocket last year and Mike Brown put almost $50 million in his. Nothing anybody else in the NFL does is going to make these guys spend the money they need to spend to put a quality team on the field.

  53. Derty Ernie says: Jun 22, 2011 5:38 PM

    The other part of the story not told is salary caps. The big market teams (ex Yankee’s) will have deep pockets and small market teams will not leading to teams like Dallas being able to load up on talent and GB getting the also rans.

    This is a great deal for the fans, ya like we ever counted.

  54. melonnhead says: Jun 22, 2011 5:47 PM

    Extreme Example. 2 team league. Dallas and Cncy. Dallas’ revenue is 200 mil. Cincy revenue is 50 mil. Total revenue is 250 million
    48% of that is 120 million. So they each much spend 60 million. But wait Cincy only made 50 million.

    —————————————————-

    The obvious solution is that Cincy is forced to make money more along the way that Dallas does it. It’s not that simple, though. See, the Dallas owner has to do that because he sunk $800 million into the stadium where his team plays, not to mention $150 million just to buy the team in the first place, and the guy that owns Cincy was virtually given his team and stadium. So you have one guy that paid nothing (or comparatively, next to nothing) on his team and stadium and another guy that’s into his team and stadium for almost a billion bucks. The positions are not equitable.

  55. melonnhead says: Jun 22, 2011 5:54 PM

    This year’s SuperBowl — with one small market team and one miniscule market team — was amazing.

    Screw up the revenue allocation and there will be no more of that.

    —————————————————–

    Cute, but GB and PGH are two of the teams that have to pay into the extra pool that supplements teams like the Bills and Bengals.

  56. melonnhead says: Jun 22, 2011 5:57 PM

    Mike Brown objected to the last deal in part because he didn’t want to subsidize Jerry Jones. It goes both ways.

    ——————————————————

    That’s perhaps the dumbest thing ever typed on PFT.

  57. kenny1960 says: Jun 22, 2011 6:29 PM

    Bring back the USFL !!!

  58. jagfan1995 says: Jun 22, 2011 6:41 PM

    footballfan

    you my friend are an idiot! I hate idiots like you who don’t know what they are talking about! How can you possibly say jacksonville has no fan base?!?!? Have you been to Jacksonville and attended a game for yourself? How can you say we have no real fan base because we don’t have a past? Do you know what past means?!?!? We have 15 years of past my friend, how do you expect a team to build a past? They have to exist first! You don’t create an expansion team and they just automatically have traditions and a past, its something that must be built, and that is what we are doing! I was 10 years old when we got our team and have been a fan since day one! I was able to buy season tickets last year and will continue for as long as I can, I have also been to more games throughout the years than I can remember. I know for a fact that we may not have a fan base like Green Bay or other teams that have been around since day one, but the fans we do have are passionate about football and our Jaguars. So until you step foot in Jacksonville and attend a game, and know what goes on in this city don’t run your mouth about us. Your as ignorant as the rest of the people that bash us on a constant basis!

  59. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 22, 2011 7:12 PM

    @ melonnhead

    Mike Brown doesn’t like revenue sharing. What’s so hard to understand about that?

    Why should his profits go towards a team like the Cowboys?

  60. wiley16350 says: Jun 22, 2011 7:18 PM

    Answer this, if Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are so against stadium sponsorship deals, why do they want a cut of everybody else’s stadium sponsorship deals? If they are content to leave brand marketing to their high school dropout cousins, why do they feel that they deserve a share of marketing money from teams that employ a dozen or more marketing specialists?
    ___________________________________

    This is a common argument against Ralph Wilson. The funny thing is, he was one of the first owners to get a stadium sponsorship. The Bills stadium was called Rich Stadium and was called that because Rich products bought the naming rights. However, after the deal expired Rich decided not to extend the deal when the price tag was increased to match current deals of other teams. Another funny thing is that prior to the salary cap Buffalo was the best team in the AFC and had lot of talent that Ralph Wilson must have paid. I don’t think he is as cheap as people want to make him out to be. They have struggled because of poor coaching and poor personnel decisions.

  61. wiley16350 says: Jun 22, 2011 7:21 PM

    I would also like to add that Buffalo only has a problem when Mr. Wilson dies, because they will find it hard to find someone else that can afford to buy the team and then continue to make it profitable in that area.

  62. pitch87mph says: Jun 22, 2011 9:51 PM

    This is really sad. I’m a free market economist and I’m all for “maximizing revenue”, etc. But the large market teams have it wrong! The other teams are business PARTNERS! You compete on the FIELD, but from a business perspective, the NFL is really a single entity (regardless of what the legalities are). For the JJs and DSs of the world to be unwilling to share a reasonable portion of their team specific revenues (which isn’t a function of superior marketing or business acumen–it’s a function of being in a larger city) to the smaller markets is VERY short-sighted. One of the draws of the NFL is the fact that there ARE teams in cities like Buffalo, KC, GB, J-Ville, etc. It helps the NFL maintain a “national” presence. I believe it is that small town presence and the identity it engenders in these cities that permits the league to grow as a unit at a faster rate than otherwise–and spurs so much passion amongst its fans. If they begin to shut out smaller markets, the NFL will decline in popularity (or at least it’s rate of growth will be less than otherwise, imho). And the individual large market owners will be WORSE off overall in the long run (even should they benefit in the short-run). I’m not suggesting corporate welfare, here. If a team can’t at least breakeven (before revenue sharing of team specific revenues), then it may be time to move. But offering reasonable subsidies to your PARTNERS that enables the entire pie to grow faster over time, is just good business! I’m still unwilling to believe that political pressures in NY (since Buffalo’s the only team that plays in NY) will allow the Bills to move cross country (expand the Toronto package? maybe… but a cross country move? NFW). But given the history and backlash of moves out of Cleveland and Baltimore, I think a move out of Buffalo would be destructive to the league’s image. It will need to be a team with less history, imo. To me, that’s the Jags (sorry J-Ville). Truthfully, I think the solution to the “LA problem” is a two-team expansion five or six years from now. Maybe a team in London and one in LA? Or how about two expansion teams in LA? THAT would be interesting. Never happen, but would be a fascinating dichotomy of how LA fans would select “their team”. May be final proof that LA is a front-running city as I’m sure “their team” will be the team that wins first!

  63. wigwam101 says: Jun 22, 2011 9:58 PM

    As a Green Bay Packers season ticket holder and shareholder, I would like to know what team President Mark Murphy is doing to advocate on behalf of the small-market teams. Murphy has played a prominent role in the negotiations–supposedly–and if he doesn’t forcefully address the issue of shared revenue and its role in keeping teams like Green Bay competitive for the long haul, he should be fired.

  64. Little Earthquake says: Jun 22, 2011 10:38 PM

    Try to imagine this for a second. In 2010, the Milwaukee Bucks, coming off a 46-36 season, with an exciting rookie point guard (Brandon Jennings), shockingly beat out Miami, Chicago, the Knicks, and the Nets to sign Lebron James for four years. James, the most coveted free agent in league history, vows to help the Bucks return to the glory days of the early 70s and bring the Larry O’Brien trophy to Milwaukee.

    Ridiculous? In the NBA, it would be.

    Now remember this. In 1992, the Green Bay Packers, coming off a 9-7 season, with an exciting 3rd-year quarterback (Brett Favre), shockingly beat out San Francisco, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and Washington to sign Reggie White for four years. White, the most coveted free agent in league history (still!), vows to help the Packers return to the glory days of the 60s and bring the Lombardi trophy back to Green Bay.

    If the NFL squanders its competitive balance, it will kill the golden goose. Fans want competitive teams in big markets and small markets. I’m all for capitalism and free markets, but the NFL is also a partnership of teams which relies on competitive balance to sell tickets and broadcast rights. Teams should compete to knock each other out of the standings, not out of the ledgers.

  65. lennydpocketqb says: Jun 23, 2011 6:33 AM

    SAY GOODNIGHT BUFFALO!!!

  66. stanmark says: Dec 8, 2011 8:53 AM

    “And if a higher revenue ceiling exists in, say, Los Angeles than in, say, Buffalo, it eventually will make good business sense for the team to move.”

    what a, say, jagoff idiot agrees with this statement. yep. say, theres alot up there.

Leave a Reply

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