Special master case coming over supplemental revenue sharing

The NFL plans to end supplemental revenue sharing after the 2009 league year.  The union planned to file a special master case regarding the situation last week.

The union will be proceeding with the special master case this week, according to Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal.  Per Mullen, the delay results from a disagreement regarding the amount of money at issue; the league reportedly has admitted that the amount is closer to $200 million than $100 million.

As we pointed out last week, the NFL believes it’s not pulling the plug on supplemental revenue sharing, but that the 2006 agreement between the league and the union calls for the program to end after the last capped year.

So why is the NFLPA fighting the issue?  “This is purely a diversionary tactic by the union,” an NFL source told Mullen.

The union ostensibly is concerned that the absence of supplemental revenue sharing will give low-revenue teams less money to spend in 2010, when there’s no salary floor.  Still, with no salary cap, the revenue that the high-earning teams won’t have to surrender can be used on players, too.

As we’ve been told by multiple sources, supplemental revenue sharing was intended to help the low-revenue clubs keep up with a salary floor driven up by the inclusion of all football revenues (including unshared revenues) in the formula for funding player payrolls.  With no salary floor inflated by disproportionate unshared revenues, there’s no reason to share unshared revenues.

So, basically, this is another example of the reality that the uncapped year, sold to players for more than a decade as a good and desirable thing, won’t be such a windfall, after all.

16 responses to “Special master case coming over supplemental revenue sharing

  1. It is about time that the low revenue teams start paying their own way. This was a silly program to even begin.
    The same NFL revenue bottom feeders are there year after year and it is their own fault they are not pulling their financial weight.
    It isn’t fair that Green Bay and Kansas City have to give their hard earned revenue to freeloaders like the vikings and Raiders.

  2. Simon says that the owners adopt a ghost cap which will be violated not by Jerry Jones, but Danielle Schneidley. It’s his only card to play that can save him face after his years of futility since he’s taken ownership of The Redfaced, I mean Redskins. That will backfire on him, too.

  3. I am not sure why the union is fighting this other than simply to throw a monkey wrench in the league’s plans.
    Considering the lack of cooperation between the league and the union it is more and more likely they are heading for a lockout in 2011. Given that possibility, it is more likely the high revenue teams would be more likely to spend that supplemental revenue on players than a low revenue team that will be thinking I need to conserve all my pennies in case we don’t play games in Fall 2011.

  4. Lots of guys in the NFL can barely speak english and prob can’t even balance their own checkbooks let alone grasp the economics of the league.

  5. Green Bay pays so much into the supplemental revenue pool….. Not!
    Prior to the redesign/upgrade to Lamblow field, they were down in the bottom of revenue just like Minnesota is now. Once they get rid of this, the truly big market teams will begin pushing the cost of players out of the reach of the small market teams.
    What will the Packers do when the Redskins and Cowboys are both spending close to double on their payrolls than the Packers total revenue?
    They’ll be the minor league for the NFL. They won’t even be able to sign their first round picks and every good player they find will leave as soon as they’re eligible for free agency.

  6. It’s a shame that the small market teams won’t buck up, and instead want the producers of the NFL’s economy to carry the wieght. If they would spend on a good program, they would reap the benefits of success. A usual, the freeloaders want the workers to pay their way for them, and cry that it’s unfair that others make more……..And then they’ll want concussion-care reform…………………and cap-and-trade will become salary cap and player trade…………………

  7. Cusoman,
    It appears as though your link references NFL Salaries, not revenue. Big difference.
    So to clear up your statement:
    The Packers, in the last decade, are among the LOWEST in total salary paid.
    A blowhard,

  8. True that the Packers are among the lowest in total salary paid, but let’s consider the alternative. Is baseball really fun right now? Half of the teams have no chance every year, and another 25% do not have a chance to put a consistently good team on the field. Without a salary cap, and without revenue sharing, the NFL will become MLB. Jones and Schneider will duke it out to see who becomes Steinbrenner…The NCAA is licking their chops right now.

  9. I hope there is no cap for years to come after 2010. Jerry will take advantage and the Cowboys will dominate. I’m tired off all those small market teams getting a big piece of Jerry’s/the cowboys money.

  10. If certain people supported their team with the same zeal they use to spew bile about others, certain teams wouldn’t be in every conversation about who’s moving to LA.
    The bottom line is this; a few greedy owners are determined to destroy the parity of the NFL. They’ve found they can’t build a championship team, so they want the rules changed so they can buy one.

  11. Revenue is based on two things really: The amount of luxury suites you have at your stadium and the amount of money corporate sponsors are willing to pay for them. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t really matter how well run your team is.
    The #1 revenue team by far ($327M, $50M more than #2 NE) is the Redskins, who have a new stadium with lots of suites and plenty of bigwigs in DC to pay big money for them. They don’t have a well run organization, but they do have cash-flow. DAL is #3 in the meantime, but I guarantee after this year they will be by far #1 in the league in Revenue with their new stadium. I fear it won’t even be close.
    All the teams with the worse stadiums in the league are at the bottom of the list. The 49ers and Vikings play in dumps that have no suites whatsoever. They are the two bottom teams in the league. I guarantee that if the 49ers get a stadium built in Santa Clara, as the hope is, with the amount of Corporate Sponsors available in the Silicon Valley, they will jump to the top 10. It’s really that simple for these teams.
    The Jets and Giants are both in the bottom half of revenue in the league despite playing in the biggest money-making market in the country. Could it be because they play in a dump? Next year they play in a brand new stadium with lots of nice new suites and personal seat licenses, let’s see how far they jump up the revenue charts.

  12. rofl @ Jerry’s World. I love it when idiots who have no basic understanding of the “post-cap” rules run their mouth.

  13. The times, they are a changin. I suspect most people won’t recognize the NFL within the next 10 years.
    For teams that have been used to collecting NFL welfare, it is getting to be time to pull your own weight.
    If this turns into a league of haves and have nots, the have nots have nobody to blame but themselves.
    For those that believe socialism is better than capitalism, immediately begin dispersing your take home pay to those with less than you so that everyone can be equal.

  14. Ya if this happens in 2010 only the players who are lucky enough to be on the 53 man roster of a team in a big market that also has an owner willing to spend money will gain from this. Their is probly only 10 teams in the league like that. So maybe only 530 players will be getting something good out of this while the other 1163 players will get the short end of the stick.
    The Rich get Richier while the Poor Get Poorer. (Its kind of hard to call a NFL owner/player poor but you get what I mean)

Leave a Reply

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