Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Ohio State And Florida Target 2013 Receiver Recruits

How the NFL Owners see the NFL right now

 
 
This chart is at the heart of the NFL Owners negotiations between themselves on how to run the league and what stance they will take with the Players Union in the just begun new Collective Bargaining Agreement talks.  Let me take a minute and clear this with you.

Nfl_team_revenue_medium

First, this is a histogram chart.  The first bar says 205 and represents $205  million in revenue for 2008.  It extends on the Y-axis to 9 meaning 9 teams in the NFL had 2008 revenue that was less than or equal to $205 million.  For example the Minnesota Vikings had $195 million in revenue. They are in the nine since they made less than $205 million.  The percentage is a cumulative percentage number and says 9 teams represent 28% of all teams.

The next bar is $215 million.  Teams that made more than $205 but less than or equal to $215 million are in this bar.  For example, the Buffalo Bills made $206 million and are in this count.  The Y-Axis shows 8 teams are in this revenue range. The cumulative percentage says 53% which means 53% of all NFL teams made $215 million or less in revenue in 2008.

Now that we understand the chart, we understand the issue.  With about 50% of the teams making less than $215 million and 50% making more, we see the division of the haves and have-nots.  All NFL Labor contracts are based on average revenue, the salary cap is a percentage of the average.  Well one team, the Washington Redskins, brings in $327 million, and 5 teams bring in more than $235 milion, the average doesn't represent most teams. The average revenue is $222million, yet 71% of the teams make $225 million or less.  The costs of labor is by contract, spread evenly, but the revenue isn't. 

The current salary cap is set at $127 million, but that is salary alone, not salary and benefits.  If a team wanted to spend the lowest possible amount on salary and benefits, it must, by contract spend a minimum of $130 million.  If a team maxed out salary and benefits, it could spend no more than $152 million.  So here is the issue; for the Washington Redskins, the maximum labor cost represents 46% of revenue, yet for Minnesota, the minimum labor cost represents 67% of revenue.  Minnesota has to scrimp on the budget while Washington can spend all they want up to $152 million and still make tons of cash.  For the bottom 10 teams, Jacksonville included, to keep up with the top five teams in salary and benefits, they have to spend 75% of their revenue on player salary and benefits. 

Here is what is at risk; the competitive balance of the NFL; the ability of all NFL teams to stay solvent; the ability of NFL owners to sell their teams and reap the equity increase.  In short, the exact way the league was built into the revenue monster it is, now is at risk.

So how do the NFL Owners see the issues?  The have-not owners want complete revenue sharing.  Stadium naming rights are shared 32 ways, sponsorships for individual teams are shared among all teams. The Have owners argue they paid a premium for their teams and need a way to generate free cash to justify the higher team cost. They do not want to share individual revenue.

The labor agreement is based on all revenue including naming rights and sponsorships. Costs are shared equally. This has to be adjusted for the have-nots to survive. The average revenue is being skewed high by the top teams. Recasting revenue at the median rather than average would be a start, but not the final answer. Costs can't follow the highest teams ability to pay but rather everyones ability to pay. The salary cap isn't working properly in this revenue environment.

Top ten rookie salaries are taking a disproportionate share of player costs.  A poor NFL team isn't always helped by a top 10 draft choice, but rather hampered by it.  Paying off two or three busted top draft selections hurts teams paying out 70% plus of revenue in salaries. Detroit has lost money in each of the last two years.  How much will a Matt Stafford bust hurt? 

Right now discussions are happening concerning the economic model of the new NFL.  What will revenue sharing look like? What will the salary cap look like? What will rookie salaries look like? I don't know where they are going, but stay tuned to Big Cat Country and I will report on it as I learn. You all just go to the games and enjoy, the stories will be here when you get back.  Have fun, the Jaguars are counting on you.

Comment 16 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This is an excellent way to demonstrate the biggest hurdle to overcome in the upcoming CBA.

I believe that there is no good way to overcome this issue, aside from complete revenue sharing. However, since a unanimous vote will likely be needed to alter anything in the current system, it’s success is highly unlikely. Furthermore, if any such regulations were to pass, there will likely be numerous accusations of collusion and anti-trust violations from higher revenue owners. Considering the majority of teams earning more than the average (~$220m, appr. the payout if shared) are located in areas with more political influence, it can lead to probing the NFL would like to avoid. On the other hand, a variable salary cap can lead to competitive/signing disadvantages. In the end, the only easily achievable solution would be a sliding scale salary minimum, but that would undoubtedly face NFLPA opposition. Basically, there’s no good way to fix this problem. Thanks for the chart/article. Good stuff.

by Kbot on Jul 19, 2009 11:31 PM EDT reply actions  

Is this REVENUE or EARNINGS ???

The chart says Revenue which would indicate that nearly 50% of teams probably aren’t earning any money at all since we know that $120M+ go just to player salaries, not to mention facilities, coaches & assistants, marketing dept, practice squad players etc…

by pksiv on Jul 20, 2009 8:43 AM EDT reply actions  

Well

I’m pretty sure most of the owners aren’t greedy enough to be complaining that they aren’t making more than $205 Million in earnings. Those are obviously revenue numbers, since we know that some teams aren’t even profitable.

by TheHammerOfSpicer on Jul 20, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

It is revenue and you are right

teams are struggling to make ends meet. Detroit and San Francisco are particularly in tough shape.

Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!

by Tkopa on Jul 20, 2009 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Welcome to the wonderful world of Capitalism.

Some succeed, others fail. Unfortunately for the rich, successful franchises, they need the other teams around to maintain overall league revenue and to broaden the overall fan base across the country. The resolution seems to be in the hands of the owners.

It appears that the owners will make a case that the players are the reason they are not making enough money. Where have we heard that one before? Specifically, lets blame rookies, especially the first ten or so taken in the draft. After that, I am sure there is some other group of players that are considered to be overpaid [QBs? Punters? Left Tackles?].

One final note, I am a Detroit Lion fan who lives in the area [north of the border] and the Lions are in trouble because of inept management. Period. I am not completely familiar with San Fran but I think their lack of success is due to incompetent ownership.

What do these guys want………….another bailout on the backs of the workers and taxpayers? You tell me.

by NorthLeft12 on Jul 20, 2009 9:57 AM EDT reply actions  

you are right

I gave it from an owner view. Sharing revenue with inept management grates on them as well. Most teams are making money, the question is will they continue to do so with the current costmodel? No and they know that.

Thank you for stopping by.

Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!

by Tkopa on Jul 20, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

Government bailout! Government bailout! Just kidding. I bet someone still grills me for even joking like that.

Sean Jax Beach Bum

by cuffs007 on Jul 20, 2009 3:01 PM EDT reply actions  

Four Billion dollars a year in television rights

and the Jaguars pre-season games not on television.

The NFL revenue model is heavily television based and they are blacking out games. Makes no sense for pre-season. Did they expect a sellout? Well they did, they expected a season ticket sell out.

So if the NFL isn’t on television in local markets and the television revenue isn’t there and they begin to pull back, the lower teams get bit even harder.

The NFL Owners are in a real quandry right now.

Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!

by Tkopa on Jul 20, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ever think...

… that the salary cap and floor going away might just be the best thing for the Jags. Only 5-9 teams will be able to pay out then nose, the other 23-27 teams will manage lower to small rosters with at least 9 teams paying out very little, say about half to 2/3 the current cap. It seems like only 3% to 5% will benefit from the cap lowering and the rest will be playing for less on teams like the Jags.

by tigg75 on Jul 20, 2009 7:26 PM EDT reply actions  

I think those are great comments

Actually players will play harder to get a big contract.

Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!

by Tkopa on Jul 20, 2009 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good piece

I dropped this in a FanShot over at TurfShowTimes. I’m always looking for more analysis on the CBA since the traditional media refuses to cover it. Great stuff, Tkopa.

Your uncle molests collies.

by 3k on Jul 21, 2009 3:04 PM EDT reply actions  

Great!

Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!

by Tkopa on Jul 21, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Brilliant, Terry!

i felt like i learned something

I tweeted Eisen, Schefter, Dukes, and Lombardi this article….maybe one of them will read it

this really was great

LateRoundPick.com

by Surteal on Jul 22, 2009 7:56 PM EDT reply actions  

Rich Eisien is good about replying on twitter

“richeisen@BrandonClark22 You’re right. That’s an interesting read. Thanks for sharing. Hadn’t seen that.”

LateRoundPick.com

by Surteal on Jul 22, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Big Cat Country:: Jacksonville Jaguars news, commentary, speculation and fun, all from a fan's perspective

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Part951291066706727_small
Info on Coples...

Recent FanPosts

Aa_me_small
Randy Moss and Terrell Owens Want To Play
Aa_me_small
Do The Jags Draft a WR in the 1st Round?
Newbcc_small
Why the Jaguars need to begin considering life without Maurice Jones-Drew
316188_10100604014127692_5111476_59179124_1366496501_n_small
Think we can get him? Routt is out in OAK:
Jaguars_gift_1_small
Khan's yacht a symbol?
Aa_me_small
Wide Receivers in Free Agency...Who do the Jags Go After?
Images_small
SB Nation 2012 Mock Draft
Small
Two round Jags mock draft.
Small
Blaine Gabbert Big On Talent Short On Weapons and Mechanics
Small
34 NFL Teams

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Manager

77312417837578290_small River City Rage

180103_10150110239888826_529758825_6295646_8155374_n_small Adam Stites

Screen_shot_2011-10-06_at_11 Alfie Crow

Editor-in-Chief

Img_6121_small silencecs

Contributor

316188_10100604014127692_5111476_59179124_1366496501_n_small T.Holmes

Shane_clemons_small Shane Clemons

Small Michael Appelbaum

P9260123_small Jagfan89

Tvh5hc55tg_154738946_small arawls

Cole_small theeCodyTaylor