Jets are one of a gang of nine. Surprising since the Jets have lost money every year since Woody Johnson bought the team. These nine teams are all large market teams that don't want to share revenue such as luxury box recepits and stadium signs. Woody must be banking on the new Giants Stadium being a cash cow. from PFT: GANG OF NINE REVEALED NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw recently said that nine NFL franchises are resisting the expansion of revenue sharing by the league's 32 teams. Upshaw also told Mark Maske of The Washington Post that the nine teams are planning to file suit if they are forced to share revenues that currently are not distributed evenly among all teams. A league source has identified for us the members of this modern-day Mudville nine: the Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Jets, Panthers, Broncos, Patriots, and Texans. We'd previously heard that the NFL and the union tentatively have agreed to expand the components of so-called "Defined Gross Revenue" (which is the basis for the team-by-team salary cap) to include money not currently shared by the various franchises. The proponents of enhanced revenue argue that, if any currently unshared revenue streams are to be included in the determination of DGR, the corresponding revenue should be shared equally -- and that, if the revenue is not to be shared, it should be excluded from the DGR calculation. The source also confirmed that the Mudville nine plan to sue if they are forced to accept expanded revenue sharing by the other 23 organizations. Frankly, we still don't understand how it would ever come to that, since nine votes are sufficient to block any changes to the way the NFL does business, given that 24 "yes" votes would be required to, for example, impose expanded revenue sharing. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells us that, under the current system, teams share all national broadcast revenues, all sponsorship revenues, all licensing revenues, and the visiting team's share of ticket revenues. The following revenues aren't shared: the home team's share of the box-office revenue, local radio revenue, local TV revenue, local sponsorship revenue, and stadium-generated revenues from signage, concessions, parking, luxury suites, etc.
Good for the Jets. Woody is doing the right thing. The other "low revenue" teams are not losing money and all teams have a cap to keep things in line. There is no reason to share more revenue other than greed. Why should any team help the Browns with money when they won't even maximize their own income by not delling naming rights to the stadium?
This is wrong. The reason why the nfl has grown in popularity is because of the somewhat level playing field. You know the old saying "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" well I think that applies to this cba and revenue sharing system. Maybe some tweaking needs to happen but if they overhaul the entire system the nfl will turn into MLB where their are a handful of teams with twice the money of everyone else and teams like Minnesota and Arizona won't have a chance from a financial standpoint. No system is perfect and I'm sure some teams take advantage of this situation. Perhaps a salary floor is needed to make sure teams are spending their shared money.
If revenues from naming rights is included in the DGR, then ALL teams should be FORCED to sell their naming rights to the highest bidder. It isn't fair for some teams to get revenues for naming rights when they didn't contribute in any way to the pot. The salary cap should just be set to a level below the DGR without the naming rights factored in.
The Jets are doing this because they lost money every year. Let's see you have probably the highest revenue when it comes to anything "fans in the seats" has to do with the game, and you now have to split it 32 ways? The other 31 ways (OK maybe 20.. there are 10-11 teams that have revenue from luxury boxes like the Jets) are not equal, so they get less.
Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Jets, Panthers, Broncos, Patriots, and Texans According to the Forbes Magazine list of NFL team valuations, the above mentioned teams (except for the Giants and Jets) rank amongst the most successful teams in most all of the catagories in the report. When speaking of 'Revenue Sharing', IMO, the most important catagories to consider are Revenues and Operating Income. Why should they share their hard earned revenues as much as the other teams want them to? These franchises are not as successful as they are without taking some financial risks. They are also as successful as they are because they have the front office staff that knows and underestands the best way to manage their available dollars. When the rest of the teams who 'need' the increased revenue sharing begin to take these financial risks, successful or not but at least make the attempt, maybe I'll be ready to back increased revenue sharing. http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/01/spo..._05nfland.html
Perhaps a salary floor is needed to make sure teams are spending their shared money.[/QUOTE] To my knowledge, there is a minimum already in football. The Vikings several years ago included unreachable bonuses for a few players just to hit the minimum cap number.
To my knowledge, there is a minimum already in football. The Vikings several years ago included unreachable bonuses for a few players just to hit the minimum cap number.[/QUOTE] You are correct, there is a salary floor.
The reason the NFL has grown in popularity is parity and the playoff system. While the NFL is more popular than ever the game itself has gotten worse with less great teams and mediocrity the norm. The best thing for the the game of football is to let the strong survive and the weak fail just like every other US business. By the strong supporting the weak the league may be doing well but that's only because the public is more enamored with winning than with good football.
The good part about this, if you want to get all sunshiney this Tuesday morning, is that the article is telling us that a new CBA is essentially complete. An agreement on the provision that we all knew was a problem (DGR and the cap) has, as far as the NFLPA is concerned, been reached. And, the one blameless party in this is the NFLPA. It's fair that local revenue be included in the cap calculation. It's fair that players get some of the benefit of their labor. What's abhorant is a majority of owners now looking to amend their partnership agreement to suck more cream off the top. Maybe if I lived in Arizona I'd think different - but I don't think so. I'd bet (or, at least, I'd hope) that most of the football-watching world would support the principles of the nine.
Excellent post. The whole NFL system is designed for parity. As far as the original post go, Woody put a huge investment into the Jets. That investment was based on a certain financial model. To change that after the deal is done isn't right.
He knew what he was getting into when he bought the team, I agree with some of the teams when you have teams in the league that don't have any of these things so why should they pay into something not all teams have. For example say Minnesota doesn't have luxury boxes, why should they get a cut of the profits from luxury box sales if they don't have any. I agree they should have more profit sharing but only in the things all 32 teams carry like ticket profits and this might be a little to extreme but they should have limited sharing between teams that have such things like luxury boxes(only the teams that have it can share, none of the other teams that don't have them should see 1 dime.)
I very much disagree,sport is about entertainment and there is nothing entertaining about a handful of teams dominating the league with the team that has the biggest payroll winning the big one.Good football should be two evenly matched teams giving their all in a closely contended match,not a blowout win over a team that can't spend as much money as their opponent.
There is a huge difference between evenly matched teams, good teams and great teams. The draft and a 4 or 5 year minimum on FA will do more to keep teams competitive than revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is about the strong carrying the weak. I say let the weak fail and you will have fewer players who don't belong in the NFL on NFL rosters. In effect better players more depth on fewer teams will ensure better football. It may not be as popular but the game will be better. The game will also improve when they reduce the number of teams that make the playoffs instead of creating more playoff teams. It will bring up the intensity of the regular season games and make each game more meaningful for the good teams. Right now the elite teams in each conference are usually playing exhibition games at the end of the year and the mediocre teams are fighting for a playoff spot. I would much rather watch the elite teams playing meaningful games at the end of the year than 8 & 7 teams or 9 & 6 teams backing into the playoffs through a complicated scheme that rewards fans and not quality of play. If you look at Baseball the problem really isn't that the financially strong teams can afford to buy Championships the problem is guys who shouldn't be in the major leagues are because there are just too many roster spots. You don't have 40 year old pitchers and catchers playing because they belong, it's because the league stinks and so many teams make the playoffs. If the weak teams failed there would be less roster spots and better play all around. If there were less roster spots the supply of good players to the amount of spots would go up and the price of the players would drop. Revenue sharing is nothing more than the strong carrying the weak and ultimately by allowing the weak to water down the product, the entire product will ultimately go away.
Teams like the Vikings don't put a dime into stadium improvements, but want to share in the additional profits that a new, PRIVATELY financed stadium in NJ will bring? That is BS in the nth degree. NFL welfare. Same thing with GB, and quite a few other teams that refuse to invest their own money, but want revenues from teams that DO invest, to generate extra revenue. When the "Gang of nine" proposed to these other teams that public money, from taxes used for stadium improvements then be included as revenue, the cheap teams that don't spend a dime said, ohhh, NO! So, what it means is that the cheap teams want the NINE to finance, to bankroll the league on their backs, while the cheap teams sit back and rake in the money. What a crock of shit.
As long as the salary cap remains, I don't care how league revenues are shared. The problem is the player's union wants more sharing, because then player's salaries are increased. I think the competitive balance should be maintained with the salary cap, but the owners that spend more on stadiums should be compensated as well. That would encourage owners spending their own money instead of seeking tax payer money for stadiums.
The NFL works this well because of revanue sharing. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that without revanue sharing, this becomes baseball or hockey, which we do not need, and will not work. Revenue sharing doesn't mean that all the money goes into a pot and is split equally between 32 teams. The higher earning teams still earn more, and keep more. But these 32 owners are not individuals. They are 32 parts of a whole. The minute they think they are individuals, the NFL becomes another sport with the excitement of paint drying. And APK, I believe that NOT sharing is what is greedy, but NOT sharing is what is considered greedy. Nobody is asking these guys to give all their money away. They are being asked to help the other teams that are less profitable because of their region. As long as the numbers are fair, they HAVE to agree to it. Otherwise, there is no product to offer.
