@MaximusD163 You seem to be quite acknowledgeable about salary caps, revenues, CBA's and all that, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. It has come up in other threads that on-going Covid-19 pandemic will affect negatively to the salary cap next year, due to fans not being able to attend games and spend money at the stadium. I get that that is probably true. But my question is, how much of an issue it really is? I've always been under the impression that most of the revenue comes from the television rights anyway, and now that NFL is negotiating a new deal with the promise of 17th game to the networks, the likelihood is the new deal will be much bigger than existing one. What percentage of the incomes come from said rights vs. all other ways and how do you see what the salary cap number is next season?
It completely depends on how effected the season is. While the highest percentage of revenue comes TV deals, it is not so much so that the cap would not be noticeably effected should fans not be able to attend. To rephrase, it would make a difference. Keep in mind that it would not just be the ticket sales, but also the food, beverages, parking fees, souvenirs, and very importantly, in-stadium advertising would be lost for 256 regular season games plus pre-season and post-season. This totals a not insignificant percentage of the NFL revenue. If all or some of the games go this route, the cap will be relatively salvageable. Obviously if it becomes so bad they can’t even have teams or Tv crews there, that’s a different story. What the NFL will likely do in the event of no-fan or reduced-fan situations would be to disperse the revenue loss over a few seasons of salary cap. So if the 2021 cap were to go down from the $198mm of 2020 to say $141mm, that loss would likely be dispersed over 2021, 2022, and 2023 so that 1 year wouldn’t take the full force of the hit. The NFL, players, and teams all know this, but no one wants to make any moves until there is more clarity. Even the new TV deal can’t be counted on because while it will probably be fine, it’s based on bidding. If TV networks low ball for any reason, the NFL has no choice but to accept the highest bid to get their games aired. Does that answer your questions?
Yes it does, thank you for answering. I really always thought that the television deal was where the organizations would make the most of the money. But yes, it really makes sense, especially the advertising part. I sometimes forget how really huge your country is, population is enormous compared to European countries, so the advertising money would be much higher.
It really is, especially the last couple of weeks have been excellent. Summer has truly arrived, temperatures has been 23°C to 26°C (73F to 79F) which is quite high this early in the summer, and the sun is up practically all night. I don't mind winter either, only it shouldn't be that bloody long
In spite of whatever happens this season, I just can't see the salary cap going down that much. How can it with an additional game and increased roster sizes? Factor in the additional TV revenue, and how after not being able to attend sporting events for a year, fans will probably set attendance records next year, I just can't see the cap going down that much.
Next years cap is based on this years revenue. It won’t reflect new tv deals. It will reflect gate and concessions for 2020. So if no fans in the stands a stagnant or reduced cap is possible and probable.
The salary cap for the 2021 season is based on the the profits for the 2020 season. There will be no additional television profits from the 2020 season (well, 2 more total playoff games but that’s not going to make up the difference.) The spike in TV profits will not be seen until at least the 2022 Cap. Same with a spike in game attendance in 2021. Even if fans come in droves, those revenues will not influence the salary cap in 2021. Roster size has nothing to do with the salary cap. How you pay enough players to fit under the cap is team prerogative, not the NFL’s problem.
I realize all of that, but with teams adding two more players to their rosters, an extra player or two to their PS, and an additional game is going to cost every team more. I would think the owners would meet and adjust the salary cap rules a little or suspend them for a year so that it only adjust downward say $20 million rather than have to cut players they need due to the cap going down $50 million. If they let it go down that much, then they're dumb and too greedy, and will be cutting their noses off to spite their faces. They are making a killing and their franchises are worth crazy amounts of money. With baseball shooting itself in the foot, the NFL would be dumb to turn around and do something that affects the quality of the game. It's already probably going to suffer with no OTAs or mini-camps this spring/summer. To harm the level of play two years in a row would not be wise.
I find it hard to believe the owners would just give up earnings like that, it’s a pretty hardcore negotiation. They will likely borrow against the future cap vs just surrendering a portion of their profits.
You're probably right, but imo that would just show their greed and stupidity. They're already worth hundreds of millions, if not billions. Would they rather win or have a few more dollars. Beyond a certain point it doesn't matter how much money one has, but sadly, the more money people have, the more they covet more. Hell of a sad and pathetic way to live imo.
that is correct it means the cap is spread against more players. realistically though those extra 2 players are going to be making the minimum so combined 1.5 mil and the PS again isn't much so it's an extra cost of less then 2 mil per year for the extra spots and PS spots it balances out though because the extra game means extra revenue and hence more cap space. the idea of adding a game was to increase revenue which in turn increases the cap as well doesn't work like that. it's a big contract and part of the CBA. it would have to be players and owners negotiating a new deal which we know is a nightmare as it is. They can't do a quick fix.
If there is a season, ratings will be higher than ever. Look at the #s for the draft. That will lead to a large increase in revenue from TV and streaming. Fans are starved for sports entertainment. It wont offset the what's lost of the other %40 of the revenue stream but it will help significantly Teams will also likely increase revenue from local sponsorship. I could envision the stands being tapped with banners for local companies as well as league sponsors to generate income. No season would be a nightmare.
The banners in the stands will help, maybe. The tv revenue for 2020 is already in the books however, as it was part of a previous contract, or set of contracts really. Any major spike in viewership will only result in increased profits for TV networks, not the NFL. There are only 3 games scheduled to be aired on NFL Network, those being Week 2 CIN @ CLE, Week 3 MIA @ JAC and Week 4 DEN @ NYJ. The NFL knows how much it’s set to earn from TV this year for the most part. Banners in the stands from local or league wide sponsors obviously will bring more revenue, but it won’t even come close to what will be lost.
I should have been clearer in my post. The spike in viewership will ensure an increase in the upcoming negotiations for TV contracts. They are expected to begin later this year and current expectations are a 25-30% minimum increase come 2022. Ratings were up in 18 &19, 2020 should see a major increase if there is a season which could drive the increase even higher.
Agreed. Mike MacIdiot doled out so many bad contracts that the team can only absorb so many at a time. I think the plan is: Cut CB T. Johnson after 2019 Cut L. Bell after 2020 Cut Mosely after 2021 Might have to eat Henry Anderson contract in/after 2020 also. Glad MacIdiot is gone.
