dfosterf
14 years ago
Link 


Revenue sharing remains a key source of potential controversy
Posted by Mike Florio on March 21, 2010 7:45 PM ET
We've heard from multiple league insiders who agree with our assessment that the current unity among NFL owners is fleeting, and largely confined to one issue: Squeezing the players into taking less money.

As to the issue of owners sharing the money that their teams generate, the potential for discord remains. Indeed, four years ago we believed that, absent a comprehensive solution, the NFL possibly could split into two leagues -- one made up of teams willing to share every dollar and another composed of teams with an "every man for himself" mentality.

Supplemental revenue sharing, the redistribution of wealth from teams making the most to teams making the least, has turned out to be a Band-Aid at best. Meanwhile, the traditional notions of sharing have been challenged over the past decade.

A league source tells us that, for example, the traditional 60-40 split of ticket money between home team and road team doesn't apply universally. Per the source, the Cowboys have finagled an exception for club seat revenue, apparently to help defray the costs of the North Texas Football Cathedral. Other teams have worked out similar deals, many of which transactions have received little or no publicity.

Bottom line? If the NFL plans to maintain competitive balance via a salary cap and a salary floor based on total football revenues, any new agreement must account for the fact that a formula based on total revenues will increase the labor costs for low-revenue teams. Absent a long-term answer to this specific problem, the situation will continue to create controversy every time a labor deal is due to be renewed, and it will only get worse as the gap in the revenues continues to grow.

In the interim, the challenge for the NFL will be to keep that percolating problem tightly under wraps. For the NFLPA, the mission is clear -- find a way to force this core issue to the surface sooner rather than later.



Revenue sharing is what keeps the Pack competitive.

How's about throwing Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder out of the NFL?
They can both play with themselves, as far as I'm concerned.

I LIKE that idea.
Rockmolder
14 years ago
Thank you.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that. I'm getting more and moe annoyed by what Jones is trying to do, getting around revenue sharing, trying to get rid of the salary cap.

I really hope that no one will follow his lead. Getting the Dallas Yankees in the NFL will destroy the game.

And I know. He didn't go crazy spending money right now. I do think that, in the long haul, he'll make the Cowboys into the Yankees.
dfosterf
14 years ago
I bet that even the Cowboys fans would grow weary of playing the Redskins after about 15 weeks in a row, lol

Seriously though, when you think about it...The costs associated with those two teams far outstrip their value to the league as a whole, and if the idea ever gained traction to the point that either of them got a little nervous- well, the entire NFL would be better off if they kept their yaps and wallets closed.
Pack93z
14 years ago
Greed is at the root of all collapse in history... why would the NFL be any different?
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Stevetarded
14 years ago
I thought the Packers were one of the teams that had to pay into revenue sharing?
blank
all_about_da_packers
14 years ago

I thought the Packers were one of the teams that had to pay into revenue sharing?

"Stevetarded" wrote:




They are.... which leads me to be very confused as to why the Packers need revenue sharing to survive....

What stops any NFL team from being like the Yankees is that broadasting revenue is evenly split amongst all NFL teams, whereas in MLB it's solely dependent on what a team can get in its local market - hence Yankees get a lot more than, say, the Pirates.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
Pack93z
14 years ago

I thought the Packers were one of the teams that had to pay into revenue sharing?

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:




They are.... which leads me to be very confused as to why the Packers need revenue sharing to survive....

What stops any NFL team from being like the Yankees is that broadasting revenue is evenly split amongst all NFL teams, whereas in MLB it's solely dependent on what a team can get in its local market - hence Yankees get a lot more than, say, the Pirates.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Which is exactly the problem, it will lead to competitive imbalance and will pull the overall league down. Currently, with the stadium redone our revenues are up... at the moment, probably isn't a huge deal, but that will last only so long.

What then.. selling more sod to redo Lambeau the next time? Water down the stock concept with more stock?

Sure we could go the route of the YES network here.. PACKTV is what you will have to subscribe to to get, fight with cable companies nationally to get it instituted into their packages, etc.

BTW, I believe the massive TV contract that the NFL signs prevents this from happening, which isn't the revenue stream that is being discussed.. it is the clubs revenue around ticket sales, merchandise and other local forms of revenue.

The beauty and honestly the success of the NFL is its competitive parity... start washing that away and it will become a violent version of baseball. They are both beautiful games, just MLB hasn't had to balls to level the playing field for all clubs.

Jerry Jones and his new temple provide a threat to the overall success of the NFL.. the sooner he is absent the better. Greedy SOB.

Does it suck having to fork cash over to say the Vikes.. sure it does right now.. but that more than likely won't stay a constant.. sooner or later the stadium issue will be resolved and their revenues may increase. Maybe some day they are forking cash out to other franchises.. maybe us.

It is a overgrown coop... a way to balance the revenue stream so that all parties make a profit and the overall league stays healthy.

Want to see what the NFL will become if they break that apart.. see the NBA.. almost all trades are to wash away contracts, many of them are aren't about equality in talent.. just salaries. The clubs that can take on the long term heavy payrolls gobble up the talent and deal in expiring contracts. Note the Dallas / Washington trade as the deadline.

That is not what I want for the NFL I love.. and it is not that teams are losing money. It is the greed of some, one in particular that build the second coming of Rome, that by the rules can't become the Yankees and corner the market.. and it bruises his precious little ego.

Greed has taken down many an empire.. trust me the NFL is an empire.. and it can fall to greed just like any other empire.

Will it mean instant doom for the NFL.. nope.. but we have a couple of posters here than compare the Packers to the 70's and 80's... IMO, lack of revenue sharing (BTW, we are not talking about TV contracts) will start to bring that fate to some of the weak right now.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
Okay, who's posting as Shawn? That was too well written and even I understood what he said. What have you done with our Shawn? :P



I do not mind giving money we earn to others. This year we scratch their back, maybe next year they scratch ours. And if that's what it takes to keep a competitive league, so be it.
UserPostedImage
bozz_2006
14 years ago
dfosterf, can you explain to me (a guy who doesn't have much knowledge of labor deals and revenue sharing) how revenue sharing is what keeps the Pack competitive? Are you saying that it benefits the Packers more than other teams (besides the Redskins and Cowboys) or do you mean that the Packers and most other teams rely on revenue sharing to stay competitive? So, my questions are
1) How does revenue sharing help the Packers?
2) What other teams need revenue sharing for the same reasons the Packers do?
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
14 years ago

Okay, who's posting as Shawn? That was too well written and even I understood what he said. What have you done with our Shawn? :P

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Hmmm, you really don't read a lot of my posts do you.. lol. ;)

Bozz...

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2781759 
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (2h) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.