Revenue Sharing.

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Sheriff Gonna Getcha
05-29-2005, 06:33 AM
Sorry mate, ticket prices have nothing to do with revenue sharing. The thing that drives ticket prices is demand. Redskins have a long waiting list. While they have to be somewhat reasonable they have the luxury of having so many well off people in the DC area on the waiting list.

If revenue sharing had anything to do with ticket prices then NFL teams would be smart to start charging $100 for shitty seats.

If a team loses revenue (via revenue sharing), it, like any other company, is going to try to make up such losses by some other method (i.e. jacking up ticket prices, food prices, or whatever else it can get away with). The revenue sharing is essentially a built in cost of doing business in the NFL. Who does that cost get passed onto if not us fans? I'm sure Daniel Snyder isn't going to "take one for the team." That's just my two cents.

But, if you are privy to some information that I am not, please share it.

BigSKINBauer
05-29-2005, 10:48 AM
This is an idea right it hasn't been approved. This is just as likely to pass as the idea saying that a team's salary cap will be determined by its revenue which i think is bogus . Obviously it will help the skins but i wouldn't want football to become baseball.
But if the idea that we are talking about, the sharing revenues, i would hate it just as much. If an owner knows that they will increase their own profit by doing things for the fans like fan support day or making new stadiums or improving the ones that they have,they will for their own profit. BUUUUUT if they know they are gonna split the shit 32 ways it won't be that great of an incentive to put up a new jumbotron or make special merchandice. The only good i see comming from this is a possible decrease on ticket prices just to build spirit for the team because it doesn't really affect the team it only affects the league allittle with the revenue loss.

Really why would an owner do ANYTHING to increase ticket sales by adding to the stadium if they are gonna end up only getting 1/32 of the profit?

Defensewins
05-29-2005, 11:14 AM
Could someone explain this to me a bit? From what I understand the teams that make more money (Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc.) have to share money with teams that don't? To me this doesn't make sense at all. Owners like Snyder get crucified for being a money hungry wolf, then is forced to share his money? He spends a lot of money marketing and making the skins have mass appeal -- yet for some reason has to share his income with a team that doesn't work so hard.

Is it simply to make it so poor teams fill the salary cap and keep the league competitive? I just don't understand why successfull owners, at least in the income department, are forced to help owners who aren't nearly as good.

I agree with your concern with this system, there is no incentive for the poor teams to be more lucrative and perform on the field.

The NFL's complicated economics works like this:

The NFL is making about $5.2 billion in revenue per year. Every owner starts out with nearly $100 million a year each from national television and radio contracts and national sponsorships. In addition they get one-third of ticket revenue from each game played, which is pooled and redistributed equally among all teams. The clubs also receive equal portions from a 12 percent royalty on every NFL-branded piece of merchandise. In all, about $3 billion of the $5.2 billion pot is shared equally.
Under the current collective bargaining agreement, which expires at the end of the 2007 season, an annual ceiling is placed on player payrolls of about 65 percent of defined league revenues. So even if Snyder makes more money, he cannot spend it on players salaries. After the $100 million distribution from the league, teams are largely on their own.
Because Snyder is a smart at generating additional revenue, the Redskins' annual revenue has increased from more than $100 million a year when Snyder took over the team in 1999 to around $245 million. So this proves there is no correlation between high-revenue teams and winning percentage. And no correlation between salaries paid and winning percentage.

My major problem with this system is seeing cheap teams like the Cardinals perform so poorly on the field and the owner is a cheap lazy SOB. But yet he is pocketing millions and under spending by $10m on players salaries. Then he complains when his stadium is empty. He is creating the problem. He has not incentive to improve, because the leagus is subsidizing his team. Hard working owners like Snyder are paying his salary and bills.

Daseal
05-29-2005, 12:51 PM
Thanks a lot guys, you really helped to clear it up for me. I think a little revenue sharing is nice, but what they're going for now sounds like too much in my opinion!

Carnage
05-29-2005, 01:32 PM
The thing that steams me the most about this issue is the teams most often involved in the complaining are the Cardinals and the Colts.
These owners, or their parents, moved their teams from major markets, and in the case of the Colts, removed themselves from the tradition of victory and inter-generational fandom that we enjoy.
This is the business model that traditional teams will always have. If I get a chance to see the skins I go, even if the season is in the tank. The Colts can't sell out playoff games, and they would'nt have much more luck in LA.
In both cases, these teams made economic moves that now seem short-sighted. They traded newer facilities for small markets .
Why should the NFL or the free-market system reward this.

wolfeskins
05-29-2005, 02:16 PM
everyone on here is making some very good points. the only thing i can say is "if it aint broke, don't fix it".
things should stay as they are as long as the league can remain strong and successfull. if the league begins to weaken then they should explore this idea.

Schneed10
05-29-2005, 02:42 PM
I agree with your concern with this system, there is no incentive for the poor teams to be more lucrative and perform on the field.

The NFL's complicated economics works like this:

The NFL is making about $5.2 billion in revenue per year. Every owner starts out with nearly $100 million a year each from national television and radio contracts and national sponsorships. In addition they get one-third of ticket revenue from each game played, which is pooled and redistributed equally among all teams. The clubs also receive equal portions from a 12 percent royalty on every NFL-branded piece of merchandise. In all, about $3 billion of the $5.2 billion pot is shared equally.
Under the current collective bargaining agreement, which expires at the end of the 2007 season, an annual ceiling is placed on player payrolls of about 65 percent of defined league revenues. So even if Snyder makes more money, he cannot spend it on players salaries. After the $100 million distribution from the league, teams are largely on their own.
Because Snyder is a smart at generating additional revenue, the Redskins' annual revenue has increased from more than $100 million a year when Snyder took over the team in 1999 to around $245 million. So this proves there is no correlation between high-revenue teams and winning percentage. And no correlation between salaries paid and winning percentage.

My major problem with this system is seeing cheap teams like the Cardinals perform so poorly on the field and the owner is a cheap lazy SOB. But yet he is pocketing millions and under spending by $10m on players salaries. Then he complains when his stadium is empty. He is creating the problem. He has not incentive to improve, because the leagus is subsidizing his team. Hard working owners like Snyder are paying his salary and bills.

Great analysis, you're dead-on.

Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones (the highest revenue generators) contend that less revenue should be shared because of owners like that of the Cards. They contend that there isn't enough incentive for them to market themselves because they can grab a big chunk of shared revenues to make up for their laziness. I agree, to a point. The worst thing that could happen to the league is moving back to the un-capped era. The point was made earlier, Rozelle's theory, that league parity is what leads to compelling drama and interest across the entire country. Without a salary cap, big market teams like our Redskins will outspend the smaller market teams and gain a big advantage in player acquisition. This leads to the PERCEPTION amongst the public that the smaller market teams don't have a chance to compete, and hence interest drops. (It doesn't matter whether wins and losses are actually tied to payroll size or not, what matters is that people PERCEIVE that is the case, and consequently the non-die-hard fans lose interest once they realize their team can't afford to sign the household name players) And when some fans begin losing interest, demand for tickets decreases, as well as the number of people who will watch the games on TV. That leads to declining TV ratings, and that means fewer TV revenues for the NFL. That's the key, those TV revenues are the biggest chunk of the shared pot, if TV revenues start declining, ALL NFL teams will be worse off, including Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.

Not to mention the quality of the league declines as the big market teams (like the Yanks and the Red Sox) just spend their way into the postseason.

I'm OK with wanting to adjust the amount of shared revenues, but not if it destroys the salary cap system.

BigSKINBauer
05-29-2005, 06:24 PM
Great analysis, you're dead-on.

Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones (the highest revenue generators) contend that less revenue should be shared because of owners like that of the Cards. They contend that there isn't enough incentive for them to market themselves because they can grab a big chunk of shared revenues to make up for their laziness. I agree, to a point. The worst thing that could happen to the league is moving back to the un-capped era. The point was made earlier, Rozelle's theory, that league parity is what leads to compelling drama and interest across the entire country. Without a salary cap, big market teams like our Redskins will outspend the smaller market teams and gain a big advantage in player acquisition. This leads to the PERCEPTION amongst the public that the smaller market teams don't have a chance to compete, and hence interest drops. (It doesn't matter whether wins and losses are actually tied to payroll size or not, what matters is that people PERCEIVE that is the case, and consequently the non-die-hard fans lose interest once they realize their team can't afford to sign the household name players) And when some fans begin losing interest, demand for tickets decreases, as well as the number of people who will watch the games on TV. That leads to declining TV ratings, and that means fewer TV revenues for the NFL. That's the key, those TV revenues are the biggest chunk of the shared pot, if TV revenues start declining, ALL NFL teams will be worse off, including Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.

Not to mention the quality of the league declines as the big market teams (like the Yanks and the Red Sox) just spend their way into the postseason.

I'm OK with wanting to adjust the amount of shared revenues, but not if it destroys the salary cap system.

I completely agree, i just don't understand 1 thing,.... i heard that 2007 will be an uncapped year, is this true or will this be resolved. Does that mean we could sign players for 7 years and pay the full amount during that single year. we could cut all the players and not worry bout penalties and sign the probowl team. (I don't want this to happen) Is this a possiblility or will the situation be resolved..... or has it been resolved?

CRT3
05-29-2005, 09:56 PM
It has not been resolved, and I have claimed all along the Redskins are playing for that one uncapped year in 2007. A deal to avert this will happen if the owners can agree on revenue sharing which will not happen

MTK
05-29-2005, 10:13 PM
Hey CRT3, now that Morton's avatar is gone how about changing your sig?

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum