Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat
This would not be on a team by team basis, it would be based on the league as a whole like, it is now. And even then, yes players should be "penalized" by getting lower salaries if profits are down. Likewise they should be rewarded when profits go up. It's not fair that the owners and taxpayers pay for stadiums out of their pockets and the players don't have to contribute anything towards it. Players need stadiums to play in.
|
I agree with the overall point you are making which is that lower revenues should mean declining player costs. I might even go as far as saying that if the rate of revenue declines, aggregate player costs should be frozen.
But the owners already get unfairly good stadium deals through subsidies and luxury boxes and PSLs. And while concerns about paying off debt on stadiums if there is no player revenue are legitimate concerns, new stadiums are ALWAYS a net positive gain for the total asset level of the ownership group. Given that fact, players owe the owners nothing beyond the fact that the owners need them for the product they bring.
The owners that have a legit problem are the ones that can't land new stadium deals, not the owners who have outstanding debt on new stadiums. As long as football games are being played, there will be positive cash flows for ownership, and new stadiums will remain cash cows for owners.
Now are the taxpayers being screwed? Oh yeah. However, in no way will reduced player costs possibly result in a net benefit for the taxpayers. Thankfully, in the cases of the Dallas and New York stadiums, the public contributions have declined and ownership is taking a higher responsibility to build assets that will ultimately belong to ownership.