PDA

View Full Version : NFL to end $100M in revenue sharing


Cool Breeze
12-06-2009, 02:58 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4718965

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was fined at least $100,000 in September for violating a gag order by suggesting that revenue sharing was on its way out.


Turns out, he was only tipping the owners' hand.


In a significant move that could impact the flow of money to potential free agents and the competitive balance of teams, the NFL has notified the players' union that effective in March, owners will pull the plug on the $100 million-per-year revenue-sharing program that has subsidized lower-revenue clubs, multiple sources said.



NFL Insider Adam Schefter
Check out Schefter's Insider blog for more NFL coverage and analysis.

Blog network: NFL Nation


By Tuesday, the NFL Players Association will challenge the move with an NFL arbitrator, special master Stephen Burbank, claiming owners can't terminate the revenue-sharing model without the union's approval because it was adopted into the 2006 labor agreement, which doesn't expire until March 2011.


Management counters that the supplemental model pertained only to salary-capped seasons; 2010 is scheduled to be uncapped.


Burbank is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who is responsible for resolving collective bargaining disputes between the NFL and the NFLPA. Approximately eight to 12 lower-revenue teams have qualified on a yearly basis to draw from the supplemental pool. The $100 million fund is part of $6.5 billion in revenues shared by all clubs.

"We are simply going forward on the terms the union approved in March of 2006," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.


In the applicable section of the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, it reads: "The revenue sharing program described to the NFLPA by memorandum dated March 10, 2006, has been determined by the NFLPA to be satisfactory. Any material modification to that program must also be reasonably satisfactory to the NFLPA."

A management source said when the owners chose for an early opt-out of the labor deal, triggering an uncapped year in 2010, it opened the door for the supplemental pool to be disbanded.


Lower-revenue clubs that have been subsidized under the supplemental plan will not be subject to the minimum spending rules that exist with the current salary-cap system.


According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, "Revenue sharing helps maintain the 'any given Sunday' dynamic in the NFL.


"The amount of money some owners propose to pull out of the system in 2011 could mean the difference between playoffs and blackouts for many teams," he said.

Chris Mortensen is a senior NFL analyst for ESPN.

BroncoDoug
12-06-2009, 03:03 PM
i don't like it

frerottenextelway
12-06-2009, 03:03 PM
The beginning of the end. A league of Yankees and Pirates is bad for any sport.

watermock
12-06-2009, 03:05 PM
And so it begins. I expect a nasty strike.

snowspot66
12-06-2009, 03:10 PM
I doubt it. It's too much money to lose through a strike. Better to take a bad short term deal than no deal at all.

Lev Vyvanse
12-06-2009, 03:12 PM
The $100 million fund is part of $6.5 billion in revenues shared by all clubs.



That is less then 2% of the shared revenue. Not a big deal.

spdirty
12-06-2009, 03:14 PM
****.

frerottenextelway
12-06-2009, 03:15 PM
Revenue sharing is so socialist. Blatant redistributing of someone else's money to better the thing as a whole.

Kaylore
12-06-2009, 03:18 PM
We're the eleventh richest franchise according to Forbes.

That One Guy
12-06-2009, 03:33 PM
It's about time. Florida can't support 3 teams. The Northeast is so saturated as a whole that New York state definitely doesn't need 3 teams.

Someone a few years ago commented that part of the problem with the NFL is that there's 32 teams but not 32 starter level QBs in the game. Maybe that'd solve some of those problems too.

Killericon
12-06-2009, 03:38 PM
Revenue sharing is so socialist. Blatant redistributing of someone else's money to better the thing as a whole.

It's just good business sense. Everyone makes more money when every team is competitive.

Archer81
12-06-2009, 03:44 PM
It's about time. Florida can't support 3 teams. The Northeast is so saturated as a whole that New York state definitely doesn't need 3 teams.

Someone a few years ago commented that part of the problem with the NFL is that there's 32 teams but not 32 starter level QBs in the game. Maybe that'd solve some of those problems too.


Technically...NY only has one team that plays in state, and its NYC, not Jacksonville or Tampa...


:Broncos:

dsmoot
12-06-2009, 03:48 PM
The beginning of the end. A league of Yankees and Pirates is bad for any sport.

This scares me. I watch little baseball because the playing field is so unlevel and the number of teams are out of the race on opening day, regardless of the management part of the equation. I actually root against baseball teams in the large markets just because of this.

Revenue sharing/salary cap has helped hockey from an unmanagable situation. I think it has been a positive for the NBA, NHL and NFL.

Doggcow
12-06-2009, 03:52 PM
This would be ****ing horrible. It's not fair in baseball, I hate watching the Yankees, Red Sox, and Braves dominated every year because they just have so much money.

cutthemdown
12-06-2009, 03:53 PM
problem is the lower revenue teams not even trying to get better. They don't spend or look for stadium naming rights etc etc. Good thing Broncos have good revenue. Oakland, uh, too bad.

400HZ
12-06-2009, 04:03 PM
This is a terrible move, especially with the salary cap about to disappear. More Cowboys, more Patriots, and more Giants. yay.

Bronx33
12-06-2009, 04:04 PM
f*** you jones!

400HZ
12-06-2009, 04:12 PM
This lowers the quality of play in the NFL.

Bronx33
12-06-2009, 04:12 PM
This lowers the quality of play in the NFL.

Greed doesn't care about quality..

That One Guy
12-06-2009, 04:18 PM
Technically...NY only has one team that plays in state, and its NYC, not Jacksonville or Tampa...


:Broncos:

The Jets and Giants share the same stadium, for god's sake. That's overly saturated.

Now, because of sheer population they can pull that off there but they need to have more sense with the team locations and how many there should be.

Within about 350-400 miles of Baltimore you have Washington, Philly, Pittsburg, Giants, Jets, Buffalo, NE, Cleveland... did I miss anyone? 9 teams within 400 miles is saturated.

UberBroncoMan
12-06-2009, 04:21 PM
Yeah umm... don't give a ****. If you run a ****ty organization deal with failure. If you can't hack it, sell it. Supporting failure breeds more failure.

Establish and keep a CAP so none of the mega wealthy teams can go overboard and everything is fine by me. As others have said... the MLB to me is pointless due to the lack of a cap.

TonyR
12-06-2009, 04:22 PM
We're the eleventh richest franchise according to Forbes.

Does Forbes rank revenues or just value? Because if the Broncos are one of those 11 lowest revenue teams this wouldn't be a postive for them.

snowspot66
12-06-2009, 04:27 PM
Does Forbes rank revenues or just value? Because if the Broncos are one of those 11 lowest revenue teams this wouldn't be a postive for them.

We're not one of the lowest revenue teams. Not even close.

TonyR
12-06-2009, 04:34 PM
We're not one of the lowest revenue teams. Not even close.

You're right, I just found it. Broncos are 10th. I'm surprised they're that high.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

cutthemdown
12-06-2009, 04:45 PM
You're right, I just found it. Broncos are 10th. I'm surprised they're that high.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

Why? They have a good stadium which is the key to revenue. They sell a lot of tickets and have good marketing avenues all through the rocky mountain area. The sold naming rights to stadium and have done everything they can do to maximize revenue.

Thats why Bowlen, Jones, Snyder etc want to end revenue sharing. Many bottom rung teams yet to even explore every way they can make money. Or have cities that don't support them. If that is the case revenue sharing hinders the movement of teams to better markets.

That One Guy
12-06-2009, 04:49 PM
And if everyone remembers, New Orleans was failing to sell out and was at threat of being moved before Katrina made them the feel good story (and Brees came to town). That's a town that had some space (4-500 miles West or East) before you saw the next NFL city. They had the people but they just weren't attracting crowds. Now, things are turned around and it's not an issue anymore.

Every city can't count on a hurricane to save it's NFL franchise. Start making cities compete for them and make teams compete for existence.

snowspot66
12-06-2009, 04:50 PM
We have a very large and spread out market being the only team in the middle of the country like that. Pretty much all of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and most of the Dakotas are part of the Broncos television market. Add in relatively recent Super Bowls and pretty consistent competitiveness and it makes for a solid revenue.

tsiguy96
12-06-2009, 04:56 PM
revenue sharing will force teams that are living off the money of others to find a new market. teams like jacksonville who will essentially never have enough of a following to survive will be forced to move to a less saturated market.

it also makes it hard for those same smaller teams to compete, and thus they will be slightly worse (its not a lot of money to each team in the grand scheme of things but still) and you might get an effect like the raiders or chiefs have, no one goes to the games.

houghtam
12-06-2009, 05:00 PM
"A management source said when the owners chose for an early opt-out of the labor deal, triggering an uncapped year in 2010, it opened the door for the supplemental pool to be disbanded."

I think this is probably more of a move to get the NFLPA to start bargaining/begging for a new deal including salary cap/rookie pools/slotting system than a move to really truly end revenue sharing.

Think about it, if the NFLPA came out tomorrow and said "we don't like how this is going to affect the competitive balance, let's negotiate terms for a new CBA", the NFL owners would gladly go back to revenue sharing if it meant lower player salaries and a slotting system for rookies.

TonyR
12-06-2009, 05:01 PM
Why?

The "why" is pretty simple. Impressive to be that high with such a population disadvantage, although Denver have a large regional fan base as others have mentioned.

1 New York New York 8,363,710
2 Los Angeles California 3,833,995
3 Chicago Illinois 2,853,114
4 Houston Texas 2,242,193
5 Phoenix Arizona 1,567,924
6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,540,351
7 San Antonio Texas 1,351,305
8 Dallas Texas 1,279,910
9 San Diego California 1,279,329
10 San Jose California 948,279
11 Detroit Michigan 912,062
12 San Francisco California 808,976
13 Jacksonville Florida 807,815
14 Indianapolis Indiana 798,382
15 Austin Texas 757,688
16 Columbus Ohio 754,885
17 Fort Worth Texas 703,073
18 Charlotte North Carolina 687,456
19 Memphis Tennessee 669,651
20 Baltimore Maryland 636,919
21 Boston Massachusetts 620,535
22 El Paso Texas 613,190
23 Milwaukee Wisconsin 604,477
24 Denver Colorado 598,707

Lev Vyvanse
12-06-2009, 05:05 PM
The metro area has 2 mil+ people.

ZONA
12-06-2009, 05:08 PM
I think revenue sharing is still needed but probably not to the degree it is right now. I think poor teams will always be bad but they will also get the highest picks every year. I think if a new deal is done to help lower the cost of these insane deals the top picks get every year would help. I mean, you got totally unproven talent coming in making so much money it could hurt the team for years if they don't pan out. That needs to be fixed.

rastaman
12-06-2009, 06:03 PM
This is a terrible move, especially with the salary cap about to disappear. More Cowboys, more Patriots, and more Giants. yay.

I'd like to see a return to dynasties in the NFL as was seen back in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's!!!!

I really believe this current crap where any given year any of the 32 NFL teams can appear in the Super Bowl. In the spirit of competition the reality is some teams, owners, fans, and HC's just weren't meant to win!

I like the Free Agency and players having the freedom and opportunity to leave teams who's FO can't get their act together to build a winning franchise in all.

But what I would like to see is a rule change that allows teams who have built a winning environment ie. coaching staff, owner, and GM who are visionary and gifted get the opportunity to resign their core players who are responsible for the Dynasty vs getting penalized by not allowing to go over the cap space to keep the players.

Point is, either your Franchise has the infrastructure in place to draft, develop and sign good or great players and hire the right coaches....or you don't. Thats the reality of competitive sports.

Garcia Bronco
12-06-2009, 06:08 PM
"A management source said when the owners chose for an early opt-out of the labor deal, triggering an uncapped year in 2010, it opened the door for the supplemental pool to be disbanded."

I think this is probably more of a move to get the NFLPA to start bargaining/begging for a new deal including salary cap/rookie pools/slotting system than a move to really truly end revenue sharing.

Think about it, if the NFLPA came out tomorrow and said "we don't like how this is going to affect the competitive balance, let's negotiate terms for a new CBA", the NFL owners would gladly go back to revenue sharing if it meant lower player salaries and a slotting system for rookies.

This

400HZ
12-06-2009, 06:34 PM
I don't even care about a salary cap. You can't buy a good team in the NFL. However, when you take away a small-market teams ability to retain talent that they develop then you are essentially placing them in a different competitive bracket. Just like baseball. I'm a lifelong Twins fan. I don't want to throw money at Roy Halliday or Jason Bey. I just want to keep Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau. Well unfortunately because of the lack of revenue sharing in baseball, that isn't going to ****ing happen. One or the other will end up on the Yankees or Sox or Angels or Mets or some other soulless piece of **** team. That's just the way that baseball is, and it sucks pole. Football seems headed down a similar path.:-[

Bronco Yoda
12-06-2009, 10:52 PM
Hopefully this is just a way to squeeze the NFLPA.

cutthemdown
12-06-2009, 11:22 PM
The metro area has 2 mil+ people.

Not to mention its airport is a hub for tons of air travel. The Broncos have a huge huge fan base and a great stadium. The owner has a good deal on revenue from the stadium so the team does will in that regard.

Unless you have luxury boxes, and then sell those boxes, you are in trouble revenue wise.

All the big revenue teams have nice stadiums that the owners make a chunk of money off.

Compare that to the lame deal Chargers stuck with. If they don't get a stadium soon they wont be able to compete in the FA market.

cutthemdown
12-06-2009, 11:25 PM
I don't see any way they get a deal in place before the FA period starts. Too much evaluation for draft, FA, to worry about hammering out a CBA this late. IMO it will take place during the uncapped yr.

Team will start the new CBA obviously with a clean slate, all dead money gone, with a new set of rules.

This yr however the real reason the owners want an uncapped yr is to lowball the payroll under the minimum. About 10-15 teams will spend way less then they did this yr, next yr. They will clear the books, get into the black etc etc.

People think owners want to spend spend spend. Really they want to spend less IMO.

Look for salaries for players to level off for awhile except for the elite ones.

Broncos IMO can lowball Orton and get him to sign. No way he wants to be anywhere else.

Doom they will have to pay big, same with Marshall.