I think you misunderstood my rhetorical use of the question. I don't mean that since the 50-50 split worked since 1993, we should assume it still works now. In fact, clearly, it's not working. I asked the question "why isn't it working anymore" because I think that needs to be understood so that the league can address the real issues at root.
This is where we do not see eye to eye.
The owners will decide what is acceptable to them, and negotiate from that perspective. IMO, they have no obligation, and frankly it would be fool hardy of them, to explain the reasoning behind their business decisions.
Now, first of all, it's inaccurate to say that the 40% is being used to cover expenses, when the ~11% deduction off the top -- amounting to $1 billion most recently -- is deducted entirely for league and team expenses.
That is not true. The deduction off the top is a function of revenue, not expense.
Are you seriously saying that the owners profit is 40% of the revenue after the deduction off the top?
Thus, as I said in my post, this results in a split that has hovered pretty much right around 50-50, and with the owners covering league expenses from their half -- at least, the expenses that they don't pass down back to the players. (Remember how Corey Dillon used to rave that, unlike the Bengals, the Patriots didn't charge him for using using two pairs of socks during two-a-days?)
Socks? We are really going to talk about socks?
I agree that it works out to about 50/50 (which is why I stated that it was 40% after the deduction) but there is no certainty that 60/40 after will remain 50/50 before. There is also no certainty that the expenses that come out of that 40 or 50 will rise at the same rate.
The exception I take with your argument is that a) there's no evidence that expenses are rising faster than revenues, and b) even if that were the case, the effects would be trivial compared to the rate of growth in revenue disparity between franchises.
From 2005-2009, the NFL's gross unadjusted-for-the-CBA revenues increased 43%. That's 43% revenue growth during the worst economy in decades. There's absolutely no way that expenses came even close to keeping up with that.
No way because you say no way? How much did the cap rise during that time?
You just said there is no evidence that expenses are rising faster than revenue and proved it by saying revenue rose 43% and the evidence that expenses are not rising as fast is you don't think it is??????
Then debate it. Explain to me how the NFL's gross revenues can increase 43% over four years, every new stadium expenditure has paid off in spades, and player compensation has stayed level at 50%, and the NFL isn't more profitable.
Again, you want it to be true because you think it is.
You have not shown that expenses have grown equally, less or more than revenue. Stating that every new stadium expenditure has paid off in spades, is simply something you made up. If not please show how Bob Kraft has made back all of his investment in building Gillette stadium in just 9 years. Certainly you aren't telling me the difference in ticket revenues has created so much extra profit that he has paid off his debt, are you? How about Jerry Jones? There is no evidence at all yet of whether he will ever make back what he spend on that monstrosity. You want to think he will without even knowing what he spent and how much it increaed cash flow.
I believe you might have mistaken my meaning. I mean the revenues have never been split more unequally between the league's 32 franchises (which isn't remotely debatable) not that the distribution of revenues between owners and players has become unequal, as it has remained steady at 50-50.
OK, but I don't know why the comment is relevant then.
I understand the scenario you describe, but your hypothetical doesn't reflect the reality of what's been happening with the NFL.
Sure it is. There are revenues that the players do not receive a share of. Those revenues are not all of a sudden part pf the equation, unless you go back to including them at 50/50 instead of excluding them at 60/40.
The players and owners TOGETHER agreed to change the split from 50/50 of all to 60/40 of included. There is no secret hold back, its just a different method getting to the same result. It would seem logical that both sides would think that is a good deal. The owners get protection if business slides at the expense of giving away a larger share of success.
60/40 of included instead of 50/50 of all is better for the owners if revenue sags (certainly a protection any business owner would value) and better for the players if business booms.
I think the stark reality is that THIS equation changed. That is why the owners primary goal was to increase the excluded calculation.
If you and I agree to split $100 either 50/50 or I get the first 10 then you get 55.5% of the rest, its the same thing. If 100 becomes 200, I need more than the first 10 to make it equitable.
Of course neither of us truly have any real understanding of the inner workings of how the owners view the expired CBA, how far away from acceptable it is, where they really feel the line should be, or even more importantly where they project their business to go in the next 5 years, which is problem the most important factor of all.
The NFL already has designations for 'football revenue' and 'non-football revenues.' Non-football revenue describes proceeds from non-NFL events at NFL stadiums, and revenues from certain side-attractions around stadiums on gamedays, among other things. Non-football revenue is retained in total by the franchise's owner -- neither the other owners nor players participate. "Football revenue" would be unadjusted Total Revenue, which is the expense-deducted "aggregate revenues... from all sources, whether known or unknown, derived from, relating to or arising out of the performance of players in NFL football games," minus a few very specific exemptions, such as luxury box money above regular ticket cost.
This includes, obviously, the shared revenue streams, in addition to any local revenue streams derived from the game -- particularly, the local licensing revenues that the players got cut out of when Jerry Jones went rogue in 1996. So, going forward, the distinction between "shared" and "retained" revenues applies only to how the revenues are divided amongst the owners -- it does not affect how the revenues are split between owners and players.
So the problem now is that in the original NFL revenue sharing plan, all franchises benefited equally from the licensing of any NFL franchise name and logo, but this no longer became the case in 1996. The 2006 CBA restored the players' share of this money, but didn't redistribute it among the owners, so now for every $32 million dollars Jerry Jones off Cowboys' licensing, the salary cap goes up $1 million dollars for every team. Since the Cowboys, Redskins, Patriots and Texans revenues are rising so much faster than the Lions, Bengals and Bills, they cant' keep up. This, and not any phantom expense increases is what accounts for the poorer franchises' shortfalls.
Again, I disagree that the 2006 CBA gave players rights to additional revenues they did not previously have, but have no inclination to researching the proof.
So, really, all you'd have to do is reset things back to the pre-1996 revenue sharing system, and the revenue disparity gap will shrink back down to size, and all of the teams would be able to afford the 50-50 split again.
Why would the owners agree to that? Your argument is that some teams make more than others, so instead of negotiation expense based on the budget of the weaker teams, they should just agree to give money from the rich to the poor, so the players don't have to suffer.
But the successful owners would argue -- and I'd agree with them -- that this takes away their incentive to pursue these local licensing deals that have been so prosperous. That's why the only workable solution is one in which the low-revenue teams are temporarily subsidized by being lent the money needed to invest in developing the local revenue streams that will help keep the revenue gap narrow, and the same 50-50 split salary cap that's worked since 1993 affordable by all teams.
Again, ownership is not interested in making sacrifices so they can continue to give the same percentage to the players.
As to your conclusion, what would you expect Ralph Wilson to do in order to create more revenue from the Buffalo market?
I think your misconception centers around the Patriots, and thinking that the revenues of the team have increased because of expenditures by Bob Kraft. That really just isnt the case. Revenues have increased because of the exploding popularity of the team.
