JoeSixPat
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 10,671
- Reaction score
- 1,043
As I've been saying for awhile, the real challenge of the new CBA is getting the owners to agree how to split revenues among themselves, rather than coming to an agreement with the NFLPA
The latest from the rumormill suggests that the NFL and Players Association have an understanding on expanidng the definition of Gross Revenue - thereby greatly inflating the cap and the amount that can be spent on players.
The problem continues to be how the owners themselves should share, or not share, their revenues with each other.
The latest from the rumormill suggests that the NFL and Players Association have an understanding on expanidng the definition of Gross Revenue - thereby greatly inflating the cap and the amount that can be spent on players.
The problem continues to be how the owners themselves should share, or not share, their revenues with each other.
profootballtalk.com said:REVENUE SHARING IS THE BATTLE GROUND
Word around the league is that the NFL and the NFLPA essentially are in position to get a deal done on an extension of the CBA, but that the factor keeping the two sides from finalizing the agreement is the inability of owners to agree upon the extent to which currently unshared revenues will be split up among the 32 franchises.
The problem is that the NFLPA intends to include some of the millions in unshared revenues within the calculation that determines player salaries. The NFL is willing to do so, but this will stick the teams earning less unshared revenues with lower profit margins, since their cap amounts will be driven up by the larger revenues earned by other franchises.
The issue has been bubbling for months, and there are indications that it soon could explode, especially with talk of some of the big-money franchises suing their brethren if revenue sharing is expanded.
The teams already share millions in revenue, pursuant to an agreement made decades ago. But now the teams who -- due to market size, ingenuity, and/or hard work -- are making more money from local sources that aren't shared don't want to continue to divide the wealth, thereby subsidizing other owners who, for whatever reason, can't make the same amount of money with their own franchises.
Last year, we proposed a system that would divert a set percentage of each team's unshared revenue into a fund that would pay all players extra money, based on factors such as cap number, total snaps, and/or objective performance indicators. This would preserve the incentive for teams like the Redskins to earn as much as possible, and it would not reward teams like the Bengals, who opt not to sell the naming rights to their stadium.
It's too late for this approach to work, since the union already has its sights set on expanding the Defined Gross Revenue calculation to include unshared revenues. Regardless, the impasse among the owners won't be resolved without a method that doesn't discourage the rich from getting richer, and that doesn't encourage the less-rich to sit on their hands, thumbs pointing up.