What are these suposive credit deductions? There were no credit deductions when Kraft built the Gillette because back then most stadiums were built with public money (in fact, Kraft originally assumed his stadium would be publically funded). So the players were not giving anything back when he built the stadium. Since most business mortgages are no more than 10 years in length, the original mortgage on Gillette is probably paid off with no concession from the players specifically to pay for it (he may have taken subsequent mortgages that might not be paid off). So even if the players give back concessions to future construction, why would they have a right to non-football related revenue from stadiums that are already paid for by the owners? That is as ludicrious as getting a percentage of the sales tax.
I mean Mike Vrabel supposably shot his way out of town a year and a half ago for suggesting that the players should get a percentage of Patriots Place. If the players are looking for non-football related revenues, there is good chance they are going after that too. Now Kraft paid/is paying for Patriots Place out of his profits from the Patriots, but it is a separate business from their football operations and the players never gave up and concessions in terms of money for Kraft to build it. Where does that end? Do the players want a share of the revenues from outside ventures that the owners purchased with their profits from their team?
I will agree that if in the new CBA, the players gave back some money specifically to build new stadiums that they should get a share of non-football related revenues from stadiums built with that money. But you cannot turn back the clock. They have absolutely no right to non-football related revenues generated in stadiums built prior to this CBA if they never specifically took less money to allow the owners to build stadiums. Even then, you can't go back and say they should have asked for it when they originally agreed to the concession and now they want it.
The NFL has some socialistic aspects to it, but it isn't a socialistic system. If the owners decided in the past to build a new stadium with their profits, they have no obligation to share non-football related revenues with the players or any other team. The players get a percentage of all football related revenues because their play on the field plays a huge role in generating that revenue. If U2 plays Gillette, the players do nothing to generate any revenue from that event.
As Frezo pointed out, doesn't it work both ways? Peyton Manning made about $30 million in endorsements last year. Don't the owners get a percentage of that money? I mean the owners make concessions many of the times to allow players to do endorsements and go to paid events. The owners promote the players through a number of different media vehicles that increases their exposure that allowes them to get better endorsement deals. Doesn't that entitle them to a percentage of the players' endorsements?
The credit deductions comprise the money taken off the top of revenues before calculating the salary cap and floor, that added up to ~$1 billion in 2009, with ~58% of that is coming from the player's cut. Stadium construction is, I believe, accounts for the largest slice from that pie. So the players have contributed a truly non-trivial amount already, and are being asked to continue to contribute in the next CBA. If they're putting money in, that makes them co-investors.
Now, owners like Kraft who built their own stadiums either before there was a construction fund, or who declined to draw from it, have a legit objection to sharing their non-football event revenue -- though if giving that up now secures continued contribution apace from the players toward stadium construction, I think it would prove worth the price when it comes time to make stadium renovations and improvements.
Either way, whether it applies only to stadiums built with money from the league's construction fund or universally, there's nothing socialistic about a class of co-investors wanting to see some return on their stake.
Re: Patriot Place -- is that really why 'they' say the Pats traded Vrabel? I find it hard to believe Kraft would interfere with BB's sovereignty over Pats personnel for something like that. Kraft is way too cool a customer to pull something like that. I mean, there's no way it could ever happen. Just because Patriot Place is owned by the same holding company as the Patriots doesn't make it anything more than a big fancy mall next to the stadium. It's not like Kraft insisted on getting a cut from the players' salaries to pay for construction.
The only money that anyone in the NFL sees from Patriot Place are the licensing fees for any team or league logos or names, etc. Now, this does set up the kind of situation that was being talked about during the debate over financial disclosure, where, since one division of Kraft Sports is negotiating a deal with another, he could have the NE Patriots LP give Patriot Place the licensing rights for a song... but I'm willing to bet that he made sure to pay a comfortably competitive rate for the rights to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
As for the players' endorsement deals -- that's a poor comparison on multiple fronts. The obvious one is that the players have never asked for specific additional moneys for the purpose of securing endorsements or maximizing their brand value. Any promotion and marketing of players that the NFL has done it has been done voluntarily by the league for its own interests. If the NFL wanted a piece of the players' endorsement money, they could offer money upfront for points down the road, or various additional promotional services, both of which the players would be free to decline, like the owner are free to decline stadium fund contribution.
The problem is that what the owners provide the players in terms of branding is nebulous and pretty much impossible to quantify, unlike a specific dollar-amount contribution into a stadium construction fund. Clearly, Peyton Manning has more value on the endorsement market than Jim Sorgi, so the base endorsement value of being a generic QB Colts is negligible compared to what Manning has brought to the table additionally. What extent of that is due to the Colts' marketing of him? Hard to say, but I can't imagine it wold be worth it to the Colts to withhold said marketing of him if he doesn't want to share endorsement money.
Also, unlike a football stadium, players are human beings with a right to make a living off your own name. Your mentor in a business might have taught you everything you know and made your reputation with his coattails, but if you strike off on your own, you don't owe him a dime. If you're a genius at the Apple store, you're allowed to use what cache that has to market yourself in your Craigslist side-business fixing people's computers on the weekend. If you use the USB drive full of rescue software and install disk images they give you, then they'd have a claim. Of course, at present, if a player wants to appear in an NFL uniform or reference the name of the team he plays for, NFL properties already does get a cut.
