Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[upstater1]

As the details of the owners' last offer comes out, it's becoming more and more clear that it was, at best, a PR gambit intended make it look like they were compromising and the players weren't. At worst, it was an attempt to pull one over on the players, and an insult to the intelligence of the players' counsel. Under their final offer - conveniently presented to the union only hours before the deadline - they would have gotten back all of the "off the top" money they were supposedly compromising on, just "off the bottom" instead.

What Light was pointing out is what I've been arguing during the entire thread - collectively, the league revenues are as high as they've ever been, and are growing much faster than the leagues' overall costs. It's just that the windfall is so unevenly distributed among the 32 franchises that you have a handful of franchises that really are just breaking even - only the owners are negotiating as if they're all cash-strapped.

Why they're doing this is pretty obvious - there are maybe 8 teams that truly need a boost in revenue in order to have money to spend to improve the franchise, and the other 24 owners would rather help those 8 teams shake the money out of the players than pony up for it themselves, and not without good reason.

For all of the league's most successful and influential owners, reopening the revenue-sharing can of worms can only end badly, with them having to share more of their individual franchise's local revenues with their less successful colleagues. Now, if they start including more revenue sources in the revenue sharing system, in order to make the amount of money they've been earning, they not only have to keep running their own franchise's well, they now need to get the Fords, Bidwells, Browns, etc. to start turning their franchises around.

That's not likely to happen any time soon - so in reality, the Krafts, Snyders, Jones would instead be looking at a future in which they're working harder to squeeze more money out of their franchises to make up for the Wilsons and York's inability or unwillingness to do the same with their own teams.

So instead, the successful owners are extra-motivated to go after the players for the money, because the last thing they want is for their fortunes to be even more tied up with those of their deadbeat colleagues.

You see things practically the same way as I do. I will say that short of the $2 million a year Wilson could earn on naming rights, the Bills are very into marketing and they have expanded the base of the franchise into Central New York and Ontario. I know because I've been to games there and run into season ticket holders from far afield. From what I can gather from long-timers, the Bills have spent the better part of the decade marketing the team really well in the region.

Think about this team: they haven't been to the playoffs in EONS, and they still sellout the 70,000+ stadium--albeit with very low ticket prices. If this team started to win, they would not be in trouble at all.

Someone should have a look at the Sabres which are 10x more expensive for fans than the Bills. They rake in $28 million from gate receipts, measured against $34 million from the Bills, with $10 million of that guaranteed from Toronto (as the Toronto people lose their shirts with $5 million in gate receipts). Without Toronto, the Bills are at $29 million in gate receipts, just $1 million above the Sabres.

 

[lamafist]

You see things practically the same way as I do. I will say that short of the $2 million a year Wilson could earn on naming rights, the Bills are very into marketing and they have expanded the base of the franchise into Central New York and Ontario. I know because I've been to games there and run into season ticket holders from far afield. From what I can gather from long-timers, the Bills have spent the better part of the decade marketing the team really well in the region.

Think about this team: they haven't been to the playoffs in EONS, and they still sellout the 70,000+ stadium--albeit with very low ticket prices. If this team started to win, they would not be in trouble at all.

Someone should have a look at the Sabres which are 10x more expensive for fans than the Bills. They rake in $28 million from gate receipts, measured against $34 million from the Bills, with $10 million of that guaranteed from Toronto (as the Toronto people lose their shirts with $5 million in gate receipts). Without Toronto, the Bills are at $29 million in gate receipts, just $1 million above the Sabres.

The Houston Texans have posted one winning record in the franchise's existence, and had the 5th highest revenue in the league this year. The Redskins haven't really been any better than the Bills over the past 15 years, and still are one of the perennially highest grossing teams. While there's certainly some correlation between team success and team revenue, a well run franchise can still make money as a loser. Kraft, after all, made the Pats one of the league's top grossers before BB and Brady started winning him all those SBs.

Although the effect of market size is largely negated by the unified TV deal, Wilson does contend with a particularly small one -- though there's no shortage of money in upstate NY. I couldn't tell you exactly what Wilson's doing wrong, aside from the naming rights thing, but I have a hard time believing that he's the one owner who's found a way to put money into growing your franchise and not see dividends. The NFL's massive gains in popularity over the past 10 years has been a rising tide that's carried up a lot of ships with it.

 

[Ring 6]

No.


No.


I believe that no matter if the truth was made entirely public that the public opinion would still favor the owners.

Yes, I am focusing on the doubletalk.

Thanks for clarifying, I can't disagree with any of that.

 

[DaBruinz]

I follow the cap. This is what happened in the past.
The cap is announced and then a couple of months later it is adjusted upwards because of the CAM mechanism.

Monday Money Matters | National Football Post

See Appendix P of the CBA for more information.

First off, I know you follow the cap. Anyone who has followed this site for more than 6 months knows about your website. Secondly, you said the owners failed to meet the spending floor. Previously, the only floor mentioned had been the CAP floor. I don't remember you ever mentioning a CASH Spent Floor.

 

[DaBruinz]

I wish that you held yourself to the same standard that you seem to hold me - I have to back up my posts. You can accuse the NFLPA of providing false information without any corroboration.

I wish you wouldn't take every question as if someone called you a liar. I was asking about not meeting the (CASH) spending floor since the only floor I'd know about previously was the CAP Floor.

As for the NFLPA, they've been lying on a regular basis. Including in their most recent letter in response to Goodell's. Sorry that I don't act as if they are God's gift to information and that everything they say should be taken as Gospel. Not to mention that there have been PLENTY of Boston reporters over the last few years who have misled or outright LIED in the papers.

 

[DaBruinz]

Aiello's claim reminds me of the old joke of when a person convicted of murdering his parents asks the court for mercy because he is now an orphan.

How can the owners say with a straight face that the 2009 revenue was overprojected when they failed to maximize it?

Even if they had "maximized it", none of us know whether or not the over-projection would exist because we don't know how much money was "left on the table."

 

[MoLewisrocks]

From
NFLLabor.com Union should have made ?counter, discussed issue? if it had problem with NFL?s proposal

“What the union is saying now is that the cap didn’t go UP by enough,” Aiello concluded. “There is no question (a) that we offered an amount equal to or more than actual cash spending in 2009 or 2010; (b) that we offered to increase that amount by $20 million per club over the next three seasons; (c) that every club would spend at least 90 percent of that amount in cash; and (d) that we would commit somewhere between $19 and $20 billion to the players in four years. ”

In other words, the owners offered the players less money (cap + benefits) in 2011 that the players received in cash (cap + benefits) in 2009.

I don't get where you interpret as much or more as less. Is it because the floor that is now higher in cash and cap as a % is less in $$ than ceiling was in 2009?

The NFLPA has been contending all along that the owners proposals would amount to a pay cut for players. Gaiello is saying no, it would not based on what they were actually paid or on what the adjustment to the 2009 cap would have represented once actual 2009 revenue figures were revealed. There would be enough money in the cap for each team to operate as if everyone who was on the roster in 2009 and 2010 remained there.

I get that the unions issue is that there would not be substantially more (as in if you're not getting ahead you're falling behind), but there has to be some mechanism for reeling the cap in after it went up $43M in just 4 years. Seeing the salary cap increase from $85M to $134M over an 8 year span is the kind of raw deal most of the rest of us would be giddy over.

What the players wanted on top of that was the true up component that their proposals included. I believe theirs offered the owners 1.5% of any excess revenue over growth projections prior to a 60/40 split. Gaiello seemed to anticipate any counter from the union would have included one. Only there was no counter...

This is what negotiation is all about. Give and take. Proposals and counters. Inching toward some middle ground. It's not about give me your first and last best offer plus unfettered access to your financials for a decade and I'll take it or leave it. There was lots of give on the owners side in their last proposal. A union intent on avoiding a work stoppage and securing a deal that is fair to both sides doesn't walk away at that juncture and draw an imaginary line in the sand over a red herring issue unless they always planned to sham walk this thing to court no matter what.

Timing is everything and they are obviously banking on the courts deciding in their favor and doing so in short order when neither of those things happening is a slam dunk. Between competing jurisdictions (NLRB/Minnesota court/appeals courts all the way to the Supreme Court) this thing could well drag on into the season and as the 1993 SSA proved following 6 years of court proceedings it's not necessarily going to mean they don't in the end still have to come to a compromise. That is how they ended up with the dreaded tags and RFA after all. It would be almost poetic justice if they get everything they want via the courts to the point the NFL as we know it ceases to exist. They can't all work for Snyder and Jones, and Kraft will opt out altogether without a cap.

The TV deals ruling was the second ruling on the matter. The first found that the only CBA violation was with the Direct TV deal and the damages were assessed at $6M. The CBA doesn't only call for the owners best efforts in negotiating for these deals maximum dollars, it also allows for them to use sound business judgement. Insuring not only cash flow on their end during a potential work stoppage but payment at all of monies that ultimately would flow to the players would seem to me to have been a sound business judgement. The owners had the ideal vehicle at their disposal to make up any games missed as well because the 1993 CBA as amended allowed for up to 20 games per season whether the NFLPA signed off on it or not. Something else the owners took off the table in their compromise offer by agreeing regular season games would not be increased to 18 UNLESS the players first approved such an increase in future.

Reminds me of some other old sayings like be careful what you wish for and you can't have your cake and eat it too... The players could end up the orphans because who murdered their parents.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

You see things practically the same way as I do. I will say that short of the $2 million a year Wilson could earn on naming rights, the Bills are very into marketing and they have expanded the base of the franchise into Central New York and Ontario. I know because I've been to games there and run into season ticket holders from far afield. From what I can gather from long-timers, the Bills have spent the better part of the decade marketing the team really well in the region.

Think about this team: they haven't been to the playoffs in EONS, and they still sellout the 70,000+ stadium--albeit with very low ticket prices. If this team started to win, they would not be in trouble at all.

Someone should have a look at the Sabres which are 10x more expensive for fans than the Bills. They rake in $28 million from gate receipts, measured against $34 million from the Bills, with $10 million of that guaranteed from Toronto (as the Toronto people lose their shirts with $5 million in gate receipts). Without Toronto, the Bills are at $29 million in gate receipts, just $1 million above the Sabres.

If your sure some teams are losing money of ekeing by then wouldnt you say the current CBA doesnt work for everyone? I dont lump all teams in together. I think theres a compromise where all teams can run comfortably in the black, they can expand the game and support new stadiums and the players revenues can grow.
I dont come down on favoring one side over the other because I think theres plenty of money to be spread around to make everyone happy.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Houston Texans have posted one winning record in the franchise's existence, and had the 5th highest revenue in the league this year. The Redskins haven't really been any better than the Bills over the past 15 years, and still are one of the perennially highest grossing teams. While there's certainly some correlation between team success and team revenue, a well run franchise can still make money as a loser. Kraft, after all, made the Pats one of the league's top grossers before BB and Brady started winning him all those SBs.

Although the effect of market size is largely negated by the unified TV deal, Wilson does contend with a particularly small one -- though there's no shortage of money in upstate NY. I couldn't tell you exactly what Wilson's doing wrong, aside from the naming rights thing, but I have a hard time believing that he's the one owner who's found a way to put money into growing your franchise and not see dividends. The NFL's massive gains in popularity over the past 10 years has been a rising tide that's carried up a lot of ships with it.

Wilson is in a small geographical market in an antiquated stadium with the lowest ticket prices in the league. The Texans and Redskins carry a lot more debt because their owners paid in excess of $750M for their teams. But those teams either came with or shortly had built for them state of the art stadiums, in Washington the largest in the league before Jerryworld was completed. Reliant paid $300M over 32 years for naming rights to the Texans new field in 2002. And ownership charged PSL's (which for the first time lost value this season). Before that the deal Snyder signed with FedEx to rename the new stadium he bought as part of his deal to acquire the Skins was the top mark. Those deals/revenue streams were never available to Wilson, and at the moment they don't appear to be available to anyone since Jerry and the Mara/Johnson's can't find naming rights sponsors willing to commit to double digit sponsorship for double digit years and both the Giants and especially the JETS are struggling to sell discounted PSL's... In the current economy the TV ratings collective popularity of the NFL doesn't necessarily translate into 32 individual franchises ability to sell themselves to fans and advertisers at the local level.

 

[Miguel]

I wish you wouldn't take every question as if someone called you a liar.

It is not someone. It is you. There are others (AndyJohnson, Ian, MiketheBrit, PatsWickedPassah( who ask me questions without it coming across as accusatory.

 

[Miguel]

First off, I know you follow the cap. Anyone who has followed this site for more than 6 months knows about your website. Secondly, you said the owners failed to meet the spending floor. Previously, the only floor mentioned had been the CAP floor. I don't remember you ever mentioning a CASH Spent Floor.

Like I said earlier, I just learned about the Cah spending floor.

 

[Ring 6]

The Houston Texans have posted one winning record in the franchise's existence, and had the 5th highest revenue in the league this year. The Redskins haven't really been any better than the Bills over the past 15 years, and still are one of the perennially highest grossing teams. While there's certainly some correlation between team success and team revenue, a well run franchise can still make money as a loser. Kraft, after all, made the Pats one of the league's top grossers before BB and Brady started winning him all those SBs.

Houston was without a football team for years. Bringing football back to a market balloons popularity. The Redskins are an icon of the league, and to say their fanbase should be considered an example of a losing team is to simply ignore history. The demographic that spends the most money was in its formative years when the Redskins were excellent and won consistently.

Although the effect of market size is largely negated by the unified TV deal, Wilson does contend with a particularly small one -- though there's no shortage of money in upstate NY. I couldn't tell you exactly what Wilson's doing wrong, aside from the naming rights thing, but I have a hard time believing that he's the one owner who's found a way to put money into growing your franchise and not see dividends. The NFL's massive gains in popularity over the past 10 years has been a rising tide that's carried up a lot of ships with it.

This is all just your speculation. The cap was 80,000,000 in 2006.
If the Packers made only 5mill in 2010 (and were 14th in revenue) clearly an increase of some 40-50 mill in the cap may be outpacing revenue growth.

According to the Packers financials, their revenue from 2006 to 2010 grew by 49mill, and player cost rose by 58mill.

Going back 10 years 2001-2010 Revenue rose 134mill and player costs rose 83mill, meaning over these 10 year of MASSIVE GAINS in popularity, for the Green Bay Packers:
1) The players received 63% of the increase in revenues.
2) The owners received the other 37% however, saw their other expenses, the one that all come out of their share and none come from the player share, doubled from 44mill to 88 mill.

So, in what you described as a rising tide that carried up a lot of ships with it, lets look at what happened.

This NFL team saw revenues grow 134 million
The players saw an increase in payroll of 83mill
The owners saw an increase of 51 mill coupled with an increase in expense that it took to get that revenue of 44 million

The net gain was 90 million. 83million went to the players and 7 million to the owners. (However, it appears the Packers over that 10 year period needed to use assets to operate as their interest and dividend and investment income dropped by 7 mill).

In 2001 the players earned 77 mill and the Packers made a profit of 5mill
In 2010 the players earned 160mill and the Packers made a profit of 5mill

Please explain how that tide rose the players, but left the Packers treading water.

That analysis right there says that, as far as the PAckers are concerned basically every penny gained in this MASSIVE GAIN of popularity went to the players, and the owners simply took on greater risk (a business with 255 mill of expenses instead of 122 is in a much riskier situaiton) to simply maintain the same profit.

Please explain to me how this jives with your implication that the NFL is a cash cow, and the owners are the ones who are benefitting. At least for the Packers (who operate under the same expense and revenue model as everyone else) they have gained nothing.


Taking it a step further, since the last CBA was executed in 2006:
49 mill in revenue increases have resulted in
PLAYERS GAINING 58MILL
OWNERS GOING BACKWARD 13MILL
In fact out of 49mill more in revenue, the team share was 9 mill LESS and other expenses increased as well.

Every point you are making does not hold up to the only evidence we have, because the Packers have seen the exact opposite of what you say happened. What is your source?

 

[upstater1]

The Houston Texans have posted one winning record in the franchise's existence, and had the 5th highest revenue in the league this year. The Redskins haven't really been any better than the Bills over the past 15 years, and still are one of the perennially highest grossing teams. While there's certainly some correlation between team success and team revenue, a well run franchise can still make money as a loser. Kraft, after all, made the Pats one of the league's top grossers before BB and Brady started winning him all those SBs.

Although the effect of market size is largely negated by the unified TV deal, Wilson does contend with a particularly small one -- though there's no shortage of money in upstate NY. I couldn't tell you exactly what Wilson's doing wrong, aside from the naming rights thing, but I have a hard time believing that he's the one owner who's found a way to put money into growing your franchise and not see dividends. The NFL's massive gains in popularity over the past 10 years has been a rising tide that's carried up a lot of ships with it.

All I can tell you is that the Bills used to be a lot more popular and profitable when there was even a semblance of winning. People here support their sports. The franchise has been mismanaged on the football side. They have been abysmal, almost as bad as the Lions and Raiders.

Also, if you believe the market is ONLY Buffalo, it's a small market, but when you look at Rochester, Niagara and Southern Ontario (20% of Bills season ticket holders cross the bridge), then suddenly the population jumps from 1.2 million to 3 million +. Within 1 hours and 20 minutes of Buffalo (80 miles) there are over 10 million people. 7 million of them are in Greater Toronto and have no particular affiliation with the Bills.

 

[Miguel]

I don't get where you interpret as much or more as less. Is it because the floor that is now higher in cash and cap as a % is less in $$ than ceiling was in 2009? .

In 2009 the owners spent in cash $141 million.

Under the owners' offer benefits would be $27 million and the cap $114 million for a total of $141 million.

For the owners to spend as much cash in 2011 as they did in 2009 they would have to spend 100% of the $114 million cap. I truly doubt that they will spend 100% of the $114 million cap. Not when they just have to spend 90% of the cap just to be compliant.

 

[Miguel]

In 2009 the owners spent in cash $141 million.

Under the owners' offer benefits would be $27 million and the cap $114 million for a total of $141 million.

For the owners to spend as much cash in 2011 as they did in 2009 they would have to spend 100% of the $114 million cap. I truly doubt that they will spend 100% of the $114 million cap. Not when they just have to spend 90% of the cap just to be compliant.

I am pretty sure that the above is consistent with what Aiello wrote

 

[Miguel]

The TV deals ruling was the second ruling on the matter. The first found that the only CBA violation was with the Direct TV deal and the damages were assessed at $6M.

From the Doty ruling:
"On February 1, 2011, the special master found that the NFL violated

Article X, § 1(a)(i) when it granted NBC an additional regularseason
game in the 2010 season and granted ESPN an additional right
in the 2010 season in exchange for an amended work-stoppage
​

The special master granted the Players $6.9 million in damages for the NBC violation, and determined that the Players had not met their burden of​

demonstrating damages with respect to the ESPN violation.

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Lockout Insurance Case Decision.pdf

 

[Miguel]

I get that the unions issue is that there would not be substantially more (as in if you're not getting ahead you're falling behind), but there has to be some mechanism for reeling the cap in after it went up $43M in just 4 years.

I believe that the players' offer offer the mechanism. Their offer included $27 million in benefits and $124 million cap in 2011 for a total of $151 million. If the owners spent 90% of the $124 million cap, that would be $111.6 million. Add in the $27 million in benefits. That would be $138.6 million per club in cash outlays. The owners spent $141 million in cash outlays in 2009 (cap +benefits).

If my numbers are right and I think that they are, the players offered the owners the opportunity to spend less cash in 2011 than they did in 2009.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I believe that the players' offer offer the mechanism. Their offer included $27 million in benefits and $124 million cap in 2011 for a total of $151 million. If the owners spent 90% of the $124 million cap, that would be $111.6 million. Add in the $27 million in benefits. That would be $138.6 million per club in cash outlays. The owners spent $141 million in cash outlays in 2009 (cap +benefits).

If my numbers are right and I think that they are, the players offered the owners the opportunity to spend less cash in 2011 than they did in 2009.

Let's assume that is all correct and if so they were close. Then the question becomes how was the owners offer the worst in the history of sports and how did it represent sending them back to the 80's? The answer of course is the lack of a true up. Obviously the owners were unhappy with the true up proposal the earlier union offer included. So maybe the union counters with a little more of a carrot in a counter proposal where the projected growth estimates are a little higher but the true up while still included it gives owners a little more incentive to exceed revenue projections... This is what negotiations are. Realization that everyone isn't going to get everything they want but if the goal is to succeed they are going to get something they can live with. When there's $9B and counting on the table there has to be a deal both sides can live with...

At the end of the day I think the union wasn't willing to negotiate further because they had one eye on the clock and the impact delaying their court run might have as the process proceeded. Right now they are looking at an April 6th court date and a ruling which of course they presume will be in their favor before the draft. Of course appeals by the league if they do prevail will drag on into late May if not June or July. Sucks for FA and the natives will be getting increasingly restless. Delaying that timeline by agreeing to another week or month of negotiations only works if you are committed to getting a deal done. If instead you are committed to getting into court...whole different mindset.

 

[lamafist]

Houston was without a football team for years. Bringing football back to a market balloons popularity. The Redskins are an icon of the league, and to say their fanbase should be considered an example of a losing team is to simply ignore history. The demographic that spends the most money was in its formative years when the Redskins were excellent and won consistently.

Are you really trying to tell me that having a team leave town is good for football in that region? Really? Seriously?

Oh, and the Bills went to four superbowls in a row when much of 'the demo' were in middle school. Neither they nor the Redskins have been winning much of late.

This is all just your speculation. The cap was 80,000,000 in 2006.
If the Packers made only 5mill in 2010 (and were 14th in revenue) clearly an increase of some 40-50 mill in the cap may be outpacing revenue growth.

According to the Packers financials, their revenue from 2006 to 2010 grew by 49mill, and player cost rose by 58mill.

Going back 10 years 2001-2010 Revenue rose 134mill and player costs rose 83mill, meaning over these 10 year of MASSIVE GAINS in popularity, for the Green Bay Packers:
1) The players received 63% of the increase in revenues.
2) The owners received the other 37% however, saw their other expenses, the one that all come out of their share and none come from the player share, doubled from 44mill to 88 mill.

So, in what you described as a rising tide that carried up a lot of ships with it, lets look at what happened.

This NFL team saw revenues grow 134 million
The players saw an increase in payroll of 83mill
The owners saw an increase of 51 mill coupled with an increase in expense that it took to get that revenue of 44 million

The net gain was 90 million. 83million went to the players and 7 million to the owners. (However, it appears the Packers over that 10 year period needed to use assets to operate as their interest and dividend and investment income dropped by 7 mill).

In 2001 the players earned 77 mill and the Packers made a profit of 5mill
In 2010 the players earned 160mill and the Packers made a profit of 5mill

Please explain how that tide rose the players, but left the Packers treading water.

That analysis right there says that, as far as the PAckers are concerned basically every penny gained in this MASSIVE GAIN of popularity went to the players, and the owners simply took on greater risk (a business with 255 mill of expenses instead of 122 is in a much riskier situaiton) to simply maintain the same profit.

Please explain to me how this jives with your implication that the NFL is a cash cow, and the owners are the ones who are benefitting. At least for the Packers (who operate under the same expense and revenue model as everyone else) they have gained nothing.


Taking it a step further, since the last CBA was executed in 2006:
49 mill in revenue increases have resulted in
PLAYERS GAINING 58MILL
OWNERS GOING BACKWARD 13MILL
In fact out of 49mill more in revenue, the team share was 9 mill LESS and other expenses increased as well.

Every point you are making does not hold up to the only evidence we have, because the Packers have seen the exact opposite of what you say happened. What is your source?

The Packers are NOT the only evidence we have. The Packers aren't even particularly good evidence -- they're the league's sole Not For Profit organization.

There's plenty of information available about the other NFL franchise's revenues, values, etc. collected by Forbes.

The above link gets you to a sortable list of the franchises by values, revenues, etc. You can also click on each team to get a more detailed fiscal snapshot.

Of particular interest, though, are three articles, the first of which accompanied the chart above in the September 2010 issue, and identifies the growing disparity in profitability among the NFL's franchises as a more troubling long-term issue than the labor dispute.

The other two more recent articles go straight to the heart of the 'economic realities' and the justification of a lockout over continuing labor costs at the last CBA's levels, and proposes revenue share adjustments as being more key to the NFL's fiscal health than player compensation.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you really trying to tell me that having a team leave town is good for football in that region? Really? Seriously?

I'm not trying to tell you anything, I AM telling you it happened.

Oh, and the Bills went to four superbowls in a row when much of 'the demo' were in middle school. Neither they nor the Redskins have been winning much of late.

Yet the Redskins are clearly more popular and have a greater fan base.
Perhaps its because while the Bills had one 4 year run, the Redskins were in the SB in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Interesting that you think the demographic that spends the most is in its early to mid 30s. You are wrong.

The Packers are NOT the only evidence we have. The Packers aren't even particularly good evidence -- they're the league's sole Not For Profit organization.

There's plenty of information available about the other NFL franchise's revenues, values, etc. collected by Forbes.

Those are not profit and loss statements. There is nothing in that article that establishes where those numbers were obtained from.

The above link gets you to a sortable list of the franchises by values, revenues, etc. You can also click on each team to get a more detailed fiscal snapshot.

Of particular interest, though, are three articles, the first of which accompanied the chart above in the September 2010 issue, and identifies the growing disparity in profitability among the NFL's franchises as a more troubling long-term issue than the labor dispute.

The other two more recent articles go straight to the heart of the 'economic realities' and the justification of a lockout over continuing labor costs at the last CBA's levels, and proposes revenue share adjustments as being more key to the NFL's fiscal health than player compensation.

Nice articles, you should read them because they do nothing to support your viewpoint. But feel free to direct me to where it says that the NFL teams have gotten the lions share of benefit from the MASSIVE GAINS in popularity over the last 10 years.