Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Miguel]

The salary cap is tied to revenues. That does not mean payroll expense necessarily is.
As we have seen with dramatically increasing signing bonusses, there can be a large gap between cap cost and actual salary expense.
For example, using Mankins, if he is paid 10mill as a franchise player thats 10mill cash and 10mill cap.
If he is signed to a 5year contract with a 15mill signing bonus and 1mil first year salary, thats 16mill cash, and 4 mill of cap.
Based solely on the top of the first round, it seems that signing bonus increases have changed the equation.

On the flip side, teams have been using dead money to meet the cap floor which is why I think that both the players and owners have agreed on a cash floor.

 

[lamafist]

That does not change the fact that cap and expense are not the same thing, and rising signing bonusses could have a dramatic effect.

A dramatic effect on what, exactly?

What are you suggesting will be the affect of signing bonuses on teams' ability to respond to a period of declining growth?

 

[lamafist]

I see how you arrive at your opinion but thats not the real world. The owners worked hard and smart to make millions or even billions then they risk a large sum on a football team, no where is that lucky and fortunate, either making the money or buying the team. I realize they have to be approved but they're still risking miilions to a billion on a business and you cant expect them not to try and get the most on their return.
I also dont blame the players for trying to get as much as they can since most careers are short.
No one can make the owners sell, they own the teams so they own the league. If it came down to it the owners could outlast most players then enforce their own rules to play by.
Hopefully the judge's ruling gets everyone back to the bargaining table and back to playing football and end this squabble.

I completely agree that it's unrealistic to expect the owners to run their franchises out of a spirit of altruism, like they were caretakers of a historical preservation or something, and even if you could, it wouldn't be good for the game. It's the owners' entrepreneurial spirit that brings about innovations like the fancy new stadiums, Thursday night games, and the blessing known as the "Redzone channel."

That said, I think in the pursuit of making a point, you're overstating the amount of risk involved in owning an NFL franchise. It was the previous generation of owners -- in some cases, the present owners' actual parents -- who faced serious risk putting their money into a football team. These days, NFL ownership is about one of the lowest-risk, highest reward properties around. Because of the revenue sharing deal, even the least popular teams tend to make a profit -- according to Forbes, 30 out of 32 teams were in the black in 2009 -- but it's really more the appreciation of franchise value that makes owning a team a safe bet. Any owner who's owned the team for more than 10 years now has a franchise worth at least triple what he paid for it. Because of the growth of the popularity of the league on whole, even owners who have mismanaged everything on their end could still sell their team for around a billion now.

If I were the owners this is exactly what I would be threatening the players with right now. The players opened the box up with the law suit and if I were the owners I would threaten to go that path and then cut salaries like crazy under the new rules. Let the players sit there and struggle with the idea of ruining the sport and hurting the players that follow them so that they can win a law suit that would award them monitary value but cant actually settle anything and will leave the owners trying to find away to make up what they lost in the suit and take it out on future players to make it back.

It's not that simple, though. Though owners are naturally in a better position to weather a lockout in the short term -- missing out on one year of their athletic prime is a big loss for them, and they'll feel the immediate loss of income more, obviously.

But the owners can't afford to wait too long, because they can only challenge the legitimacy of the union's decertification for so long. At some point -- probably no longer than the six months the previous CBA said the union had to wait to decertify after it expired, and possibly much earlier -- the courts will eventually recognize the players as non-union employees, and the anti-trust suit will go forward, and the players' bargaining position will start improving as they pick up some favorable verdicts... and yes, the verdicts will be favorable, as there's no way the league can realistically avoid antitrust violations.

So the trick for the owners is to figure out when the sweet spot is, where the players are at their most worried about a lost season, but before they start to be encouraged by early victories in the courts, and really make a push for a new CBA then.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

here are the bottom line issuies


The owners are being greedy, and want to fight in court

Demaurice Smith is a litigator not a negotiator and would rather fight in court...

So this is going to be a long battle , nothing can happen till april 6th since both sides wont talk until then... they are both being stubborn, but the owners are being the idiots.. more than likley we wont get this resolved by the draft, if it goes past memorial day , then all bets are off that there will be a full season... I will say may 15 when some big chips get involved like tv networks , ad sponsers will say - hey dummies get it done or we are done...

 

[Rob0729]

here are the bottom line issuies


The owners are being greedy, and want to fight in court

Demaurice Smith is a litigator not a negotiator and would rather fight in court...

So this is going to be a long battle , nothing can happen till april 6th since both sides wont talk until then... they are both being stubborn, but the owners are being the idiots.. more than likley we wont get this resolved by the draft, if it goes past memorial day , then all bets are off that there will be a full season... I will say may 15 when some big chips get involved like tv networks , ad sponsers will say - hey dummies get it done or we are done...

First, the owners don't want to litigate at all. They know that if it gets back in Judge Doty's hands, they are in trouble because he has been pro player for decades on rulings. The owners want to get the players back to the bargaining table. Hence why Goodell sent out that letter.

Second, the football season may be back on come April 6th. If the new judge (I forgot her name) sides with the players, she will force the new football calendar year to start immediately most likely under last year's rules.

This could be litigated for year, but that doesn't mean there won't be football at that time. The last time the league and players litigated like this, it took something like 5 years to be resolved. During most of that time, the NFL went on as usual eventhough the NFLPA had disbanded and there was no CBA. That is likely to happen this time around since the players disbanded the union to block a lockout and if the judge agrees with them that with no union there can't be a lockout, there will be a free agency before the draft and no games will be missed.

Also, if the judge sides with the owners on April 6th and allows the owners to lock out the players, there is a good chance that the players become fractured and there could be a quick resolution to the CBA since there are a lot of free agents looking to get big bonuses and players under contract looking for roster bonuses that don't kick in until the start of the football calendar year. Right now the players are united because they think they have the courts on their side. If the courts rule against them, all bets are off.

I really don't see much of a chance of games being missed. Either the courts will make the games happen or the players will cave.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

In the CBA and owners' revenue sharing agreement, the revenues to which you refer -- those from streams which are not pooled by the owners, but are part of the TR from which the cap is derived -- are called local revenues or non-shared revenues. So what you're saying, is that incremental revenues is yet a third term for them?

Additionally, the Total Revenues from which the players get their cut (minus the $1 billion) are defined in the CBA as revenues "arising from the performance of players in NFL football games." This includes the additional streams you name above and suggested are not created by what the players did on the field. I have to agree with the implication of the CBA's definition - luxury boxes, endorsement and sponsorship deals, local media revenues, all of these properties have value solely because of the attraction the players provide on the field. (Except, of course, for when people come to the stadium to see a MLS match or Justin Beiber concert, and accordingly, the players don't get a dime from that.)

Also, most of the revenues you suggest the owners are incurring debt service on entail only the sale of rights. Even things like concessions and parking can be sold as rights -- Aramark pays the team a lump sum, provides and manages the sale of all the concessions, and pockets the proceeds. So between the $1 billion off the top and the fact that the local taxpayers usually go halves on the teams' largest expenditure, if the owners want the NFLPA to take this incurred debt service seriously in negotiations, they're going to have to compromise on the disclosure of financial records.



I really don't think you're right about the NFLPA having oversight on any league expenditures, let alone the allocation of 11% of the leagues annual revenue. One of the sticking points of the negotiations is that the owners don't feel that they should be obligated to show the NFLPA the accounting of how that money's been spent, so it would be odd if they'd previously let the union tell them how they should spend it.

Additionally, I think whether the $1 billion "flows directly to the owners" or not is a matter of fiscal semantics. It pays for league expenses that otherwise would devolve to the owners. What does it matter if it doesn't go into their pockets, but instead keeps them from having to pay for something out of pocket? And as for not counting as part of the formula -- that's another misleading game of semantics. Even if you don't count it as part of the owners' share, it still needs to be counted as NFL revenue.

Finally, there's another, more compelling reason why it should be counted as part of the owners' revenue -- because the things that it pay for directly increases the owners' wealth. The owner owns the franchise, and when you spend money on the franchise, you increase its value. A new stadium can increase the value of its franchise by 35%. An owner's franchise is a tangible asset and appreciation of this asset is the primary means in which a team owner increases his wealth, and has been since the beginning of the NFL. In the last 10 or so years, the average value of a franchise has grown by more than 350%. They've more than tripled the value of their primary asset.

So not only does this money pay for expenditures that would otherwise be the owners' commitments, the owners own the value of the things it purchases -- I have a hard time seeing their argument to not have it counted as theirs during negotiations.

You need to read or re-read section xxiv of the CBA. It determines what the credits to TR include and how they are calculated (there is no $1B off the top but rather a complicated formula for determining credits annually). You will note throughout references to amounts allowed or approved by the NFLPA as well as the fact that all of those items are audited annually by an independent accounting firm whose cost is shared by the NFL and the NFLPA and whose assumptions which form the basis for the calculation of the salary cap are subject to challenge by the NFLPA, which if upheld carry serious financial penalty.

A decision some visionary owners supported even at their own expense to pool national TV revenue in order to achieve a level of relative competitive parity foreign to other sports and market the game and the league as opposed to the transient talent and the stability and consistency of product (games) that has facilitated has had as much to do with the growth in value of these franchises as has the performance of the talent on the field on any given Sunday. In this team sport strategic decisions owners make individually as well as collectively where investment in coaching and management and player personnel selection and marketing impacts the valuation of franchises at least as much as talent does. Winning doesn't even necessarily impact valuations, or the Cowboys and Redskins and Texans wouldn't be among the top 5 franchises in value over the last decade...

Following the 2009 season for the first time since Forbes started tracking franchise values in the late 90's team values league wide fell 2%. Two-thirds of teams lost value, including three to the tune of double digits. Forbes attributes their valuations into Sport (value relative to shared revenue), Market (size), Stadium (deal) and Brand Management. They do not attribute any of that value to Talent, which on average turns over at the rate of about 20% per year. The NFL is something of an assetless entity since it's stadiums have limited use and most still aren't even owned they are leased.

And your contention that any owner who has owned his team for more than 10 years now has tripled his investment is simply incorrect. Even Snyder has barely doubled his investment in the last 12 years. McNair, Woody, Bisciotti, Werner haven't yet achieved that rate of growth. And it doesn't look as if Blank or Wilf will even approach that and it's entirely possible Ross never will (the Dolphins value hasn't changed in the 3 years he's owned them although their debt has certainly increased).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

That's not my recollection of the player's position on the $1B credit.

From the AP article it appears that the owners are including the 1B credit as going to the players even though the players never see it.

Since you claim that I did not know the meaning of incremental revenue, I ask that you please back up the owners' contention that the players have received 70% of the incremental revenue.

I will just as soon as Jeff Pash shares that information with me...

The owners never see that money either since it goes to the league for redistribution to cover those expenses that are designated in the formula for crediting expenses against total revenue. Some owners benefit because they get money to help finance construction or renovation expenses (including even from their own sale of PSL's and luxury seating based on a revenue increase cost offset formula the NFLPA agreed to and has oversight on). Other monies go to fund certain operational costs and for other revenue or marketing expansion projects and programs like NFLN, NFL.com, NFL Charities, promotional programs and general league marketing worldwide, etc. But that money only flows to potential revenue growers or generators. So the players benefit from that, too.

I think the easy out terminology of $1B off the top for owners has led to the misperception that owners are dividing that dollar amount up and doing what they will with it. That's simply not the case. In fact that money currently exists ($900M) in the league's coffers and is what they know they can access to help defray stadium debt service costs during a lockout. Which is why they stated they had no plans to use any money from the lockout provisions of the TV deals this year anyway.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

First, the owners don't want to litigate at all. They know that if it gets back in Judge Doty's hands, they are in trouble because he has been pro player for decades on rulings. The owners want to get the players back to the bargaining table. Hence why Goodell sent out that letter.

Second, the football season may be back on come April 6th. If the new judge (I forgot her name) sides with the players, she will force the new football calendar year to start immediately most likely under last year's rules.

This could be litigated for year, but that doesn't mean there won't be football at that time. The last time the league and players litigated like this, it took something like 5 years to be resolved. During most of that time, the NFL went on as usual eventhough the NFLPA had disbanded and there was no CBA. That is likely to happen this time around since the players disbanded the union to block a lockout and if the judge agrees with them that with no union there can't be a lockout, there will be a free agency before the draft and no games will be missed.

Also, if the judge sides with the owners on April 6th and allows the owners to lock out the players, there is a good chance that the players become fractured and there could be a quick resolution to the CBA since there are a lot of free agents looking to get big bonuses and players under contract looking for roster bonuses that don't kick in until the start of the football calendar year. Right now the players are united because they think they have the courts on their side. If the courts rule against them, all bets are off.

I really don't see much of a chance of games being missed. Either the courts will make the games happen or the players will cave.

I don't believe the courts can or should make the games happen. I know that is clearly part of what the league is arguing. There were work stoppages twice in that last court go round, and this time I think the league will go to the mat if forced to via appeals that could certainly stretch well into the fall if not beyond. Injunctions against injunctions... No one ever bothered to post the league's response to the players suit. From a purely common sense perspective they should win hands down. The court should defer to the NLRB ruling which may not come for months yet. They should not be in the business of forcing an employer to operate in violation of anti trust (the heads I win tails you lose argument).

The ruling that will result in games being played and a new season commencing sooner than later would be if the courts deny the injunction. That will force the union to rethink it's pre-emptive decertification strategy.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

First, the owners don't want to litigate at all. They know that if it gets back in Judge Doty's hands, they are in trouble because he has been pro player for decades on rulings. The owners want to get the players back to the bargaining table. Hence why Goodell sent out that letter.

Second, the football season may be back on come April 6th. If the new judge (I forgot her name) sides with the players, she will force the new football calendar year to start immediately most likely under last year's rules.

This could be litigated for year, but that doesn't mean there won't be football at that time. The last time the league and players litigated like this, it took something like 5 years to be resolved. During most of that time, the NFL went on as usual eventhough the NFLPA had disbanded and there was no CBA. That is likely to happen this time around since the players disbanded the union to block a lockout and if the judge agrees with them that with no union there can't be a lockout, there will be a free agency before the draft and no games will be missed.

Also, if the judge sides with the owners on April 6th and allows the owners to lock out the players, there is a good chance that the players become fractured and there could be a quick resolution to the CBA since there are a lot of free agents looking to get big bonuses and players under contract looking for roster bonuses that don't kick in until the start of the football calendar year. Right now the players are united because they think they have the courts on their side. If the courts rule against them, all bets are off.

I really don't see much of a chance of games being missed. Either the courts will make the games happen or the players will cave.

I agree with you there, but the only thing i may disagree wity you about is if the owners win the case, i still see D Smith fighting tooth and nail to take things to the next level... Yes the players may cave ,but im not sure about that... i agree though if the players win, and the owners appeal, the lockout should be lifted and have buisness as usual like they did from 87-92....

 

[Ring 6]

On the flip side, teams have been using dead money to meet the cap floor which is why I think that both the players and owners have agreed on a cash floor.

But the dead money was paid out, so it was still a cash cost at one point.

 

[Ring 6]

A dramatic effect on what, exactly?

What are you suggesting will be the affect of signing bonuses on teams' ability to respond to a period of declining growth?

On the fact that payroll costs can rise faster than the cap.

 

[Rob0729]

I agree with you there, but the only thing i may disagree wity you about is if the owners win the case, i still see D Smith fighting tooth and nail to take things to the next level... Yes the players may cave ,but im not sure about that... i agree though if the players win, and the owners appeal, the lockout should be lifted and have buisness as usual like they did from 87-92....

Right now one of the biggest reason the players are unified behind Smith is because Judge Doty found on their side about the lockout insurance. This has embolded them to believe they will prevail in court if it comes down to it. A major blow like the new judge determining the lockout can still proceed even without the union will demoralize the ranks. There are a lot of players who will get anxious and try to pressure a settlement.

Will they be enough to sway Smith? Who knows? But it easy to stay unified when you think the odds are strongly in your favor that the courts will side with you. It give them a lot of leverage right now which will disapear if the courts say that the league can lock them out. The players are banking on by the time the draft occurs or shortly after that the lockout will be lifted and the owners' leverage will be diminished. If the lockout is in place after the court ruling, the owners gain a ton of leverage and the players lose a ton of leverage. If the lockout is lifted, the players get a ton of leverage and the owners lose a ton of leverage.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't believe the courts can or should make the games happen. I know that is clearly part of what the league is arguing. There were work stoppages twice in that last court go round, and this time I think the league will go to the mat if forced to via appeals that could certainly stretch well into the fall if not beyond. Injunctions against injunctions... No one ever bothered to post the league's response to the players suit. From a purely common sense perspective they should win hands down. The court should defer to the NLRB ruling which may not come for months yet. They should not be in the business of forcing an employer to operate in violation of anti trust (the heads I win tails you lose argument).

The ruling that will result in games being played and a new season commencing sooner than later would be if the courts deny the injunction. That will force the union to rethink it's pre-emptive decertification strategy.

Should the courts block the lockout? I don't know the case law to know. Can they block the lockout? Probably considering the courts seem to be pro player. Will they? Again, it seems fairly likely.

As for the league getting an injunction, I wouldn't be on it either. Again, the courts seem to be pro player so it might be an uphill battle.

 

[townes]

Now I see the basis for all of your other posts.



I suppose its pointless to try to debate this given those comments.
But every business makes money 'off of their customers'. Those company owners and employees also act in their best interest. Should Pepsi reduce their price because they should accept less profits to make their customers happy?
No one forces the fans to buy the product.




That is not within his rights. He must either rule in the players favor and award them monetary damages, or rule in the owners favor and not. He is not allowed to dictate terms that either side must adhere to, he can only rule on whether or not they have done anything illegal.
After that ruling, since neither side would simply accept the victory, they can reach a settlement that becomes the new CBA, as was done the last time.



I don't know if the issue is 'making enough'. The issue is making what they feel they deserve. We could argue that $2,000,000 is 'enough' but 'enough' is not the same amount to my small business, GE, KMart, AT&T, Exxon, or the NFL. "Enough" is typically the best profit you can manage given your product, market and circumstances.

I think your wish that the owners would sacrifice profit because they already are making at least a modest one, and they should take whatever they can get without having to fight, is not a very realistic approach for the massive investment they make and the risk they take.

I only have a few minute for this because I work 4-4 the last 4 days of the week.


Imo there is no amoun t of money that will ever satisfy the owners, and I guarantee if forced to choose between continuing with the last deal or selling their franchises to those who will every owner would keep the deal in place because they know they are making huge money off of it and will continue to do so. The reason we are at this point is greed, pure and simple, the owners feel that by preparing to lock the players out they can crush them as a union, dictate terms of a new deal, and make even more than they are now, and by a considerable margin. They don't care about the game and are acting like it is their property to ruin if they want, and imo the league is the result of years and years of backing by fans and many of these teams have prospered off of government investments on their behalf, again by their fans in large part. Franchises do not go to the highest bidder as the owners have long held that it is a club where they have the right to deny entrance to those they claim would damage the game by their presence as an owner, and now it is the collective club that is doing just that. Whether or not my remedy is legal or likely it is imo what is best for the game. The owners don't own the game and if they get away with this then I'll really have to reconsider whether i can continue to support football. I love the Patriots and can't imagine giving them iup but if the owners, kraft's included, are this disgraceful it will be hard to support them in any way whatsoever.

As greedy pigs go it would be hard to top these billionaires, although some still can.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

It's obvious you hate billionaire Kraft who supports the owners' position. Sad.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Should the courts block the lockout? I don't know the case law to know. Can they block the lockout? Probably considering the courts seem to be pro player. Will they? Again, it seems fairly likely.

As for the league getting an injunction, I wouldn't be on it either. Again, the courts seem to be pro player so it might be an uphill battle.

Judge Doty has appeared to be pro player but the courts are actually supposed to be unbiased and the law (in this case labor law which gives the NLRB jurisdiction) and the facts (decertification is clearly being abused as a sham tactic intended to leverage negotiation including in this case by forcing anti trust violation) would actually seem to favor the league prevailing at this level if not on appeal at this juncture. As would common sense, but that's generally in short supply everywhere these days.

 

[Deus Irae]

Judge Doty has appeared to be pro player but the courts are actually supposed to be unbiased and the law (in this case labor law which gives the NLRB jurisdiction) and the facts (decertification is clearly being abused as a sham tactic intended to leverage negotiation including in this case by forcing anti trust violation) would actually seem to favor the league prevailing at this level if not on appeal at this juncture. As would common sense, but that's generally in short supply everywhere these days.

The CBA required the players to decertify in order to preserve certain rights. The only question here is timing as to before/at/after the expiration of the CBA, and we're talking a matter of hours.

The only ways the owners can win the "sham" argument are if the judge rules the the timing of the decertification was incorrect or if the league produces some written evidence of the smoking gun variety, because there's a difference between "sham" and "tactics".

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It's obvious you hate billionaire Kraft who supports the owners' position. Sad.

You can't reason with that kind of bias. Nobody ownes the game of football, but the owners own the league that ultimately showcased it on a professional level that in turn exposed most of us into becoming national fans (which is all we are) over the last 50 years of what was initially an evolving game played regionally in fits and starts including collegiately as well as sporadically professionally to begin with. Damn all those dogged (aka greedy entrepreneurial) visionaries who seldom set foot on the field for being the little engine that drove the train and creating the expectation they and those who joined them along the way to making football America's game would all reap substantial rewards as a result.

 

[Miguel]

I will just as soon as Jeff Pash shares that information with me...

which is why I opined that it is double-talk. It should be straight-forward.

The owners never see that money either since it goes to the league for redistribution to cover those expenses that are designated in the formula for crediting expenses against total revenue. Some owners benefit because they get money to help finance construction or renovation expenses (including even from their own sale of PSL's and luxury seating based on a revenue increase cost offset formula the NFLPA agreed to and has oversight on). Other monies go to fund certain operational costs and for other revenue or marketing expansion projects and programs like NFLN, NFL.com, NFL Charities, promotional programs and general league marketing worldwide, etc. But that money only flows to potential revenue growers or generators. So the players benefit from that, too.

Yes, it does. But the money does not flow to the players,either.

 

[lamafist]

You need to read or re-read section xxiv of the CBA. It determines what the credits to TR include and how they are calculated (there is no $1B off the top but rather a complicated formula for determining credits annually). You will note throughout references to amounts allowed or approved by the NFLPA as well as the fact that all of those items are audited annually by an independent accounting firm whose cost is shared by the NFL and the NFLPA and whose assumptions which form the basis for the calculation of the salary cap are subject to challenge by the NFLPA, which if upheld carry serious financial penalty.

I understand that the $1B off the top isn't a pegged amount, but the product of a number of credits deducted from TR that has amounted to around $1 billion at the present amount of revenue, representing 11% of gross revenue. Set deductions of fixed percentages account for 6.8% of gross revenue off the top, meaning that over 60% of the off-the-top money is not subject to independent auditing.

The rest of the credits are included as deductions in revenue reports, and are reviewed by the independent accountants only to the extent the type of expense being deducted is in accordance with provisions in the CBA delineating what expenses are deductible from TR. The reports of these deductions are made in confidence, and not subject to NFLPA review. The only oversight the NFLPA has on the deduction process is if the NFL wants to add a whole new category of deduction.

A decision some visionary owners supported even at their own expense to pool national TV revenue in order to achieve a level of relative competitive parity foreign to other sports and market the game and the league as opposed to the transient talent and the stability and consistency of product (games) that has facilitated has had as much to do with the growth in value of these franchises as has the performance of the talent on the field on any given Sunday. In this team sport strategic decisions owners make individually as well as collectively where investment in coaching and management and player personnel selection and marketing impacts the valuation of franchises at least as much as talent does. Winning doesn't even necessarily impact valuations, or the Cowboys and Redskins and Texans wouldn't be among the top 5 franchises in value over the last decade...

Following the 2009 season for the first time since Forbes started tracking franchise values in the late 90's team values league wide fell 2%. Two-thirds of teams lost value, including three to the tune of double digits. Forbes attributes their valuations into Sport (value relative to shared revenue), Market (size), Stadium (deal) and Brand Management. They do not attribute any of that value to Talent, which on average turns over at the rate of about 20% per year. The NFL is something of an assetless entity since it's stadiums have limited use and most still aren't even owned they are leased.

It wasn't the owners who were the visionaries behind the revenue-sharing plan, it was Pete Rozelle. The owners were only convinced because at that point, TV revenue wasn't really a big part of their revenues. The purpose wasn't competitive parity, either -- it was bargaining leverage with the TV networks. If the networks wanted the rights to NY, Chicago and Dallas teams, they'd have to pay for the rights to the smaller market teams' games, too. Not only did this secure for the NFL more total money than teams would have been able to negotiate individually, but it also ensured that all the franchises would be able to get on TV at all, which was key in terms of helping new and struggling franchises grow their fanbase.

But all that history is kind of besides the point, anyway -- who is responsible for coming up with the best ways of maximizing revenue is an entirely academic question, because without the performance of players on the football field, there is simply no product to be sold. The players' contribution to their team goes beyond determining who wins the game -- their performance is what people pay to see. That's why all of the revenues comprising TR in the CBA are considered, by definition, to be those "arising from the performance of players in NFL football games."

As for the transient nature of the "talent" in football - that's why the owners aren't interested in any plan that compensates the players with equity in the league or teams, the way Google and Apple attract talented programers and designers by offering shares in the company in addition to salary. This was suggested during negotiations as means of geting the players to agree to more deductions from their share of revenue for league growth, promptly rejected by the owners, and dropped by the players.

So, you're correct, Forbes doesn't factor talent into its valuation of NFL franchises because that talent, as you point out, is transient. Nobody buying an NFL franchise is going to consider how good the players are that particular season, because that will fluctuate from season to season. But while the value of the individual franchises isn't derived from the talent of its players, the value of the NFL's product as a whole is, entirely. And as a franchise only derives its value from being part of the NFL, all of its other assets are derived from the performance of the NFL's players in football games.

And your contention that any owner who has owned his team for more than 10 years now has tripled his investment is simply incorrect. Even Snyder has barely doubled his investment in the last 12 years. McNair, Woody, Bisciotti, Werner haven't yet achieved that rate of growth. And it doesn't look as if Blank or Wilf will even approach that and it's entirely possible Ross never will (the Dolphins value hasn't changed in the 3 years he's owned them although their debt has certainly increased).

I'll have to get back to you on this, when I've been able to track down where I read this, and check the math.