OT: NFL Team Revenue vs Player Salary Cap

[Bill Lee]

It's that time of year again. The Packers are publicly owned, they trade on the market (yes, those shares they sell are shares, albeit non-voting), so they have to publish financial information. It's pretty darn revealing.

The $347 million of national revenue is the Packers' distribution from the NFL; every one of the 32 teams received that amount for 2021-22. The Player Salary Cap for that year: $182.5 million, almost half what each team received in national revenue alone.

Now, consider teams don't actually spend up to the $182.5M cap number in cash, either because they simply chose not to (they must spend 89% spend averaged over a four year period) or because 'dead cap money' prevents them from spending that much in cash.

So, Krafty Bob and the rest of the owners all get a check for $347M before they play a snap, then they only have to pay somewhere in the vicinity of $182M for player salaries. Sure, they got more expenses than that, but they also have more revenue sources than just the TV money. The Packers took in $579M in total, and while they have a loyal, wide spread fan base they are still very much a small market team.

 

[DaBruinz]

What was the Packers expenses? This is something that always seems to be overlooked.


Stadium Maintenance
Staff Salaries
Utilities
Property Taxes
Corporate Taxes

 

[Pape]

It's that time of year again. The Packers are publicly owned, they trade on the market (yes, those shares they sell are shares, albeit non-voting), so they have to publish financial information. It's pretty darn revealing.



Now, consider teams don't actually spend up to the $182.5M cap number in cash, either because they simply chose not to (they must spend 89% spend averaged over a four year period) or because 'dead cap money' prevents them from spending that much in cash.

So, Krafty Bob and the rest of the owners all get a check for $347M before they play a snap, then they only have to pay somewhere in the vicinity of $182M for player salaries. Sure, they got more expenses than that, but they also have more revenue sources than just the TV money. The Packers took in $579M in total, and while they have a loyal, wide spread fan base they are still very much a small market team.




View attachment 44062

Small market teams all but ceased to be when the nfl went to a league wide revenue sharing system... Some teams lack revenue because of things like stadiums but the lions share comes from the TV deals

 

[Sicilian]

I'd like to start by saying this: In no way am I trying to imply that the owners aren't 32 (EDIT: 31, Packers are publicly owned) of the most greedy MF'ers on the planet. You don't get to where they are, being billionaires, by not having a little greed in ya. So don't take this as a tacit approval of this system, which is definitely owner friendly versus player friendly.

But a few things I'd like to contest here:

1) As you said, player salaries are not their only expenses, and they're not even their only expenses that benefit the players. Team meals don't count towards that number. Medical coverage, training programs, and treatment facilities don't count towards that number. I'm sure teams have free legal counsel for when you forget to pick a Fall Guy. On a more peripheral level, you could argue that extra money spent on the coaching staff benefits the players and their development and well being as well. Point is, it's not like all of the extra revenue beyond the TV deal just goes straight to the owners pockets.

2) The idea that the dead money hits on the cap means the owners don't pay that money isn't really correct. It means they ALREADY PAID it. For example: Player signs a two year deal worth $20m. He gets $16m as a signing bonus, then $2m per year in salary. His cap hit both years is $10m, as the bonus is spread out over the contract. But then he gets cut before year two, resulting in an $8m dead money hit. You look at that and say, "Man, they're only paying $174m in cash when the cap is $182", but in reality, they paid $190m LAST YEAR when the cap was only $182m. This is why they have the 89% average over four years, because if they tried to enforce it year to year, it would swing so wildly it would be hard to navigate.

 

[Pape]

What was the Packers expenses? This is something that always seems to be overlooked.


Stadium Maintenance
Staff Salaries
Utilities
Property Taxes
Corporate Taxes

Don't know if this would fall 7nder just player costs... But the owners still have to escrow the guaranteed money in those player contacts... Big dollars to set aside, and why teams like cincyrarely if ever guarantee money beyond year 1

 

[Boomer B]

Packers reported $77m in operating profit. Aaron Rodgers just signed an average of $50m per year salary over the next 3 seasons. I’m ok with the whole franchise making about 35% more than the QB makes.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'd like to start by saying this: In no way am I trying to imply that the owners aren't 32 (EDIT: 31, Packers are publicly owned) of the most greedy MF'ers on the planet. You don't get to where they are, being billionaires, by not having a little greed in ya. So don't take this as a tacit approval of this system, which is definitely owner friendly versus player friendly.

But a few things I'd like to contest here:

1) As you said, player salaries are not their only expenses, and they're not even their only expenses that benefit the players. Team meals don't count towards that number. Medical coverage, training programs, and treatment facilities don't count towards that number. I'm sure teams have free legal counsel for when you forget to pick a Fall Guy. On a more peripheral level, you could argue that extra money spent on the coaching staff benefits the players and their development and well being as well. Point is, it's not like all of the extra revenue beyond the TV deal just goes straight to the owners pockets.

There's also retirement benefits and the (now) $10M a year for the player performance pool (the money that's paid out per snap, where Jakobi Meyers has made a lot of money the last three years).

Plus there's the stadium staff, the equipment staff, the travel costs (AirKraft for NE, charters for GB), etc.

 

[Ring 6]

Packers reported $77m in operating profit. Aaron Rodgers just signed an average of $50m per year salary over the next 3 seasons. I’m ok with the whole franchise making about 35% more than the QB makes.

So the Packers got 77 mill and the players got 182 mill.
So about 70% of the profit from their partnership goes to the players.

 

[venecol]

^^^ I don't think this guy knows what profit is.

 

[venecol]

So the Packers got 77 mill and the players got 182 mill.
So about 70% of the profit from their partnership goes to the players.

^^^ I don't think this guy knows what profit is.

 

[Ring 6]

^^^ I don't think this guy knows what profit is.

Yes you don’t think

 

[Boomer B]

So the Packers got 77 mill and the players got 182 mill.
So about 70% of the profit from their partnership goes to the players.

Players are paid from revenue, but I get what you are saying.

 

[venecol]

Players are paid from revenue, but I get what you are saying.

He's not even close since players salaries are only 31% of the total revenue. Plus, he's adding an expense (players salaries) to profits to come up with the 70%. Lol

 

[Ring 6]

Players are paid from revenue, but I get what you are saying.

There is 259 million to go to players or owners. Players got 182 owners got 77.

 

[Ring 6]

He's not even close since players salaries are only 31% of the total revenue. Plus, he's adding an expense (players salaries) to profits to come up with the 70%. Lol

“The profits of their partnership” is the total split among players and owners after expenses. Owners got 77 mill players got 182 mill. Not that complicated.