32 teams vs. one entity in the NFL

[GG]

You're criticizing me for not understanding the underlying issues. I think you are being quite short-sighted here. How is an all-controlling sports league a good thing (outside of the MLS?) What would stop the NFL from moving Buffalo to LA for "profit maximization?" What would stop the NFL from steering marquee free agents to it's marquee teams (a la MLS sending Landon Donovan and David Beckham to Los Angeles?) What would stop the NFL from looking at stubhub and seeing that some tickets to games are going for $500, and just setting the prices there, or opening their own auction website? What would stop the NFL from raising the prices of jerseys and t-shirts? What would stop the NFL from setting player salaries lower and lower, again for profit maximization? How could any issue ever get voted on, or appealed? Decisions would be made in an NFL board room, with no explanation or recourse.

 

I'm criticizing you because you are missing the point. The NFL has achieved its success because the league has been able to corral the massive egos of the owners to dominate all other sports. What is so hard to see that the nightmare scenarios you're posing are the exact opposite of what the league has been doing for the last 50 years and that this ruling opens the door for individual owners to do what they want?

 

It's not really that difficult.

 

And what would stop every other sports league from following suit?

 

I realize you're looking at this issue from the angle of a Bills fan. It does benefit the big market teams. But I think you're missing an important chunk of the data if you think that it hurts the Bills. The majority of the league (say 24 out of 32 teams) are already at a competitive disadvantage when compared to the 6 or 8 mega-rich teams and stadiums. The league seems to be working out pretty well. Just assuming that the NFL with total control would bring those mega-profit teams back to the pack is crazy and naive.

 

NFL's control and defacto single entity organization that it's been operating under i sthe only thing that's kept the Joneses in line. Now, there's no incentive for Jones or Snyder to play nice with the league.

 

It will still be a salary cap league (I'm assuming.) The Bills will not reap the profits that teams like Dallas and Washington will, but they don't now, and neither do Seattle, Oakland, Tampa, KC, and 80% of the rest of the league. And they will have every chance to remain competitive on the field. And they will still make a profit. Just not $200 million profit.

 

They haven't sucked because they're small market. They've sucked because of personell decisions. Are Indianapolis and New Orleans reaping their big market competetive advantage???

 

They sucked because they're in a small market and the owner refuses to pay real money for real football people to run a real football operation. Wilson can simply sit back and collect the TV revenues and field a non-competitive product and still make a lot of money. But that's also dependent on the NFL insisting on massive revenue sharing. With this ruling, revenue sharing hypothetically could be off the table too, as owners may demand a share based on their - NFLP sales and ratings. How do the Bills shake out in that scenario?

 

This was a huge win for Jones & Snyder.

[Mr. WEO]

I'm criticizing you because you are missing the point. The NFL has achieved its success because the league has been able to corral the massive egos of the owners to dominate all other sports. What is so hard to see that the nightmare scenarios you're posing are the exact opposite of what the league has been doing for the last 50 years and that this ruling opens the door for individual owners to do what they want?

 

It's not really that difficult.

 

 

 

NFL's control and defacto single entity organization that it's been operating under i sthe only thing that's kept the Joneses in line. Now, there's no incentive for Jones or Snyder to play nice with the league.

 

 

 

They sucked because they're in a small market and the owner refuses to pay real money for real football people to run a real football operation. Wilson can simply sit back and collect the TV revenues and field a non-competitive product and still make a lot of money. But that's also dependent on the NFL insisting on massive revenue sharing. With this ruling, revenue sharing hypothetically could be off the table too, as owners may demand a share based on their - NFLP sales and ratings. How do the Bills shake out in that scenario?

 

This was a huge win for Jones & Snyder.

 

I think GG's right on all points. Interesting to see what happens next.

[birdog1960]

That really wouldn't make much sense. However I can see people like Jones asking for a bigger slice of that pie than the small market teams.

it would make sense for the big market teams if they could make much more selling their games individually than collectively. just look at the broadcast maps for last years games. the good teams would make much more revenue if the broadcasters could save on not covering poorly watched games at all or at a steep discount. some games are shown to a tiny sliver of the country and this obviously doesn't maximize profit for the popular teams or the broadcasters.

[LongLiveRalph]

I'm criticizing you because you are missing the point. The NFL has achieved its success because the league has been able to corral the massive egos of the owners to dominate all other sports. What is so hard to see that the nightmare scenarios you're posing are the exact opposite of what the league has been doing for the last 50 years and that this ruling opens the door for individual owners to do what they want?

 

It's not really that difficult.

 

NFL's control and defacto single entity organization that it's been operating under i sthe only thing that's kept the Joneses in line. Now, there's no incentive for Jones or Snyder to play nice with the league.

 

I'm missing the point??? You're acting like Jones and Snyder are going to raise hell and run the barrell over the rest of the league, laughing all the way to the bank. In making your own point, you're discounting the reason those owners have been so successful. Who is on this list of big, bad owners who will run roughshod over the league, laughing all the way to the bank????? Who are these teams with seemingly "unlimited" resources?

 

(6) Dallas, New England, NYG, Philly, Pitt, Washington. Six teams in the league who are "HAVES." They have extremely wealthy owners willing to spend, they have new stadiums, and they have a solid national following.

 

(4) Chicago, Denver, Miami, and NYJ are in the middle group. You can't tell me Miami could gouge their ticket prices, nobody shows up at the current rates. And Chicago, for being large-market, is notoriously cheap. The Jets have been a joke franchise for the majority of their exsitence but have a huge market and new stadium. Denver is debatable in this group, but are a well run organization with a fairly new stadium.

 

(22) Arizona, Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Carolina, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Green Bay, Houston, Indy, Jacksonville, KC, Minnesota, New Orleans, Oakland, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, and Tennessee make up the rest of the league.

 

So what if Jerry Jones wants to produce his own t-shirts and charge $800 per ticket? If he can do it, so be it, and so be his profit maximization. We are already in a system where the bonus money means everything, and those same 6 teams already have the competitive advantage in that regard. Players want to play in nice stadiums with plush locker rooms. Those same 6 teams already own those advantages. Players want to play in a large market on national TV to increase their endorsement opportunities. Those 6 teams already own those advantages. There is still a salary cap, and still a relatively competitive balance on the field. That won't change much from today's scenario. Just a select few teams will be more profitable.

 

The point is, those six teams or ten teams still need the other 26 or 22 teams in order to maximize profits. That's what the last 40 years has shown. And the last 10 years have shown that you can be an NFL powerplayer with an All Pro QB, or a garbage franchise without one (see: New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts, 1980-2000 versus 2000-2009.)

 

People throw this "small market" lingo out there all the time, like it's a disadvantage for Buffalo. The vast majority of the league is small market. Additionally, you are acting like the NFL itself as a governing body will dissolve completely, unable to steer these rogue owners at all. That isn't realistic.

 

The real issue out of all of this is that the NFL owners should be forced to open their books completely and declare their bottom line, as they continue to treaten taxpayers for new stadiums and land concessions. If Justice Stevens considers it each owner's right to maximize profits, all profits should be declared.

[Doc]

Really? Couldn't find anything on the 2006 CBA? It was in a lot of the newspapers and on a lot of the sports shows.

 

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...-08-labor_x.htm

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=2359623

The deal was put together by nine teams who began on different sides of the revenue debate, including such high-revenue teams as New England and Dallas

You really should go back and read about it.

Surprised you didn't come across it when you found the reference for the "extra hundreds of billions of dollars" the owners spent as a result of that CBA.

The only references I needed to figure that out were team payroll and cap numbers pre- and post-CBA. Even you can do the math.

[Doc]

People throw this "small market" lingo out there all the time, like it's a disadvantage for Buffalo. The vast majority of the league is small market. Additionally, you are acting like the NFL itself as a governing body will dissolve completely, unable to steer these rogue owners at all. That isn't realistic.

Bingo. You're not going to get a 3/4 majority that will end-up screwing 3/4 of the league...again.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I'm missing the point??? You're acting like Jones and Snyder are going to raise hell and run the barrell over the rest of the league, laughing all the way to the bank. In making your own point, you're discounting the reason those owners have been so successful. Who is on this list of big, bad owners who will run roughshod over the league, laughing all the way to the bank????? Who are these teams with seemingly "unlimited" resources?

 

(6) Dallas, New England, NYG, Philly, Pitt, Washington. Six teams in the league who are "HAVES." They have extremely wealthy owners willing to spend, they have new stadiums, and they have a solid national following.

 

(4) Chicago, Denver, Miami, and NYJ are in the middle group. You can't tell me Miami could gouge their ticket prices, nobody shows up at the current rates. And Chicago, for being large-market, is notoriously cheap. The Jets have been a joke franchise for the majority of their exsitence but have a huge market and new stadium. Denver is debatable in this group, but are a well run organization with a fairly new stadium.

 

(22) Arizona, Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Carolina, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Green Bay, Houston, Indy, Jacksonville, KC, Minnesota, New Orleans, Oakland, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, and Tennessee make up the rest of the league.

 

So what if Jerry Jones wants to produce his own t-shirts and charge $800 per ticket? If he can do it, so be it, and so be his profit maximization. We are already in a system where the bonus money means everything, and those same 6 teams already have the competitive advantage in that regard. Players want to play in nice stadiums with plush locker rooms. Those same 6 teams already own those advantages. Players want to play in a large market on national TV to increase their endorsement opportunities. Those 6 teams already own those advantages. There is still a salary cap, and still a relatively competitive balance on the field. That won't change much from today's scenario. Just a select few teams will be more profitable.

 

The point is, those six teams or ten teams still need the other 26 or 22 teams in order to maximize profits. That's what the last 40 years has shown. And the last 10 years have shown that you can be an NFL powerplayer with an All Pro QB, or a garbage franchise without one (see: New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts, 1980-2000 versus 2000-2009.)

 

People throw this "small market" lingo out there all the time, like it's a disadvantage for Buffalo. The vast majority of the league is small market. Additionally, you are acting like the NFL itself as a governing body will dissolve completely, unable to steer these rogue owners at all. That isn't realistic.

 

The real issue out of all of this is that the NFL owners should be forced to open their books completely and declare their bottom line, as they continue to treaten taxpayers for new stadiums and land concessions. If Justice Stevens considers it each owner's right to maximize profits, all profits should be declared.

 

Great post! 'bout time people start (at least ALL 9 on the court) start to waken up!

[GG]

I'm missing the point??? You're acting like Jones and Snyder are going to raise hell and run the barrell over the rest of the league, laughing all the way to the bank. In making your own point, you're discounting the reason those owners have been so successful. Who is on this list of big, bad owners who will run roughshod over the league, laughing all the way to the bank????? Who are these teams with seemingly "unlimited" resources?

 

(6) Dallas, New England, NYG, Philly, Pitt, Washington. Six teams in the league who are "HAVES." They have extremely wealthy owners willing to spend, they have new stadiums, and they have a solid national following.

 

(4) Chicago, Denver, Miami, and NYJ are in the middle group. You can't tell me Miami could gouge their ticket prices, nobody shows up at the current rates. And Chicago, for being large-market, is notoriously cheap. The Jets have been a joke franchise for the majority of their exsitence but have a huge market and new stadium. Denver is debatable in this group, but are a well run organization with a fairly new stadium.

 

(22) Arizona, Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Carolina, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Green Bay, Houston, Indy, Jacksonville, KC, Minnesota, New Orleans, Oakland, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, and Tennessee make up the rest of the league.

 

So what if Jerry Jones wants to produce his own t-shirts and charge $800 per ticket? If he can do it, so be it, and so be his profit maximization. We are already in a system where the bonus money means everything, and those same 6 teams already have the competitive advantage in that regard. Players want to play in nice stadiums with plush locker rooms. Those same 6 teams already own those advantages. Players want to play in a large market on national TV to increase their endorsement opportunities. Those 6 teams already own those advantages. There is still a salary cap, and still a relatively competitive balance on the field. That won't change much from today's scenario. Just a select few teams will be more profitable.

 

The point is, those six teams or ten teams still need the other 26 or 22 teams in order to maximize profits. That's what the last 40 years has shown. And the last 10 years have shown that you can be an NFL powerplayer with an All Pro QB, or a garbage franchise without one (see: New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts, 1980-2000 versus 2000-2009.)

 

People throw this "small market" lingo out there all the time, like it's a disadvantage for Buffalo. The vast majority of the league is small market. Additionally, you are acting like the NFL itself as a governing body will dissolve completely, unable to steer these rogue owners at all. That isn't realistic.

 

The real issue out of all of this is that the NFL owners should be forced to open their books completely and declare their bottom line, as they continue to treaten taxpayers for new stadiums and land concessions. If Justice Stevens considers it each owner's right to maximize profits, all profits should be declared.

 

Why in the world should the owners disclose anything now that SCOTUS ruled they're free to act independently?

 

Right now each team is not maximizing their profit potential because the league does not allow it. There's mandated equal revenue sharing of national TV money, 60-40 gate split, and sharing of NFLP merchandise. How's this for a realistic scenario - Cowboys, Raiders, Packers & Steelers bow out of the NFLP and sell their own merchandise. Jerry Jones says no more revenue sharing of my home gate receipts, plus exclusive deals with Pepsi, Bud, AT&T and anyone else who wants a piece. In the next contract renegotiation the split is also changed, because the TV networks & DirecTV are losing money on the NFL contracts and would be much happier paying only for games where they make money.

 

This is not about big market little market, but successful franchises that have a nationwide following and the also rans. Guess which one you're basing your screen name on?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Why in the world should the owners disclose anything now that SCOTUS ruled they're free to act independently?

 

He did say:

 

"...the NFL owners should be forced to open their books completely and declare their bottom line..."

What part of the word forced don't you get? Sure, let them act independently and still force them to open everything up. What is wrong with that?

 

Big difference between should and forced.

[birdog1960]

Why in the world should the owners disclose anything now that SCOTUS ruled they're free to act independently?

 

Right now each team is not maximizing their profit potential because the league does not allow it. There's mandated equal revenue sharing of national TV money, 60-40 gate split, and sharing of NFLP merchandise. How's this for a realistic scenario - Cowboys, Raiders, Packers & Steelers bow out of the NFLP and sell their own merchandise. Jerry Jones says no more revenue sharing of my home gate receipts, plus exclusive deals with Pepsi, Bud, AT&T and anyone else who wants a piece. In the next contract renegotiation the split is also changed, because the TV networks & DirecTV are losing money on the NFL contracts and would be much happier paying only for games where they make money.

 

This is not about big market little market, but successful franchises that have a nationwide following and the also rans. Guess which one you're basing your screen name on?

this, and...maybe the owners will see the wisdom in continued collaboration, including jones and snyder. their biggest customers (networks and advertisers and indirectly, fans) can at least attempt to demand negotiations for access to products from individual, more marketable teams (possibly including tv rights) through the courts and attempt to break that collaboration. the assertion that there is still a "relatively competitive balance on the field" ignores the 8-10 perennial have not teams who have little to no chance of making the playoffs any given year, much less winning a championship. the anti trust exemptions and revenue sharing should have prevented this but have failed miserably and thus may have outlived their usefulness regardless of the courts ruling.

[GG]

He did say:

 

"...the NFL owners should be forced to open their books completely and declare their bottom line..."

What part of the word forced don't you get? Sure, let them act independently and still force them to open everything up. What is wrong with that?

 

Big difference between should and forced.

 

Which part of private property do you not get? Assume that you can read and comprehend the SCOTUS ruling, it gives individual owners far more leverage than before if they want to stand up to the league?

 

And who is this person who is going to force people to do something with their private property against their will?

 

Big difference in understanding and not understanding, too.

[Steely Dan]

I'm criticizing you because you are missing the point. The NFL has achieved its success because the league has been able to corral the massive egos of the owners to dominate all other sports. What is so hard to see that the nightmare scenarios you're posing are the exact opposite of what the league has been doing for the last 50 years and that this ruling opens the door for individual owners to do what they want?

 

It's not really that difficult.

 

 

 

NFL's control and defacto single entity organization that it's been operating under i sthe only thing that's kept the Joneses in line. Now, there's no incentive for Jones or Snyder to play nice with the league.

 

 

 

They sucked because they're in a small market and the owner refuses to pay real money for real football people to run a real football operation. Wilson can simply sit back and collect the TV revenues and field a non-competitive product and still make a lot of money. But that's also dependent on the NFL insisting on massive revenue sharing. With this ruling, revenue sharing hypothetically could be off the table too, as owners may demand a share based on their - NFLP sales and ratings. How do the Bills shake out in that scenario?

 

This was a huge win for Jones & Snyder.

 

I think you need to take into consideration that the NFL is a democratic league. Two teams won't be able to force a bad CBA on the other 30, IMO.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Which part of private property do you not get? Assume that you can read and comprehend the SCOTUS ruling, it gives individual owners far more leverage than before if they want to stand up to the league?

 

And who is this person who is going to force people to do something with their private property against their will?

 

Big difference in understanding and not understanding, too.

 

Boo hoo...

 

They have special priviledges not afforded others... Trample on the prima donna's (teams) "rights"... I don't give a toot. They don't like it... Give up their team. Regulate them.

 

3, 2, 1... Waiting for the lame slippery slope argument...

[GG]

Boo hoo...

 

They have special priviledges not afforded others... Trample on the prima donna's (teams) "rights"... I don't give a toot. They don't like it... Give up their team. Regulate them.

 

3, 2, 1... Waiting for the lame slippery slope argument...

 

The only slippery slope is your medulla oblongata laying track for your brain.

 

Just once, try to keep up with a topic.

[GG]

I think you need to take into consideration that the NFL is a democratic league. Two teams won't be able to force a bad CBA on the other 30, IMO.

 

Those 2 - 3 owners could care less. Because of the SCOTUS ruling, they're free to strike out their own deals. So a CBA will benefit them much more because they'll be making a hell of a lot more money than other owners. Thus, there will be absolutely no incentive for the other owners to enter into the CBA or revenue sharing when they know that a select group of owners will make a lot more revenues and will upset the competitive balance of the sport. Not to hard to see how NFL can turn into MLB with only 6 teams that are perennial competitors.

[Doc]

The NFL has an exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests, which isn't changed by the SCOTUS ruling. In addition, since two teams play in any given contest, teams will still continue to share gate receipts, although the split may change. Merchandise will definitely change, but the Bills were 15th in the league that department. Outside of that, everything else was "local" revenue anyway.

[LongLiveRalph]

Why in the world should the owners disclose anything now that SCOTUS ruled they're free to act independently?

 

Right now each team is not maximizing their profit potential because the league does not allow it. There's mandated equal revenue sharing of national TV money, 60-40 gate split, and sharing of NFLP merchandise. How's this for a realistic scenario - Cowboys, Raiders, Packers & Steelers bow out of the NFLP and sell their own merchandise. Jerry Jones says no more revenue sharing of my home gate receipts, plus exclusive deals with Pepsi, Bud, AT&T and anyone else who wants a piece. In the next contract renegotiation the split is also changed, because the TV networks & DirecTV are losing money on the NFL contracts and would be much happier paying only for games where they make money.

 

This is not about big market little market, but successful franchises that have a nationwide following and the also rans. Guess which one you're basing your screen name on?

 

Listen man, all your "realistic" scenarios are not addressing the major issue. You are tied up on the merchandising aspect and have your panties in a knot over Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

 

The fact is, 32 independent owners operating a league where they're trying to make their franchise championship-caliber and valuable is better than one centralized despot league with autonomous rule in a NYC office. You are correct in suggesting that the Cowboys and Redskins and the other four superpowers have a chance to be more profitable. At the same time, you're discounting the fact that there are 26 other owners who know this. You are discounting the fact that the "weak" teams are still a VERY valuable and profitable asset, both on their own and for advertisers. You are discounting the fact that there is still an NFL commissioner, league bylaws, and a 70-year history for the league. You are discounting the fact that the Cowboys can only be "good" and "successful" when compared to another team (Detroit, Buffalo) who is "bad" or "unsuccessful." They all need each other.

 

I can't believe that you continue to post about the unwielding power and money that Team-X might be able to earn, forgetting that a ruling the other way would give the NFL unwielding power and money. Isn't it better that 80% of the league's teams are "have nots" and will be there to provide checks and balances against the 20% of the "haves"? As opposed to one league with total control over every aspect, with no fear of anti-trust legislation and no players union to deal with?

 

As far as the owners opening the books...Do you think we would EVER learn the profitability of each team if the NFL had autonomous control? And have you ever considered why the league only discusses its financials in terms of percentage of revenue growth over the previous season??? It would be a league driven even more by the bottom line than it is now, with revenue growth as the tunnel-vision target. I find it funny that you'd be okay with this, and yet you feel that Jerry Jones signing his own deal with Nike and Heineken is the apocalypse.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The only slippery slope is your medulla oblongata laying track for your brain.

 

Just once, try to keep up with a topic.

 

What? I answered your question and you didn't like it. Now the name calling, real rich Glen.

[Steely Dan]

Those 2 - 3 owners could care less. Because of the SCOTUS ruling, they're free to strike out their own deals. So a CBA will benefit them much more because they'll be making a hell of a lot more money than other owners. Thus, there will be absolutely no incentive for the other owners to enter into the CBA or revenue sharing when they know that a select group of owners will make a lot more revenues and will upset the competitive balance of the sport. Not to hard to see how NFL can turn into MLB with only 6 teams that are perennial competitors.

 

The revenue sharing agreements are voted on by the owners. So it's extremely possible, IMO, that the league would vote to make those things part of the revenue kitty. JMO

[Malazan]

I would bet anything there's no way the Bills get out of the bottom five. I've been looking all over and can't find anything other than the top 10 either. Owens did do very well last year though, consistently in the top 15 in sales with his Bills jersey. With him gone, and the Bills not really having anyone else of interest, and no uniform changes this year, there's no way they aren't near or at the bottom this year.

 

I bet we don't have a top 50 outside of Owens. Maybe 100.

 

No offense, but your personal opinions/feelings aren't fact. The USA Today article that I referenced is the only thing I've seen and I see no reason it would have changed a great deal in the past three years.