32 teams vs. one entity in the NFL

[LongLiveRalph]

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

 

No. GG lectured me with a realistic scenario in which Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder are going to employ thousands of Haitians to make their hats and t-shirts, sell them for $89.99 each, jerseys for $699.99 each, and sell their upper deck tickets for $3,500 each. Fans of these teams (because they're "large market, successful, teams with a national following") are going to scoop up all the hats, t-shirts, and tickets they can get their hands on, with no regard to cost or market forces. Then the other 30 teams are just going to fold because they can't compete, and the NFL will consist of a 26 game schedule where the Cowboys and Redskins play every week until their Super Duper Bowl, which will rotate between Cowboys Stadium, FedEx Field, and a new stadium being built on the moon.

 

Jerry Jones then becomes principal of Orchard Park High School and offers that the football team will play in vacated Ralph Wilson Stadium, as long as Erie County foots the bill for another tier of luxury boxes and a retractable roof.

[GG]

I realize that I'm "arguing" with experts who obviously haven't read the CBA, the American Needle ruling nor have followed the last round of the CBA extension. But what the hey, my head needs another round at the wall.

 

Here's a very telling passage from the USA Today piece in 2006:

 

The agreement will add $850 million to $900 million to the player revenue pool, contributed each year on a sliding scale by the 15 teams that earn the most from non-television and ticket income.

 

And while those teams aren't happy to be throwing so much cash in the pot, they said they would rather do that than deal with the uncertainty of a 2007 without a salary cap and perhaps a work stoppage in 2008.

 

...

 

Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them.

 

Note that 15 teams weren't crazy about the deal then, and were even less happy about the CBA when fuller details came out. Now that the SCOTUS ruling is out, the haves will draw a much harder line against the have nots. This is not a trivial example of hiring illegals to make cheap clothing - this is about the basic fact that some teams sell a lot more stuff and generate a lot more local revenues. Now there's greater incentive for the top 10 - 15 teams to not agree to the previous revenue sharing arrangements and only agree to share the TV revenues.

 

Another technical note for those who like to argue on factless grounds - the NFL is not an incorporated entity and the league cannot force anything on the ownership group that the owners themselves don't agree upon. Said another way, even if the majority of league owners vote for revenue sharing and mandated contributions from the richer clubs, the SCOTUS ruling gives the big market owners wide latitude to sue the league on anti-trust grounds to strike down deals they don't like.

 

Frankly, I don't understand why NFLPA is happy about this because a fractured ownership group is very bad news for the average players.

[LongLiveRalph]

I realize that I'm "arguing" with experts who obviously haven't read the CBA, the American Needle ruling nor have followed the last round of the CBA extension. But what the hey, my head needs another round at the wall.

 

Here's a very telling passage from the USA Today piece in 2006:

 

 

 

Note that 15 teams weren't crazy about the deal then, and were even less happy about the CBA when fuller details came out. Now that the SCOTUS ruling is out, the haves will draw a much harder line against the have nots. This is not a trivial example of hiring illegals to make cheap clothing - this is about the basic fact that some teams sell a lot more stuff and generate a lot more local revenues. Now there's greater incentive for the top 10 - 15 teams to not agree to the previous revenue sharing arrangements and only agree to share the TV revenues.

 

Another technical note for those who like to argue on factless grounds - the NFL is not an incorporated entity and the league cannot force anything on the ownership group that the owners themselves don't agree upon. Said another way, even if the majority of league owners vote for revenue sharing and mandated contributions from the richer clubs, the SCOTUS ruling gives the big market owners wide latitude to sue the league on anti-trust grounds to strike down deals they don't like.

 

Frankly, I don't understand why NFLPA is happy about this because a fractured ownership group is very bad news for the average players.

 

Well stated. For what it's worth, I've read everything having to do with this case and the CBA. It's clear the owners didn't read the CBA.

 

However, isn't the ruling increasing the possibility of a MORE united ownership group of the 22 "weak" teams? Clearly they understand the ramifications and potential windfalls for the big dogs, just as you do.

 

And aren't the "MAJOR" teams basically a function of success? The NFC East, Pittsburgh, and New England are the league superpowers right now, and that has everything to do with success on the field (coupled next with market size and stadium.) With the exception of Dallas, Pittsburgh, and the NYG, isn't it possible that the perceived leverage decreases dramatically when they are in a 4-year rebuilding mode? Weren't the Patriots a realative also-ran, even with a #1 QB like Drew Bledsoe? They certainly weren't a major players. The Raiders still have great merchandise sales. But would Al Davis be able to hold that over the head of the rest of the league when attempting to re-negotiate TV revenues? Would anybody give a flying F about a Raiders-Redskins game from the last three seasons? Wouldn't a San Diego vs. Minnesota game be much more attractive???

[GG]

Well stated. For what it's worth, I've read everything having to do with this case and the CBA. It's clear the owners didn't read the CBA.

 

However, isn't the ruling increasing the possibility of a MORE united ownership group of the 22 "weak" teams? Clearly they understand the ramifications and potential windfalls for the big dogs, just as you do.

 

And aren't the "MAJOR" teams basically a function of success? The NFC East, Pittsburgh, and New England are the league superpowers right now, and that has everything to do with success on the field (coupled next with market size and stadium.) With the exception of Dallas, Pittsburgh, and the NYG, isn't it possible that the perceived leverage decreases dramatically when they are in a 4-year rebuilding mode? Weren't the Patriots a realative also-ran, even with a #1 QB like Drew Bledsoe? They certainly weren't a major players. The Raiders still have great merchandise sales. But would Al Davis be able to hold that over the head of the rest of the league when attempting to re-negotiate TV revenues? Would anybody give a flying F about a Raiders-Redskins game from the last three seasons? Wouldn't a San Diego vs. Minnesota game be much more attractive???

 

The 22 weak teams can be more united, but they'll be battling from a weakened position and over long term they just will not have enough financial muscle to compete with the top teams. NFL could very easily turn into a version of the MLB. I don't think the TV revenue sharing is as contentious of an issue as sharing other revenues. You can see Jones' logic somewhat - he paid a lot of money for the team, he paid his own money for the stadium, his team is consistently at the top in ratings and merchandise sales - why should he continue to subsidize Ralph Wilson, who won't even sell naming rights to the stadium?

 

This is where having a very strong commissioner is crucial to convince the more well off teams to think of the league as a whole. That will be enough of a challenge for Goodell.

[TheLynchTrain]

Has anyone chimed in that the Cowboys opted out of the merchandise sharing agreement years ago? Any franchise has the ability to do so. None other than the cowboys have. All the bellowing about this is a much ado about nothing.

[Mr. WEO]

You really should go back and read about it.

 

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.

"We were willing to make some sacrifices to get this thing done," said Dallas owner Jerry Jones, the most vocal opponent of revenue sharing. "The proposal from the union was a mean mother."

 

There is a Pittsburgh model being pushed by Dan and Art Rooney of the Steelers. The plan would have each team put 25 percent of local revenues into a pool that would be distributed to teams in the lower end of the revenue streams.

 

There is a New England Patriots/New York Jets model that expands on an already existing local revenue sharing plan. Currently, $40 million of local revenue is being shared. The Patriots/Jets model expands that number significantly.

 

"There are a lot of good-meaning people in there trying really hard to look at the other guy's point of view," Jones said. "This is the deal. At the end of the day, it's all about the deal. But this is a rough deal. We have to look at how we operate clubs."

 

"What is good is that this is the most informed ownership I've seen in 17 years," Jones said. "They've dug down to understand the specifics beyond anything that you [would] have seen 10 years ago. There are some talented people in there. I hope something good will come of it."

 

Asked why the deal wasn't struck until the 11th hour, despite years of consideration, Jones said, "If I'm going to get my fanny kicked, I can put that off to another day."

 

Yeah, Dallas signed off on the final deal that was presented to Tags. But, as you can plainly see (or pretend not to), Jones was a vocal holdout unitl he was convinced by Kraft, Mara, Rooney and others that the compromise deal (revenue sharing) was good for the other teams (especially Ralph's beloved Bills, although he clearly didn't realize this at the time).

 

Yes, I did the math and it still hasn't come out to "hundereds of billions of dollars."

 

But keep praying for these silly owners, they know not what they do!

[Doc]

Yeah, Dallas signed off on the final deal that was presented to Tags. But, as you can plainly see (or pretend not to), Jones was a vocal holdout unitl he was convinced by Kraft, Mara, Rooney and others that the compromise deal (revenue sharing) was good for the other teams (especially Ralph's beloved Bills, although he clearly didn't realize this at the time).

Once again, doc:

 

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. The Patriots and Cowboys, who are in the top five moneymakers along with Philadelphia, Houston and Washington, were both involved in putting together the deal.

 

Here's another:

A deal-maker by trade, Jones was working the ballroom with different revenue formulas. Even though he's one of the leaders of the high-revenue block of votes not in favor of revenue sharing, Jones has been doing his best to come up with a deal. He knows labor peace is vital to the long-term future of the NFL.

 

You see, Jones put together the deal that put more (local) revenue into his pocket, while freely giving away money to the players to "preserve labor peace" and prevent teams like his from having to cut players to get under the old cap. When the lower revenue owners told him to go F himself and demanded additional revenue sharing, he balked (surprise, surprise!), but finally was convinced that he couldn't have his cake and eat it too. Ralph's problem was again that "the players got too much" and the revenue sharing wasn't defined at the time. Once it was, he also signed-off on the deal. Which as we all saw and know (well, most of us saw/know), was a bad deal.

 

And about that "labor peace" thingy, the SCOTUS ruling, which you were SURE would be in favor of the NFL (just like you predicted the owners would keep the 2006 CBA, with nary a mention of the "situation changing"), hurt the owners WRT not being bent over by the players yet again. What's funny is that the dumb players and American Needle proved smarter than the NFL.

 

Yes, I did the math and it still hasn't come out to "hundereds of billions of dollars."

Ah, I get it now. Still perseverating on "billions" when you know I meant "millions," eh? Anything to deflect the truth about the owners giving close to $1B more to the players as a result of the 2006 CBA, I guess. But hey, two can play that game. "Hundereds?"

[Webster Guy]

Way to understand the underlying factors in this one.

 

Riddle me this Batman, do you think that a team in Buffalo is going to be a able to compete in a league where each team gets the power to freely negotiate with players, without a constraint imposed by the league?

 

At least you recognize that it's good news for Jerry Jones. It's also great news for Snyder, NYC team owners and anyone who bought into the league recently. But don't worry, you won't have to shell out $200 to watch an inferior product, because Bills will not survive that environment.

 

Maybe you can also explain how over the last 40 years the greedy, unchecked NFL (as a unified league) has been able to destroy every other professional sport in popularity, attendance, ratings, merchandising in a way that has benefited owners, players & fans alike?

Cause it's way more fun to watch (by far) than any other sport ever. Olympic curling was pretty fun though I must admit.

[Mr. WEO]

Once again, doc:

 

 

 

Here's another:

 

 

You see, Jones put together the deal that put more (local) revenue into his pocket, while freely giving away money to the players to "preserve labor peace" and prevent teams like his from having to cut players to get under the old cap. When the lower revenue owners told him to go F himself and demanded additional revenue sharing, he balked (surprise, surprise!), but finally was convinced that he couldn't have his cake and eat it too. Ralph's problem was again that "the players got too much" and the revenue sharing wasn't defined at the time. Once it was, he also signed-off on the deal. Which as we all saw and know (well, most of us saw/know), was a bad deal.

 

And about that "labor peace" thingy, the SCOTUS ruling, which you were SURE would be in favor of the NFL (just like you predicted the owners would keep the 2006 CBA, with nary a mention of the "situation changing"), hurt the owners WRT not being bent over by the players yet again. What's funny is that the dumb players and American Needle proved smarter than the NFL.

 

 

Ah, I get it now. Still perseverating on "billions" when you know I meant "millions," eh? Anything to deflect the truth about the owners giving close to $1B more to the players as a result of the 2006 CBA, I guess. But hey, two can play that game. "Hundereds?"

 

The CBA rested on the revenue sharing agreement. No one else disputes that this was the essence of the "deal". Jones, by every account, had to be dragged into agreement on this. The deal then went through. And, again, why would Ralph vote against a massive increase in shared revenue for low income teams?? Either he was too dense to realize this was a very good thing or he wasn't sure if he would qualify (due to his fat bottom line that all of the owners in the room were aware of) and therefore figured he would ruin it for teams that actually needed it and voted against it. Take your pick--either one makes him look bad, not the sage you desperately want him to be.

 

 

"Hundereds" was a typo. In stark contrast, your error betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues surrounding the CBA in particular and how wealthy men make decisions that they do and the contingencies they incorporate into these decisions in general. You can continue to fantasize that the players have the upper hand now, or that they received "59.5%" of all revenues as a result of the CBA. Or that labor peace was not the goal of a CBA (that "John Clayton made that one up"). It seems to help you, so go ahead.

 

Never said I "was sure" the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the NFL. Nice try. I did start a discussion ton the topic months ago that prompted great input by guys like GG and others. You stayed out of it (except to post as your former alter ego "VOR"). You are stuck on the "the players bent over the owners" level on this discussion--and maybe that's fine for you. Why bother with context?

 

Carry on.

[K Gun Special]

I realize that I'm "arguing" with experts who obviously haven't read the CBA, the American Needle ruling nor have followed the last round of the CBA extension. But what the hey, my head needs another round at the wall.

 

Here's a very telling passage from the USA Today piece in 2006:

 

 

 

Note that 15 teams weren't crazy about the deal then, and were even less happy about the CBA when fuller details came out. Now that the SCOTUS ruling is out, the haves will draw a much harder line against the have nots. This is not a trivial example of hiring illegals to make cheap clothing - this is about the basic fact that some teams sell a lot more stuff and generate a lot more local revenues. Now there's greater incentive for the top 10 - 15 teams to not agree to the previous revenue sharing arrangements and only agree to share the TV revenues.

 

Another technical note for those who like to argue on factless grounds - the NFL is not an incorporated entity and the league cannot force anything on the ownership group that the owners themselves don't agree upon. Said another way, even if the majority of league owners vote for revenue sharing and mandated contributions from the richer clubs, the SCOTUS ruling gives the big market owners wide latitude to sue the league on anti-trust grounds to strike down deals they don't like.

 

Frankly, I don't understand why NFLPA is happy about this because a fractured ownership group is very bad news for the average players.

 

 

Factless isnt a word. BTW the NFL is a corporation ( http://investing.businessweek.com/research...ivcapId=4640494 ) so before you argue on "factless" grounds.........

 

And Im not sure what law school you went to, but the American Needle ruling doesnt prohibit the teams from making agreements with themselves. Theres a big difference between having requirements to contribute to revenue sharign and the AM needle ruling with deals with League vs merchandisers. Its a very narrow ruling.

[GG]

Factless isnt a word. BTW the NFL is a corporation ( http://investing.businessweek.com/research...ivcapId=4640494 ) so before you argue on "factless" grounds.........

 

And Im not sure what law school you went to, but the American Needle ruling doesnt prohibit the teams from making agreements with themselves. Theres a big difference between having requirements to contribute to revenue sharign and the AM needle ruling with deals with League vs merchandisers. Its a very narrow ruling.

 

If you're going to challenge my position on the incorporation of the NFL, I recommend that you don't use NFL Properties' status as a limited liability company as proof. I'll save you the trouble - from the SCOTUS ruling

 

Respondent National Football League (NFL) is an unincorporated association of 32 separately owned professional football teams, also respondents here

 

The case itself was narrow, but the decision will have wide applications:

 

Football teams that need to cooperate are not trapped by anti-trust law. The fact that the NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate to produce games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions. Because some of these restraints on competition are necessary to produce the NFL’s product, the Rule of Reason generally should apply, and teams’ cooperation is likely to be permissible. And depending upon the activity in question, the Rule of Reason can at times be applied without detailed analysis. But the activity at issue in this case is still concerted activity covered for §1 purposes.

 

Call it a slippery slope, butterfly effect, snowball, or anything else - to me the court left a big opening for future cases.

 

Carry on, and don't forget to sign that tuition check to the DeVry Law School.

[K Gun Special]

If you're going to challenge my position on the incorporation of the NFL, I recommend that you don't use NFL Properties' status as a limited liability company as proof. I'll save you the trouble - from the SCOTUS ruling

 

 

 

The case itself was narrow, but the decision will have wide applications:

 

 

 

Call it a slippery slope, butterfly effect, snowball, or anything else - to me the court left a big opening for future cases.

 

Carry on, and don't forget to sign that tuition check to the DeVry Law School.

 

 

Then i would kindly suggest you read the entire opinion, since the case goes on to talk about NFL properties and how it was formed by the teams to promote licensing etc.... which is what the opinion is about.

 

The court holds that by forming the corporation NFLP they have not created a single entity. SHall i refer to pg 15 of the opinion that the court explicitly says the NFLP is a corporation as well ? Or the brief on behalf of the NFL referencing their own articles of incorporation?

But thanks for saving me the trouble.

[dollars 2 donuts]

justice stevens, in his opinion, wrote that the NFL consists of 32 profit maximizing enterprises, not a single enterprise. As you note, this has implications for free agency, tv contracts, merchandising and possibly salary caps but I can't see how these bode well for small market teams.

 

 

 

Yeah, and this concerns me.

 

In other words, is there some way that it can be wrangled to allow some teams to sign individual contracts?

 

I know it's a stretch and we are no wheres close to this, but can you imagine if the Cowboys can inch themselves that much closer to the New Yankees and the Bills can inch themselves that much closer to the Pittsburgh Pirates.

[GG]

Then i would kindly suggest you read the entire opinion, since the case goes on to talk about NFL properties and how it was formed by the teams to promote licensing etc.... which is what the opinion is about.

 

The court holds that by forming the corporation NFLP they have not created a single entity. SHall i refer to pg 15 of the opinion that the court explicitly says the NFLP is a corporation as well ? Or the brief on behalf of the NFL referencing their own articles of incorporation?

But thanks for saving me the trouble.

 

And your insistence on pointing out that NFLP is a corporation is related to exactly what, in regards to this thread?

[K Gun Special]

And your insistence on pointing out that NFLP is a corporation is related to exactly what, in regards to this thread?

 

 

It was one point made in a previous post. I was responding to your response about "challenging" your assertions.

The fact is that this opinion is narrow, it could have sweeping implications but it might not. This case is only sent back to district court where the NFL could still win.

[GG]

It was one point made in a previous post.

 

And which point was that?

 

The fact is that this opinion is narrow, it could have sweeping implications but it might not. This case is only sent back to district court where the NFL could still win.

 

No one is arguing the fact that the case is thrown back to the district court and the legaue can still prevail. The entire thread is about the possible ramifications of the ruling, which to me certainly opens up the league for more litigation since Stevens points out that legality will be established "depending on the activity in question."

[K Gun Special]

And which point was that?

 

 

 

No one is arguing the fact that the case is thrown back to the district court and the legaue can still prevail. The entire thread is about the possible ramifications of the ruling, which to me certainly opens up the league for more litigation since Stevens points out that legality will be established "depending on the activity in question."

 

 

It could of course, I think it push comes to shove the NFL will at the very least ask congress/prez for some exemptions. Wouldn't make sense for things like TV, and its been successful in the past.

[Doc]

The CBA rested on the revenue sharing agreement. No one else disputes that this was the essence of the "deal". Jones, by every account, had to be dragged into agreement on this. The deal then went through. And, again, why would Ralph vote against a massive increase in shared revenue for low income teams?? Either he was too dense to realize this was a very good thing or he wasn't sure if he would qualify (due to his fat bottom line that all of the owners in the room were aware of) and therefore figured he would ruin it for teams that actually needed it and voted against it. Take your pick--either one makes him look bad, not the sage you desperately want him to be.

 

 

"Hundereds" was a typo. In stark contrast, your error betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues surrounding the CBA in particular and how wealthy men make decisions that they do and the contingencies they incorporate into these decisions in general. You can continue to fantasize that the players have the upper hand now, or that they received "59.5%" of all revenues as a result of the CBA. Or that labor peace was not the goal of a CBA (that "John Clayton made that one up"). It seems to help you, so go ahead.

 

Never said I "was sure" the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the NFL. Nice try. I did start a discussion ton the topic months ago that prompted great input by guys like GG and others. You stayed out of it (except to post as your former alter ego "VOR"). You are stuck on the "the players bent over the owners" level on this discussion--and maybe that's fine for you. Why bother with context?

 

Carry on.

It seems you're confused about revenue sharing and the last CBA, doc. You see, the long-standing revenue sharing that the league had in place since the first CBA (TV money, merchandise, etc.) wasn't changed at all. What was changed was adding "additional" revenue sharing, i.e. the higher revenue clubs subsidizing the lower revenue clubs, and it wasn't the "essence of the deal" in any way, shape, or form. The "essence of the deal" was the owners basing the salary cap on total revenue, not shared revenue, which amounted to a 4.5% pay raise for the players. That's the "deal" that Jones negotiated, which was the point you refuted and are going through machinations to deny. He had to be talked into accepting the additional revenue sharing as blood money for his "deal," otherwise it wasn't going to get voted-in and he and several other teams would have had to cut players left and right.

 

Ralph voted against it because he and the other owners had just 45 minutes to read it (wealthy men rarely make good decisions in 45 minutes, especially when they've had a couple years to get their act together), because "the players got too much," and because it was a bad deal. I don't know whether he foresaw that they'd kill it just 2 years later, but it if was a good deal, like increasing the percentage of shared revenue by a percentage point or two, they still would have kept it. Your vapid "the situation changed" is your feeble attempt to try to say that the deal was good but then turned bad when the economy tanked, which it hadn't when they opted-out of it. It was bad all along. And the opt-out had been included in the first CBA (meaning it wasn't a master stroke at that meeting of the minds in 2006) but obviously never used. Instead the previous CBA was extended several times, until the players wanted more. And got more, to the tune of almost a billion dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars more a year (hence my typo, or more precisely, bad editing).

 

As for the SCOTUS ruling, it certainly dealt a blow to the owners in their bid to shove whatever they wanted in the players' faces and them accepting it because they had anti-trust exemption. I didn't see what VOR said in that thread that rfeynman linked, but you've been backing the owners at every step and your tone suggested the owners would win. But of course you'll deny it.