For all the union hand-wringing over owners' "lockout insuranc

[MattM]

I'm an anonymous voice on the Inter-web making no claim to any particular education or experience, but I've seen the 2006 CBA. Here's a copy:

 

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

 

Judge Doty actually decided the "network TV case" based on language in a settlement agreement made between the players and the NFL that was entered a long time ago (and has been amended several times since then) in a case called White v. NFL, over which the court retained jurisdiction. In a March 1, 2011 opinion, Judge Doty referred to that settlement agreement by the acronym "SSA."

 

Here's Judge Doty's opinion:

 

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/4:1992cv00906/57169/675/

 

You can read the entire opinion to see the reasoning for his decision in favor of the players, but here's the contractual SSA language at issue in the dispute (that Judge Doty concluded was breached by the owners):

 

 

 

Judge Doty reached exactly the opposite conclusion from the Special Master who first heard this particular dispute. My brother Darryl thinks that means the issue wasn't entirely clear cut for either side.

 

 

Many thanks for doing the legwork on this. No time to read the whole opinion, but as suspected, it looks like there was a contractual provision that required the owners to maximize shared revenue. Personally, I agree with Doty on this issue and stand by my original contention that to a reasonably objective jurist it was fairly clear cut. That said, you raise an interesting point about the special master having found in favor of the owners, so it's tough to be definitive without reading all of the briefing papers and hearing the argument.....

[JohnC]

Many thanks for doing the legwork on this. No time to read the whole opinion, but as suspected, it looks like there was a contractual provision that required the owners to maximize shared revenue. Personally, I agree with Doty on this issue and stand by my original contention that to a reasonably objective jurist it was fairly clear cut. That said, you raise an interesting point about the special master having found in favor of the owners, so it's tough to be definitive without reading all of the briefing papers and hearing the argument.....

 

The NFL owner/labor dispute has demonstrated that the legal outcome isn't about the law so much as the venue where the dispute is brought to. If you know who appointed the judge/judges you will for the most part be able to predict the outcome of the decision.

 

Judge Doty was a Ronald Reagan appointee who had an extensive record as a corporate attorney working on behalf of the utilities. Very often he represented the utilities against the interests of unions. He was known to be a straight-arrow type person and judge. It is very interesting to observe his stances against the owners. He once made an observation (which irked the owners) that the more money they made the more they complained.

[Hplarrm]

 

The bottom line is that the owners are the business owners, not the NFLPA. The NFLPA does not have the rights or privileges of owners, and certainly doesn't have the right to tell the owners what insurance policies they are or aren't allowed to buy.

The bottomline is that by mutual agreement the players receive comfortably over 50% of the total gross receipts after dictating publicly to the owners that the new cap would have to be based on the total gross (rather than a designated gross back in the old NFL which fits the ownership and control model you describe. Arguably the players made themselves partner when they first threatened decert. The last CBA and apparently this one as well instead gives the players a solid majority of the total receipts making them arguably the majority partner.

 

The bottomline is that yes in the old NFL business model from back in the day when George Halas threw around nickels like they were manhole covers your description is closest to reality. However, even if one does not want to concede that the players are majority owners of the NFL based on their majority receipt of total receipts, one would simply be foolish to not recognize that the partnership/employee equation is simply quite different than it was back in the day.

 

The bottomline is that players come and players go, but that in the end, part of the reason why owners do not come and go is that they really add little to the product we consume. As far as who is the owner the are best seen and not heard and actually the more I see them the more worried I get because we they tend to dabble they often screw up the game.

 

The bottomline is that the team owners used the main if only source of capital necessary to run the team and they used to be the source of good management. However, the bottomline is simply that the original NFL team owners did such a good job making the product profitable, the capital they provided now can be found lots of places. In addition, though good owners provided good management back in the day when George Halas and Al Davis were true sportsmen who understood the game.

 

Yet, today's owners are great businessmen who struck it rich doing well in other businesses like Snyder or Jerry Jones but as sportsmen they are bad and worse.

 

Fans need the owners like fish need bicycles. Players come and go but though the individuals change it's why I watch the game.

 

I am glad Mr. Ralph did what he did but as long as his death does not trigger a team move, Mr. Ralph actually would deliver a better Bills product if he were dead and did exercise his owners tight to meddle.

 

The team owners are simply replaceable and simply add 40% to the cost of the product without any replaceable benefit from their presence.

[MattM]

"Yet, today's owners are great businessmen who struck it rich doing well in other businesses like Snyder or Jerry Jones but as sportsmen they are bad and worse."

 

Actually, I'd wager that at least 1/3rd of today's owners were instead members of Warren Buffet's so-called "lucky sperm club" who simply inherited their teams. Just off the top of my head that list would include the Yorks, McCaskills, Maras, Rooneys, Irsay, Spanos (Jr.), Hunt and Mike Brown. I'm sure there are at least 3-4 more I'm missing, and that doesn't even include guys like Woody Johnson, who didn't inherit the team, but did basically inherit his fortune....

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

The NFL owner/labor dispute has demonstrated that the legal outcome isn't about the law so much as the venue where the dispute is brought to.

It will be interesting to see if the anticipated global settlement of all disputes between the NFL and the players results in the extension of the Minnesota federal court's oversight of their collective bargaining relationship (via extension of the SSA). The 2006 CBA is VERY long, but based on a few key word searches I tried, it does not appear to contain language identical to the SSA language that Judge Doty relied upon when making his ruling in the TV network contract case - - could be there though, because my search was kind of hit-or-miss.

 

The NFL wants to get out from under the thumb of the Minnnesota federal court. When the NFL filed its first amended unfair labor practices complaint against the NFLPA with the NLRB on March 11th, it specifically charged that the union comitted an unfair labor practice by, among other things, conditioning contract proposals on an extension of the SSA to allow continued oversight of the bargaining relationship by that court.

 

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3781689.15.pdf

 

If the NFL succeeds in escaping Minnesota federal court oversight of the anticipated new CBA, the NFLPA may not have the same type of contractual language in its favor in the future, and might wind up in some other trial court or in front of an arbitrator in any future dispute with the NFL. The parties' rights under the new CBA might be independent of the old SSA language - - it all depends on the exact terms of the new CBA.

Edited July 18, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Mr. WEO]

Many thanks for doing the legwork on this. No time to read the whole opinion, but as suspected, it looks like there was a contractual provision that required the owners to maximize shared revenue. Personally, I agree with Doty on this issue and stand by my original contention that to a reasonably objective jurist it was fairly clear cut. That said, you raise an interesting point about the special master having found in favor of the owners, so it's tough to be definitive without reading all of the briefing papers and hearing the argument.....

The federally appointed special master agreed it was sound business judgement for the NFL to prepare for a lockout this way (not "illegal"). Another federal appointee (one with a history of finding for the players) disagreed.

 

We will see if D. Smith is the genius some say. If the players are getting 48% of all revenue, that's a big step back form tha last CBA, and sounds like less than the last offer form the NFL before the lockout.

[JohnC]

It will be interesting to see if the anticipated global settlement of all disputes between the NFL and the players results in the extension of the Minnesota federal court's oversight of their collective bargaining relationship (via extension of the SSA). The 2006 CBA is VERY long, but based on a few key word searches I tried, it does not appear to contain language identical to the SSA language that Judge Doty relied upon when making his ruling in the TV network contract case - - could be there though, because my search was kind of hit-or-miss.

 

The NFL wants to get out from under the thumb of the Minnnesota federal court. When the NFL filed its first amended unfair labor practices complaint against the NFLPA with the NLRB on March 11th, it specifically charged that the union comitted an unfair labor practice by, among other things, conditioning contract proposals on an extension of the SSA to allow continued oversight of the bargaining relationship by that court.

 

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3781689.15.pdf

 

If the NFL succeeds in escaping Minnesota federal court oversight of the anticipated new CBA, the NFLPA may not have the same type of contractual language in its favor in the future, and might wind up in some other trial court or in front of an arbitrator in any future dispute with the NFL. The parties' rights under the new CBA might be independent of the old SSA language - - it all depends on the exact terms of the new CBA.

 

My guess is that there won't be the Minnesota federal court oversight. The owners were determined from the start to free themselves from that court oversight, especially from Judge Doty who they consider to be their nemisis.

 

What I have read is that the union was willing to bargain away that oversight chip to get concessions in other areas. In reality, the Doty factor at this point is a temporary asset for the union because he is in his 80s and not far from retirement.

 

It will be interesting to see what type of overshight mechanism there will be when the deal is brokered. Some entity or arbitration mechanism has to be created to resolve disputes between the competing parties.

Edited July 18, 2011 by JohnC

[K-9]

The federally appointed special master agreed it was sound business judgement for the NFL to prepare for a lockout this way (not "illegal"). Another federal appointee (one with a history of finding for the players) disagreed.

 

We will see if D. Smith is the genius some say. If the players are getting 48% of all revenue, that's a big step back form tha last CBA, and sounds like less than the last offer form the NFL before the lockout.

 

Just out of curiosity, are the owners still keeping their $1b off the top before giving the players 48%?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

Just out of curiosity, are the owners still keeping their $1b off the top before giving the players 48%?

 

GO BILLS!!!

No--it would be 48% of all revenue.

[BuffalOhio]

F the owners. Nobody pays to see THEM play the game. They are not putting their long-term health at risk. Their career won't end on any given play. The players deserve their fair share of the revenue.

[JohnC]

No--it would be 48% of all revenue.

 

Within the prior CBA the players were actually getting 49-50% of the revenue because laggard teams like the Bills and Bengals were not spending close to the ceiling of the cap (as you have keenly observed on numerous occasions). In addition, the medical and retirement benefits should be better under the new CBA.

 

The central point I'm making is that this CBA will not very much change the financial structure between the players and owners. There is a re-balancing in percentages for the increased revenues (as there should be) but structurely there isn't a major change.

 

Where there is a significant change is that hustling tight-fisted owners like Ralph and Brown of the Bengals will be required to have for the most part the same level of payrolls as all the other teams have. The one person's role that might be diminished is Jeff Littman's. Now he can't manipulate the payroll downwards in order to squeeze out more profitability for Ralph at the expense of being a competitive team.

 

I won't be surprised if Ralph Wilson votes against the CBA. The majority of the other owners will ignore this very anachronistic owner who has no business being in the business at this point.

[Cash]

My guess is that there won't be the Minnesota federal court oversight. The owners were determined from the start to free themselves from that court oversight, especially from Judge Doty who they consider to be their nemisis.

What I have read is that the union was willing to bargain away that oversight chip to get concessions in other areas. In reality, the Doty factor at this point is a temporary asset for the union because he is in his 80s and not far from retirement.

 

It will be interesting to see what type of overshight mechanism there will be when the deal is brokered. Some entity or arbitration mechanism has to be created to resolve disputes between the competing parties.

 

The owners are like a basketball team that hacks everyone who drives the lane, only takes jumpers on the other end, then blames the refs for the disparity in free throws. It's not that the refs are biased, it's that you keep committing fouls. Likewise, as long as the NFL keeps bringing dubious arguments to court, they'll keep losing cases. It's not like non-Doty judges have exactly been burning up the benches with pro-NFL opinions. Other than the appeal to resume the lockout, what was the last court case (vs. anyone) the NFL won? I honestly can't think of one off the top of my head.

[Mr. WEO]

The owners are like a basketball team that hacks everyone who drives the lane, only takes jumpers on the other end, then blames the refs for the disparity in free throws. It's not that the refs are biased, it's that you keep committing fouls. Likewise, as long as the NFL keeps bringing dubious arguments to court, they'll keep losing cases. It's not like non-Doty judges have exactly been burning up the benches with pro-NFL opinions. Other than the appeal to resume the lockout, what was the last court case (vs. anyone) the NFL won? I honestly can't think of one off the top of my head.

Actually, other entities keep bringing the NFL to court.

 

You want dubious? Check out Brady, et al v. NFL, where the players challenging the very way the league does business--even as Brady et al are about to sign another CBA that denies them everything they seek in their suit, which will make this case moot.

[JohnC]

The owners are like a basketball team that hacks everyone who drives the lane, only takes jumpers on the other end, then blames the refs for the disparity in free throws. It's not that the refs are biased, it's that you keep committing fouls. Likewise, as long as the NFL keeps bringing dubious arguments to court, they'll keep losing cases. It's not like non-Doty judges have exactly been burning up the benches with pro-NFL opinions. Other than the appeal to resume the lockout, what was the last court case (vs. anyone) the NFL won? I honestly can't think of one off the top of my head.

 

I am a strong supporter of Doty. He frequently ruled against the owners because they repeatedly violated the terms and spirit of the prior CBAs. The owners acted as if they were an entitled lot. Judge Doty in his rulings demonstrated to them that they were not so entitled that they were allowed to violate the terms of a CBA.

 

In my view the owners' behavior in the TV deal was not only illegal but was unethical. In their self inflated view they believe they did nothing wrong. Judge Doty forcefully reminded them that they were wrong. The owners who act like potentates still believe they did nothing wrong.

 

 

You want dubious? Check out Brady, et al v. NFL, where the players challenging the very way the league does business--even as Brady et al are about to sign another CBA that denies them everything they seek in their suit, which will make this case moot.

 

You are right that the Brady et al lawsuit will be moot when the CBA is signed. But that is far from making that lawsuit a frivolous case. If the owners would have locked out the players on a long term basis, going so far as jeoparizing the season, their case would have had a lot of merit from a restraint of trade basis. To put it simply with a CBA there is no case; without a CBA there is a very strong case.

[GG]

Not so much a "dirty trick" as illegal. At the time the contract was negotiated with the networks, the CBA was still in effect under which, since player compensation was ultimately a percentage of league revenue primarily derived from the TV contracts, the owners had a duty to get the best deal they could get. They did not honor that duty and instead negotiated a lower deal that preserved their income in the event the league had no product for networks to broadcast.

 

You sure about that, or are just parroting the players' position?

 

My understanding from people who are familiar with the TV contract is that the payment terms to the owners were not a new feature in the most recent TV deals, but something that has been a standard part of the contracts for a long time and predated the most recent CBA, so it would be hard to argue that the owners didn't live up to the terms. Also, since each TV deal was a competitive bid, it would be very easy for the owners to prove that they took the deals that paid true market value. That's why I don't the owners were too scared of that allegation.

[Orton's Arm]

Within the prior CBA the players were actually getting 49-50% of the revenue because laggard teams like the Bills and Bengals were not spending close to the ceiling of the cap (as you have keenly observed on numerous occasions). In addition, the medical and retirement benefits should be better under the new CBA.

 

The central point I'm making is that this CBA will not very much change the financial structure between the players and owners. There is a re-balancing in percentages for the increased revenues (as there should be) but structurely there isn't a major change.

 

Where there is a significant change is that hustling tight-fisted owners like Ralph and Brown of the Bengals will be required to have for the most part the same level of payrolls as all the other teams have. The one person's role that might be diminished is Jeff Littman's. Now he can't manipulate the payroll downwards in order to squeeze out more profitability for Ralph at the expense of being a competitive team.

 

I won't be surprised if Ralph Wilson votes against the CBA. The majority of the other owners will ignore this very anachronistic owner who has no business being in the business at this point.

Back in the late '90s the Bills spent up to the salary cap. They even got themselves into salary cap trouble because they were spending so much. TD received praise for getting the team out of the salary cap mess Butler had created.

 

A lot has changed since then. The salary cap has gone up much, much faster than have shared revenues, making it increasingly difficult for small market teams to compete while remaining financially viable. Over the past several years, the Green Bay Packers experienced a dramatic reduction in profits, despite fielding a team good enough to win the Super Bowl. That decrease in profits was because of increased player costs, which in turn were driven by large-scale increases in the salary cap. This past season the Packers made $10 million in profit. Assuming the Packers franchise is worth $1 billion, that $10 million represents a 1% rate of return. Would you be willing to invest in a mutual fund expected to produce a 1% rate of return?

 

It's true the Packers could be making a lot more on concessions than they are. On the other hand, their games are always sold out. And unlike a lot of other teams, they have little or no debt. If excessive player costs have imposed financial hardships on the Packers, it stands to reason other small market teams are also taking it on the chin.

 

Some participants in this discussion have acted as though the owners' share of revenues simply disappears into some void. In fact, the owners' 40% of revenues is all there is to pay for coaches, front office personnel, concessions and security people, ticket takers, cheerleaders, and stadium-related expenses not borne by governments. On that last point, I remember seeing pictures of an insanely good stadium and athletic facility for the University of Tennessee. It was noted that no NFL team could afford to build something similar. One reason for that is the University of Tennessee merely gives its players scholarships. In contrast, some individual NFL players receive per-year compensation greater than the Packers' annual profit.

 

The NFL owners are now focused on solving the problem of excessive player compensation. This is a refreshing contrast to their actions of the past--actions which allowed players to attain a gradually increasing share of revenue. Should the owners succeed in creating reasonable limits on player compensation, they will have significantly reduced the chances of the NFL experiencing the same problems as have the NBA and MLB. (The latter two leagues experienced extremely serious harm because of excessive player compensation.)

[1B4IDie]

Back in the late '90s the Bills spent up to the salary cap. They even got themselves into salary cap trouble because they were spending so much. TD received praise for getting the team out of the salary cap mess Butler had created.

 

A lot has changed since then. The salary cap has gone up much, much faster than have shared revenues, making it increasingly difficult for small market teams to compete while remaining financially viable. Over the past several years, the Green Bay Packers experienced a dramatic reduction in profits, despite fielding a team good enough to win the Super Bowl. That decrease in profits was because of increased player costs, which in turn were driven by large-scale increases in the salary cap. This past season the Packers made $10 million in profit. Assuming the Packers franchise is worth $1 billion, that $10 million represents a 1% rate of return. Would you be willing to invest in a mutual fund expected to produce a 1% rate of return?

 

It's true the Packers could be making a lot more on concessions than they are. On the other hand, their games are always sold out. And unlike a lot of other teams, they have little or no debt. If excessive player costs have imposed financial hardships on the Packers, it stands to reason other small market teams are also taking it on the chin.

 

Some participants in this discussion have acted as though the owners' share of revenues simply disappears into some void. In fact, the owners' 40% of revenues is all there is to pay for coaches, front office personnel, concessions and security people, ticket takers, cheerleaders, and stadium-related expenses not borne by governments. On that last point, I remember seeing pictures of an insanely good stadium and athletic facility for the University of Tennessee. It was noted that no NFL team could afford to build something similar. One reason for that is the University of Tennessee merely gives its players scholarships. In contrast, some individual NFL players receive per-year compensation greater than the Packers' annual profit.

 

The NFL owners are now focused on solving the problem of excessive player compensation. This is a refreshing contrast to their actions of the past--actions which allowed players to attain a gradually increasing share of revenue. Should the owners succeed in creating reasonable limits on player compensation, they will have significantly reduced the chances of the NFL experiencing the same problems as have the NBA and MLB. (The latter two leagues experienced extremely serious harm because of excessive player compensation.)

That 1% calculations is pretty funny.

I can tell you're not a business or economics major.

 

The Bills are not laggards in spending they are consistently in the #16-11 overall range when it comes to player salary for the last decade.

[Orton's Arm]

That 1% calculations is pretty funny.

I can tell you're not a business or economics major.

 

The Bills are not laggards in spending they are consistently in the #16-11 overall range when it comes to player salary for the last decade.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

Return On Investment (ROI) computations are very basic to finance and other business-related fields. It's analogous to the economics concept of rate of return. If an investment costs $1 billion, and if it produces $10 million in annual returns, its pretax, non-inflation-adjusted ROI/rate of return is 1%. If you would dispute that point, then you very obviously have no place in any discussion relating to finance or economics. (Making adjustments for taxes or inflation would of course lower the effective ROI.)

 

I also find your bolded statement very difficult to believe. Please provide a link to support it.

 

But even if the bolded statement is true, it merely serves to underscore my point. The Bills' spending in recent years has been well below the salary cap. If "well below the salary cap" is still good enough to put them in the 11th - 16th overall range (as you claim) then that means that more than half the league is even further below the salary cap than the Bills are. In the unlikely event that's actually true, it would only serve to further underscore how fast the salary cap has grown in relation to shared revenue.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[JohnC]

Back in the late '90s the Bills spent up to the salary cap. They even got themselves into salary cap trouble because they were spending so much. TD received praise for getting the team out of the salary cap mess Butler had created.

 

A lot has changed since then. The salary cap has gone up much, much faster than have shared revenues, making it increasingly difficult for small market teams to compete while remaining financially viable. Over the past several years, the Green Bay Packers experienced a dramatic reduction in profits, despite fielding a team good enough to win the Super Bowl. That decrease in profits was because of increased player costs, which in turn were driven by large-scale increases in the salary cap. This past season the Packers made $10 million in profit. Assuming the Packers franchise is worth $1 billion, that $10 million represents a 1% rate of return. Would you be willing to invest in a mutual fund expected to produce a 1% rate of return?

 

It's true the Packers could be making a lot more on concessions than they are. On the other hand, their games are always sold out. And unlike a lot of other teams, they have little or no debt. If excessive player costs have imposed financial hardships on the Packers, it stands to reason other small market teams are also taking it on the chin.

 

Some participants in this discussion have acted as though the owners' share of revenues simply disappears into some void. In fact, the owners' 40% of revenues is all there is to pay for coaches, front office personnel, concessions and security people, ticket takers, cheerleaders, and stadium-related expenses not borne by governments. On that last point, I remember seeing pictures of an insanely good stadium and athletic facility for the University of Tennessee. It was noted that no NFL team could afford to build something similar. One reason for that is the University of Tennessee merely gives its players scholarships. In contrast, some individual NFL players receive per-year compensation greater than the Packers' annual profit.

 

The NFL owners are now focused on solving the problem of excessive player compensation. This is a refreshing contrast to their actions of the past--actions which allowed players to attain a gradually increasing share of revenue. Should the owners succeed in creating reasonable limits on player compensation, they will have significantly reduced the chances of the NFL experiencing the same problems as have the NBA and MLB. (The latter two leagues experienced extremely serious harm because of excessive player compensation.)

 

The Packer comparison is not a good comparison. Because of the way the organization is structured (public ownership) a lot of the revenue is distributed in others ways, such as charities, stock shares and stadium upgrades etc.

 

Ralph Wilson has made in the range of a quarter of a billion dollars over the past eight years. There is little need to worry about the cagey Ralph losing money on his football business entreprise. He might not be too accomplished of fielding a competitive team but he certainly knows how to make an impressive off of his team.

 

The NFL was never in financial trouble under the old CBA or the prospective new CBA. The issue for the owners and the players is primarily an issue over cutting up the profitable pie. That is a far different situation that exists with the NBA where a lot of teams are losing a lot of money.

 

The prospective new CBA will force Ralph Wilson to spend closer to the cap than he has done over the past decade. From Ralph's penuurious standpoint he probably won't be happy with the new CBA.

[Orton's Arm]

The Packer comparison is not a good comparison. Because of the way the organization is structured (public ownership) a lot of the revenue is distributed in others ways, such as charities, stock shares and stadium upgrades etc.

 

Ralph Wilson has made in the range of a quarter of a billion dollars over the past eight years. There is little need to worry about the cagey Ralph losing money on his football business entreprise. He might not be too accomplished of fielding a competitive team but he certainly knows how to make an impressive off of his team.

 

The NFL was never in financial trouble under the old CBA or the prospective new CBA. The issue for the owners and the players is primarily an issue over cutting up the profitable pie. That is a far different situation that exists with the NBA where a lot of teams are losing a lot of money.

 

The prospective new CBA will force Ralph Wilson to spend closer to the cap than he has done over the past decade. From Ralph's penuurious standpoint he probably won't be happy with the new CBA.

It is correct to state that 50% of the Packers' concessions revenue is given to charity. In that sense, they are failing to get their hands on money other teams could acquire. But unlike almost any other small market team in the league, the Packers sell out literally every game.

 

Ownership of the Packers is divided into many small pieces. It is incorrect to assert that this division causes revenues to be distributed through stock shares. The Packers do not issue new shares of stock, and do not pay dividends on existing shares.

 

Stadium upgrades are not unique to the Packers. Especially in a down economy, local and state governments are becoming increasingly reluctant to pay for new stadiums or upgrades to existing stadiums. Ideally, the federal government would make it illegal for state and local governments to subsidize stadium costs. Public funding for stadiums represents a transfer of wealth away from taxpayers and into the pockets of NFL players and owners. Eliminating this transfer of wealth would mean that the owners and players would have to divide up a smaller pie. That's a good thing.

 

"Ralph Wilson has made in the range of a quarter of a billion dollars over the past eight years." $250 million / eight years = $31 million a year. Assuming the Bills franchise is worth $1 billion, that's roughly a 3% rate of return. That rate of return was achieved in large part by spending well under the salary cap. Ideally it would be possible for the owner of a small market team to earn a fair rate of return while spending up to the cap.