What is a fair profit for an NFL owner?

[Patler]

So far, the overwhelming consensus here seems to be that owners should be taking home a lot, $40 million or more.
Annually, that's approaching $1.5 billion for the 32 teams.
Annually, player salaries are in the neighborhood of $4.5 billion.
If the pie is $9 billion, that leaves $3 billion for everything else. Sounds like a lot, but it is only about $100 million per team, which has to pay for coaches salaries, GM, scouting staff, medical and training staff, office and field personnel, and all employees benefits like insurance, equipment costs, travel expenses, food, lodging, etc., etc.

Yes, there are other sources of income not part of the $9 billion, but there are also other expenses relating to stadium building, renovating and upkeep that I didn't include above.

My point is this, it doesn't seem that the amount of money that reasonably could go one direction or another is really all that much. A few million extra per owner on the one hand or a few thousand per player on the other shouldn't have stopped this from settling.

I think this is more about ego and "winning" than it is about the money.

The owners and players should have considered the saying,"Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it."

[MJZiggy]

Actually Patler, I think they should divvy up 6 million and lower prices for the fans...

[mraynrand]

Actually Patler, I think they should divvy up 6 million and lower prices for the fans...

Why should they? The fans have shown a willingness to pay even more. It wouldn't surprise me if the NFL in the very near future goes to a significantly expensive pay-per-view, especially if the players get a favorable decision in the current negotiations. That's where the technology is right now anyway.

[Patler]

Why should they? The fans have shown a willingness to pay even more. It wouldn't surprise me if the NFL in the very near future goes to a significantly expensive pay-per-view, especially if the players get a favorable decision in the current negotiations. That's where the technology is right now anyway.

Agreed. I've believed that for several years, ever since an NFL marketing guy made the comment quite a few years ago already that it is fundamentally unfair for one fan to have to pay lots of money to attend a game in person, and for another fan to get it completely free at home. His conclusion was that something, just a small amount, would be "fair" to be able to watch from home.

I think their plans may have been a bit delayed when the NFL Network wasn't greeted with open arms and open checkbooks by the cable companies/fans. But they have their inroad, and we are being indoctrinated.

[Tony Oday]

Cap pay at $1 million a year. If the players dont like it they can ALWAYS start their own league.

[pbmax]

Cap pay at $1 million a year. If the players dont like it they can ALWAYS start their own league.

They wouldn't, but someone could at those prices. The only roadblock would be stadiums. See AFL, 1960-1969.

ABC (though the ESPN contract would complicate it) might televise it. And if they didn't, TNT or Versus would.

[Tony Oday]

They wouldn't, but someone could at those prices. The only roadblock would be stadiums. See AFL, 1960-1969.

ABC (though the ESPN contract would complicate it) might televise it. And if they didn't, TNT or Versus would.

Thats what I mean. If they dont like making 10's of millions then f them and now you are capped EVERYONE makes $1 Million a year base salary and $100,000 per win for every player. Dont like it? Want to see the books? Start your own damn league and look all you want.

[pbmax]

Thats what I mean. If they dont like making 10's of millions then f them and now you are capped EVERYONE makes $1 Million a year base salary and $100,000 per win for every player. Dont like it? Want to see the books? Start your own damn league and look all you want.

And my point is that the league will not do it because it needs THESE players. At least in the short term.

[Guiness]

Thats what I mean. If they dont like making 10's of millions then f them and now you are capped EVERYONE makes $1 Million a year base salary and $100,000 per win for every player. Dont like it? Want to see the books? Start your own damn league and look all you want.

And where does the rest of the money go? If the total salary comes down to half of their current level, do you think the owners will drop prices?

I would guess you're purposely overstating the salaries as well in an attempt to make a point. They don't make $10 million - a select few do.

A ballpark average salary is pretty easy to figure out if you look at 2009. 59 players count against the cap of $130 million cap gives you $2.2 million/player. But that's too high, subtract the big hitters for 2009:
(source http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/62145597.html)

Aaron Rodgers, QB     $9.653M     
Greg Jennings, WR     $8.149M     
Chad Clifton, T       $8.040M     
Charles Woodson, CB   $7.300M     
Donald Driver, WR     $6.400M     
Aaron Kampman, OLB    $6.005M     
A.J. Hawk, ILB        $5.902M     
Al Harris, CB         $4.775M     
Nick Barnett, ILB     $4.684M     
Ryan Grant, RB        $4.400M

So, top ten earners make $65.44M, leaving $64.6M for the remaining 49 players - or $1.3million per. So given that the average number of wins/year is 8, your plan would actually be a raise for a lot of players.

Still as astronomical sum of money for most of the rest of us, but certainly not $10million per season.

[Tony Oday]

And where does the rest of the money go? If the total salary comes down to half of their current level, do you think the owners will drop prices?

I would guess you're purposely overstating the salaries as well in an attempt to make a point. They don't make $10 million - a select few do.

A ballpark average salary is pretty easy to figure out if you look at 2009. 59 players count against the cap of $130 million cap gives you $2.2 million/player. But that's too high, subtract the big hitters for 2009:
(source http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/62145597.html)

Aaron Rodgers, QB     $9.653M     
Greg Jennings, WR     $8.149M     
Chad Clifton, T       $8.040M     
Charles Woodson, CB   $7.300M     
Donald Driver, WR     $6.400M     
Aaron Kampman, OLB    $6.005M     
A.J. Hawk, ILB        $5.902M     
Al Harris, CB         $4.775M     
Nick Barnett, ILB     $4.684M     
Ryan Grant, RB        $4.400M

So, top ten earners make $65.44M, leaving $64.6M for the remaining 49 players - or $1.3million per. So given that the average number of wins/year is 8, your plan would actually be a raise for a lot of players.

Still as astronomical sum of money for most of the rest of us, but certainly not $10million per season.

Correct exaggerated for effect.

I know it would be a big increase for most of the NFL. This is Obamanomics at its best! Redistribute the income from all the teams and the "extra" goes partly back into the pockets of owners, partly to the cities that were dumb enough to fund their stadiums and part to retired players. The extra to the owners to be used to loan money to teams to build new stadiums so they stop fleecing us

[Tony Oday]

No what they need are teams, the union is gone and I am sure in most states there is no collective bargaining with non union employees so start the season. If the players want to play they show up, rookies from college more than likely NEED the cash so they would work for that and in the end actually get MORE money than if they graduated and took a job at say Google. The current players have the choice to not play for sure but then they have to pay off their debts with a job that their semi complete degrees will get them.

[pbmax]

No what they need are teams, the union is gone and I am sure in most states there is no collective bargaining with non union employees so start the season. If the players want to play they show up, rookies from college more than likely NEED the cash so they would work for that and in the end actually get MORE money than if they graduated and took a job at say Google. The current players have the choice to not play for sure but then they have to pay off their debts with a job that their semi complete degrees will get them.

Then in your view, if to abrogate current player contracts all that was needed was decertification, then why are the owner's locking out the players?

[Smeefers]

I've read all the posts, and I can honestly say that i agree with everyone here.

[Smeefers]

I've read all the posts, and I can honestly say that i agree with everyone here.

Gee Smeefers, I really appreciate your attempt to inject a bit of humor into this heated debate. You sir, are a comedic Genius. Lol sir, lol.

[mngolf19]

I wouldn't have locked out if I was an owner. But now that this has happened, open up the draft to everyone (no age min) and add in more rounds. Tell each draftee that he has a max salary he can make per season, each contract is on a 1 year basis and that the owners as a group will not make any attempt to go after another teams FA's until given permission to by the releasing team. Within 5 years you are back to the a reasonable level of play again. And, to get the public on my side I immediately cut ticket prices drastically and renegotiate tv contracts.

I'm sure you'll tell me how this won't work but... works for me.

[sharpe1027]

Unless the salary cap is removed, arguments of "whatever money the players can get is fair" go out the window. If it was a free market, players could command whatever money owners thought they were worth and bad owners would lose money. The owners use the salary cap to protect themselves from their own stupidity. I see no reason for them to complain about the fairness when they are the source of the problem.

Therefore my answer to the question is: whatever profit the owners are able to make is fair and if they lose money they likely should be blaming themselves first.

[rbaloha1]

Unless the salary cap is removed, arguments of "whatever money the players can get is fair" go out the window. If it was a free market, players could command whatever money owners thought they were worth and bad owners would lose money. The owners use the salary cap to protect themselves from their own stupidity. I see no reason for them to complain about the fairness when they are the source of the problem.

Well said. Its the same in the NBA with the age limit. Its the owners that did not want to risk big money on high schoolers.

[Patler]

PB;

I agree with all your comments about company value, appreciation, etc. But in many ways that is irrelevant to a situation that will soon arise. At some point in the near future the players will be getting their noses into the teams finances, and will see what the owners have taken out for their own use on a yearly basis. How much the owners have paid themselves. The players should recognize that it is fair for the owners to take some money from ongoing operations. If the owners average $2 million/year, I doubt players will find fault in that. If they find the owners "take" is $100 M/year, I suspect they will scream long and loud that more of that should be given to the players.

It's a very practical issue that will surface soon. It doesn't have to be made more complicated than it is (or will be).

[Guiness]

PB;

I agree with all your comments about company value, appreciation, etc. But in many ways that is irrelevant to a situation that will soon arise. At some point in the near future the players will be getting their noses into the teams finances, and will see what the owners have taken out for their own use on a yearly basis. How much the owners have paid themselves. The players should recognize that it is fair for the owners to take some money from ongoing operations. If the owners average $2 million/year, I doubt players will find fault in that. If they find the owners "take" is $100 M/year, I suspect they will scream long and loud that more of that should be given to the players.

It's a very practical issue that will surface soon. It doesn't have to be made more complicated than it is (or will be).

See, that's where I disagree with you, and think that there is no 'magic' number that is acceptable for profit.

I don't think the trouble with opening the books will come from learning one of the owners makes $100million/year. I think it will come from questionable accounting practices, like the ones pbmax and myself brought up earlier...i.e. an owner taking a $100million dollar salary, and putting it in the expense column, instead of the profit column.

I think at much as issue as the division of the revenue/profits is how that number is arrived at.

You could be correct in your other post, of course, that this is all a red hearing, and the players actually want something totally different, like getting rid of the tags, or wholesale changes to FA. I, personally don't think so. I think the root issue is the one stated up front, that the owners are saying the profit margin is too low, and the players don't believe them. After that, it's all egos and grandstanding.

[rbaloha1]

See, that's where I disagree with you, and think that there is no 'magic' number that is acceptable for profit.

I don't think the trouble with opening the books will come from learning one of the owners makes $100million/year. I think it will come from questionable accounting practices, like the ones pbmax and myself brought up earlier...i.e. an owner taking a $100million dollar salary, and putting it in the expense column, instead of the profit column.

I think at much as issue as the division of the revenue/profits is how that number is arrived at.

You could be correct in your other post, of course, that this is all a red hearing, and the players actually want something totally different, like getting rid of the tags, or wholesale changes to FA. I, personally don't think so. I think the root issue is the one stated up front, that the owners are saying the profit margin is too low, and the players don't believe them. After that, it's all egos and grandstanding.

Yea -- lets see the books with General Accounting Principals and not books that hide revenues from Uncle Sam.