$0 - They make their money when they sell the team.
$10 M max. Similar to players on their second contract
$10 - $20 M. Like a top line veteran player
$20 - 30 M. As much as the highest paid players
$30 - 40 M. A bit more than the top players
$40 M+. Its a huge investments in a wildly successful business. A solid return is deserved.
Didn't Jones end up paying almost three times as much as the taxpayers? I think Arlington paid $350 million, and Jones something like $900+ million.Originally Posted by Brandon494
I believe the Giants and Jets paid the entire cost, or at least most of it, with no taxpayer input.
I think the lack of available taxpayer money is a big reason the owners want a larger cut off the top. Can you imagine trying to get a municipality to build you a new stadium now or in the next few years? It might not be impossible, but it's definitely not a job I'd want. So, if you can't get it from the tax payers get it from the players.
I think much of the talk of the players getting other jobs or the owners going for the throat is more emotional than pragmatic. You could not replace the players with any where near the same quality of men, despite the fact that others would jump at the chance to play for less. If I watch soccer I watch Champions League because by watching a team like Barcelona play I see soccer played at the highest level. I couldn't even name the teams in the MLS. I mean you could also argue that if an owner doesn't like the deal they can sell the team and put their money into other business ventures. But that is not going to happen.
Remember, this is a highly successful overall business and ultimately they both need one another to make as much money as they do. And both the parties involved in this struggle are getting very rich. So, they each have strong impetus to work this out before they stifle the passion for the league.
The issue of fairness is tough to answer, because it is subjective. I mean is it fair that there are children born HIV positive in war zones while other children get to grow up and inherit the Yankees? I would say no. I'm being glib though, I know the question was posed within the scope of the negotiations.
On the players side I understand them rankling at the fact that the owners are asking them to play two more games, and give up a billion dollars when fan interest and TV dollars are as high as they have ever been.
I understand the owners making the point that if you want to be business partners than you should chip in on some of the capital costs that it takes to grow the business.
As far as what the owners make, they're going to maximize their profits within legally conscripted boundaries. They can't, for instance, sell cocaine at the concession stands. That seems fair. However, the players have much more leverage than any other pool of employees that I can think of and that's why metaphors relating to any other business I can think of aren't applicable.
I don't think anything about this is about fairness. It is about leverage. As an example, a friend of mine worked at a bond trading company in Chicago as their network administrator. He quit to move to Milwaukee with his family. They immediately had major system failures. This is obviously a huge problem if you're trying to trade in bonds. They called him and said, 'what's it going to take for you to come back?'. He told them he'd do it as a contractor for $100/hr. They agreed, things got back to running smoothly. Within a month his boss sat him down and said,'listen, I want you here, but I can't pay you as a contractor. What are we going to do about that?'. He asked for his old salary, but instead of five days a week he'd take the train down two days and be available to fix things remotely for the equivalent of one day a week. Could he have asked for this before he quit as an ultimatum? No way. Did they agree? Yup. This is leverage not fairness that is in play.
As far as what the union really wants, which Patler raised earlier, I think secondarily they want to get all the owners financials so that they can see if there are some profits being hidden as costs. But, I think the primary reason is their hope that they can cause dissension within the ranks of the owners. If every owner gets to see how much the richest teams are making that isn't subject to revenue sharing they are liable to try to get a piece of it. The Ralph Wilson's of the league can make the argument that, hey we've been saying that shared revenue drives competitive parity, which drives viewership and attendance, which drives profits. And that's a reasonably strong argument because it correlates to the most profitable period of growth in league history.
At that point, the players weaken the ownership because of division and if more revenue goes into the shared pool that would presumably raise the amount that goes toward player salaries. Which is obviously a major focus of the union short and long term.
A significant portion of that funding in each case comes from PSLs. Definitely a more targeted fund raiser than using government money, but not exactly the owner's pocket either. I think Richardson in Carolina did this for their expansion franchise stadium, didn't he? I am not sure this represents a recent change in stadium financing.
A PSL could represent a revenue source that could be tapped for other uses by the team, but I am unsure it would be as easy a sell if the funds did not go to stadium construction costs.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
PSLs have been around for 25 years, even when taxpayers were footing the bill for large portions of stadium construction costs. About half the NFL teams already have them in one form or another. Many Big 10 schools have them, but refer to them as a "priority seating surcharge" or other such nonsense. Wisconsin calls them priority seating "contributions" and they apply to only some seats, as I understand it. I don't see a PSL as any different than increasing the package prices for season tickets, its still the owner raising the money, and theoretically, in most cases, the owner is on the hook for the cost if the PSLs don't sell (although it is unlikely to happen).
Didn't the Packers have a one-time surcharge for season ticket holders as part of their renovation financing? Or did they just talk about it but never implement it?
It was $4k per seat, I believe, and yes, it was implemented at least partially. I have no idea if it was every ticket holder or not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote