What is a fair profit for an NFL owner?

[Lurker64]

Again -- impossible to determine an actual number w/o full disclosure. Its moot since full disclosure shall not occur -- nor should it. Players are entertainers with a unique set of skills. The market determine the wage. However the market could be corrupted due to a blatant violation of anti trust laws.

Why is disclosure of anything required for determining what a "fair" profit is? The question is merely "supposing that the books were exposed, what profits by the owners would lend you to conclude 'that's enough'." Saying "I can't answer" a question that presupposes "if the books were opened..." by saying "I can't answer unless they opened the books" is absolutely nonsensical.

[bobblehead]

Its impossible to determine a fair profit when the owners fail to properly document revenues and expenses.

Actually its easy to figure. As much as the market will bear. What you think is fair can be voted on by you spending your money on the product. What the players think is fair will be determined by them choosing a different career.

[Patler]

Again -- impossible to determine an actual number w/o full disclosure. Its moot since full disclosure shall not occur -- nor should it. Players are entertainers with a unique set of skills. The market determine the wage. However the market could be corrupted due to a blatant violation of anti trust laws.

The reality of the situation is that the players have demanded, and likely will get significant access to their owners' books. They will be given a number or will calulate a number on their own that represents the owners annual cash take from the business. Some players have implied that the owners currently get too much, and more of the $9 billion should go to the players. That presupposes that there is an acceptable amount for an owner to "take". I am trying to get a feel for that number.

If Peyton Manning is paid $25 million, if the players determine that Irsay paid himself and his family $40 million, will that be fair? Is it fair to him if all gets on a year to year basis is $5 million?

[HowardRoark]

Can fans ask what is a "fair" amount for a player to make......and then demand lower ticket prices and less commercials about erection difficulties?

[Bretsky]

I think the players trying to decide what is fair for the owners is a load of crap. What is fair for the players? Should the nfl review the personal assets and tax returns of the players and determine whether it is fair for Player X to have a 12 million dollar house and ten sports cars.

TEN CLAP POST

[Bretsky]

What's fair for the players who go out there and risk their bodies and in extreme cases, lives? It's not an easy negotiation. There are billions of dollars every year. However it gets split, everyone is rich. Just how to split it is the tough part.

It's their choice; all of life is a choice for employees. If they don't want to make that risk for the absurd amount of money they get, then they can choose to get different jobs.

[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...

[Guiness]

Struggle with this? No way, not at all. I have a very clear understanding of the concepts and what I would do as an owner or as a player. How am I being defensive??? Just trying to discuss the exact issue that is the stumbling block in the negotiations, how much the owners make relative to the players.

When did I get defensive? I have refrained from comment about the strike/lockout for several days, for the most part. Posted some links to a few articles before that, and summarized some impressions I had gotten from reading a lot about it. I do think the players have wanted to decertify from the get-go, but so what? That has nothing to do with being pro-player or pro-owner. After all, the players are pro-player and they decertified.

I think these last couple of lines are defensive sounding, but maybe that's just me. If you say you aren't, I believe you. That's what makes these types of forums so prone to flame wars. I can't see your facial expressions, if you arched your eyebrows when you said that, hear your tone of voice or see any of your other body english. So it's easy for me to read a (wrong) impression.

I did??? When? Refresh my recollection please. I don't recall drawing any such parallels. If I did, it sure wasn't a major issue in my mind, because I don't recall doing it. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, or I have completely forgotten comments I may have made for the purposes of promoting a discussion.

[snip]
If I were in the negotiating room (and I have been) I would be doing much the same thing. There is a point to all of this.

I'm pretty sure it was you, and your second statement makes me think so even more.

The discussion was about how players wanted full disclosure, and you said you'd been involved in negotiations, and no one would ever think of asking a private business to reveal it's books.

[Bossman641]

Again -- impossible to determine an actual number w/o full disclosure. Its moot since full disclosure shall not occur -- nor should it. Players are entertainers with a unique set of skills. The market determine the wage. However the market could be corrupted due to a blatant violation of anti trust laws.

Are you not understanding the question? You don't need actual numbers to determine what a fair rate of return is. Assuming the owner is not making distributions to himself, what is a fair percentage?

[rbaloha1]

Are you not understanding the question? You don't need actual numbers to determine what a fair rate of return is. Assuming the owner is not making distributions to himself, what is a fair percentage?

Yes you do.

[Patler]

I'm pretty sure it was you, and your second statement makes me think so even more.

The discussion was about how players wanted full disclosure, and you said you'd been involved in negotiations, and no one would ever think of asking a private business to reveal it's books.

I asked a fairly simple question at that time: how many people worked for privately owned businesses, and if they new exactly how much the private owners made. But I don't see how that makes me defensive, or shows me to be struggling with this issue. In fact, I think I saw through the players position quite clearly.

My point at the time was that the players were demanding detail that they weren't likely to get, nor did I think they were entitled to it. Some information, sure; but their own accountants auditing (for want of a better description) the teams' books? No way. If that had been a starting point, no problem. But, they never backed off it. Reportedly, they didn't even look at what WAS offered by the owners to see if it helped bridge the gap at all. Then they even seemed to up the demand at the last minute. All this leads me to believe they never had an interest in settling short of de-certification and the inevitable lawsuit.

During a negotiation it is necessary to try and determine what the other side is really after if they won't tell you. The union wants something, but I'm not sure what it is. It's not the teams' books. That's the front. It's something more important to them than that. Perhaps getting rid of the various franchise tags and RFA designations for a true free agency after a brief rookie contract. Perhaps abolishing the salary cap. Perhaps all of the above. Those may have changed during a negotiated settlement, but would likely have continued in some form or another. The real threat of an antitrust lawsuit could hasten those changes.

Somewhere in that hodgepodge is the real target of the NFLPA. Its not the teams books and the few million $/team that might be in dispute. It's power and control.

[Lurker64]

Yes you do.

No. you don't.

You do not need to know what the actual profits are to estimate the dividing lines are between an insufficient profit, a sufficient profit, and an excessive profit (assuming there were such a thing). You do not need actual data to address hypothetical questions. To demand real data in order to address a hypothetical question means that you don't actually understand what "hypothetical" means.

[rbaloha1]

No. you don't.

You do not need to know what the actual profits are to estimate the dividing lines are between an insufficient profit, a sufficient profit, and an excessive profit (assuming there were such a thing). You do not need actual data to address hypothetical questions. To demand real data in order to address a hypothetical question means that you don't actually understand what "hypothetical" means.

Its an impossible hypothetical. To simplify -- High profit margin -- players receive a bigger share than a small profit margin.

[Patler]

Its an impossible hypothetical. To simplify -- High profit margin -- players receive a bigger share than a small profit margin.

Ah....we essentially know two of four basic variables, all of which are dependent. They tell us the overall pot is worth $9 billion. We know that the players pool is worth about 4.5 billion. The other two vary directly with one another. All I asked was what you thought was a fair amount for one remaining variable.

It is really a very easy, very direct, very discussable question. I'm not asking you to verify the numbers.

a+b+c=$9 billion

a=player compensation=$4.5 billion
b=owners "take"
c=expenses

I've asked you to tell me what $(b/32) you think is fair. It presupposes that everything else is properly part of c.
If actual (b/32) > your acceptable (b/32), then perhaps "a" should be increased.
If actual (b/32) < your acceptable (b/32), then perhaps "a" should be decreased.