Gang of 9

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I totally agree. Revenue sharing is a fundamental necessity for a successful sports league. They thing is that there is clearly a group of teams who refuse to take the same steps that the more profitable teams take to make money. All the while they propose to take more money from the teams that are the ones taking these steps. To me the league is at a good place right now. I think extending the CBA to grow proportionally to the the revenues of the league is appropriate but simply infusing a not so insignificant chunk of revenues treams into the shared revenues has very little value to the league as a whole but a ton of value to those "poorer" teams. I don't see where it makes the league better and in fact I see ways it hurts the league. I think the balance they have now needs to be maintained.

Daseal is right. Teams that are less profitable are so because they aren't trying hard enough for the most part. I don't expect Green Bay to necessarily make exactly the same amount as DC but I can't see how they don't make enough to stay as competitive as every other team. If you look at the "gang of 9" it is a group of longer term successful teams. They make money because they are good but with the cap I think it is very suspect that they are good because they make money. They are good because they do the best job scouting, coaching and those things. Put some effort into marketing and put a good product on the field and your team makes its own money. When that happens something tells me that the gang of 9 might grow by a team all of a sudden.

I think this sentiment pretty much sums it up for me as well.

I think it's a fine line. You don't want to share too much revenue because it takes away the incentive for teams to bring in revenues. But you want to make sure you're sharing enough so that everyone has a shot at signing the best coaches and players.

I think the currrent system in place is just fine. There are no small market teams out there that aren't making enough money to cover player and staffing salaries. Whether or not all owners are making a profit should not be the primary concern of the league. The only thing that matters is do you have enough revenue to staff your coaches, trainers, and pay for players. Everyone does, and that's enough to remain competitive on the field.

Any profits you take in aside from those revenues should be on you to come up with.

The small market owners remind me of someone on welfare who wants to be supported with $30,000 per year from the government. The whole point of welfare is to give you the BARE BARE essentials so you can live your life. Food, shelter, healthcare. It shouldn't be paying for you to afford nice clothes or pay for meals at TGI Fridays. In the NFL, the bare minimum that each team needs is the money to cover player salaries up to the salary cap, and coaching/training salaries. Beyond that, you're just asking for a handout.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The small market owners remind me of someone on welfare who wants to be supported with $30,000 per year from the government. The whole point of welfare is to give you the BARE BARE essentials so you can live your life. Food, shelter, healthcare. It shouldn't be paying for you to afford nice clothes or pay for meals at TGI Fridays. In the NFL, the bare minimum that each team needs is the money to cover player salaries up to the salary cap, and coaching/training salaries. Beyond that, you're just asking for a handout.

Welfare doesn't provide enough for the basics of living in today's world, but that's an argument for another day.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Welfare doesn't provide enough for the basics of living in today's world, but that's an argument for another day.

Depends upon what you call "the basics." But you're right we don't have to go there. The main point is that all NFL teams really need is enough money to field a competitive team, which means player and coaching salaries. Above and beyond that, I think teams should be on their own.

[Oakland Red]

Because some teams are in areas that are extremely wealthy, like the DC area, they will have an opportunity to make money that other teams don't. How can a Green Bay make as much money through luxury boxes, radio, local tv, and gate receipts, jersey sales, etc.? There is no possilbility of that, because the people who live in Wisconsin simply have far less money.

Also as Brud Lee points out, a team like the Redskins owns the stadium it plays in also - allowing them to rake in far more money than a team that has to pay a stadium authority.

Yet the Redskins benefit greatly from having the Green Bay Packers, and many other teams like them, in the league. It wouldn't be the NFL without them. The Redskins in fact are worth nothing without the other teams in the league to play. The NFL is what it is because of all the teams, and because the NFL has been a trailblazer at making sure that policy emphasizes "league first" revenue sharing rather than letting competitive balances tip greatly due to an inherently uneven playing field in terms of opportunity to earn money.

Sharing doesn't mean that everything is shared absolutely equally of course. If a team puts more into marketing, they still keep a lot of that money, but what is being asked is that they share more of it.

Otherwise you end up with a tiered "league" like MLB, where some teams have a dramatic competitive advantage due to the money they make. Do we want a situation where the Giants and Packers is similar in comparison to the Yankees and Brewers? That wouldn't be the NFL in my view.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

Because some teams are in areas that are extremely wealthy, like the DC area, they will have an opportunity to make money that other teams don't. How can a Green Bay make as much money through luxury boxes, radio, local tv, and gate receipts, jersey sales, etc.? There is no possilbility of that, because the people who live in Wisconsin simply have far less money.

Also as Brud Lee points out, a team like the Redskins owns the stadium it plays in also - allowing them to rake in far more money than a team that has to pay a stadium authority.

Yet the Redskins benefit greatly from having the Green Bay Packers, and many other teams like them, in the league. It wouldn't be the NFL without them. The Redskins in fact are worth nothing without the other teams in the league to play. The NFL is what it is because of all the teams, and because the NFL has been a trailblazer at making sure that policy emphasizes "league first" revenue sharing rather than letting competitive balances tip greatly due to an inherently uneven playing field in terms of opportunity to earn money.

Sharing doesn't mean that everything is shared absolutely equally of course. If a team puts more into marketing, they still keep a lot of that money, but what is being asked is that they share more of it.

Otherwise you end up with a tiered "league" like MLB, where some teams have a dramatic competitive advantage due to the money they make. Do we want a situation where the Giants and Packers is similar in comparison to the Yankees and Brewers? That wouldn't be the NFL in my view.

logical fallacies at play here... the people around green bay don't necessarily have less money, its more a problem of population density.

secondly, no one is asking to do away with the current profit sharing (which is substantial), just not to increase it to insanity where teams share profits but not debts etc.