Revenue Sharing

[saden1]

It can't be denied that teams in bigger market have an clear and present advantage. I mean, can the Packers or Bengals ever generate as much money as the Redskins with their tri-fecta market of DC, Maryland, and Virginia?

In terms of a club generated revenue sharing I personally think it is necessary to share that revenue but only to the extent that every club shares a percentage of it not the entirety of it. That way teams that generate more revenue have an incentive to generate more money and keep more of it.

Bengals , you generate $150 million? Well, 50% of that goes into the pot. Redskins, you generate $300 million, we'll take $150 million of that. The Bengals will be left with $75 million and the Redskins $150 million. There should also be remedies to make sure teams are maximizing how much they earn (ala annual analysis of what teams are/aren't doing to make more money and penalize those teams that aren't doing enough).

Remember folks, the league is only as strong as it's weakest link.

[70Chip]

I don't think that clubs who refuse on principle to engage in a marketing or business strategies should benefit from those things. If you want to share in stadium naming money you have to name your stadium.

Another question I have relates to the mechanics of RS. Is Snyder going to cut a check to the league at the end of the fiscal year? Will the NFL collect all revenue and then pay the Redskins their share? Will Bill Bidwell get an office at the Park?

[Skins fan 44]

It is messed. We make 205 million over 27 years-7.2 a year- to name Fex Ex Field. Some others are not making anything due to having tradition i.e. Soldier Field, Lambeau Feild. Then you have Jacksonville making 620,000 for their naming rights. And we have to split our money we make. Below is what the other teams make or not for their naming rights.

http://www.leagueoffans.org/nflnamingrights.html