NFL owners opt out of CBA.

[Stunseed]

I wonder how they're going to try to fix shit before 2011 or have the chance of losing to a strike.

Discuss.

[BigWorm]

Why would they opt out of the CBA? They have by far the most owner-friendly CBA of any major sport. Sometimes you have to wonder if Gene Upshaw was actually even working for the Player's Association interests and not the owners.

[thefarmer]

I read in SI a few days ago that the owners feel that the CBA is biased too much toward the players (players get too much profits).

[g++]

Thats ok well start our own NFL with blackjack and hookers, on second thought forget the NFL.

[oldanforgotten]

I read in SI a few days ago that the owners feel that the CBA is biased too much toward the players (players get too much profits).

It is biased towards the players. 60% of all NFL football related revenue creates the salary cap. That includes revenue from tickets, merchandise sold, TV contracts, advertising, and any other sponsorships. The only revenue that owners have exempt from it are basically the food and drink sales at the stadiums themselves. The owners still have to pay for all coaches, equipment, staff, venue payments, etc. from their share, and they keep the rest. Not all teams are in the black, and some teams have players who make more than the team profit.

Rookie contracts need to be scaled back and capped, at least in the form of guaranteed money.
The Pension issues need to be resolved, and the pension fund needs to have more money in it so the people who actually made the game famous in the first place aren’t homeless
The minimum salary needs to be raised.
Free agency should exist but needs to be more controlled. Teams have become complete revolving doors.
There needs to be a funded developmental league.

If the players fail to see it, lock em out. The NFL is slowly losing audience every year right now to college anyway.

[Apathy]

It is biased towards the players. 60% of all NFL football related revenue creates the salary cap. That includes revenue from tickets, merchandise sold, TV contracts, advertising, and any other sponsorships. The only revenue that owners have exempt from it are basically the food and drink sales at the stadiums themselves. The owners still have to pay for all coaches, equipment, staff, venue payments, etc. from their share, and they keep the rest. Not all teams are in the black, and some teams have players who make more than the team profit.

Rookie contracts need to be scaled back and capped, at least in the form of guaranteed money.
The Pension issues need to be resolved, and the pension fund needs to have more money in it so the people who actually made the game famous in the first place aren’t homeless
The minimum salary needs to be raised.
Free agency should exist but needs to be more controlled. Teams have become complete revolving doors.
There needs to be a funded developmental league.

If the players fail to see it, lock em out. The NFL is slowly losing audience every year right now to college anyway.

What team doesn't make money?

[Anebriated]

well they all do due to revenue sharing but there are teams who are in financial trouble due to building new stadiums and poor team support. Im pretty sure Arizona, Buffalo and Carolina arent pulling in the mega bucks. Others like the Giants are stuck with increasing mortgage payments that they cant keep up with among others. People try to say its large market teams vs small market teams but there are small market teams like the Packers who manage just fine.

[Stunseed]

St. Louis is struggling.
Buffalo had to outsource games.
I think Oakland had trouble selling tickets.
Jacksonville had two blackouts even with the season they had.

[Anebriated]

yeah forgot about Jacksonville because of their success. St Louis has struggled ever since they moved from LA. Oakland appears to have a large following despite the teams recent demise(SB year aside). Buffalo... well who the hell had that brilliant idea...

[TheEschaton]

Buffalo has the most loyal fanbase in the country, we sell out every game, but the problem is, no one is willing to advertise with the stadium, it's not like Dallas where Pepsi sponsors everything. The stadium is one of the only ones not corporately sponsored (it's named after our owner, Ralph Wilson). We also have a very small market share, because, well, when you have a city of 230k, and 70k of them are at the game, there's not many people left to watch it on TV.

As for the "outsourcing", it wasn't done because it needed to be done, but because our fans from toronto have been driving 2 and a half hours every Sunday for decades to come see our games. Although there are worrisome rumors about possibly moving to Toronto.

[Parkbandit]

The NFL is slowly losing audience every year right now to college anyway.

If they are slowly losing audience every year.. how did they break their own record attendance last year... for the fifth straight year?

[oldanforgotten]

If they are slowly losing audience every year.. how did they break their own record attendance last year... for the fifth straight year?

Every year, Michigan breaks attendance records, and every 2-3 years, they break an all time game attendance record. This is by allowing a little more overflow into the stadium every year, and usually by just a few people. Big whoop.

The attendance at games is a tiny fraction of their audience, even if it is a good portion of revenue.

TV ratings for regular season games has been declining slowly for the past 20 years. Monday night football is declining in ratings. They added a Sunday night game in order to garner new revenue. Now there are 8 weeks of Thursday night football to keep the pie growing.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/117479

[TheEschaton]

Michigan may do well, but to apply "Michigan" to "college football" is ludicrous.

[oldanforgotten]

Michigan may do well, but to apply "Michigan" to "college football" is ludicrous.

I used it merely as an example to show how schools will always have "record attendance" year after year.

College football in general has a much bigger stadium audience than the NFL. They hold a lot more people, and are always sold out as well.

As for audience, I'm referring to the TV audience. College ratings have been on the up for the last few years, one of the very few sports (MMA, Extreme Sports, Poker (which has somewhat stalled this year) to have that distinction.

None of them have NFL like audiences, and even the biggest of marquee college matchups during the regular season generally won't equal the ratings of the typical NFL game, but its getting closer. The second most watched football game in 2006 was a college game (Texas v USC), which was behind the Superbowl, but ahead of both conference championship games.

A couple of big college matchup games have gotten similar ratings to a typical NFL game. Ratings are up in general to a point where the primetime games are getting between 1/3 and 1/2 of an NFL game's TV audience.

[oldanforgotten]

And let's not forget the ultimate thing. Some of the bigger colleges make more money on the sport than any NFL team does. A LOT more.

[BigWorm]

St. Louis is struggling.

I can't really agree with that. I think that's more act so they can justify selling the team.

[Stunseed]

They had a blackout last year. The higher-end seats don't sell, which is crazy due to the amount of companies with that allotment of income. St. Louis I don't think will be the one to move out to LA...again.

[Sean of the Thread]

There are huge fan bases of NFL teams from up north down here. Bars complete dedicated to the teams in fact and usually reservation only and packed to the hilt... including the Bills even when they suck ass.

[TheEschaton]

Well, the Bills Backers are everywhere. We fill a 500 capacity bar to capacity every Sunday of the week. For an owner of a bar which has an active night scene, he's always happy to have a bar full of drunks on a Sunday afternoon.

[Sean]

The Bills also only charge like $70 for tickets that Dallas can charge like $500 in addition to licensing fees for.

[Sean of the Thread]

There's a nice group of about 10 that hit the same tables every week at one of the local sports pubs. I always go bullshit with them.

Biggest fully devoted bars here are Patritots, Packers, Steelers, Browns and Cowboys for some reason.

One of my favorite is this front/back bar where the back is all browns fans and the front is all steelers fans on big screens. Fun times ensue.

[Sean of the Thread]

Buc's tickets while affordable really just ain't worth the money. Pay to park. Traffic sucks. It's hot has fuck. Beers are $8. Other than that the stadium is really one of the nicest I've been to.

That being said I try to make most home USF games there.. usually at night so not sweating your balls off and great atmosphere you get with NCAA football and tailgating. Beers are still $8 bucks tho but you can't drink at most NCAA football games so works out alright for me.

They let you walk around open container outside all day long no problem. I always bring some flasks anyways and buy my $7 dollar coke and fill'r up. :)

Another perk is some of the most world famous strip/slut clubs in the nation are just down the street.

[Apathy]

You're forgetting the property. Most (all I think...don't feel like checking) NFL clubs with an operating income currently in the red are due to a new stadium being paid for. Take that into account and EVERY owner is making millions. Most of the colleges you are talking about are on state property.

The NFL is the most profitable professional sport, bar none. The statement about college taking it over is absurd.

[Sean of the Thread]

College ratings are taking it over as far as advertising etc down the road.


*greatest American sport = NCAA FOOTBALL

[Apathy]

True, but I would argue this is due to bad decisions made by the league (no more Monday Night on broadcast, insane cost vs profit for broadcast rights) and the birth of the NFL Network. Personally I think the NFL Network is a bad idea, like XFL bad.

[Drew]

Beers are still $8 bucks tho but you can't drink at most NCAA football games so works out alright for me.



That's something the Canes and USF has over FSU and UF.

[oldanforgotten]

You're forgetting the property. Most (all I think...don't feel like checking) NFL clubs with an operating income currently in the red are due to a new stadium being paid for. Take that into account and EVERY owner is making millions. Most of the colleges you are talking about are on state property.

The NFL is the most profitable professional sport, bar none. The statement about college taking it over is absurd.

CBS pays about 700 million a year for the right to broadcast 2 games a week nationally on Sundays for 18 weeks. That revenue is split amongst all 32 teams.

CBS pays 600 million over 5 years (120 million a year) for the right to broadcast 13 weeks worth of games from the SEC. 1 game a week, time slot of their own choosing.

ESPN is paying about 35-40 million additionally to the league for other games broadcast.

It's not the same level, but it is catching up.

Most importantly, when you consider ticket sales, while NFL teams make a lot more per ticket and from ticket sales in general, most of the bigger colleges get a major portion of their funding off of donations, something the NFL doesn't have.

Many bigger schools have athletic endowment fund allocations near or above 1 billion.

The NFL has the biggest TV contracts, and the highest ticket revenues, but most profitable? not a chance. There are several individual colleges who have a history of strong donors who would put NFL teams to shame when it comes to their operating budget.

[RichardCranium]

The amount of money the nation's highest-level college athletics departments are receiving as subsidies from their schools is rising, according to a report by the NCAA.
The report, which examines the revenues and expenses of Division I athletics programs for fiscal years 2004, '05 and '06, also shows that:

•Without subsidies, athletics departments at 19 of the 119 schools in Division I-A (now known as the Football Bowl Subdivision) made money in fiscal 2006 — up from 18 in '05 and '06 — and 16 did so over the three-year period.

•A little more than half of the I-A schools (67 of 119) made money on football or men's basketball (68) in fiscal 2006, based on revenues those programs generated.

The NCAA has done similar studies, but this is the first time revenues were identified by whether they were generated by the athletics department or from the school.

"One of the many goals was to get more information in a more standardized way," NCAA research director Todd Petr says. "We're trying to get a better handle on the cost of the enterprise from the standpoint of the institution, not just the athletics department."

For the study, athletics-generated revenues were defined as those from sources such as ticket sales, conference revenue sharing and donations. School-allocated revenues were those from sources such as student fees and direct and indirect institutional support, including utilities and maintenance.

This methodology rose from a collaboration between the NCAA and the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). The partnership was developed at the request of college presidents, said Stan Nosek, vice chancellor of administration at the University of California-Davis and a member of the NACUBO/NCAA Task Force Oversight Committee. Schools' differing accounting methods have made it difficult for university administrators to have numbers they could compare.

"There are so many questions being asked about the amount of money that's going into athletics," Nosek says. University officials "wanted to have clean data about what they were spending and how it compares to other schools."

There is "growing concern" among presidents about making sure they fully understand how much their schools are subsidizing athletics, Nosek says, because "when some programs require more institutional support, it takes away from the core mission."

The report showed that the average Division I-A athletics department received about 19% of its revenues from institutional sources in fiscal 2004 and about 26% of its revenues from these sources in fiscal 2006. In Division I-AA (now known as the Football Championship Subdivision), the average athletics department received about 76% of its revenues from institutional sources in each of three years studied. At Division I schools that do not have varsity football, the figure was about 80%.

"The extent to which" Division I-A athletics departments were being subsidized was "a little bit surprising," Petr said. But the rate of increase in athletics-generated revenues did not keep pace with the rate of increase in expenditures during the period studied.

Petr said NCAA officials were not surprised by the low number of I-A athletics departments at which revenues exceeded expenses. While athletics has a "intrinsic value … Myles (Brand, the NCAA president) has been talking about this for a couple of years," Petr says.

As for the number of I-A schools losing money on football, Petr said, "Some see upgrading the football program as a way of turning it into one of those programs that hits the jackpot." Petr said the schools making money on football probably primarily come from the six conferences whose champions automatically qualify for the Bowl Championship Series (the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pacific-10 and Southeastern). The NCAA's report does not provide school-by-school information.

The report showed that for the 67 I-A football programs that showed a program-generated surplus in fiscal year 2006, the average surplus was nearly $8.8 million, while among the 52 programs that showed a deficit, the average deficit was a little more than $2.5 million.

The report also showed that for the 19 I-A athletic departments that showed a surplus in fiscal 2006, the average surplus was nearly $4.3 million, while among the 99 departments that showed a deficit that year, the average deficit was a little more than $8.9 million.

Both gaps have grown since fiscal 2004.



Posted 7 days ago on USAToday. Link here. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-study_N.htm)

[Sean]

Its kind of goofy to pit the NFL and NCAA up against each other since they both need each other to survive.

[oldanforgotten]

Big article on athletic subsidies.

Posted 7 days ago on USAToday. Link here. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-study_N.htm)

There are about 30-35 major college football teams that make boatloads upon boatloads of money, and probably a little more than that in basketball.

Hi mr CEO alum class of 70, would you like to donate 1,000 to the school so you can have dinner with 50 other alums with some of our football players? Oh gee thanks, sign here.

That money doesn't go into the athletic revenue, but do you really think they're donating to get prime tickets to see women's fencing?

http://www.ctlr.ohio-state.edu/accounting/2005_fin_rpt.pdf

Look at the areas of revenue marked as "Capital Appropriations and gifts for capital projects (earmarked donations, which part of are due to athletic, but is not put in athletic dept bucket)", "Auxilliary enterprise sales and services, net (advertising revenue, which part comes from athletic success, but doesn't go into that bucket)", and "Departmental sales and other operating revenues (other than the athletic department, no one generates significant revenues, and research revenue is listed under grants and contracts)"

so from an accounting view, sure it may look like the program isn't making a big profit, which is exactly what they need to stay in business. If they were making money hand over fist from an accounting perspective, it would give so much more to the argument that the players should be paid, something they are adamantly against.

[Apathy]

The University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish, worth $101 million, is the most valuable team in college football - http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ys-forbescollegeteams112007

Least valuable NFL Team: Minnesota Vikings, worth $782 million. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/30/biz_07nfl_Minnesota-Vikings_309201.html

Explain your point to me again.