Monday, February 27, 2006

CBA in the NFL

From what I've heard, the problem with getting a new CBA in the NFL has very little to do with the players and almost everything to do with the owners.

In the NFL, there are the haves and the have-nots, relatively speaking, when it comes to income for the owners. "But the NFL has a revenue sharing program, so doesn't everyone make the same?" you might say. But it all depends on what revenue you are talking about.

For instance, all money dealing with the TV deals are shared across the league, and so are shared with the players as well (since this shared revenue is what determines the cap number). But, the luxury boxes that the new stadiums have are not counted in the general revenue. That money goes straight into the owners pocket (so to speak). So do all of the other local revenue streams.

The next obvious question, then, is why don't the owners share all such revenue. The haves, owner of the Patriots Kraft for instance, would say that's really an unfair practice.

The Patriots have turned out a new stadium out of their own money. They are the ones who took a huge financial risk by doing so. They've also turned that stadium into a money maker with conventions, concerts, soccer games; not just football games. Why should they have to share the money they've worked so hard to produce?

The counter argument is a good one though. If it wasn't for the Patriots and the NFL as a whole, the other income streams wouldn't be available. It's the product on the field that makes the rest of it possible.

So when you see stories like the following about how labor unrest is a problem, you're being misled. It's the owners who are having problems. If it wasn't for the smaller market teams having issues with large market teams, the deal would be made.

2 comments:

Seandiego said...

It's ridiculous to expect the owners to share all income equally. Why should a hard working owner have to share with one who doesn't care as much? A couple of examples, just using Bob Kraft: He is committed to putting a winning team on the field. That goes a long way towards selling tickets.(I sat through enough games when Victor Kiam or the Sullivans owned the team to know.) Compare that to the owners in Arizona. Why should Kraft be forced to give more money to an owner who clearly could care less about feilding a competitive team? Another example is the owner of the Cleveland Browns. He refuses to sell naming rights to his stadium(because it is named after is dad or grandfather or something like that. While I admire that, why should Kraft be forced again to substadize his taking a stand? I have don't have much of a problem sharing things that effect the whole league(like tv rights), but even then there sure are teams that earn that money more than others. Just check out the tv ratings to see who are the biggest draws. I don't buy the big market v. small market theories either. Who would you rather watch on tv now? Green Bay or the Jets? The Giants or Seattle? San Fran or Tampa? There are a whole lot of small market teams that have made themselves much more viable than certain big market teams.

Mike said...

I happen to agree with all of that. The owners who do more should definitely get to keep what they work for. But as long as the owners are in-fighting, they won't get the deal done with the players union.