Jerry Doesn't Like Revenue-Sharing - Dallas Cowboys Forum

yesfan · 03-23-2005

Wed Mar 23, 2005 --from FFMastermind.com

ESPN's John Clayton reports owners spent more of Tuesday trying to resolve their differences over how to extend the collective bargaining agreement, but they appeared to be at the same dead end commissioner Paul Tagliabue expressed Monday. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, one of the league's high revenue teams, discussed publicly his problems with accepting a tax of sorts to redistribute the revenues and help the teams at the lower end of the scale. He sounded hardline in his beliefs. "We share more revenue than any sport ever has," Jones said. "It's been very successful. But the players have benefited tremendously from the system that is in place that creates incentives for teams to build stadiums and go out and create new revenues. Players have gotten that money, and it's been tremendous. I don't know that the players would agree to subsides that would diminish incentives for low revenue clubs to improve their revenues." The NFL shares its ticket and television revenues. Teams with new stadiums, though, have created a gap in revenues that is growing ever wider. Things such as revenues from luxury suites, concessions, stadium signage and others aren't shared. Jones believes sharing those things would be a "dis-incentive," and he won't support that type of change. "Players want the most incentives they can get," Jones said. "But that's how revenues have grown. Players run from a revenue tax. They want clubs to get their revenues because players get their revenues." The NFL is concerned the growing gap in revenues will create competitive problems. There would be Haves and Have Nots. Jones disagrees. "There is no collation between competing and the revenue of clubs," Jones said. "There never has been. We've had teams with low revenues win Super Bowls. I remember winning a Super Bowl one time and we were one of the lowest two teams from revenue that year. It does not equate to winning." More talks will continue Wednesday at the owners meeting.

Yeagermeister · 03-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesfan

Wed Mar 23, 2005 --from FFMastermind.com

[View Full Quote]

I don't blame him. Why should a team that busts it butt have to share with a team that does nothing.

**ABQCOWBOY** · 03-23-2005

Well, I too, agree with Jerry. I look at Baseball and I see how it has effected that sport. Basically, your always going to have owners who are in it stickly for the money. They don't help the sport or the fan base. They put together crap teams that have zero chance of competing and then coast on the revenue sharing that gets put into place.

The way I see it, this country was built on every individual having a chance to come up with a better mouse trap. Those that do, have an opportunity to capitolize on it. This is not a socialistic endevour and it shouldn't ever be. If Jerry can figure out how to do it better and smarter, why shouldn't he reep the rewards associated. That would be like someone going to my job and telling me that even though I was profitable, I had to share evenly with all my competitors. How stupid does this really look when you examine it closely?

Apparently, not stupid enough. Every year, the NFL wants more revenue sharing.

Go figure.

Yakuza Rich · 03-23-2005

The NBA, MLB, and NHL have been greatly hurt by not having a revenue sharing/salary cap system like the NFL.

I was born and raised in NY and I'm a diehard Yankees fan. Obviously, having the money that the Yankees have doesn't mean they are going to win every year, but the chances of them winning the World Series are greater. And while I do enjoy the winning the Yankees have had over the years, I know of too many fans that have become disenchanted with the game because their favorite team simply cannot compete on a consistent basis. The same could be said for the NHL and the NBA.

It's not really the "American way", but it's the best system for major professional sports and I'm not going to feel sorry for Jerry or any other owner who complains about not getting a extra few million dollars or so when they are already one of the richest people in the world.

Rich.........

conner01 · 03-23-2005

i'm all for revenue sharing with revenue generated by the league,such as tv and ticket sales.but if a team builds a stadium they should get there luxury box money because they have to pay atleast a portion of the cost of building the stadium.any money generated by an individual team,not the league as a whole should belong to that team.tha encourages teams not making big money to look for more revenue sources

**ABQCOWBOY** · 03-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

The NBA, MLB, and NHL have been greatly hurt by not having a revenue sharing/salary cap system like the NFL.

I was born and raised in NY and I'm a diehard Yankees fan. Obviously, having the money that the Yankees have doesn't mean they are going to win every year, but the chances of them winning the World Series are greater. And while I do enjoy the winning the Yankees have had over the years, I know of too many fans that have become disenchanted with the game because their favorite team simply cannot compete on a consistent basis. The same could be said for the NHL and the NBA.

It's not really the "American way", but it's the best system for major professional sports and I'm not going to feel sorry for Jerry or any other owner who complains about not getting a extra few million dollars or so when they are already one of the richest people in the world.

Rich.........

Don't mix revenue sharing with no cap. These are two totally different things. Clubs in MLB are not spending money, not because they can't, but because they don't want to. The say it's because there small market but none of them open there books. If a city or area don't support a team, then the team is not going to be succesful. You want a fan base to support you? Then go out and put together a competative team. People like winners. If you win, they will support you. If you don't, they won't. Simple as that. Show concrete evidence where revenue sharing and team success are linked and I will give the bennifit of the doubt. The two do not go hand in hand. Cap, maybe I can go for that but not revenue sharing.

If owners really want to get an all incompasing revenue sharing deal done, in any sport, they'll open there books to show that there lossing money based on market share or what have you.

Until then, it's BS. Owners are making money but not neccessarily trying to put a good product on the field.

hipfake08 · 03-23-2005

With the way the league distributes the TV $$$ and the current system.
Jerry would be a dope to accept any more revenue sharing.

He created the side deal in the NFL.

The other owners should be talking to him for hints as to how to expand the revenue base.

Mr. Stiff Suit PT should have the owners kick into the kitty to help in new stadium builds. Where the owner has all the internal profit from the stadium.

They then control their own fate as to their revenue flow.
Not being fat and lazy just taking game reciepts and TV $$$ as income.

viman96 · 03-23-2005

If the NFL wants the teams to share their money then a plan should be put into place to help the lower $$ teams spend the shared revenue they receive. Be it on marketing or management. It's not fair for a lower $$ team to sit back and collect money for the big $$ teams. This is the NFL's welfare program.

Hollywood Henderson · 03-23-2005

I agree viman96...

Here in Indy we have a owner (Irsay) who doesn't "Get it" he has a good team but is very poor in marketing the team and now wants the local taxpayers to build him a new stadium...

No one kicks in to my business, nor would I expect it & I don't want to pay for a Millionaire's business ether...

The current system is good enough...

ghst187 · 03-23-2005

its a socialist idea that Marx would be proud of...
The equal salary cap inserted a good level of fairness, anything more borders on communism

LA=Pancakemaker · 03-23-2005

I could care less about this issue - Jones has $$$$ and how do u think he got it, buy not sharing!..Just give your head a shake on the Williams rule you fool!

Kittymama · 03-23-2005

It's interesting the way this is being portrayed in the media. In Peter King's MMQB Tuesday edition (up on SI.com), he was saying that, really, this year's NFL meetings have nothing at all to talk about. The Commissioner was talking this up because there's nothing else for them to do at this year's meetings.

However, other columns that are talking about it (including--& I know it's a controversial site--ProFootballTalk.com) are playing this as the "greedy" owners (JJ & Dan Snyder--& they always mention those two, even tho Bob Kraft is also opposed to the revenue sharing) vs. the "owners who care about the league" (the Maras & Rooneys). They conveniently forget to mention that most of what the NFL earns is already spread around to everyone. The Bidwells are well-known for keeping the team (despite many people who've offered to buy it) because they LOVE the money they get from the NFL & the fact that they spend so little.

I can't blame JJ on this one (or Snyder, much as I loathe him). These guys have figured out ways to maximize their team's profits. They've worked out stadium deals, sponsorship deals, etc.--& in the cases of JJ & Snyder for teams that (let's face it) have been losing teams for years. Meanwhile, the Colts have problems. So it doesn't come down to whether a team is a "winning" team or not as to how it makes money. It comes down to where they're located & the type of fan support they have. As I said in another post, the Colts deserve what they (don't) get. They had incredibly supportive fans in Baltimore. A greedy owner decided he had a better stadium deal in Indy & chose to pack up in the middle of the night to leave. So all these years later, they've discovered that they don't have a fan base to support the team--tough. Realistically, teams don't belong in places like Arizona, Indianapolis, Kansas City, San Diego, etc.--those areas just don't have the market to support them. I'm not just talking football. If you look at other pro teams in areas like that, they've resigned themselves to being small niche teams operating on tight payrolls. If you look coldheartedly at why most NFL teams are in those markets, it's because they got fat stadium deals to move there. Instead of looking at the broad picture of long-term sustainability, the owners got greedy & jumped at what they thought was easy money. Now (as in the case of the Colts), they're mad because they're locked in to those cities & can't leave & shake down another locality for a sweet stadium deal. Or they're finding that localities have wised up & aren't willing to pass out the sweetheart deals to get a team to move the way they used to (it's just us suckers in Maryland who are paying for 2 *&$*(^ stadiums our former governor got bribed into building--for the Ravens AND skins). Why do you suppose Tags keeps trying, unsuccessfully, to get teams back into the LA area? The folks there really just aren't interested. So take the hint & wise up. There's no reason why loyal devoted Cowboys fans--or skins fans or Pats fans--should ultimately end up paying for teams in San Diego or Indy or Arizona, just because the NFL thinks there should be 32 teams & an owner got a good stadium deal. Where is it written that we need 32 teams? I don't think the world would end if we had 30 teams, or 28, or 26. Might make things better in the long run--not quite the diffusion of talent there is now.

Wood · 03-23-2005

Jerry needs to be careful here because he is messing with something that has been tremendously successful. He is trying to create a NY Yankee situation which would be horrible for football. Greed is the root of all evil. Hockey has imploded, Baseball is on the verge and basketball will be next because they dont have shared agreements.

**ABQCOWBOY** · 03-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wood

Jerry needs to be careful here because he is messing with something that has been tremendously successful. He is trying to create a NY Yankee situation which would be horrible for football. Greed is the root of all evil. Hockey has imploded, Baseball is on the verge and basketball will be next because they dont have shared agreements.

How do you see it as a NY Yankee situation?

Kittymama · 03-23-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wood

Jerry needs to be careful here because he is messing with something that has been tremendously successful. He is trying to create a NY Yankee situation which would be horrible for football. Greed is the root of all evil. Hockey has imploded, Baseball is on the verge and basketball will be next because they dont have shared agreements.

He's not messing with anything. The Players Association wants more dough, because they know how much $$$ the Boys & skins & other teams are making outside of the tv contracts. They want THAT money thrown into the pot as well for the next CBA. That would drive up the overall salary cap, but teams like the Colts wouldn't be able to afford it--UNLESS those teams making the dough are forced to share. Jerry's not trying to undo what's currently in place. He's not advocating the end of the CBA. Noone is. He's questioning how the next CBA should be figured. He & Kraft & Snyder (& others) simply feel that they shouldn't have to fund teams & owners who aren't as successful in getting those outside deals.

Here's a thought. Instead of Tags trying to shake down voters for football stadiums by dangling Super Bowls in front of them, why doesn't he get to work trying to increase non-tv revenue for those teams that need it? Instead of worrying about getting a team for LA (which clearly doesn't want one), he could be expending his energy on working with those owners on outside revenue-generating ideas of their own. Or, getting really cold & deciding that perhaps some markets don't need to have NFL teams.