It all comes down to this - Players hired PricewaterhouseCoopers

[Wood]

NFL Owners say - Players received over 70% of incremental Revenues. Lets look at how they arrived at those numbers (2010):

* They deducted close to 2 billion dollars off incoming revenue for Stadium Improvements, NFL Network. So here are the owners numbers:

Revenues 5.4 billion (7.2 gross revenues - 1.8 in stadium cost, NFL Network)
Salaries to Player 3.8 billion (this is not disputed by players).
Owners say 70% of Revenues paid to players (3.8 / 5.4)



Players Union Say - Players received 53% of incremental Revenues. A look at the numbers (2010):

* Players say the cost associated with stadium build-outs and NFL Network are part of operating cost and not to be deducted from total revenue:

Revenues 7.2 billion gross revenues
Salaries to players 3.8 billion
Players say 53% of Revenues paid to players (3.8 / 7.2)

As I suspected all along - this comes down to the accounting of stadium cost. The owners want to deduct stadium cost off the top line (Total Revenues) and players want to deduct it after revenues in the Cost of Operations section of Ledger. My personal opinion is that the cost should stay in Cost section of Income Statement not as a deduction of Revenue BUT I think the players union should bear a percentage of the cost that is vital to growth and popularity to build these stadiums. Don't get caught up in the numbers as they will change going forward...but this really is a matter of - should the players bear some of the cost to rebuild the NFL infrastructure? If the answer is yes (and I believe they should) you basically have three choices:

1) Total Revenue is total revenue - Players receive a percentage of total revenues. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers total revenue was 7.2 billion and players received 3.8 billion of that (53%). This is the players dream scenario as the owners are on the hook 100% for stadium build-out and NFL Network and players % of income is just north of 50%.

2) Deduct new stadium cost from total revenues - This is owners dream scenario as the stadium cost, NFL Network take close to 2 billion off the top number and now players salaries will represent over 70% Revenue and likely will force players to renegotiate terms as 70% is unsustainable for any business model.

3) This is hybrid of the two - players and owner will absorb cost for stadium build-out. You can accomplish this two ways - allow owners to reduce total income for stadiums and NFL Network but only 50% instead of 100% currently being used by owners. This approach puts player salaries at 63% of income (lower than owners current estimates of 70% and higher than players estimates of 53%). You could also just leave total revenues alone and set up an escrow account that players must pay into for stadium cost that is repayed back to owners over period of time.

 

[jterrell]

If the players are to be "charged" for new stadiums and the NFL Network they should have a say in how much is invested and how it is spent. After all it is literally partially their money by contract.

OR the NFL should say we will give players 40% of ALL revenue and how we spend the other 60% is up to us.

The NFL will not win at having it both ways. No reasonable or sane business person would sign a deal that says we will accept 50% of the profits after you spend whatever you want to spend however you want to spend it. Why would any player want to invest long term in a business when they will own no income at all from any future monies made?

 

[CCBoy]

The issues going to the front of current litigations just don't amount to a redefining of the roles involved.

However the relationship is attempted to be defined, the drain by players is projecting into the life blood considerations for the industry as a whole. That is just plain, common sense based, wrong.

It still boils down to the point that a previously negotiated amount, when no longer functional, is not guaranteed when it involves specifics of a contrac no longer in effect. Kings once demanded levels of gold flowing into their private coffins. Yet they were subject to historical sequence.

Here, terms of abuse should be eliminated, but solutions protecting their very lifeblood should become practice.

That requires an enlightened view as well as discussions of reasonableness. Not side advantages...and then give us fans football.

 

[jterrell]

The issues going to the front of current litigations just don't amount to a redefining of the roles involved.

However the relationship is attempted to be defined, the drain by players is projecting into the life blood considerations for the industry as a whole. That is just plain, common sense based, wrong.

It still boils down to the point that a previously negotiated amount, when no longer functional, is not guaranteed when it involves specifics of a contrac no longer in effect. Kings once demanded levels of gold flowing into their private coffins. Yet they were subject to historical sequence.

Here, terms of abuse should be eliminated, but solutions protecting their very lifeblood should become practice.

That requires an enlightened view as well as discussions of reasonableness. Not side advantages...and then give us fans football.

There are four main problems that prevent people from writing complete, grammatically correct sentences. These problems include: (a) the sentence fragment; (b) the run-on sentence; (c) lack of subject-verb and pronoun-reference agreement; and (d) la ck of parallel structure.

 

[fortdick]

NFL Owners say - Players received over 70% of incremental Revenues. Lets look at how they arrived at those numbers (2010):

* They deducted close to 2 billion dollars off incoming revenue for Stadium Improvements, NFL Network. So here are the owners numbers:

Revenues 5.4 billion (7.2 gross revenues - 1.8 in stadium cost, NFL Network)
Salaries to Player 3.8 billion (this is not disputed by players).
Owners say 70% of Revenues paid to players (3.8 / 5.4)



Players Union Say - Players received 53% of incremental Revenues. A look at the numbers (2010):

* Players say the cost associated with stadium build-outs and NFL Network are part of operating cost and not to be deducted from total revenue:

Revenues 7.2 billion gross revenues
Salaries to players 3.8 billion
Players say 53% of Revenues paid to players (3.8 / 7.2)

As I suspected all along - this comes down to the accounting of stadium cost. The owners want to deduct stadium cost off the top line (Total Revenues) and players want to deduct it after revenues in the Cost of Operations section of Ledger. My personal opinion is that the cost should stay in Cost section of Income Statement not as a deduction of Revenue BUT I think the players union should bear a percentage of the cost that is vital to growth and popularity to build these stadiums. Don't get caught up in the numbers as they will change going forward...but this really is a matter of - should the players bear some of the cost to rebuild the NFL infrastructure? If the answer is yes (and I believe they should) you basically have three choices:

1) Total Revenue is total revenue - Players receive a percentage of total revenues. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers total revenue was 7.2 billion and players received 3.8 billion of that (53%). This is the players dream scenario as the owners are on the hook 100% for stadium build-out and NFL Network and players % of income is just north of 50%.

2) Deduct new stadium cost from total revenues - This is owners dream scenario as the stadium cost, NFL Network take close to 2 billion off the top number and now players salaries will represent over 70% Revenue and likely will force players to renegotiate terms as 70% is unsustainable for any business model.

3) This is hybrid of the two - players and owner will absorb cost for stadium build-out. You can accomplish this two ways - allow owners to reduce total income for stadiums and NFL Network but only 50% instead of 100% currently being used by owners. This approach puts player salaries at 63% of income (lower than owners current estimates of 70% and higher than players estimates of 53%). You could also just leave total revenues alone and set up an escrow account that players must pay into for stadium cost that is repayed back to owners over period of time.

Basically, it is just the angle you are looking at because 70% and 53% represent the same dollar figure. The adjustment could only be made if the players started contributing to infrastructure and maintenance costs, which they will never do.

The other option is for the owners to scale down the facilities and cut back on retrofits such as turf, video, etc., which would lead to less enjoyment for fans and more dangerous conditions for players.

The players need to acknowledge operating, upkeep and support costs. The owners need to demonstrate why they need the dollar figures they are demanding. The owners are entitled to a profit and the players are entitled to a fair wage. I believe 53% of gross revenues is a good deal for the union.

 

[jterrell]

Basically, it is just the angle you are looking at because 70% and 53% represent the same dollar figure. The adjustment could only be made if the players started contributing to infrastructure and maintenance costs, which they will never do.

The other option is for the owners to scale down the facilities and cut back on retrofits such as turf, video, etc., which would lead to less enjoyment for fans and more dangerous conditions for players.

The players need to acknowledge operating, upkeep and support costs. The owners need to demonstrate why they need the dollar figures they are demanding. The owners are entitled to a profit and the players are entitled to a fair wage. I believe 53% of gross revenues is a good deal for the union.

good post.

the bottom line is there was no concession in the CBA for this outpouring of cash for stadiums and a tv network.

these items are good business expenses for long term growth but they can not be allowed to remain unaddressed.

The players are not going to pay to build the world's best stadium like what Jerry has and see him rake in money off the top that has zero to do with the NFL: see concerts, boxing, NBA all-star game et al. This area has to be addressed and until there is a middle ground taken there will be no agreement.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If the players are to be "charged" for new stadiums and the NFL Network they should have a say in how much is invested and how it is spent. After all it is literally partially their money by contract.

OR the NFL should say we will give players 40% of ALL revenue and how we spend the other 60% is up to us.

The NFL will not win at having it both ways. No reasonable or sane business person would sign a deal that says we will accept 50% of the profits after you spend whatever you want to spend however you want to spend it. Why would any player want to invest long term in a business when they will own no income at all from any future monies made?

The other side of that is that the players don't have any idea about how those funds should be spent.

If you force that approach, it's more likely that the majority of the owners elect not to upgrade anything and everybody is stuck playing in Stadiums like the old Vet.

 

[Nightman]

If the players are to be "charged" for new stadiums and the NFL Network they should have a say in how much is invested and how it is spent. After all it is literally partially their money by contract.

OR the NFL should say we will give players 40% of ALL revenue and how we spend the other 60% is up to us.

The NFL will not win at having it both ways. No reasonable or sane business person would sign a deal that says we will accept 50% of the profits after you spend whatever you want to spend however you want to spend it. Why would any player want to invest long term in a business when they will own no income at all from any future monies made?

Then the players need to contribute a percentage of their endorsement money and appearance fees back to the league to cover the infrastructure costs. And if they want to see the books, then they must supply tax returns and financial statements to the owners to make sure they aren't wasting their salaries frivolously.

 

[Wood]

Basically, it is just the angle you are looking at because 70% and 53% represent the same dollar figure.

yes at end of day its the same pile of money...but if

The players stay at 53% of 7.2 billion = 3.8 billion

If the owners get stadium deduction off top line revenue (lets say they the get to deduct 60%) and lets say they keep 53% then your looking at 3.2 billion to the players. Thats difference of 600 million dollars

Now we are throwing around millions/billion like they are candy but 600 million over 6 years (contract length players union is going for) that would result in 3.6 billion back to owners. I do think the players will need to concede some of the top line deduction to the owners.

 

[Kevinicus]

After all it is literally partially their money by contract.

Not anymore it's not.

 

[theogt]

I'm having a hard time following this. Where did you get this information?

By the way, if you deduct a cost outlay from revenues, it's no longer "revenues." Revenue is revenue and expenses are expenses.

 

[Luther]

It's refreshing to read some sensible comments about these things. (ignoring the non-grammatical nonsense post, of course).

I'm happy to see the players make millions. Lots of millions. But I want to enjoy the NFL for many years. That will best happen if the owners are very profitable, which will make them comfortable with risk and expansion. Both can happen.

My biggest concern is this mess getting caught up in the hands of courts and lawyers. That could cause us to miss games. And that would stink.

 

[AKATheRake]

NFL Owners say - Players received over 70% of incremental Revenues. Lets look at how they arrived at those numbers (2010):

* They deducted close to 2 billion dollars off incoming revenue for Stadium Improvements, NFL Network. So here are the owners numbers:

Revenues 5.4 billion (7.2 gross revenues - 1.8 in stadium cost, NFL Network)
Salaries to Player 3.8 billion (this is not disputed by players).
Owners say 70% of Revenues paid to players (3.8 / 5.4)



Players Union Say - Players received 53% of incremental Revenues. A look at the numbers (2010):

* Players say the cost associated with stadium build-outs and NFL Network are part of operating cost and not to be deducted from total revenue:

Revenues 7.2 billion gross revenues
Salaries to players 3.8 billion
Players say 53% of Revenues paid to players (3.8 / 7.2)

As I suspected all along - this comes down to the accounting of stadium cost. The owners want to deduct stadium cost off the top line (Total Revenues) and players want to deduct it after revenues in the Cost of Operations section of Ledger. My personal opinion is that the cost should stay in Cost section of Income Statement not as a deduction of Revenue BUT I think the players union should bear a percentage of the cost that is vital to growth and popularity to build these stadiums. Don't get caught up in the numbers as they will change going forward...but this really is a matter of - should the players bear some of the cost to rebuild the NFL infrastructure? If the answer is yes (and I believe they should) you basically have three choices:

1) Total Revenue is total revenue - Players receive a percentage of total revenues. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers total revenue was 7.2 billion and players received 3.8 billion of that (53%). This is the players dream scenario as the owners are on the hook 100% for stadium build-out and NFL Network and players % of income is just north of 50%.

2) Deduct new stadium cost from total revenues - This is owners dream scenario as the stadium cost, NFL Network take close to 2 billion off the top number and now players salaries will represent over 70% Revenue and likely will force players to renegotiate terms as 70% is unsustainable for any business model.

3) This is hybrid of the two - players and owner will absorb cost for stadium build-out. You can accomplish this two ways - allow owners to reduce total income for stadiums and NFL Network but only 50% instead of 100% currently being used by owners. ******** This approach puts player salaries at 63% of income (lower than owners current estimates of 70% and higher than players estimates of 53%). You could also just leave total revenues alone and set up an escrow account that players must pay into for stadium cost that is repayed back to owners over period of time.********

As we've heard, the players are asking for 60% of revenues and the owners have laughed it off.

Yet they are stating that the players are getting 70% when they negotiate with them.

According to your rational everything would be fair if the players got 63% of total revenues and helped out with the infrastructure costs.

So all in all that 60% the players are asking for is not so greedy after all.

Yet, most fans seem to be siding with the owners and blaming the players for holding this up.

By the way, hell of a great post!

 

[goshan]

To clarify this for some.

The argument the Owners are making is that they shoud logically deduct Stadium improvement/build costs from the Revenue that is included in the NFL revenue share calculation when determining player rev share.

I assume that they are making this argument because they (Owners) are arguing that Stadium investment is not directly tied to the NFL - meaning that Stadium costs are utilized to make the stadium more attractive for general purpose entertainment (concerts, events, etc.) as well as NFL football.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[Beast_from_East]

NFL Owners say - Players received over 70% of incremental Revenues. Lets look at how they arrived at those numbers (2010):

* They deducted close to 2 billion dollars off incoming revenue for Stadium Improvements, NFL Network. So here are the owners numbers:

Revenues 5.4 billion (7.2 gross revenues - 1.8 in stadium cost, NFL Network)
Salaries to Player 3.8 billion (this is not disputed by players).
Owners say 70% of Revenues paid to players (3.8 / 5.4)



Players Union Say - Players received 53% of incremental Revenues. A look at the numbers (2010):

* Players say the cost associated with stadium build-outs and NFL Network are part of operating cost and not to be deducted from total revenue:

Revenues 7.2 billion gross revenues
Salaries to players 3.8 billion
Players say 53% of Revenues paid to players (3.8 / 7.2)

As I suspected all along - this comes down to the accounting of stadium cost. The owners want to deduct stadium cost off the top line (Total Revenues) and players want to deduct it after revenues in the Cost of Operations section of Ledger. My personal opinion is that the cost should stay in Cost section of Income Statement not as a deduction of Revenue BUT I think the players union should bear a percentage of the cost that is vital to growth and popularity to build these stadiums. Don't get caught up in the numbers as they will change going forward...but this really is a matter of - should the players bear some of the cost to rebuild the NFL infrastructure? If the answer is yes (and I believe they should) you basically have three choices:

1) Total Revenue is total revenue - Players receive a percentage of total revenues. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers total revenue was 7.2 billion and players received 3.8 billion of that (53%). This is the players dream scenario as the owners are on the hook 100% for stadium build-out and NFL Network and players % of income is just north of 50%.

2) Deduct new stadium cost from total revenues - This is owners dream scenario as the stadium cost, NFL Network take close to 2 billion off the top number and now players salaries will represent over 70% Revenue and likely will force players to renegotiate terms as 70% is unsustainable for any business model.

3) This is hybrid of the two - players and owner will absorb cost for stadium build-out. You can accomplish this two ways - allow owners to reduce total income for stadiums and NFL Network but only 50% instead of 100% currently being used by owners. This approach puts player salaries at 63% of income (lower than owners current estimates of 70% and higher than players estimates of 53%). You could also just leave total revenues alone and set up an escrow account that players must pay into for stadium cost that is repayed back to owners over period of time.

EXCELLENT POST!!!!


I tend to like option 3, both sides give up some cash. The best deals are the ones where nobody gets exactly what they want. The problem is going to be "how much is going to be deducted for stadiums", not neccessarly what the percentages are.

Maybe the players can be involved in stadium construction plans or something, I dont know. I just dont think the players are going to tell the owners to deduct whatever they want for stadium expense.

 

[fortdick]

It's refreshing to read some sensible comments about these things. (ignoring the non-grammatical nonsense post, of course).

I'm happy to see the players make millions. Lots of millions. But I want to enjoy the NFL for many years. That will best happen if the owners are very profitable, which will make them comfortable with risk and expansion. Both can happen.

My biggest concern is this mess getting caught up in the hands of courts and lawyers. That could cause us to miss games. And that would stink.

Once you get lawyers involved, the whole process is out of your hands. It becomes a contest in the real big leagues.

The game is about the competition between the lawyers, where truth and fairness are by the board. Lawyers compete to see who can put the best spin on the facts and misrepresent the true issues. They aren't bad, it is just what they do. Theogt and Peplaw may not wish to agree, but lawyers seldom care about fairness, they care about their case. Just like a football player doesn't care about fairness and will do whatever it takes to win.

Of course, everyone has heard all this before, so I will quit ranting.

Bottom line, unless the players come back from the precipice, this whole situation is going to be controlled by the lawyers and go on until they have collected enough fees to satisfy themsleves.

 

[Anjinsan]

There are four main problems that prevent people from writing complete, grammatically correct sentences. These problems include: (a) the sentence fragment; (b) the run-on sentence; (c) lack of subject-verb and pronoun-reference agreement; and (d) la ck of parallel structure.

Thank you your holiness.

 

[JD_KaPow]

As we've heard, the players are asking for 60% of revenues and the owners have laughed it off.

Huh? Nowhere have the players ever asked for 60% of revenues. Under the old CBA, they got 60% of revenues after a billion dollars is taken off the top, but it comes to 50-53% of total revenues. In the current negotiations, the players offered to take 50% of total revenues.

 

[theogt]

Here's where the OP was getting information from.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6243567

Sorry, but the OP was almost incomprehensible to me. This explains a lot.

 

[AdamJT13]

The difference in percentages is that the players are basing it on league-wide revenues and the league is basing it on how much each team gets.

During the four years in question, the league brought in a cumulative $7.2 billion more than it would have if the revenues had remained at the 2005 level of $6.49 billion (a four-year total of $33.2 billion instead of $26 billion). The league paid players a cumulative $3.8 billion more than it would have if player compensation had remained at the same dollar figure in 2005 of $3.32 billion (a four-year total of $17.1 billion instead of $13.3 billion).

During the four years in question, though, a cumulative total of $1.8 billion of the additional revenue went to the league as cost credits. The teams each received 1/32 of the other $5.4 billion in additional revenue. Each team received about $169 million more over the four years combined than it would have if it received the same amount each year as it did in 2005. Each team paid players $119 million more (on average) over the four years combined than it would have if player compensation had remained at the dollar figure in 2005 of $103.75 million (a four-year total of $534 million instead of $415 million).

So, both sides are correct. The players received 53 percent of all additional revenue brought in by the league and 70 percent of the additional revenue received by each team.