Gang of 9

As the revenues increase, the disparity between the richer teams and poorer teams increases. If you are going to have a balanced league that works well, that is something that has to be addressed. The Green Bays and other teams will never have the resources of the Redskins and Giants and Cowboys, etc.

Revenue sharing doesn't mean that the other teams get as much of the gate revenue at Fed Ex as the Redskins, but an increased share is fair, since the revenues are getting so much more.

The NFL is the best sports league because they have been sharing the revenues far more fairly than other leagues. As the situation changes with increased revenues, the policy has to change with it, or the competitive balance becomes tilted toward the rich teams, and that isn't a fair league in my book. Let the competitive balance tip due to good playing, good coaching, good management, but not just because some teams play in areas that are far more wealthy than other areas.

meanwhile the redskins stay in debt, values of successful franchises shrink (since they can't have any benefits like being profitable) and you end up with a league that refuse to build new stadiums (why add luxury boxes or more seats? you're team goes into debt and you only get 1/32nd of the new profit, and at that rate you'll never make up the costs) and where crap fan interesst in the browns ends up being paid for by profitable teams (like the skins) and they have no reason to try and improve.

if you're not even going to try to pull your weight, forcing someone else to do it is stupid. if the small market teams can't pull a profit or get local revenue, they need to consider moving or selling naming rights intead of just bitching about how its someone else's problem.

i believe the national share is something like 80mill, which is almost enough to max cap... a franchies can't raise 40mill to cover stadium and staff? and their inability to capitalize on their teams should be paid for by the local redskins stores?

the point of the whole arguement is that some owners stand staus quo and are happy making a profit, and some owners(like d snyder and j jones)want to make their teams as profitable as possible.if the skins want to make mega money promoting their franchise(stadium naming rights,etc.)in my opinion,that money should not be shared

Maybe it's me, but I believe in the whole you have to spend money to make money philosophy. If, as an owner, you don't feel you can spend the money it takes to compete in the NFL, then you shouldn't own a football team. In my opinion, if you have halfway decent marketing skills and you attempt to put a winning product on the field every year, then you will have merchandise, tickets, concessions, and other sales go way up.

From what I understand, this basically means the NFL is one big company and the owners turn into nothing more than investors and micromanagers. Some teams will do better than others financially, some from the market they're in, some from just having great fans, and some from winning (Gilette stadium may go back to being empty half the time in a few years.) I like the way the NFL is setup now. I don't feel it's our job to carry the owners who won't spend the money we'll spend, yet when we're raking in profits from spending that money want their hand in the honeypot.

Revenue sharing is what has made the NFL what it is today, the strongest pro sports league. It's why small market teams like Jacksonville and Green Bay can flourish.

Get rid of the revenue sharing and the NFL will become MLB overnight, and I don't think anybody wants that to happen.

i dont think anyone is asking to ditch revenue sharing altogether, but if you slide all the way into outright communism, then the desire to compete disappears completely, and everyone's profits end up going away. That's what this seems like.

Revenue sharing is what has made the NFL what it is today, the strongest pro sports league. It's why small market teams like Jacksonville and Green Bay can flourish.

Get rid of the revenue sharing and the NFL will become MLB overnight, and I don't think anybody wants that to happen.
I totally agree. Revenue sharing is a fundamental necessity for a successful sports league. They thing is that there is clearly a group of teams who refuse to take the same steps that the more profitable teams take to make money. All the while they propose to take more money from the teams that are the ones taking these steps. To me the league is at a good place right now. I think extending the CBA to grow proportionally to the the revenues of the league is appropriate but simply infusing a not so insignificant chunk of revenues treams into the shared revenues has very little value to the league as a whole but a ton of value to those "poorer" teams. I don't see where it makes the league better and in fact I see ways it hurts the league. I think the balance they have now needs to be maintained.

Daseal is right. Teams that are less profitable are so because they aren't trying hard enough for the most part. I don't expect Green Bay to necessarily make exactly the same amount as DC but I can't see how they don't make enough to stay as competitive as every other team. If you look at the "gang of 9" it is a group of longer term successful teams. They make money because they are good but with the cap I think it is very suspect that they are good because they make money. They are good because they do the best job scouting, coaching and those things. Put some effort into marketing and put a good product on the field and your team makes its own money. When that happens something tells me that the gang of 9 might grow by a team all of a sudden.

the steelers would probably be on that list too if they didn't have the smallest stadium known to man :P

i dont think anyone is asking to ditch revenue sharing altogether, but if you slide all the way into outright communism, then the desire to compete disappears completely, and everyone's profits end up going away. That's what this seems like.
Ding ding ding ding! There needs to be some level of self sustaining that every team has so that A) they are motivated and B) the fans don't perceive that the team only cares about profits and they see revenue sharing and not a good football team as the easiest and best way to profits. This league has to primarily be about football and not sharing money and fans need to know that.

the steelers would probably be on that list too if they didn't have the smallest stadium known to man :P
Also a good point. We're not talking about fundamental disagreements here. We're talking about a group of successful teams not wanting to give MORE of their money to the less successful teams. If there were 5 or 6 more teams who considered themselves more self sustaining then all of a sudden it is a 50/50 split and the less successful teams look a little bit more like whiners looking for a handout.

I totally agree. Revenue sharing is a fundamental necessity for a successful sports league. They thing is that there is clearly a group of teams who refuse to take the same steps that the more profitable teams take to make money. All the while they propose to take more money from the teams that are the ones taking these steps. To me the league is at a good place right now. I think extending the CBA to grow proportionally to the the revenues of the league is appropriate but simply infusing a not so insignificant chunk of revenues treams into the shared revenues has very little value to the league as a whole but a ton of value to those "poorer" teams. I don't see where it makes the league better and in fact I see ways it hurts the league. I think the balance they have now needs to be maintained.

Daseal is right. Teams that are less profitable are so because they aren't trying hard enough for the most part. I don't expect Green Bay to necessarily make exactly the same amount as DC but I can't see how they don't make enough to stay as competitive as every other team. If you look at the "gang of 9" it is a group of longer term successful teams. They make money because they are good but with the cap I think it is very suspect that they are good because they make money. They are good because they do the best job scouting, coaching and those things. Put some effort into marketing and put a good product on the field and your team makes its own money. When that happens something tells me that the gang of 9 might grow by a team all of a sudden.

I think this sentiment pretty much sums it up for me as well.

I think it's a fine line. You don't want to share too much revenue because it takes away the incentive for teams to bring in revenues. But you want to make sure you're sharing enough so that everyone has a shot at signing the best coaches and players.

I think the currrent system in place is just fine. There are no small market teams out there that aren't making enough money to cover player and staffing salaries. Whether or not all owners are making a profit should not be the primary concern of the league. The only thing that matters is do you have enough revenue to staff your coaches, trainers, and pay for players. Everyone does, and that's enough to remain competitive on the field.

Any profits you take in aside from those revenues should be on you to come up with.

The small market owners remind me of someone on welfare who wants to be supported with $30,000 per year from the government. The whole point of welfare is to give you the BARE BARE essentials so you can live your life. Food, shelter, healthcare. It shouldn't be paying for you to afford nice clothes or pay for meals at TGI Fridays. In the NFL, the bare minimum that each team needs is the money to cover player salaries up to the salary cap, and coaching/training salaries. Beyond that, you're just asking for a handout.