Gang of 9

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.

Welfare doesn't provide enough for the basics of living in today's world, but that's an argument for another day. :)

Welfare doesn't provide enough for the basics of living in today's world, but that's an argument for another day. :)

Depends upon what you call "the basics." But you're right we don't have to go there. The main point is that all NFL teams really need is enough money to field a competitive team, which means player and coaching salaries. Above and beyond that, I think teams should be on their own.

Lost in this is the fact that every single team that owns its own stadium is on the list. The revenue for these teams is higher because their investment is greater.

The Redskins can maximize their revenue on gameday in a way that the Ravens (for example) can't. The leased space in FedEx doesn't go to some state Stadium Authority, or to some third party landowner, it goes to the Washington Redskins. That is what makes the Skins more valuable than, say, the Ravens, whose M&T Bank stadium was funded through a combination of proceeds generated from the sale of tax-exempt revenue bonds, debt service paid by lottery proceeds and the Ravens.

Should the Ravens, who don't have the same responsibilties (financial or otherwise) in their stadium have the same stadium revenue as the Redskins? Nine teams don't think so. Neither does the budding capitalist in me.

PS - this isn't a crack on the Ravens or their fans. Don't get your Googles in a bunch.

9 clubs huh?

we shall call them...

the fellowship of the bling

Lost in this is the fact that every single team that owns its own stadium is on the list. The revenue for these teams is higher because their investment is greater.

The Redskins can maximize their revenue on gameday in a way that the Ravens (for example) can't. The leased space in FedEx doesn't go to some state Stadium Authority, or to some third party landowner, it goes to the Washington Redskins. That is what makes the Skins more valuable than, say, the Ravens, whose M&T Bank stadium was funded through a combination of proceeds generated from the sale of tax-exempt revenue bonds, debt service paid by lottery proceeds and the Ravens.

Should the Ravens, who don't have the same responsibilties (financial or otherwise) in their stadium have the same stadium revenue as the Redskins? Nine teams don't think so. Neither does the budding capitalist in me.

PS - this isn't a crack on the Ravens or their fans. Don't get your Googles in a bunch.

Do you know how these deals work? I think the Ravens keep some, if not most of the luxury box revenue. If not, then why go to the trouble of marketing and staffing those premium seats? To me that's the real coup-- getting your locality to build the stadium and then raking in the profits. Snyder has all that debt because Cooke paid for the stadium which basically doubled the Redskins value. Snyder should ask the other owners if they would like to "share" his debt as well. But it would be interesting to see how much money goes back to the locality on one of these long term lease deals. I suspect the teams keep most of the money.

Someone said the Steelers should logically be in the Gang of 9. This is understandable because of their stalwart fans and signature brand appeal. They are a marquis name. Non-football fans know them. You would assume that they could generate large streams of revenue. My impression, though, is that Dan Rooney is sort of an ideologue on these issues. He is firmly in the "think league" camp. He was the driving force behind nixing the original Milstein/Snyder bid and was trying--some would say colluding--to allow John Cooke to retain ownership of the Skins. I think he would prefer the league to operate in a more clubby, civic minded way and not be so motivated by ostentation and profit. He views his ownership of the Steelers as a public trust rather than a business. On some level it's a stylistic rather than substantive difference. At least that has been my (total) outsider's view.

as long as the nfl keeps the television revenues split among the teams,there is no such thing as a small market team.tv is what makes this league go.the arguements are over going the extra mile in making your franchise MORE profitable.if the cardinals and other franchises choose to sit on their asses and do nothing extra,they shouldnt be rewarded for it

Because some teams are in areas that are extremely wealthy, like the DC area, they will have an opportunity to make money that other teams don't. How can a Green Bay make as much money through luxury boxes, radio, local tv, and gate receipts, jersey sales, etc.? There is no possilbility of that, because the people who live in Wisconsin simply have far less money.

Also as Brud Lee points out, a team like the Redskins owns the stadium it plays in also - allowing them to rake in far more money than a team that has to pay a stadium authority.

Yet the Redskins benefit greatly from having the Green Bay Packers, and many other teams like them, in the league. It wouldn't be the NFL without them. The Redskins in fact are worth nothing without the other teams in the league to play. The NFL is what it is because of all the teams, and because the NFL has been a trailblazer at making sure that policy emphasizes "league first" revenue sharing rather than letting competitive balances tip greatly due to an inherently uneven playing field in terms of opportunity to earn money.

Sharing doesn't mean that everything is shared absolutely equally of course. If a team puts more into marketing, they still keep a lot of that money, but what is being asked is that they share more of it.

Otherwise you end up with a tiered "league" like MLB, where some teams have a dramatic competitive advantage due to the money they make. Do we want a situation where the Giants and Packers is similar in comparison to the Yankees and Brewers? That wouldn't be the NFL in my view.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the basic concept or even the exisisting CBA. It's been the lifeblood of the recent success of the NFL. It's just that the more enterprising owners, in their opinion, are being unduly "penalized" for being more profitable, which they feel has everything to do with how they operate their franchises.

I think an even better question is, what would a Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones do with, let's say a team in Green Bay, Arizona, Cincy, or Cleveland, for instance. I dare say, they won't elevate to where the Cowboys and Redskins currently exist in terms of revenue, but chances are they probably would be better off financially.

12th well said.the jones and the snyders of the world suceed by spending money to make money,something some of the other owners dont get,or dont want to get.i think everyone agrees the cardinals franchise would be much more sucessful if either one of those 2 owners ran that team.im not against revenue sharing,i agree its what makes the league what it is.but either make the other owners invest more into their team,or split the revenue differently,going by different guidelines

to add,i was just checking the salary cap situation,and think its kind of ironic that just about every team deemed small market is way under the cap.maybe instead of marketing,this is how the owners make extra money.any thoughts?