Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensewins
The players and owners negotiate a percentage of the revenue. So your concern for the owners in the bad economy is already taken into account, because as the revenue goes up or down, the players take adjusts accordingly.
One thing do I know is the owners did not always share in the merchandise money until the 80's or 90's CBA agreement. The owners until then took it all. The owners at the time also did not want to open the books on the merchandise revenue numbers either and they finally did.
Your claim of the players taking 60% does not ring true if the owners are not completely opening the books. As you well know, the players take 60% of what the owners are willing to reveal and share. Not the entire nut.
Another thing some people do not take into account is the value of the franchises and stadiums continue to going up and up. I am not saying the players should have any of it, they should NOT!
But don't cry poor for the owners when they are cash poor and hurting financially day to day. They can sell the team make a bundle and there will be a line of wealthy owners to buy.
Leonard Tose former owner of the Eagle bought them for $16m, paid himself a $6M a year salary off the team revenues, and then sold them for $65M.
Jack Kent Cooke bought Redskins in the 60's for a few Million, then sold them in the 90's for $800M.
The players have short careers, take all the risks to health and life, and their star power is what draws the crowds and sells the merchandise. Don't compare them to an everyday working folks. As you well know in the Sports and Entertainment business it is the stars that generate the revenue, not the owners.
|
In order to keep it short, I somewhat agree with you.
#1- your right the owners did keep everything prior to the 90's. But then the CBA came along and 60% was given to the players. But a lot of players made their extra money in advertizing.
Quote:
|
“The CBA defines what ‘total revenue’ is in detail and gives the Union roughly 60 percent of that amount. The Union has created a new measure of revenue, which it calls ‘All Revenue,’ and says that the players get 50 percent of that,” Aiello said. “Saying they want 50 percent of this new revenue base, is the same as saying they want 60 percent of the existing revenue base.
|
#2- Your right again in saying if the revenue goes down so does the players cut, but the players still get 60% of what was taken in.
#3- Lets see you go out and tell your perspective employers that you want a % of their income and you want to see their books to make sure their on the up and up. What if the mods here said in order to remain a member you had to show your bank account statements. I think there would be quite a few upset people.
#4- Who knows why some owners do better then others, other then to say some are better managers. Snyder is an awesome manager... he just needs to keep his hand out of the kitchen. Your right when you say the teams sell for a decent amount and it will always go up, but if most of the money is tied up in the property then the owner really doesn't have much on hand of his own. I mean he might have an expensive team but if all he's pocketing is $1 mill a yr and he has players making 10 mill I'd be upset as an owner.