Help me out here... (we can keep this brief...) (1 Viewer)

[AceTW]

My attention span doesn't hold long enough to read through the hundreds of posts/replies regarding the way the NFL players are paid each year, so for me (and I would suspect others as well) could some of you guys 'in the know' and with factual info (ie- can back it up) please fill me in on the following... (Be as concise and brief as you can please...)

Things I think I know....

Players all have salaries. (guaranteed monies)

Within those salaries are incentives and bonuses. (Maybe you'll get them, maybe not.)

All of the salaries are tied to the 'salary cap'.

Things I don't know....

Are the incentives and bonuses also tied into the cap?  If not, where does that money come from?

Where does the 57-odd percent number sharing come into this equation?  Is it from where the salary caps are derived?

For the 2010 season, total team payrolls (All of the NFL) hovered around the 3.4 billion $ mark. [URL="http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team"]LINK[/URL] That's a little over 1/3rd of what the NFL is supposed to be making this year, and not quite 1/2 of what I think it was last year (8 billion), and certainly not the 57% of the total revenue that keeps getting thrown around. What gives?

 

[Chopper Man]

What's up with the code? why not just type it?

 

[AceTW]

I was trying to find a way to separate the questions so they'd be easier to reply to individually. I'm guessing it didn't work....

 

[St.Fury]

I was trying to find a way to separate the questions so they'd be easier to reply to individually. I'm guessing it didn't work....

Not qute. Sone of them cut off a few words.

 

[boutrous]

The 57% is the CAP and is calculated after the owners get $1 billion off the top first.

$8 billion total revenue - $1 billion off the top = $7 billion

$7billion * 57% = $3.99 billion

That's the CAP, but the entire cap is not always spent.

To figure out the 2010 cap you would need to know the 2009 total revenue, though.

 

[AceTW]

The 57% is the CAP and is calculated after the owners get $1 billion off the top first.

$8 billion total revenue - $1 billion off the top = $7 billion

$7billion * 57% = $3.99 billion

That's the CAP, but the entire cap is not always spent.

To figure out the 2010 cap you would need to know the 2009 total revenue, though.

Excellent! That's the info I was looking for!

So now let's do a little calculation for others who are wondering also...

(NFL proposed 2011)
$9 billion total revenue - $2 billion off the top = $7 billion

$7billion * 57% = $3.99 billion

(If it stayed the same as it is...)
$9 billion total revenue - $1 billion off the top = $8 billion

$8billion * 57% = $4.5 billion

So, what the NFL is proposing ends up being half a billion less than what the player's share would be if they left it where it is. I think this is the rub. Sure, the players aren't taking a "pay cut", but they're not getting what was mutually agreeable to both parties at the last negotiations.
I can see the argument now.

Let me try to sum this up...

Players:
"We're partners in this endeavor. You get your initial cut, then we get this percentage after that is taken out. This way, as the popularity of this business grows, so does both of our revenue streams."

Owners:
"We're partners in this endeavor. We require more of an initial cut since costs have risen. You (our partners) will make the same $$ you were making, and we'll keep the extra ten-plus percent in revenue. (1 billion dollars)

Players:
"Oh, we think not."

and the battle began.

 

[fhound07]

That about sums it up.

Oh and the real losers in this whole mess.....the fans!

 

[AceTW]

And I'll add this observation in here also.

The old CBA was agreed to by both parties. Both side's lawyers and participants thought it was a good thing, or at least an acceptable thing.
I've seen the argument made that under this CBA, the NFL was in dire jeopardy of literally 'going out of business'.
So, either the NFL's lawyers and participants at the time of the acceptance of the agreement were total buffoons, or, that idea is a load of tripe.

 

[Brad01]

There was no salary cap in 2010. Some teams, like the Bucs, decided to go cheap on the year. I don't have the figures in front of me but I believe some of them spent less than what would have been the salary floor.

EDIT: I clicked your link provided. The salary floor in 2009 was 107 million. And based on those figures in your link, 17 teams spent less than that in 2010.

 

[AceTW]

There was no salary cap in 2010. Some teams, like the Bucs, decided to go cheap on the year. I don't have the figures in front of me but I believe some of them spent less than what would have been the salary floor.

EDIT: I clicked your link provided. The salary floor in 2009 was 107 million. And based on those figures in your link, 17 teams spent less than that in 2010.

Hmm.. I never considered the bottom end of the cap.. So, if a team spends less than they're allotted, do they get to add that un-spent revenue into their cap numbers for the next year? Or do they just spend it however they need to?

 

[Brad01]

No. Teams have to pay enough salary to players to cover the salary floor but not to exceed the salary cap during a capped year. With no cap last year, there was no floor. Some teams that were struggling at bringing in money took advantage of that.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Question?

Does the Owners portion (the 50% or whatever it really is) include costs to run the football club? Or is it 50% after all their costs?

 

[Zardnok]

The problem that we have is where does the total revenue number come from that is used to split between the teams and the players and how is revenue divided by the individual teams. "Big Market" teams have a much higher team revenue than the smaller market teams, so you have your Jerry Jones and your Dan Snyders charging outrageous prices for "luxury boxes" and "PSL"s then keeping that money as it is designated as revenue teams keep for themselves, but it is also included in the total revenue of the league and used to divide up between the owners and players. Throwing some numbers at it, say Jerry Jones sells a luxury box for $32M, that adds $32M to the total revenue number split between the players and teams. So now the owners in Buffalo and Jacksonville and New Orleans have to pay their players an extra 57% of $1M each, because each team is saddled with extra salary expense since league total revenues went up, while Jerry Jones gets to keep all of the profits. Essentially poor owners are paying more so the rich owners can get richer.

Until they fix the fundamental underlying problems of how revenue is shared between the teams, there will be little long term labor peace because the owners will not be happy.

St PJs Elephant thread gives links that describes the underlying issues with Revenue sharing as it currently exists. I highly recommend spending 15 minutes to read all three articles listed. Just ignore that it comes from a Cowboy's source!

 

[superchuck500]

Question?

Does the Owners portion (the 50% or whatever it really is) include costs to run the football club? Or is it 50% after all their costs?

The percentage split comes after a withholding by the owners for operating costs. In the last CBA it was $1 Billion. In other words, the owners keep the first billion in revenue and then the rest is subject to the percentage split.

The owners are asking for a bigger retention.

 

[dav168]

Question?

Does the Owners portion (the 50% or whatever it really is) include costs to run the football club? Or is it 50% after all their costs?

the revenue sharing starts after the 32 teams split the 1st billion profit made. So yeah all their costs are covered 1st. Then each owner gets @ 31,250,000.00 a year thats not a bad year.

I said this in another post I think. Benson bought the Saints for 72mill and they are now worth a near 900 mill. and all he did was boogie and put out the money to have a SB contender. So he hasn't held back the $$ into the team,, so I aint mad.