On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

[X-Era]

Consider this stagerring dollar figure:

"Cable operators have coveted Sunday Ticket, but the league has chosen not to alter its exclusive arrangement with DirecTV, which recently signed a $1-billion-a-year extension."

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/sp...flnetwork.html

One billion a year? Just for Sunday Ticket? One billion?

I think that the teams are very much hiding alot of revenue if a dollar figure like that is true.

[jamze132]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

Think about it. It's a good deal for them obviously. If they weren't making a profit, they wouldn't be spending a billion per year to bring every game to their subscribers.

[Ebenezer]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

Consider this stagerring dollar figure:

"Cable operators have coveted Sunday Ticket, but the league has chosen not to alter its exclusive arrangement with DirecTV, which recently signed a $1-billion-a-year extension."

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/sp...flnetwork.html

One billion a year? Just for Sunday Ticket? One billion?

I think that the teams are very much hiding alot of revenue if a dollar figure like that is true.

What does the article have to do with your title of the thread?? The union isn't even mentioned in it.

How are the owners "hiding" it? I thought the whole premise of the '87 strike was that there would be open books. If the union didn't negotiate to get a cut of that then that is the union's fault.

[X-Era]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

What does the article have to do with your title of the thread?? The union isn't even mentioned in it.

How are the owners "hiding" it? I thought the whole premise of the '87 strike was that there would be open books. If the union didn't negotiate to get a cut of that then that is the union's fault.

You probably know that the "open" books are in fact still very much closed where much of the revenues are not required to be reported.

The article has little to do with the thread, I was simply startled by the dollar figure and am extending the discussion to how it relates to the CBA.

You can take a look for yourself, but I couldnt find anything that shows that proceeds from NFL Network are included in revenue sharing:

http://www.nflplayers.com/images/***/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

Edited----

I did find that in fact television proceeds will be used as part of the TR or total revenue.

I did not find the reference called NFL Revenue Sharing MC-1... if you find it, post it.

But doing my math and assuming a salary cap figure of 120mill, your looking at a cap total of ~3.8 bill. That would mean that this 1 billion from Sunday Ticket would be ~26% of the cap would come just from that.

However, if you consider that player salary is about 60%, then 3.8 bill is 60% of 6.3 billion which would make the Sunday Ticket revenue about 16% of the assumed total league revenue.

Thats a lot of money to say the least and brings into question why teams like the Bills dont spend up to the cap.

[Ebenezer]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

You can take a look for yourself, but I couldnt find anything that shows that proceeds from NFL Network are included in revenue sharing

But again that is the fault of the union. So I don't understand the premise of your original question.

[X-Era]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

But again that is the fault of the union. So I don't understand the premise of your original question.

Since the owners have opted out of the CBA, the issue is very much relevant. The players have been criticized for wanting 60% of the revenue, but with a dollar figure like 1 billion just from Sunday ticket, and adding up, say 4 bill total in salary (assuming its all capped), I dont see how that 60% figure seems ridiculous.

[MikeInRoch]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

I'm confused as to what you think being on the "right" side means. How do you judge what each side "should have".

[X-Era]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

I'm confused as to what you think being on the "right" side means. How do you judge what each side "should have".

Lets put it this way:

With Sunday ticket sending 1 bill per year alone to the NFL, and the cap being a set figure, does 60% of total revenue equal the cap multiplied by 32 teams? Im not so sure.

Yet the league and owners are complaining that the players are getting to big of a piece.

[Ebenezer]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

Lets put it this way:

With Sunday ticket sending 1 bill per year alone to the NFL, and the cap being a set figure, does 60% of total revenue equal the cap multiplied by 32 teams? Im not so sure.

Yet the league and owners are complaining that the players are getting to big of a piece.

Then it is incumbent on the union to try to negotiate for more. The owners may have opted out but have they broken any law. If you are asking if the players are correct and the owners wrong then your question has no answer. Each side has played by the contract and lived up to their part of it. Neither is wrong or right.

[X-Era]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

Then it is incumbent on the union to try to negotiate for more. The owners may have opted out but have they broken any law. If you are asking if the players are correct and the owners wrong then your question has no answer. Each side has played by the contract and lived up to their part of it. Neither is wrong or right.

Heres more information:

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20090616_Union_chief_wants_NFL_to_prove_players__revenue_share_too_large.html

This claims that the more accurate revenue figure was around 8 billion.

60% is 4.8 and divide that by 32 teams and the cap figure should have been 150 million per team. Instead it was 116 mill in 08... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2689784

Where did the extra 34 million per team go?

[Ebenezer]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

Heres more information:

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20090616_Union_chief_wants_NFL_to_prove_players__revenue_share_too_large.html

This claims that the more accurate revenue figure was around 8 billion.

60% is 4.8 and divide that by 32 teams and the cap figure should have been 150 million per team. Instead it was 116 mill in 08... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2689784

Where did the extra 34 million per team go?

I don't know what you are trying to get to. The owners are simply saying that the players make too much money. They are not hiding anything.

As far as the 34 mil. The projected percentage of the revenue due to the players, as per the CBA, for the 2009 season is 57.5% less league wide projected benefits (pg. 96). Not 60% as quoted in the article. The second part of that is also telling - less league wide projected benefits...that is something that is subtracted from the revenues before the calculation. I don't know what that is and I don't have time to look through 300 pages to find it. However, that says that there are things subtracted out of the revenue.

If the union thought the owners were each scraping 34 million off the top there would have been a job action and a lawsuit long before this...I think you are making an issue out of nothing.

All that article says is the owners want the players to take less of the revenues...and the players want the owners to prove why they are crying poor...nothing more nothing less.

[X-Era]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

I don't know what you are trying to get to. The owners are simply saying that the players make too much money. They are not hiding anything.

As far as the 34 mil. The projected percentage of the revenue due to the players, as per the CBA, for the 2009 season is 57.5% less league wide projected benefits (pg. 96). Not 60% as quoted in the article. The second part of that is also telling - less league wide projected benefits...that is something that is subtracted from the revenues before the calculation. I don't know what that is and I don't have time to look through 300 pages to find it. However, that says that there are things subtracted out of the revenue.

If the union thought the owners were each scraping 34 million off the top there would have been a job action and a lawsuit long before this...I think you are making an issue out of nothing.

All that article says is the owners want the players to take less of the revenues...and the players want the owners to prove why they are crying poor...nothing more nothing less.

And based on the funny numbers you even pointed out, I think the league should in fact prove that they have a legit point about the players making too much.

[OpIv37]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

one BILLION a year? ****, my subscription price just went up.

[TigerJ]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

one BILLION a year? ****, my subscription price just went up.

That is a very pertinent comment. An interesting debate might arise over the question of at what point the NFL prices itself out of business. Is there a point beyond which fans will refuse to pay for Sunday Ticket, or game tickets, or are the fans a limitless resource for team owners?

[SabreEleven]

Re: On the CBA, are the players on the right side?

I could Sunday Ticket costing about $400 for the year