How and Where the NFL Makes Money (1 Viewer)

[smackdaddies]

From Deadspin

NFL Ventures, the league's billion-dollar, all-but-the-kitchen-sink wing that oversees sponsorships, marketing, media properties, sales, and satellite rights, saw its operating profit grow by 29 percent from 2009 to 2010.



...



In 2010, Ventures accounted for $1.8 billion of the league's $8 billion in revenue, or nearly a quarter. (Click image to enlarge.) Fifteen years ago, says Roger Noll, a sports economist at Stanford, Ventures' share of overall revenue would've been 1 or 2 percent.



...



he NFL has three sources of revenue: Ventures; TV (minus satellite), representing the largest bucket; and local/team (mostly in-stadium income, Noll says, but also rights fees for radio broadcasts). We see here that Ventures grew, and we know that broadcast fees have nudged upward. "So if they experienced declining revenue," Noll says, "it would have to be local because the other two sources grew." The notion that local revenue has fallen or even flattened, Noll adds, is "extremely unlikely."





Great stuff - actual audited reports. Goodell has to be livid over these leaks.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

From Deadspin

NFL Ventures, the league's billion-dollar, all-but-the-kitchen-sink wing that oversees sponsorships, marketing, media properties, sales, and satellite rights, saw its operating profit grow by 29 percent from 2009 to 2010.



...



In 2010, Ventures accounted for $1.8 billion of the league's $8 billion in revenue, or nearly a quarter. (Click image to enlarge.) Fifteen years ago, says Roger Noll, a sports economist at Stanford, Ventures' share of overall revenue would've been 1 or 2 percent.



...



he NFL has three sources of revenue: Ventures; TV (minus satellite), representing the largest bucket; and local/team (mostly in-stadium income, Noll says, but also rights fees for radio broadcasts). We see here that Ventures grew, and we know that broadcast fees have nudged upward. "So if they experienced declining revenue," Noll says, "it would have to be local because the other two sources grew." The notion that local revenue has fallen or even flattened, Noll adds, is "extremely unlikely."





Great stuff - actual audited reports. Goodell has to be livid over these leaks.

Why would Goodell be livid over that? He's never claimed that the NFL is losing money.

 

[Hoosier16]

From Deadspin

NFL Ventures, the league's billion-dollar, all-but-the-kitchen-sink wing that oversees sponsorships, marketing, media properties, sales, and satellite rights, saw its operating profit grow by 29 percent from 2009 to 2010.



...



In 2010, Ventures accounted for $1.8 billion of the league's $8 billion in revenue, or nearly a quarter. (Click image to enlarge.) Fifteen years ago, says Roger Noll, a sports economist at Stanford, Ventures' share of overall revenue would've been 1 or 2 percent.



...



he NFL has three sources of revenue: Ventures; TV (minus satellite), representing the largest bucket; and local/team (mostly in-stadium income, Noll says, but also rights fees for radio broadcasts). We see here that Ventures grew, and we know that broadcast fees have nudged upward. "So if they experienced declining revenue," Noll says, "it would have to be local because the other two sources grew." The notion that local revenue has fallen or even flattened, Noll adds, is "extremely unlikely."





Great stuff - actual audited reports. Goodell has to be livid over these leaks.

I think this is exactly why the owners balked at the current agreement. If NFL Ventures is part of the 'Total Revenue', and players were getting 60%, the operating profit is almost completely consumed by the players (60% of $1.8B = $1.08B). Under the old agreement, the 60% formula likely worked because TV license fees made up the majority of the income and those fees have relatively small expenses associated with them. If you look at the breakout of the subsidiaries, NFL Enterprises, which includes Direct TV's license fees, has an operating income of 78%. The rest of the subsidiaries have an operating income of 57%. If your growth is coming from these other companies with higher expenses, you can't keep giving away 60% of new revenue when operating income is only 57%.