Implications of a Potential Post-Cap Landscape (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

the absence of a spending limit would seem to be an advantage to the teams that either throw off more income, or have wealthier owners...

though baseball has shown that scouting and luck can sometimes trump money.

it might present some changes to the current status quo... to see the shape of things to come shrouded in the uncertainty of the future, it might be useful to look back to the past... BEFORE there was a salary cap...

one kind of corollary (and hopefully the thread can think of others), is to cite the cowboys super bowl dynasty with aikman/smith/irvin... under those rules, they were able to keep an OL intact for a long time (stepnowski, larry allen, nate newton, erik williams and mark tuinea), which has obvious advantages for timing, coordination and rapport, better enabling them to function in unison...

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

If there is no spending cap, it will definately favor teams that have the money to spend on the big named players. It is why the Yankees have won so many World Series compared to everyone else, not because of anything else.

Why don't the Yankees win every year? Because there is a human element that's involved in winning, injury to key players, not evaluating those big players and their contracts correctly and potential personal problems off the field.

However, over the long term teams that spend twice as much on players will win more championships. I refuse to watch the Yankees anymore, if that means not watching the World Series then so be it. I grew up liking the Yankees, I was awestruck with all the stars they had. However, when you grow up and understand how they get all these good players and other teams can't afford to sign players and keep pace, it's actually one of the most idiotic things in sports IMO. Good job Yankees, you want a pat on the back for winning when you consistantly spend the most money, you should be winning.

Dallas was in the midst of one of the strongest dynasties in NFL history in the early 90's. However, when the cap was put into place, that young Dallas nucleus, especially on defense was split up. Who knows how many SB's that group would have won. With that said, it was one of the greatest things the NFL ever did. I love that there's strategy involved in who to sign and that every team gets the same amount of money to work with. It's a chess match on who to sign and who not to sign. You want to sign a big star for a ton of money, that will leave you short in other areas.

It would probably benefit Dallas to have no cap but I'm against it. One of the reasons the NFL is the greatest league in the world is because of this cap.

BTW, I haven't spent a dime on baseball tickets in years and won't until they change to something like this. If it doesn't happen, I guess I'll save money. It doesn't make sense to me that one team spends a ton of money, they win and everyone goes gaga over it. I guess what I don't fully understand is why do the other owners put up with it. When you see how the NFL has worked the last 15 years or so, how do you not see that and push for it if you're one of those teams who can't compete because they can't consitantly sign the big named players.

 

[Willie Mays Hayes]

Amen brother, baseball lost me as a fan a long time ago when I started understanding the economics of the game better. There is no art to it with such an immense advantage as 2X payroll.

It is what separates pro football from the other pro athletics. If they compromise this, it will have an effect on the fan base. Think of all those Cardinal fans that will go back to not caring about Arizona anymore. I hope that there aren't people in the NFL (players, coaches, owners alike) that think this would be good for the game long-term.

 

[CapnJB]

Paul Allen could buy and sell Jerry Jones AND Dan Snyder.

A few times.

 

[David Yudkin]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.

If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

 

[Tanner9919]

the absence of a spending limit would seem to be an advantage to the teams that either throw off more income, or have wealthier owners...

though baseball has shown that scouting and luck can sometimes trump money.

it might present some changes to the current status quo... to see the shape of things to come shrouded in the uncertainty of the future, it might be useful to look back to the past... BEFORE there was a salary cap...

one kind of corollary (and hopefully the thread can think of others), is to cite the cowboys super bowl dynasty with aikman/smith/irvin... under those rules, they were able to keep an OL intact for a long time (stepnowski, larry allen, nate newton, erik williams and mark tuinea), which has obvious advantages for timing, coordination and rapport, better enabling them to function in unison...

we've seen this movie before, it's the 1989-1994 SF 49'ers...DeBartolo's notorious sidestepping of the salary cap

Wwhat makes you think only Dallas and Washington will be the big spenders? Pittsburgh has loads of cash, same with NYG, NYJ, Patriots,etc...if there's going to be an arms race, it's not going to involve just Washington and Dallas...

but I do not see the NFL going to an un-capped system permanently..

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

I think teams were reluctant to spend more this year because of uncertainty about a future cap. If they knew for a fact there would be no cap, I have to believe some of these owners would have spent a lot more.

 

[David Yudkin]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

I think teams were reluctant to spend more this year because of uncertainty about a future cap. If they knew for a fact there would be no cap, I have to believe some of these owners would have spent a lot more.

I believe there was an unwritten agreement among owners that they were not going to spend like drunken sailors and the lack of many premium free agents played into that. But I still don't think owners will go hog wild as long as they have revenue sharing.It would also make more sense to spend big now with no cap then wait, as teams could write off the cap hit in the uncapped year and still have the player signed for several more years should a cap come back into play.The other issue is that owners in football basically get only 10 home games of revenue to work with (8 regular season and 2 preseason and a select few get a playoff game or two), while MLB owners get a minimum of 81 home games (and maybe some preseason, exhibition, and post season games). Bottom line, from ticket sales and conssession, baseball collects way more money. There's more money floating around in baseball than football.

 

[noneother]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

I think teams were reluctant to spend more this year because of uncertainty about a future cap. If they knew for a fact there would be no cap, I have to believe some of these owners would have spent a lot more.

another angle is that while the negotiations are going on with the players union, it would be in bad form for one owner to show up the others by overbidding. It shows a weakened front, as well as exposes to the Players that there is quite possibly money out there that the Players can demand the owners place on the table.what's more important to the owners? winning in 2010 or having a viable, profitable league (for the owners) for many years to come?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

I think teams were reluctant to spend more this year because of uncertainty about a future cap. If they knew for a fact there would be no cap, I have to believe some of these owners would have spent a lot more.

I believe there was an unwritten agreement among owners that they were not going to spend like drunken sailors and the lack of many premium free agents played into that. But I still don't think owners will go hog wild as long as they have revenue sharing.It would also make more sense to spend big now with no cap then wait, as teams could write off the cap hit in the uncapped year and still have the player signed for several more years should a cap come back into play.The other issue is that owners in football basically get only 10 home games of revenue to work with (8 regular season and 2 preseason and a select few get a playoff game or two), while MLB owners get a minimum of 81 home games (and maybe some preseason, exhibition, and post season games). Bottom line, from ticket sales and conssession, baseball collects way more money. There's more money floating around in baseball than football.

But are ticket sales and concessions where all the extra money comes from in baseball? Or is it primarily local TV rights that make up the difference?

 

[KellysHeroes]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

who was their to spend money on? Every decent FA this yr seemed to be an RFA and a team would have to give up a pick to sign the player.If there was no Tenders or not so many of them we would of seen some huge contracts.

 

[David Yudkin]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

who was their to spend money on? Every decent FA this yr seemed to be an RFA and a team would have to give up a pick to sign the player.If there was no Tenders or not so many of them we would of seen some huge contracts.

Teams could have done that last year, and many teams were $10-$20 million under the cap when there were more quality free agents. Just because teams can spend more doesn't mean many of them will choose to do so.While the UFA talent pool was poor, there were still a lot of top RFAs this year. Teams could have signed players to offer sheets or made some trades, but even that didn't happen. I agree that some guys weren't worth a 1st and a 3rd round pick, but for most of them I would think that they could have traded to acquire the same players for less than the tender offer draft pick compensation levels.

 

[footballsavvy]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

I think teams were reluctant to spend more this year because of uncertainty about a future cap. If they knew for a fact there would be no cap, I have to believe some of these owners would have spent a lot more.

I believe there was an unwritten agreement among owners that they were not going to spend like drunken sailors and the lack of many premium free agents played into that. But I still don't think owners will go hog wild as long as they have revenue sharing.It would also make more sense to spend big now with no cap then wait, as teams could write off the cap hit in the uncapped year and still have the player signed for several more years should a cap come back into play.The other issue is that owners in football basically get only 10 home games of revenue to work with (8 regular season and 2 preseason and a select few get a playoff game or two), while MLB owners get a minimum of 81 home games (and maybe some preseason, exhibition, and post season games). Bottom line, from ticket sales and conssession, baseball collects way more money. There's more money floating around in baseball than football.

The CBA had rules in place that went into affect if a new CBA was not reached before now. The extended RFA deal was the most glaring. There were hardly any unrestricted free agents to spend money on this year and that was by design to prevent such a spending frenzy. Another huge deal was the additiona of two additional transition tags. Typically a team gets to use 1 franchise tag, but in 2010 they get 1 franchise tag and 2 transition tags. So now every team had the option of locking up three of their top would-be free agents. Another part of the rule that limited the market was the restriction on the final 8 teams to fully participate in free agency. That took away 25% of the demand side of hte supply/demand equation.

 

[David Yudkin]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

I think teams were reluctant to spend more this year because of uncertainty about a future cap. If they knew for a fact there would be no cap, I have to believe some of these owners would have spent a lot more.

I believe there was an unwritten agreement among owners that they were not going to spend like drunken sailors and the lack of many premium free agents played into that. But I still don't think owners will go hog wild as long as they have revenue sharing.It would also make more sense to spend big now with no cap then wait, as teams could write off the cap hit in the uncapped year and still have the player signed for several more years should a cap come back into play.The other issue is that owners in football basically get only 10 home games of revenue to work with (8 regular season and 2 preseason and a select few get a playoff game or two), while MLB owners get a minimum of 81 home games (and maybe some preseason, exhibition, and post season games). Bottom line, from ticket sales and conssession, baseball collects way more money. There's more money floating around in baseball than football.

But are ticket sales and concessions where all the extra money comes from in baseball? Or is it primarily local TV rights that make up the difference?

Yes, premium teams get better tv deals, but they can aloso charge a fortune for tickets and sell out. The Yankees have tickets that cost hundreds and some seats that cost thousands of dollars. If they sell 2-3 the number of tickets and can charge 5-10 the price for tickets, then yes they make a killing in ticket sales and concessions.

 

[Bob Magaw]

"... Just because teams can spend more doesn't mean many of them will choose to do so."

i agree with this, and there likely will be a disparity in what some teams spend, with the equalizing vehicle (governor, regulator) of a salary cap removed.i would add, the thread was in part prompted by a related question... will some teams be in a position where they will be UNABLE to field competitive offers for the top free agents, if financial disparity is unchecked and given free reign...responding to a few other questions in this thread...* paul allen was one of the owners i was thinking of in the initial post, when i mentioned wealthy owners... also, i don't necessarily think teams like WAS and DAL will be the only teams positioned to outspend some of their fellow owners, they were a few teams that came immediately to mind, and that imo are probably commonly associated with the implications suggested here... in that sense, a more accurate sub-title better reflecting this would have been phrased... will teams LIKE WAS & DAL...

 

[SuperJohn96]

If there is no spending cap, it will definately favor teams that have the money to spend on the big named players. It is why the Yankees have won so many World Series compared to everyone else, not because of anything else.Why don't the Yankees win every year? Because there is a human element that's involved in winning, injury to key players, not evaluating those big players and their contracts correctly and potential personal problems off the field.However, over the long term teams that spend twice as much on players will win more championships. I refuse to watch the Yankees anymore, if that means not watching the World Series then so be it. I grew up liking the Yankees, I was awestruck with all the stars they had. However, when you grow up and understand how they get all these good players and other teams can't afford to sign players and keep pace, it's actually one of the most idiotic things in sports IMO. Good job Yankees, you want a pat on the back for winning when you consistantly spend the most money, you should be winning.Dallas was in the midst of one of the strongest dynasties in NFL history in the early 90's. However, when the cap was put into place, that young Dallas nucleus, especially on defense was split up. Who knows how many SB's that group would have won. With that said, it was one of the greatest things the NFL ever did. I love that there's strategy involved in who to sign and that every team gets the same amount of money to work with. It's a chess match on who to sign and who not to sign. You want to sign a big star for a ton of money, that will leave you short in other areas.It would probably benefit Dallas to have no cap but I'm against it. One of the reasons the NFL is the greatest league in the world is because of this cap.BTW, I haven't spent a dime on baseball tickets in years and won't until they change to something like this. If it doesn't happen, I guess I'll save money. It doesn't make sense to me that one team spends a ton of money, they win and everyone goes gaga over it. I guess what I don't fully understand is why do the other owners put up with it. When you see how the NFL has worked the last 15 years or so, how do you not see that and push for it if you're one of those teams who can't compete because they can't consitantly sign the big named players.

I mean, who wouldn't want to see this applied to the NFL...

#1 - NYY - $206,333,389Bottom 4 - $179,647,74427 - TEX - $ 55,250,54428 - OAK - $ 51,654,90029 - SDC - $ 37,799,30030 - PIT - $ 34,943,000

 

[LawFitz]

If the NFL loses it's cap, you will end up with the same thing that you have in a baseball - a set of major league franchises and a set of minor league franchises playing within the same league. The line between them is broad and ever changing but the reality is that the lower pay teams will mostly function as a developmental source for players for the high pay teams.

Sure some will find creative ways to remain competitive, but there's just no way to consistently get around such huge disparities in the game that goes on off the field.

 

[KellysHeroes]

If the NFL loses it's cap, you will end up with the same thing that you have in a baseball - a set of major league franchises and a set of minor league franchises playing within the same league. The line between them is broad and ever changing but the reality is that the lower pay teams will mostly function as a developmental source for players for the high pay teams. Sure some will find creative ways to remain competitive, but there's just no way to consistently get around such huge disparities in the game that goes on off the field.

Baseball doesn't have the ability to Tender Tag their FAs like NFL does; it seems like a guy has to be in his declining years before another team can get him. And I'll state again, who was there to spend money on???? Now if there wasn't any Tender Tags then I could of seen a battle for VJax and him becoming the highest paid WR. But no one is going to give him a ton of cash and give up a 1st & a 3rd. Even if Pierre Thomas it the market freely, he would of gotten crazy money. When the day comes and a franchise doesn't Tag a star player because they can't afford to then we have a problem, but for now the un-capped system seemed to work fine.

 

[daveR]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.

If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

I think teams were reluctant to spend more this year because of uncertainty about a future cap. If they knew for a fact there would be no cap, I have to believe some of these owners would have spent a lot more.

I believe there was an unwritten agreement among owners that they were not going to spend like drunken sailors and the lack of many premium free agents played into that. But I still don't think owners will go hog wild as long as they have revenue sharing.It would also make more sense to spend big now with no cap then wait, as teams could write off the cap hit in the uncapped year and still have the player signed for several more years should a cap come back into play.

The other issue is that owners in football basically get only 10 home games of revenue to work with (8 regular season and 2 preseason and a select few get a playoff game or two), while MLB owners get a minimum of 81 home games (and maybe some preseason, exhibition, and post season games). Bottom line, from ticket sales and conssession, baseball collects way more money. There's more money floating around in baseball than football.

But are ticket sales and concessions where all the extra money comes from in baseball? Or is it primarily local TV rights that make up the difference?

This.In MLB & the NYY situation, local TV & radio rights boost their revenues beyond the payrolls of most teams. If all revenues are shared in the NFL, which I doubt happens, then an even playing field results. If not, the smaller markets (ala GB) will eventually become the Pitt Pirates of the league.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think football is much more of a young man's game than baseball, and because of that and the immediate impact of the NFL draft (no such corollary in MLB), you're never going to see the NFL turn into a baseball style system.

Of course, I'm not even sure anymore what a baseball style system is, since it's arguable that there's more parity in the Majors than in the NFL.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Teams could spend as much as they want this year. And haven't. Many teams could have spent more last year. And didn't, leaving almost $250 million in total cap space unused in 2009. Just because teams have the ability by rule to spend more doesn't mean that they would if fiscally it doesn't make sense in running a profitable operation.If teams are still sharing revenue and the NFL for the most part operates as a core business instead of 32 seperate ones, I don't see teams going hog wild spending on players in the future. If it gets to the point where each team can negotiate independent contract s for everything, that might change the landscape where teams could morph into the Yankees.

I think teams were reluctant to spend more this year because of uncertainty about a future cap. If they knew for a fact there would be no cap, I have to believe some of these owners would have spent a lot more.

I believe there was an unwritten agreement among owners that they were not going to spend like drunken sailors and the lack of many premium free agents played into that. But I still don't think owners will go hog wild as long as they have revenue sharing.It would also make more sense to spend big now with no cap then wait, as teams could write off the cap hit in the uncapped year and still have the player signed for several more years should a cap come back into play.The other issue is that owners in football basically get only 10 home games of revenue to work with (8 regular season and 2 preseason and a select few get a playoff game or two), while MLB owners get a minimum of 81 home games (and maybe some preseason, exhibition, and post season games). Bottom line, from ticket sales and conssession, baseball collects way more money. There's more money floating around in baseball than football.

But are ticket sales and concessions where all the extra money comes from in baseball? Or is it primarily local TV rights that make up the difference?

Yes, premium teams get better tv deals, but they can aloso charge a fortune for tickets and sell out. The Yankees have tickets that cost hundreds and some seats that cost thousands of dollars. If they sell 2-3 the number of tickets and can charge 5-10 the price for tickets, then yes they make a killing in ticket sales and concessions.

Since stadiums are all roughly the same size (ok, rough approximation), then price is the biggest lever. Teams already can exercise that lever, so I'm not sure how much really changes -- at least for ticket revenue -- in a non-salary cap world. Doesn't Dallas already charge more for tickets than Jacksonville, Green Bay, etc?But I'll play along anyway. Let's assume that in a non-salary cap world, the Cowboys can sell 80,000 tickets for an incremental $50 more (on average) than say, Green Bay. That's an extra $4M revenue per game x 8 games (preseason has less pricing power) = $32M per year.I have no idea how much money the Yankees make on local TV rights, but I'd bet it dwarfs $32M.Another way to think about it is that $32M would allow Jerry Jones to sign THREE Roy Williams each year instead of just one.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Just found more info on Yankees' revenue:

Sources of Revenue:

1. Stadium tickets: $117 million (4.2 million tickets at an average of $28 each)

2. YES network TV/radio rights: $60 million

3. Major League TV and licensing: $30 million

4. concessions: $10 million

5. sponsorships and advertising: $30 million

6. premium seating: $27 million

7. local radio: $13 million

8. catering: $5 million

9. other: $10 million

Without digging into excruciating detail, it appears that items 2, 5, 7 are the items where teams in premium markets get the greatest advantage. And that's about $100M annually for the Yankees.

Ticket revenue - items 1 & 6 - is definitely important too. But the avg ticket price in baseball is $21, so the Yankees are only getting a 33% premium price. Even if you add the $27M of premium seating into "normal" ticket revenue, it implies an average adjusted ticket price of about $35. Which is about a 65% premium over the MLB average.

NFL ticket prices average $58. So if the Cowboys commanded the same 65% premium on ticket prices, that would allow them to get an add'l ~$40 per ticket, or about $3.2M per game, or about $25M annually.

 

[culdeus]

Just found more info on Yankees' revenue:Sources of Revenue: 1. Stadium tickets: $117 million (4.2 million tickets at an average of $28 each)2. YES network TV/radio rights: $60 million3. Major League TV and licensing: $30 million4. concessions: $10 million5. sponsorships and advertising: $30 million6. premium seating: $27 million7. local radio: $13 million8. catering: $5 million9. other: $10 millionWithout digging into excruciating detail, it appears that items 2, 5, 7 are the items where teams in premium markets get the greatest advantage. And that's about $100M annually for the Yankees.Ticket revenue - items 1 & 6 - is definitely important too. But the avg ticket price in baseball is $21, so the Yankees are only getting a 33% premium price. Even if you add the $27M of premium seating into "normal" ticket revenue, it implies an average adjusted ticket price of about $35. Which is about a 65% premium over the MLB average.NFL ticket prices average $58. So if the Cowboys commanded the same 65% premium on ticket prices, that would allow them to get an add'l ~$40 per ticket, or about $3.2M per game, or about $25M annually.

Are you counting pre-season game revenue in that?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Are you counting pre-season game revenue in that?

In the Cowboys #'s? Or in the Yankees?For the Yanks, I just grabbed the info off a Times article that looked at total revenues, so it must include all games.For the Cowboys, I'm really only looking at incremental revenue from premium pricing. So no, I didn't include preseason under the assumption (perhaps flawed) that there is less premium pricing available (in dollar terms) for meaningless August games.

 

[culdeus]

Are you counting pre-season game revenue in that?

In the Cowboys #'s? Or in the Yankees?For the Yanks, I just grabbed the info off a Times article that looked at total revenues, so it must include all games.For the Cowboys, I'm really only looking at incremental revenue from premium pricing. So no, I didn't include preseason under the assumption (perhaps flawed) that there is less premium pricing available (in dollar terms) for meaningless August games.

You'd be wrong.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Are you counting pre-season game revenue in that?

In the Cowboys #'s? Or in the Yankees?For the Yanks, I just grabbed the info off a Times article that looked at total revenues, so it must include all games.For the Cowboys, I'm really only looking at incremental revenue from premium pricing. So no, I didn't include preseason under the assumption (perhaps flawed) that there is less premium pricing available (in dollar terms) for meaningless August games.

You'd be wrong.

Gee, thanks for the feedback. Care to elaborate and be helpful, or would you rather just be snarky?

 

[David Yudkin]

Since stadiums are all roughly the same size (ok, rough approximation), then price is the biggest lever. Teams already can exercise that lever, so I'm not sure how much really changes -- at least for ticket revenue -- in a non-salary cap world. Doesn't Dallas already charge more for tickets than Jacksonville, Green Bay, etc?But I'll play along anyway. Let's assume that in a non-salary cap world, the Cowboys can sell 80,000 tickets for an incremental $50 more (on average) than say, Green Bay. That's an extra $4M revenue per game x 8 games (preseason has less pricing power) = $32M per year.I have no idea how much money the Yankees make on local TV rights, but I'd bet it dwarfs $32M.Another way to think about it is that $32M would allow Jerry Jones to sign THREE Roy Williams each year instead of just one.

Harping on the baseball stuff, if the same were to hold true (say that the Yankees were making an extra $4 million a game), over 90 regular season and playoff games that could be an extra $360 million in ticket sales plus more parking revenue, concessions, etc.. I'm guessing that is a ***HUGE*** advantage over the Milwaukees, Kansas Citys, and Minnesotas of the world.Gettin back to the NFL, I don't think we will see massive spending until the league gets away from revenue sharing. As long as they divide tv revenue, leaguewide endorsements, licensing, etc. into 32 equal pies, I don't see premimum teams having enough firepower to blow others out of the water.Yes, teams can still get more local revenue through advertising, higher tickets prices, and the like . . . but we are not talking lapping the field 10 times over like the Yankees do in extra revenue opportunities.

 

[David Yudkin]

Just found more info on Yankees' revenue:Sources of Revenue: 1. Stadium tickets: $117 million (4.2 million tickets at an average of $28 each)2. YES network TV/radio rights: $60 million3. Major League TV and licensing: $30 million4. concessions: $10 million5. sponsorships and advertising: $30 million6. premium seating: $27 million7. local radio: $13 million8. catering: $5 million9. other: $10 millionWithout digging into excruciating detail, it appears that items 2, 5, 7 are the items where teams in premium markets get the greatest advantage. And that's about $100M annually for the Yankees.Ticket revenue - items 1 & 6 - is definitely important too. But the avg ticket price in baseball is $21, so the Yankees are only getting a 33% premium price. Even if you add the $27M of premium seating into "normal" ticket revenue, it implies an average adjusted ticket price of about $35. Which is about a 65% premium over the MLB average.NFL ticket prices average $58. So if the Cowboys commanded the same 65% premium on ticket prices, that would allow them to get an add'l ~$40 per ticket, or about $3.2M per game, or about $25M annually.

There's no way this is right. Last year, the average non-premium ticket price for the Yankees was like $71 or $74 . . . and that does not account for the premium seats that run as much as $2,500 a ticket. They also had a very small % of non premium seats available (much lower than most teams).

 

[culdeus]

Are you counting pre-season game revenue in that?

In the Cowboys #'s? Or in the Yankees?For the Yanks, I just grabbed the info off a Times article that looked at total revenues, so it must include all games.For the Cowboys, I'm really only looking at incremental revenue from premium pricing. So no, I didn't include preseason under the assumption (perhaps flawed) that there is less premium pricing available (in dollar terms) for meaningless August games.

You'd be wrong.

Gee, thanks for the feedback. Care to elaborate and be helpful, or would you rather just be snarky?

There's just a ton wrong there. For the Cowboys specifically outside the pre-season games you are overlooking parking which is another epic revenue source at $75/pop, and this completely sets aside the other events staged there which are not Cowboys related. The stadium tours specifically bring in game level revenue annually. There are some knobs to turn, but you can't just start turning them based on a couple of bottom line numbers and extrapolations.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Just found more info on Yankees' revenue:Sources of Revenue: 1. Stadium tickets: $117 million (4.2 million tickets at an average of $28 each)2. YES network TV/radio rights: $60 million3. Major League TV and licensing: $30 million4. concessions: $10 million5. sponsorships and advertising: $30 million6. premium seating: $27 million7. local radio: $13 million8. catering: $5 million9. other: $10 millionWithout digging into excruciating detail, it appears that items 2, 5, 7 are the items where teams in premium markets get the greatest advantage. And that's about $100M annually for the Yankees.Ticket revenue - items 1 & 6 - is definitely important too. But the avg ticket price in baseball is $21, so the Yankees are only getting a 33% premium price. Even if you add the $27M of premium seating into "normal" ticket revenue, it implies an average adjusted ticket price of about $35. Which is about a 65% premium over the MLB average.NFL ticket prices average $58. So if the Cowboys commanded the same 65% premium on ticket prices, that would allow them to get an add'l ~$40 per ticket, or about $3.2M per game, or about $25M annually.

There's no way this is right. Last year, the average non-premium ticket price for the Yankees was like $71 or $74 . . . and that does not account for the premium seats that run as much as $2,500 a ticket. They also had a very small % of non premium seats available (much lower than most teams).

David - you are correct, I should have checked the date.....the NY Times article I grabbed this from is 3 years outdated.Total NY Yanks revenue has risen from ~$300M in 2007 to ~$440M today. I haven't been able to find a more recent breakdown of team revenue.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

There's just a ton wrong there. For the Cowboys specifically outside the pre-season games you are overlooking parking which is another epic revenue source at $75/pop, and this completely sets aside the other events staged there which are not Cowboys related. The stadium tours specifically bring in game level revenue annually. There are some knobs to turn, but you can't just start turning them based on a couple of bottom line numbers and extrapolations.

You could have just made helpful suggestions - since excruciating detail seems to be so important to you - but instead have to continue acting like a ####. Sorry, I don't need attitude from some random person on a message board. It's not worth it.

 

[renesauz]

Of course, I'm not even sure anymore what a baseball style system is, since it's arguable that there's more parity in the Majors than in the NFL.

Baseball is a joke. Long term win %s clearly show that the big money big market teams have an extraordinary and unreasonable advantage. Nothing shows this effect better then the Florida Marlins, who lost over 40 million dollars the year they won the World Series. By the next year, they shed all of the excess payroll and became a laughingstock again.Millions of fans have abandoned baseball because of its economics. Millions would abandon football for the same reasons were it to go back to it's older systems.The free agent tags in football go hand in hand with the caps and the revenue sharing. I'm not sure that a revenue sharing system could survive without both a cap and a floor. The current (one year) system would not work for long.

 

[Saints-Man]

I think football is much more of a young man's game than baseball, and because of that and the immediate impact of the NFL draft (no such corollary in MLB), you're never going to see the NFL turn into a baseball style system.

Of course, I'm not even sure anymore what a baseball style system is, since it's arguable that there's more parity in the Majors than in the NFL.

Chase, would you expand on this?Of the last 15 years, the Yankees have made the playoffs in 14 of those years.

Of the last 7 years, the Boston Red Sox have made the playoffs in 6 of those years.

So, the two richest franchises in MLB have made the playoffs 6 of the last 7 years. That is 25% of the playoff field.

While the NFL has some perenial strong teams(Indy, NE), their advantage is not due to money. While NE is probably in one of the top markets, Indianapolis is probably a median franchise in terms of income.