David Dodds
Administrator
No link, no inside source to quote, just my opinion here....
The current CBA was very good for the owners. They made a lot of money by creating a salary cap at the time when the league was growing exponentially. A lot of revenue sources that are available now weren't readily available when they signed this deal (TV deals, new stadiums, etc).
The owners need not apologize for this situation though. The increased TV deals, new stadium revenues, merchandising are all up. But a lot of these owners and Tags had a lot to do with making the NFL the top sport by a wide margin. They deserve what they have earned.
But going into the negotiations for new CBA, the players believe they deserve more. They see all this extra revenue and want a piece of it. The owners love what they have now, but know they are going to likely have to give up some of this cash with any new agreement.
The fans and owners love the cap. It keeps a level playing field. NFL Players have agreed to play under a cap as long as they are treated fairly. But everyone knows that if the cap was lifted, players would likely get even more revenue eventually. Just look at Baseball and Hockey as examples. Certian owners will pay whatever it takes to create a winner. It only takes 3 to 4 of these owners and the dollars available for salaries would be greater. The NFLPA and players certainly know this. The owners also know this, but it's hard to quantify. The NFLPA estimates that 70% of revenues would be available for salaries in an open market. This is probably not far from the truth.
An interesting dynamic though is to get that 70% (and be uncapped), the NFL players would need to sacrifice for at least 1-2 years. For some players, that wait is too long (short careers in this violent game). This works as an advantage to the owners.
On one hand the super rich owner embraces a free market because he can afford to buy a winner. On the other hand he knows he is maximizing profit by keeping things equal for all teams. Imagine how much the Yankees would make if they could not spend more than the other teams?
The rich (but not super rich owner) can't afford to pay the higher tax (unless revenues are shared) or he will lose money. This is where the 56% and 60% differences reside in my opinion. At 56%, all owners likely can pay the salaries without additional sharing of new revenues. At 60% it is my understanding this is not the case.
Which is why we have a stalemate. Upshaw and the NFLPA were right in that this would be 100X easier to negotiate if the owners KNEW what they were going to do regarding sharing of revenues. But as soon as Upshaw said he wanted more than the 56% number, the small owners were disagreeing with the big owners which means nothing is getting negotiated.
Both the NFLPA and the owners need a unified starting position and that includes an understanding of the shared revenues involved. Tags was smart to ask for another 4 days for owner meetings. If the owners can figure out revenue sharing between themselves, I think this thing has an excellent chance of getting solved.
I still believe this thing will get done soon. The number that likely gets released will be near 60%, but will include some deductions (stadium costs, etc). But the 60% number will be released so the NFLPA can save face in front of their players. The super rich owners will give something to the less rich owners also allowing for the number to get closer to this magical 60% without the small owners feeling the pinch.
There is a ton of money to be had here in a growing segment. I don't think Upshaw is bluffing when he says that an uncapped year means the cap is dead going forward. The NFLPA knows that actually would be a very good result for the players (even if the league itself takes a bit of a hit with fans). Our own Maurile Tremblay studied this and stated that losing the salary cap would be very good for the players in the long-run.
The next few days are going to tell the story. If the super rich owners don't want a cap, then they simply refuse to share revenues. If these same owners value a cap (to maximize profit), they will share revenues making a deal more likely. But until the owners have a unified position on how the revenues get distributed among themselves, the less rich owners don't have enough information to support giving an increase to the players. And that is where we have been the last few weeks.
Again my gut says this deal gets done this time. Too many owners lose if the cap goes away. They can say they don't care about a cap, but know they will bid each other into situations where some of them will start losing money. It has happened in every other sport without a cap.
The current CBA was very good for the owners. They made a lot of money by creating a salary cap at the time when the league was growing exponentially. A lot of revenue sources that are available now weren't readily available when they signed this deal (TV deals, new stadiums, etc).
The owners need not apologize for this situation though. The increased TV deals, new stadium revenues, merchandising are all up. But a lot of these owners and Tags had a lot to do with making the NFL the top sport by a wide margin. They deserve what they have earned.
But going into the negotiations for new CBA, the players believe they deserve more. They see all this extra revenue and want a piece of it. The owners love what they have now, but know they are going to likely have to give up some of this cash with any new agreement.
The fans and owners love the cap. It keeps a level playing field. NFL Players have agreed to play under a cap as long as they are treated fairly. But everyone knows that if the cap was lifted, players would likely get even more revenue eventually. Just look at Baseball and Hockey as examples. Certian owners will pay whatever it takes to create a winner. It only takes 3 to 4 of these owners and the dollars available for salaries would be greater. The NFLPA and players certainly know this. The owners also know this, but it's hard to quantify. The NFLPA estimates that 70% of revenues would be available for salaries in an open market. This is probably not far from the truth.
An interesting dynamic though is to get that 70% (and be uncapped), the NFL players would need to sacrifice for at least 1-2 years. For some players, that wait is too long (short careers in this violent game). This works as an advantage to the owners.
On one hand the super rich owner embraces a free market because he can afford to buy a winner. On the other hand he knows he is maximizing profit by keeping things equal for all teams. Imagine how much the Yankees would make if they could not spend more than the other teams?
The rich (but not super rich owner) can't afford to pay the higher tax (unless revenues are shared) or he will lose money. This is where the 56% and 60% differences reside in my opinion. At 56%, all owners likely can pay the salaries without additional sharing of new revenues. At 60% it is my understanding this is not the case.
Which is why we have a stalemate. Upshaw and the NFLPA were right in that this would be 100X easier to negotiate if the owners KNEW what they were going to do regarding sharing of revenues. But as soon as Upshaw said he wanted more than the 56% number, the small owners were disagreeing with the big owners which means nothing is getting negotiated.
Both the NFLPA and the owners need a unified starting position and that includes an understanding of the shared revenues involved. Tags was smart to ask for another 4 days for owner meetings. If the owners can figure out revenue sharing between themselves, I think this thing has an excellent chance of getting solved.
I still believe this thing will get done soon. The number that likely gets released will be near 60%, but will include some deductions (stadium costs, etc). But the 60% number will be released so the NFLPA can save face in front of their players. The super rich owners will give something to the less rich owners also allowing for the number to get closer to this magical 60% without the small owners feeling the pinch.
There is a ton of money to be had here in a growing segment. I don't think Upshaw is bluffing when he says that an uncapped year means the cap is dead going forward. The NFLPA knows that actually would be a very good result for the players (even if the league itself takes a bit of a hit with fans). Our own Maurile Tremblay studied this and stated that losing the salary cap would be very good for the players in the long-run.
The next few days are going to tell the story. If the super rich owners don't want a cap, then they simply refuse to share revenues. If these same owners value a cap (to maximize profit), they will share revenues making a deal more likely. But until the owners have a unified position on how the revenues get distributed among themselves, the less rich owners don't have enough information to support giving an increase to the players. And that is where we have been the last few weeks.
Again my gut says this deal gets done this time. Too many owners lose if the cap goes away. They can say they don't care about a cap, but know they will bid each other into situations where some of them will start losing money. It has happened in every other sport without a cap.
but I liked my Reader's Digest version better 
You hear the same thing about ANY big stadium. We heard the same thing about Boston Garden. It's not the end of the world and SOMEONE would pay a LOT of money to name that stadium after themselves. I am not saying it is a good thing, but someone would do it for CERTAIN.
