What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NFL $9 billion of debt (1 Viewer)

David Yudkin

Footballguy
At least that's what the Sports Business Journal is reporting.

I don't have a subscription, so I can't read the entire article. But it makes you wonder if the NFL is cooking their books or if they really are losing a ton of money. If they ARE that much in debt, I can only ask . . . HOW?

 
The NFL, through the league and its 32 teams, has more than $9 billion of debt. The figure, which has never before been public, is disclosed in a letter that the league’s outside general counsel, Gregg Levy, wrote last October to the NFL Players Association in response to the union’s questions about a league resolution to reduce team debt.The letter earlier this month was included as an exhibit in a court filing.“The Resolution reflects general leaguewide concerns about the financial health of the league, and in particular about the level of league and club debt, in an uncertain economic environment, especially one in which its clubs are operating with very thin margins,” wrote Levy, a partner with Covington & Burling. “(The League office estimates debt levels under current League policies to be above $9 billion.)”The NFL debt figure is far higher than that of other leagues. MLB clubs owe $3.1 billion, according to MLB CFO Jonathan Mariner, though that number does not include the roughly $2 billion in financing for the two pending New York ballparks because that debt, technically, is not carried by the teams. The NBA declined to make public its debt total, but the league’s policies limit all team borrowings to $175 million per club. The NHL also declined to discuss any aspect of its debt, but finance sources have previously said that the league allows teams to carry debt up to half of their franchise value.“It is a very significant figure,” said Marc Ganis, a sports consultant with ties to several league teams, of the NFL figure. “I would estimate half is related to stadium debt.”About 25 percent of NFL debt is tied to stadiumprojects in Dallas (above) and New York.While the $9 billion figure may seem high, the NFLPA’s outside counsel, Jeffrey Kessler, said he is not concerned by it because league cash flows can support the costs. He declined to say how much league cash flows are. League revenue in 2006 was $6.97 billion, the union said in a collusion complaint made to Special Master Stephen Burbank, and NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw, in announcing that case, said league revenue was expected to rise to $9 billion.The NFL’s debt load has become a bone of contention with the union, which last month filed the collusion complaint against the league because of the debt reduction plan. In his Oct. 31, 2007, letter, Levy wrote to Kessler that the debt reduction resolution addressed concerns by the league about steep borrowings and general credit conditions.The letter was contained as an exhibit in the union’s March 7 response to the league’s effort to remove Judge David Doty from oversight of the collective-bargaining agreement. The league, in a complaint filed earlier this year in his court, the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, charged that Doty is biased against management.Both sides have been making aggressive moves in anticipation of the owners opting out of the CBA. Since signing the deal in March 2006, owners have decried it as too player-friendly.In addition to seeking the removal of Doty from the CBA matter, the league has asked that all federal court supervision of the CBA be removed and has hired Proskauer Rose attorney Bob Batterman as a labor adviser. Batterman is well-known for steering the NHL through its lockout in 2004-05.The NFLPA, meanwhile, has filed the collusion case and is preparing its players for a possible lockout in 2011. If the owners opt out this year, the 2010 season would become the last year of the deal and contain no salary cap.The NFL debt figure likely includes all team borrowings and the league’s G-3 stadium funding plan, which has granted nearly $1.4 billion to 11 stadium projects since 1999, and might include the league’s lending pool, or credit facility. The NFL did not respond to requests for comment.Another factor in the debt figure is that a select few projects eat up a large chunk of the amount. The New York Jets and Giants borrowed $1.3 billion for their new stadium and received $300 million from the G-3 program. The Dallas Cowboys borrowed $475 million for their new stadium and got $76.5 million from G-3. That totals nearly one-quarter of the league’s entire debt burden.In addition to the plan to reduce team debt caps from $150 million to $120 million by 2010, the NFL wants to reduce overall debt by $1 billion in that period.
 
This is an overblown issue. Plenty of businesses have debt. Further, it doesn't sound like the NFL is in debt - rather, when you roll up the debt of all NFL teams, the sum = $9B. Big difference.

 
The NFL debt figure is far higher than that of other leagues. MLB clubs owe $3.1 billion, according to MLB CFO Jonathan Mariner, though that number does not include the roughly $2 billion in financing for the two pending New York ballparks because that debt, technically, is not carried by the teams. The NBA declined to make public its debt total, but the league’s policies limit all team borrowings to $175 million per club. The NHL also declined to discuss any aspect of its debt, but finance sources have previously said that the league allows teams to carry debt up to half of their franchise value.

“It is a very significant figure,” said Marc Ganis, a sports consultant with ties to several league teams, of the NFL figure. “I would estimate half is related to stadium debt.” About 25 percent of NFL debt is tied to stadium projects in Dallas (above) and New York.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So THAT'S why they were suing churches and nursing homes for having Super Bowl parties.

It all makes sense now.

 
Depends on the amount of debt versus equity. $9B sounds like a lot but if they have roughly that in equity and robust cash flows to meet the interest payments then it is a non-issue.

 
So what they have debt? Anyone here have a mortgage? Do you call that your indebtedness? If you are making the payments and the debt supports the equity in the the home and the growth in same then debt functions to make you money. It only becomes a problem if your revenues can't support the debt amortization.

Every big business uses borrowed money in order to leverage their business. When they do that and net out cash flows and equity that is greater than the cost of debt service they make money, no matter what the debt service is. In addition, the NFL's franchise in terms of both hard assets and cash flows is worth substantially more than 9 billion. The Cowboys franchise alone is valued someplace near $1 Billion now.

It's just not news to follow how the NFL counts beans in it's operations. They borrow money, wow.

 
This amount means nothing without context.

According to Forbes, the average franchise was worth $898M in 2006.

That puts the league's assets (just of the 32 teams) at over $28.7B.

That's Billion.

So the debt of the league is about 31%, and that's just on the values of the franchises.

Revenues from TV, other media, merchandise, and also value of the NFL name probably puts their debt-to-value below 20%.

Again, total non-issue here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sports teams have a very shady way of accruding debt over long periods of time. Basically owners can displace other money that they make in their revenue to other business or opportunities that they own. So for instance they can give themselves and their entire family salaries, then give over pay the company they own that does all the pyrotechnics, sound, ect. as well as other entities that may be involved that those owner's also own. Basically they can move around the money to all sorts of other ventures that they have and it's all perfectly legal given that they are technically paying for the things being reported but the money always circulates back to the top.

They do this so they can pull the wool over players and fans eyes saying they are losing money every year and they have to raise tickets, concessions, ect. and lower player contracts. Believe me no company that is million dollars in debt every year can be worth the estimated $800 million most NFL franchises are at.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frankly, the number is ridiculously low. They're all playing in stadiums worth hundreds of millions of dollars and most of them have paid a fairly small percentage of the cost of the stadium.

What would truly outrageous would be to look at the debt load of all of the local governments related to stadium funding and see what the debt looks like compared to the fairtale "revenue" that stadiums supposedly create.

 
So the debt of the league is about 31%, and that's just on the values of the franchises.Revenues from TV, other media, merchandise, and also value of the NFL name probably puts their debt-to-value below 20%.
The value of the franchises already includes the discounted expected revenues from TV, media, merchandise, and so forth that they get from the NFL. You don't count twice.
 
Frankly, the number is ridiculously low. They're all playing in stadiums worth hundreds of millions of dollars and most of them have paid a fairly small percentage of the cost of the stadium.

What would truly outrageous would be to look at the debt load of all of the local governments related to stadium funding and see what the debt looks like compared to the fairtale "revenue" that stadiums supposedly create.
IIRC, very few teams "own" the stadiums they play in and they are owned by local municipalities. So I don't see how the individual teams are on the hook for the stadium costs.
 
The league's franchises are worth close to $30B according to the latest figures I've seen (Forbes puts them a bit lower but still above $25B if memory serves), the $9B is quite reasonable given the capital intensive nature of building new stadiums. Frankly the NFL could take on quite a bit more debt and be in absolutely fine financial condition. This is a non issue.

 
9 billion? c'mon.

my season tickets have gone up every year for the past 4 years, at least. and I keep paying. They've been sold out for God knows how long - since Shea stadium? Season ticket waiting list is years long and this is the Jets I'm talking about here. Giants - same story, even longer waiting list.

They can cry contracts and new stadium costs all they want. I'm not buying it. The NFL is a THRIVING business - give me an F'n break.

 
Debt is common for a business to have.
True....but too much debt is a problem. 9 Billion is a lot of money, even for the NFL. It's not like they're going to go under and people aren't making money like Jerry Jones but I think just saying debt is common for businesses is a little casual.There's been some banks recently who've had debt and went too far into debt and couldn't get themselves out.
 
Thread title s/b changed.

"NFL $9 billion in debt" indicated liabilities exceed assets by $9 billion, which is not the case.

"NFL has $9 billion in debt" would be a correct statement.

 
Non issue except for this part:

The NFLPA, meanwhile, has filed the collusion case and is preparing its players for a possible lockout in 2011. If the owners opt out this year, the 2010 season would become the last year of the deal and contain no salary cap.

 
I think the McCaskeys lack liquidity - there's no other way to explain their offseason 'plan' and Jerry Angelo's various rants about 'liking our people' and 'not going after players that are in it for the money'.

 
Non issue except for this part:The NFLPA, meanwhile, has filed the collusion case and is preparing its players for a possible lockout in 2011. If the owners opt out this year, the 2010 season would become the last year of the deal and contain no salary cap.
Indeed. This issue could boil up as early as this November, I believe, and obviously is crucial to the league's future operations.
 
Debt is common for a business to have.
True....but too much debt is a problem. 9 Billion is a lot of money, even for the NFL. It's not like they're going to go under and people aren't making money like Jerry Jones but I think just saying debt is common for businesses is a little casual.There's been some banks recently who've had debt and went too far into debt and couldn't get themselves out.
as stated above, debt is only an issue when liabilities exceed revenue. That won't be an issue here.
 
Frankly, the number is ridiculously low. They're all playing in stadiums worth hundreds of millions of dollars and most of them have paid a fairly small percentage of the cost of the stadium.

What would truly outrageous would be to look at the debt load of all of the local governments related to stadium funding and see what the debt looks like compared to the fairtale "revenue" that stadiums supposedly create.
IIRC, very few teams "own" the stadiums they play in and they are owned by local municipalities. So I don't see how the individual teams are on the hook for the stadium costs.
Municipalities generally pay a large share of the costs, and sometimes all of the costs, but teams pay some of the costs in a lot of cases as well. Just read the article posted at the top of the thread. It says right in it that the NY teams are on the hook for $1.3B for their new stadium.The sad truth is that in some cases, the municipalities put up a huge chunk of the stadium funding but the team actually ends up owning the stadium anyway. I believe that's the case with the new stadium in Philly for instance.

 
Debt is common for a business to have.
True....but too much debt is a problem. 9 Billion is a lot of money, even for the NFL. It's not like they're going to go under and people aren't making money like Jerry Jones but I think just saying debt is common for businesses is a little casual.There's been some banks recently who've had debt and went too far into debt and couldn't get themselves out.
as stated above, debt is only an issue when liabilities exceed revenue. That won't be an issue here.
Just to clarify, debt becomes an issue not when liabilities exceed revenue. Debt becomes an issue when cash flows are no longer capable of servicing the debt load. Profoundly different statements, and more germane to the conversation at hand because team cash flow is essential to keeping the players happy by paying them all those signing bonuses and upfront guarantees.
 
GroveDiesel said:
David Yudkin said:
Frankly, the number is ridiculously low. They're all playing in stadiums worth hundreds of millions of dollars and most of them have paid a fairly small percentage of the cost of the stadium.

What would truly outrageous would be to look at the debt load of all of the local governments related to stadium funding and see what the debt looks like compared to the fairtale "revenue" that stadiums supposedly create.
IIRC, very few teams "own" the stadiums they play in and they are owned by local municipalities. So I don't see how the individual teams are on the hook for the stadium costs.
Municipalities generally pay a large share of the costs, and sometimes all of the costs, but teams pay some of the costs in a lot of cases as well. Just read the article posted at the top of the thread. It says right in it that the NY teams are on the hook for $1.3B for their new stadium.The sad truth is that in some cases, the municipalities put up a huge chunk of the stadium funding but the team actually ends up owning the stadium anyway. I believe that's the case with the new stadium in Philly for instance.
You have to look at the overall investment.If you bring a franchise to town with a $110M payroll, guess what - you get some of that in taxes - per year.

Same thing for all the different revenue streams. Bringing in a franchise is a complicated math problem.

 
Frankly, the number is ridiculously low. They're all playing in stadiums worth hundreds of millions of dollars and most of them have paid a fairly small percentage of the cost of the stadium.

What would truly outrageous would be to look at the debt load of all of the local governments related to stadium funding and see what the debt looks like compared to the fairtale "revenue" that stadiums supposedly create.
IIRC, very few teams "own" the stadiums they play in and they are owned by local municipalities. So I don't see how the individual teams are on the hook for the stadium costs.
Municipalities generally pay a large share of the costs, and sometimes all of the costs, but teams pay some of the costs in a lot of cases as well. Just read the article posted at the top of the thread. It says right in it that the NY teams are on the hook for $1.3B for their new stadium.The sad truth is that in some cases, the municipalities put up a huge chunk of the stadium funding but the team actually ends up owning the stadium anyway. I believe that's the case with the new stadium in Philly for instance.
You have to look at the overall investment.

If you bring a franchise to town with a $110M payroll, guess what - you get some of that in taxes - per year.

Same thing for all the different revenue streams. Bringing in a franchise is a complicated math problem.
:goodposting: Excellant point Jeff. Mild fans and non-football fans often complain about public funds used on these projects, but their math is significantly lacking.CONSIDER: A sold out stadium can generate more then 1 million dollars in concessions in a single game ($5 beers anyone?) IN most locations, pre-prepared food tax is around 10%. It's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the folks in the stadium would NOT have bought pre-prepared food in that city that day. IE: The city would collect at least 100K in food tax alone at one game IF THEY CHARGED ONLY THE STANDARD 10%. Do you think the beer is taxed at only 10%???? I doubt it. Since many fans at games are from other localities, how about the extra meals, etc. before the game? The hotel revenues?

Big businesses are complicated beasts. Brief statements about debts (like this one) are misleading at best, dangerously naive at worst.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top