NFL Will Lose Fans and Already Has! (1 Viewer)

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

Fans like you and me will be there no matter what, but I think the casual fan is getting fed up. Can you blame them? With all the unemployment going on in this country and families trying to make ends meet, you have a bunch of wealthy owners and rich players arguing over $9 billion of annual revenue?!?! It's insane.

Personally I am more on the side of the owners. In what other business can the employees DEMAND over half of the annual profits? The owners are the ones that put their money on the line, write the checks, handle the TV contracts, advertising, etc. The players are already highly compensated for what they do, so I think they should stop whining. Do I have the right to demand half of the profits at my place of employment? No of course not!

On the other hand, the owners are running a big scam on society. $9 billion annual revenue? Are you kidding me?!?! And owners have the nerve to ask tax payers to pay for their billion dollar stadiums?!?! In Minnesota, the Vikings are whining for a new stadium and I don't mind paying MY taxes for it, but why should others that don't like football have to pay for it? And for what? To make rich owners and players RICHER!? In my opinion the league should take $1 billion a year of their profits and set it aside for new stadiums. At the current dollar, $1 billion would be enough to build a new stadium in every NFL city every 30 years....about the life of a stadium.

Seriously though.....how can I defend my position on the "NEED" for a new Vikings stadium, when the owners and players are fighting over $9 billion of yearly revenue?? How do I explain this "NEED" to my father who is against public money for a new stadium? WE pay for the stadium and the owners and players collect all the profit...from ticket sales to soda, beer, and hot dog sales. It's insane! What other business EXPECTS the public to pay for their place of employment and then reaps $9 billion of annual profit? It makes me feel dirty for being a fan of this AMERICAN SCANDAL.

So you have greedy rich owners and rich players getting richer! Why should normal people stick by them and support football anymore? Why would they? I think this whole CBA garbage already has caused them to lose a lot fans, by bring to light just how rampant greed is in the NFL and professional sports. Both sides look so bad and they will lose fans now no matter what! The longer this is in the news, the more fans they will lose. If I wasn't a diehard, I'd be gone too!!

 

[Cripster]

Fans like you and me will be there no matter what, but I think the casual fan is getting fed up. Can you blame them? With all the unemployment going on in this country and families trying to make ends meet, you have a bunch of wealthy owners and rich players arguing over $9 billion of annual revenue?!?! It's insane. Personally I am more on the side of the owners. In what other business can the employees DEMAND over half of the annual profits? The owners are the ones that put their money on the line, write the checks, handle the TV contracts, advertising, etc. The players are already highly compensated for what they do, so I think they should stop whining. Do I have the right to demand half of the profits at my place of employment? No of course not!On the other hand, the owners are running a big scam on society. $9 billion annual revenue? Are you kidding me?!?! And owners have the nerve to ask tax payers to pay for their billion dollar stadiums?!?! In Minnesota, the Vikings are whining for a new stadium and I don't mind paying MY taxes for it, but why should others that don't like football have to pay for it? And for what? To make rich owners and players RICHER!? In my opinion the league should take $1 billion a year of their profits and set it aside for new stadiums. At the current dollar, $1 billion would be enough to build a new stadium in every NFL city every 30 years....about the life of a stadium. Seriously though.....how can I defend my position on the "NEED" for a new Vikings stadium, when the owners and players are fighting over $9 billion of yearly revenue?? How do I explain this "NEED" to my father who is against public money for a new stadium? WE pay for the stadium and the owners and players collect all the profit...from ticket sales to soda, beer, and hot dog sales. It's insane! What other business EXPECTS the public to pay for their place of employment and then reaps $9 billion of annual profit? It makes me feel dirty for being a fan of this AMERICAN SCANDAL. So you have greedy rich owners and rich players getting richer! Why should normal people stick by them and support football anymore? Why would they? I think this whole CBA garbage already has caused them to lose a lot fans, by bring to light just how rampant greed is in the NFL and professional sports. Both sides look so bad and they will lose fans now no matter what! The longer this is in the news, the more fans they will lose. If I wasn't a diehard, I'd be gone too!!

Certainly fans will be lost. I hate to say it, but the two sides really don't think about the fan who scrapes together money to go to one game a year or buys $200-$300 of NFL merchandise a year. The money is from the TV Networks and Corporate Sponsors who the owners are in constant contact with. I am a Saints fan and I know many of their season tickets are bought by Corporate Sponsors, not individuals. Banks and Oil Companies etc buy blocks of 10-20 tickets and pass them out. I sure its that way everywhere. The Networks depend on games and will take a hit before the NFL/Players. I am not sure 2011 will be a big hit. 2012 would be a hit if there is a mass exodus of fans. I am sure they hope people will forget by then.

 

[faulkfan]

Fans like you and me will be there no matter what, but I think the casual fan is getting fed up. Can you blame them? With all the unemployment going on in this country and families trying to make ends meet, you have a bunch of wealthy owners and rich players arguing over $9 billion of annual revenue?!?! It's insane.

Personally I am more on the side of the owners. In what other business can the employees DEMAND over half of the annual profits? The owners are the ones that put their money on the line, write the checks, handle the TV contracts, advertising, etc. The players are already highly compensated for what they do, so I think they should stop whining. Do I have the right to demand half of the profits at my place of employment? No of course not!

On the other hand, the owners are running a big scam on society. $9 billion annual revenue? Are you kidding me?!?! And owners have the nerve to ask tax payers to pay for their billion dollar stadiums?!?! In Minnesota, the Vikings are whining for a new stadium and I don't mind paying MY taxes for it, but why should others that don't like football have to pay for it? And for what? To make rich owners and players RICHER!? In my opinion the league should take $1 billion a year of their profits and set it aside for new stadiums. At the current dollar, $1 billion would be enough to build a new stadium in every NFL city every 30 years....about the life of a stadium.

Seriously though.....how can I defend my position on the "NEED" for a new Vikings stadium, when the owners and players are fighting over $9 billion of yearly revenue?? How do I explain this "NEED" to my father who is against public money for a new stadium? WE pay for the stadium and the owners and players collect all the profit...from ticket sales to soda, beer, and hot dog sales. It's insane! What other business EXPECTS the public to pay for their place of employment and then reaps $9 billion of annual profit? It makes me feel dirty for being a fan of this AMERICAN SCANDAL.

So you have greedy rich owners and rich players getting richer! Why should normal people stick by them and support football anymore? Why would they? I think this whole CBA garbage already has caused them to lose a lot fans, by bring to light just how rampant greed is in the NFL and professional sports. Both sides look so bad and they will lose fans now no matter what! The longer this is in the news, the more fans they will lose. If I wasn't a diehard, I'd be gone too!!

There is a difference between revenue and profit. Revenue is all money earned whereas profit is what is left over after all expenses are paid. the $9 bil is revenue if I am not mistaken.I am confused...are the players asking for their salaries (which would actually be considered overhead for business operations) AND also a cut of the profits? If not, then the salaries are merely cost of doing business for the owners and the profits are what is left over after other expenses have been covered.

Regardless, I understand your point that many folks will drop out, but I personally believe that there are enough die hard fans that the NFL will more than survive any stoppage. God knows I'm addicted and will come back when the games begin again.

 

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

Fans like you and me will be there no matter what, but I think the casual fan is getting fed up. Can you blame them? With all the unemployment going on in this country and families trying to make ends meet, you have a bunch of wealthy owners and rich players arguing over $9 billion of annual revenue?!?! It's insane.

Personally I am more on the side of the owners. In what other business can the employees DEMAND over half of the annual profits? The owners are the ones that put their money on the line, write the checks, handle the TV contracts, advertising, etc. The players are already highly compensated for what they do, so I think they should stop whining. Do I have the right to demand half of the profits at my place of employment? No of course not!

On the other hand, the owners are running a big scam on society. $9 billion annual revenue? Are you kidding me?!?! And owners have the nerve to ask tax payers to pay for their billion dollar stadiums?!?! In Minnesota, the Vikings are whining for a new stadium and I don't mind paying MY taxes for it, but why should others that don't like football have to pay for it? And for what? To make rich owners and players RICHER!? In my opinion the league should take $1 billion a year of their profits and set it aside for new stadiums. At the current dollar, $1 billion would be enough to build a new stadium in every NFL city every 30 years....about the life of a stadium.

Seriously though.....how can I defend my position on the "NEED" for a new Vikings stadium, when the owners and players are fighting over $9 billion of yearly revenue?? How do I explain this "NEED" to my father who is against public money for a new stadium? WE pay for the stadium and the owners and players collect all the profit...from ticket sales to soda, beer, and hot dog sales. It's insane! What other business EXPECTS the public to pay for their place of employment and then reaps $9 billion of annual profit? It makes me feel dirty for being a fan of this AMERICAN SCANDAL.

So you have greedy rich owners and rich players getting richer! Why should normal people stick by them and support football anymore? Why would they? I think this whole CBA garbage already has caused them to lose a lot fans, by bring to light just how rampant greed is in the NFL and professional sports. Both sides look so bad and they will lose fans now no matter what! The longer this is in the news, the more fans they will lose. If I wasn't a diehard, I'd be gone too!!

There is a difference between revenue and profit. Revenue is all money earned whereas profit is what is left over after all expenses are paid. the $9 bil is revenue if I am not mistaken.I am confused...are the players asking for their salaries (which would actually be considered overhead for business operations) AND also a cut of the profits? If not, then the salaries are merely cost of doing business for the owners and the profits are what is left over after other expenses have been covered.

Regardless, I understand your point that many folks will drop out, but I personally believe that there are enough die hard fans that the NFL will more than survive any stoppage. God knows I'm addicted and will come back when the games begin again.

Yes, you are right, it is $9 billion in revenue, not profit. My mistake. I was wrong, but my point remains the same. It is a GREAT AMERICAN SCANDAL that WE have to pay for their stadiums and the rich benefit from it. With that much money coming in, at the very least they could pay for thier own buildings to play in. I am addicted too. I follow every little bit of NFL news every day. The NFL is my crack, but I'm not so blinded by it that I can't see the filth and slime in all of this.

Like I said, how do I come up with a legitimate arguement to convince my father that his hard earned money should go towards paying for a $1 billion stadium when we have a league that brings in $9 billion annually? Does this not bother anyone else here?

 

[shader]

It's the beginning of march. If football starts on time than no one will care what happens. It makes for a lot of headlines but the NFL isn't going to lose fans until they start takin games away. Baseball threw an entire season away, including the world series. That pissed off a huge segment of their fanbase and led to the downfall of the sport.

The NFL hopefully would never let it go that far.

 

[Da Guru]

The NFL will lose fans until the kickoff of the first game.

 

[newteech]

To be honest, I'm more concerned about what this will do for fantasy football websites

 

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

The NFL will lose fans until the kickoff of the first game.

I think that's being a bit nieve.....just as the owners and players are being nieve. I have a bunch of co-workers who have pledged never to watch an NFL game again. Frankly, I think they are telling the truth.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I grew up a fan of the Houston Astros and Florida Marlins. When baseball went on strike, I think they were both in contention for the playoffs and I remember swearing off baseball. To this day, I have never again attended a baseball game or purchased any baseball merchandise. I will watch a game on occasion on FREE TV, but nothing else. I will do the same with NFL football if there are any games missed.

Quite frankly, I enjoy the college games more and will choose attending a college game over attending an NFL game any day of the week. They are much more fun to go to. I'm really beginning to think I only watch the NFL because of fantasy football.

I did a yahoo search on the return of the fan base after a labor strike, and if I remember correctly, within two years the fan base returned at or above pre-strike levels, so I don't see the NFL really caring about the fan at this point. I would love it if, when the NFL returns, they opened to nobody in the stands and dismal ratings for an entire season or two. Make the owners and players realize that Joe Fan pays all of their salaries.

As far as voting on stadium issues, I always vote against spending tax money on stadiums. If the owners want/insist on bigger/better, then they need to pay for it themselves.

 

[Hastur]

What are the numbers, money wise, before the baseball strike and after? Where might I find a list of average attendance each year from 1980 to 2010?

 

[texasbirdfan]

Nero, err the NFL & players, fiddled while Rome burned,,,

 

[Cripster]

What are the numbers, money wise, before the baseball strike and after? Where might I find a list of average attendance each year from 1980 to 2010?

I FOUND THIS. 23 OF THE 30 BASEBALL TEAMS HAVE HAD THEIR BEST YEAR ATTENDENCE WISE SINCE THE 1994 STRIKE. CHECK MY MATH.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_attendance_records

 

[Hastur]

What are the numbers, money wise, before the baseball strike and after? Where might I find a list of average attendance each year from 1980 to 2010?

I FOUND THIS. 23 OF THE 30 BASEBALL TEAMS HAVE HAD THEIR BEST YEAR ATTENDENCE WISE SINCE THE 1994 STRIKE. CHECK MY MATH.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_attendance_records

Well, here's where I'm going with my questions:Warning: I'm going to use completely fictional numbers. I don't feel like looking up the actual numbers.If, from 1988 to 1994, MLB average attendance went from 42,459 to 47,319. Then the strike hit. I've heard the attendance took a 20% hit. From then, the average attendance continued to rise again gradually. Without the strike, the numbers would have been much higher for the last 16 years. Even though 23 of the 30 teams have had their best attendance since the 1994 strike, what would the attendance have been if the strike never happened?This is what the NFL should keep in mind. Even though they will eventually attain the numbers again, they will have most certainly lost out on billions upon billions of revenue that will never be recouped.

 

[shader]

The NFL will lose fans until the kickoff of the first game.

I think that's being a bit nieve.....just as the owners and players are being nieve. I have a bunch of co-workers who have pledged never to watch an NFL game again. Frankly, I think they are telling the truth.

Write their names down and see if it happens. I'll make a bet that they will watch another NFL game.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

The NFL will lose fans until the kickoff of the first game.

I think that's being a bit nieve.....just as the owners and players are being nieve. I have a bunch of co-workers who have pledged never to watch an NFL game again. Frankly, I think they are telling the truth.

This is pretty laughable. The casual fan only cares about Sundays. They do not care about the off season stuff so they will be there. The fans that are really upset about whats currently going on are only so upset because they do not want to lose the game that they love. So guess what? They will be back as soon as the NFL shows up on TV.

 

[pablito]

I can relate to Jedi's comments. I grew up bleeding Cincinnati Red. I was as devoted a fan as there was and argued with friends who tried to tell me that the NFL had displaced MLB as the nation's sport. When '94 came along, I was willing to bear with a short term work stoppage. But when they ended up cancelling the season and the World Series, I had had it. I swore a pox on both their houses and have not been back. I feel the same way now. I am willing to ignore the current posturing from both groups of idiots and will probably feel the same way should the troubles last until October. But if they are foolish enough to blow an entire season, arguing over who is the greedier, I suspect they will permanently lose my interest as well.

 

[Detroit Revival]

I can relate to Jedi's comments. I grew up bleeding Cincinnati Red. I was as devoted a fan as there was and argued with friends who tried to tell me that the NFL had displaced MLB as the nation's sport. When '94 came along, I was willing to bear with a short term work stoppage. But when they ended up cancelling the season and the World Series, I had had it. I swore a pox on both their houses and have not been back. I feel the same way now. I am willing to ignore the current posturing from both groups of idiots and will probably feel the same way should the troubles last until October. But if they are foolish enough to blow an entire season, arguing over who is the greedier, I suspect they will permanently lose my interest as well.

I was born in Montreal. I remember 94 being a year where the Expos were a powerhouse. The strike and lost season completely jaded the Montreal fans (myeslf included) and the support was never the same. Like Pablito, I've never come back to being the baseball fan that I was back then. I love football but am interested to see what will take its place if the lockout shortens or cancels the 11/12 season. There is no doubt that the hardcore fans will stay loyal. It's the casual fans that will drop off. The money that I spent this year on the NFL ticket will be spent on NHL center ice the next. Money goes where the action is. There will be varying consequences for both the players and owners inability to negotiate a new CBA. The biggest by far will be the 9 billion dollar pie. It's going to shrink significantly. I can't speak for all the money spent but I can tell you where my dollars will be going next year.

 

[VaCatFan]

I can relate to Jedi's comments. I grew up bleeding Cincinnati Red. I was as devoted a fan as there was and argued with friends who tried to tell me that the NFL had displaced MLB as the nation's sport. When '94 came along, I was willing to bear with a short term work stoppage. But when they ended up cancelling the season and the World Series, I had had it. I swore a pox on both their houses and have not been back. I feel the same way now. I am willing to ignore the current posturing from both groups of idiots and will probably feel the same way should the troubles last until October. But if they are foolish enough to blow an entire season, arguing over who is the greedier, I suspect they will permanently lose my interest as well.

Pretty much the way I handled the baseball strike as well. I think I've seen maybe 3 games since the strike. I was a huge baseball fan before the strike. At one time, I had amassed about 50k baseball cards from my childhood stars. Whether I continue to watch football or play fantasy football is undetermined at this time.

 

[Da Guru]

The NFL will lose fans until the kickoff of the first game.

I think that's being a bit nieve.....just as the owners and players are being nieve. I have a bunch of co-workers who have pledged never to watch an NFL game again. Frankly, I think they are telling the truth.

This is pretty laughable. The casual fan only cares about Sundays. They do not care about the off season stuff so they will be there. The fans that are really upset about whats currently going on are only so upset because they do not want to lose the game that they love. So guess what? They will be back as soon as the NFL shows up on TV.

This is exactly how I feel. I could care less who "Wins or loses" this labor dispute, and I don`t even follow it. If and when NFL football starts up I will watch again. Just like I did with hockey and baseball. If they are not playing in the fall I will golf on Sundays and do more things with my wife and family..and probably be happier.Do people get personally involved or care when CAT or Auto companies or screen actors are in a labor dispute?

 

[GregR_2]

Fans like you and me will be there no matter what, but I think the casual fan is getting fed up. Can you blame them? With all the unemployment going on in this country and families trying to make ends meet, you have a bunch of wealthy owners and rich players arguing over $9 billion of annual revenue?!?! It's insane.

Personally I am more on the side of the owners. In what other business can the employees DEMAND over half of the annual profits? The owners are the ones that put their money on the line, write the checks, handle the TV contracts, advertising, etc. The players are already highly compensated for what they do, so I think they should stop whining. Do I have the right to demand half of the profits at my place of employment? No of course not!

On the other hand, the owners are running a big scam on society. $9 billion annual revenue? Are you kidding me?!?! And owners have the nerve to ask tax payers to pay for their billion dollar stadiums?!?! In Minnesota, the Vikings are whining for a new stadium and I don't mind paying MY taxes for it, but why should others that don't like football have to pay for it? And for what? To make rich owners and players RICHER!? In my opinion the league should take $1 billion a year of their profits and set it aside for new stadiums. At the current dollar, $1 billion would be enough to build a new stadium in every NFL city every 30 years....about the life of a stadium.

Seriously though.....how can I defend my position on the "NEED" for a new Vikings stadium, when the owners and players are fighting over $9 billion of yearly revenue?? How do I explain this "NEED" to my father who is against public money for a new stadium? WE pay for the stadium and the owners and players collect all the profit...from ticket sales to soda, beer, and hot dog sales. It's insane! What other business EXPECTS the public to pay for their place of employment and then reaps $9 billion of annual profit? It makes me feel dirty for being a fan of this AMERICAN SCANDAL.

So you have greedy rich owners and rich players getting richer! Why should normal people stick by them and support football anymore? Why would they? I think this whole CBA garbage already has caused them to lose a lot fans, by bring to light just how rampant greed is in the NFL and professional sports. Both sides look so bad and they will lose fans now no matter what! The longer this is in the news, the more fans they will lose. If I wasn't a diehard, I'd be gone too!!

There is a difference between revenue and profit. Revenue is all money earned whereas profit is what is left over after all expenses are paid. the $9 bil is revenue if I am not mistaken.I am confused...are the players asking for their salaries (which would actually be considered overhead for business operations) AND also a cut of the profits? If not, then the salaries are merely cost of doing business for the owners and the profits are what is left over after other expenses have been covered.

Regardless, I understand your point that many folks will drop out, but I personally believe that there are enough die hard fans that the NFL will more than survive any stoppage. God knows I'm addicted and will come back when the games begin again.

The players are asking for their salaries to be based on a percentage of revenue. (Edit: Which isn't a change, it just comes down to what percentage will it be.) Profit does not come into the equation directly at all.Which is part of what is fueling the owner's problem with the current arrangement. Right now the owners get a flat $1 billion of total revenues to pay for costs, and then all remaining money is split... players just under 60%, owners 40%. If we express those three numbers in terms of 2010 total revenue, the players got around 53%, the owners got 11% to pay for costs, and the owners then get the remaining 36% as well.

Owners say that the flat $1 billion isn't enough to pay for the costs anymore. And I believe them. I believe that $1 billion has been the same for the last 10 years or so. (Edit to add: If someone wants to research this great, but my point is, a flat number is probably a problem as costs increase over time.) And under that model I think they have a legitimate point. Any expense to grow the business comes out of their pocket, so they need to continually reinvest in the team. However the portion of revenue they receive for costs is flat and doesn't change over time as their costs increase.

So for example, the Packers were already receiving their 1/32 of $1 billion each year for costs. When they decided to build their Packers Hall of Fame to increase revenues, they invested an additional X million dollars of the team's money to build the facility. The day it opened and the first $1 was made, 60% of that dollar went immediately to the players and 40% went back to the team to start paying for its cost. Despite the team increasing costs to make more money for themselves and the players, the team's portion of the pie devoted to paying for costs didn't grow.

So the NFL was asking to increase the flat $1 billion, to $2 billion. Probably more than they really need, as not unexpected to ask for more than you need so you have room to come down in negotiations. In the course of the negotiations, the NFL offered to reduce that number several times. IIRC, at the end the players only offered about $186m in increase for paying for costs. The NFL had lowered their offer to the ballpark of $600m, and then in the NFL's final offer, offered to cut the difference in half and go with somewhere around $300m. The players turned it down.

I sort of think both sides have some merit to some parts of their arguments, and no merit to others. I think the players are entitled to an independently audited accounting to make sure that if their agreement is tied to total revenue, that all such revenue is being counted. Which I don't think they had in the past. The NFL offered more transparency there, but frankly I don't believe anyone who says they know whether the offer was enough or not. I don't necessarily believe the NFL when they say it was, I don't necessarily believe the players when they say it wasn't, and I surely don't believe media or message board posters who haven't seen the details.

I think the owners are also entitled to more than what they are getting to pay for costs. I'm not sure why they want to stick with a flat rate for that. It would seem like a percentage would make more sense and would keep this costs outpacing that portion issue from resurfacing another decade down the road.

The Packers are a great measuring stick for how things are going since their finances are public record as they are a publicly held company. Here's an article that highlights the costs versus revenue side of things from that perspective. http://www.totalpackers.com/2010/07/14/green-bay-packers-increase-net-profits-to-5-2-million/

In it, it mentions that the Packers player benefits and salary increased from $139 to $169 million. The team's profits (what they made from their share revenue, after then paying for expenses) increased from $4 million to $5.4 million. So owners and players combined made $31m more than the year before. I can buy the argument the team deserves more than the $1.4m out of that increase that they got. Why is there such a discrepancy? Because the current formula doesn't account enough for the cost the team is funneling back in to grow future revenue.

 

[Insein]

It's the beginning of march. If football starts on time than no one will care what happens. It makes for a lot of headlines but the NFL isn't going to lose fans until they start takin games away. Baseball threw an entire season away, including the world series. That pissed off a huge segment of their fanbase and led to the downfall of the sport.

The NFL hopefully would never let it go that far.

And yet baseball is as popular as it ever was now. NFL will not even have a hiccup if they start the season on time.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Fans like you and me will be there no matter what, but I think the casual fan is getting fed up. Can you blame them? With all the unemployment going on in this country and families trying to make ends meet, you have a bunch of wealthy owners and rich players arguing over $9 billion of annual revenue?!?! It's insane.

Personally I am more on the side of the owners. In what other business can the employees DEMAND over half of the annual profits? The owners are the ones that put their money on the line, write the checks, handle the TV contracts, advertising, etc. The players are already highly compensated for what they do, so I think they should stop whining. Do I have the right to demand half of the profits at my place of employment? No of course not!

On the other hand, the owners are running a big scam on society. $9 billion annual revenue? Are you kidding me?!?! And owners have the nerve to ask tax payers to pay for their billion dollar stadiums?!?! In Minnesota, the Vikings are whining for a new stadium and I don't mind paying MY taxes for it, but why should others that don't like football have to pay for it? And for what? To make rich owners and players RICHER!? In my opinion the league should take $1 billion a year of their profits and set it aside for new stadiums. At the current dollar, $1 billion would be enough to build a new stadium in every NFL city every 30 years....about the life of a stadium.

Seriously though.....how can I defend my position on the "NEED" for a new Vikings stadium, when the owners and players are fighting over $9 billion of yearly revenue?? How do I explain this "NEED" to my father who is against public money for a new stadium? WE pay for the stadium and the owners and players collect all the profit...from ticket sales to soda, beer, and hot dog sales. It's insane! What other business EXPECTS the public to pay for their place of employment and then reaps $9 billion of annual profit? It makes me feel dirty for being a fan of this AMERICAN SCANDAL.

So you have greedy rich owners and rich players getting richer! Why should normal people stick by them and support football anymore? Why would they? I think this whole CBA garbage already has caused them to lose a lot fans, by bring to light just how rampant greed is in the NFL and professional sports. Both sides look so bad and they will lose fans now no matter what! The longer this is in the news, the more fans they will lose. If I wasn't a diehard, I'd be gone too!!

There is a difference between revenue and profit. Revenue is all money earned whereas profit is what is left over after all expenses are paid. the $9 bil is revenue if I am not mistaken.I am confused...are the players asking for their salaries (which would actually be considered overhead for business operations) AND also a cut of the profits? If not, then the salaries are merely cost of doing business for the owners and the profits are what is left over after other expenses have been covered.

Regardless, I understand your point that many folks will drop out, but I personally believe that there are enough die hard fans that the NFL will more than survive any stoppage. God knows I'm addicted and will come back when the games begin again.

The players are asking for their salaries to be based on a percentage of revenue. (Edit: Which isn't a change, it just comes down to what percentage will it be.) Profit does not come into the equation directly at all.Which is part of what is fueling the owner's problem with the current arrangement. Right now the owners get a flat $1 billion of total revenues to pay for costs, and then all remaining money is split... players just under 60%, owners 40%. If we express those three numbers in terms of 2010 total revenue, the players got around 53%, the owners got 11% to pay for costs, and the owners then get the remaining 36% as well.

Owners say that the flat $1 billion isn't enough to pay for the costs anymore. And I believe them. I believe that $1 billion has been the same for the last 10 years or so. (Edit to add: If someone wants to research this great, but my point is, a flat number is probably a problem as costs increase over time.) And under that model I think they have a legitimate point. Any expense to grow the business comes out of their pocket, so they need to continually reinvest in the team. However the portion of revenue they receive for costs is flat and doesn't change over time as their costs increase.

So for example, the Packers were already receiving their 1/32 of $1 billion each year for costs. When they decided to build their Packers Hall of Fame to increase revenues, they invested an additional X million dollars of the team's money to build the facility. The day it opened and the first $1 was made, 60% of that dollar went immediately to the players and 40% went back to the team to start paying for its cost. Despite the team increasing costs to make more money for themselves and the players, the team's portion of the pie devoted to paying for costs didn't grow.

So the NFL was asking to increase the flat $1 billion, to $2 billion. Probably more than they really need, as not unexpected to ask for more than you need so you have room to come down in negotiations. In the course of the negotiations, the NFL offered to reduce that number several times. IIRC, at the end the players only offered about $186m in increase for paying for costs. The NFL had lowered their offer to the ballpark of $600m, and then in the NFL's final offer, offered to cut the difference in half and go with somewhere around $300m. The players turned it down.

I sort of think both sides have some merit to some parts of their arguments, and no merit to others. I think the players are entitled to an independently audited accounting to make sure that if their agreement is tied to total revenue, that all such revenue is being counted. Which I don't think they had in the past. The NFL offered more transparency there, but frankly I don't believe anyone who says they know whether the offer was enough or not. I don't necessarily believe the NFL when they say it was, I don't necessarily believe the players when they say it wasn't, and I surely don't believe media or message board posters who haven't seen the details.

I think the owners are also entitled to more than what they are getting to pay for costs. I'm not sure why they want to stick with a flat rate for that. It would seem like a percentage would make more sense and would keep this costs outpacing that portion issue from resurfacing another decade down the road.

The Packers are a great measuring stick for how things are going since their finances are public record as they are a publicly held company. Here's an article that highlights the costs versus revenue side of things from that perspective. http://www.totalpack...to-5-2-million/

In it, it mentions that the Packers player benefits and salary increased from $139 to $169 million. The team's profits (what they made from their share revenue, after then paying for expenses) increased from $4 million to $5.4 million. So owners and players combined made $31m more than the year before. I can buy the argument the team deserves more than the $1.4m out of that increase that they got. Why is there such a discrepancy? Because the current formula doesn't account enough for the cost the team is funneling back in to grow future revenue.

Ridiculously

 

[Shutout]

For one of the OP's questions: I guess you could tell your father that the reason he shouldn't mind paying his tax dollars for a new stadium is because it is, in many ways, the same as if those dollars were being used to build a new university in his state. The new stadium still creates new labor jobs, new permanent jobs for those working all in and around the stadium, marketing, telecommunications, etc. I know; its football and it looks like more pleasure than real work but many vendors, bar owners, hotels, etc, etc, ALL benefit andd help the local economy when you build a stadium that lots of people want to come to.

This will INDEED harm the NFL and the baseball strike should illustrate that. currently, the NFL is attempting to follow the NBA, NHL, MLB models to grow revenue internationally. That demonstrates they want to grow beyond what they have actually captured here. But, like baseball in '94, they will take a huge step back and lose enough of what they already have here to notice it significantly. The "casual" fans make up a LOT of revenue. The cancelled baseball season was a death Knell for baseball. That was really when college sports and NFL blew by baseball. I know a lot of people that migrated off baseball when that happened and while I don't remember the particulars now, I think there is a case to say that ended season effectively killed the Expos franchise in Montreal. They had a great season going and all their revenue, fan base growth momentum died instantly and then they were gone.

Someone mentioned that 23/30 teams had their best attendance seasons recently. 1) Don't confuse that with best REVENUE seasons recently and 2) That shouldn't be looked at as "look where baseball IS". It should be looked at as "Look at where baseball WAS and that it has taken 16 years to get back there". That's the important thing.

Like a lot of people, I can find cases to be made on both sides and I tend to side with ownership here (even though I understand the union NEVER wanting to give back any dollars they had gained through bargaining previously). But even supporting ownership in general, it is AT LEAST somewhat hypocritical for owners to ask for money to come off the top to combat costs when they don't even, internally, uphold expectations that each individual owner (of the 32) will do their part. Why is it that Jerry Jones kicks into the pot by leasing his stadium name for $7Million/year and shares that but the Brown family (and about 4 other owners) do not? Right there alone is about $20-$30Million/year that owners could be helping themselves obtain, but don't. So its kind of hard to buy into it (MUCH Like the TV deal that got overturned) that owners are trying to maximize revenues BEFORE asking the NFLPA to share in that burden.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

For one of the OP's questions: I guess you could tell your father that the reason he shouldn't mind paying his tax dollars for a new stadium is because it is, in many ways, the same as if those dollars were being used to build a new university in his state. The new stadium still creates new labor jobs, new permanent jobs for those working all in and around the stadium, marketing, telecommunications, etc. I know; its football and it looks like more pleasure than real work but many vendors, bar owners, hotels, etc, etc, ALL benefit andd help the local economy when you build a stadium that lots of people want to come to.

This will INDEED harm the NFL and the baseball strike should illustrate that. currently, the NFL is attempting to follow the NBA, NHL, MLB models to grow revenue internationally. That demonstrates they want to grow beyond what they have actually captured here. But, like baseball in '94, they will take a huge step back and lose enough of what they already have here to notice it significantly. The "casual" fans make up a LOT of revenue. The cancelled baseball season was a death Knell for baseball. That was really when college sports and NFL blew by baseball. I know a lot of people that migrated off baseball when that happened and while I don't remember the particulars now, I think there is a case to say that ended season effectively killed the Expos franchise in Montreal. They had a great season going and all their revenue, fan base growth momentum died instantly and then they were gone.

Someone mentioned that 23/30 teams had their best attendance seasons recently. 1) Don't confuse that with best REVENUE seasons recently and 2) That shouldn't be looked at as "look where baseball IS". It should be looked at as "Look at where baseball WAS and that it has taken 16 years to get back there". That's the important thing.

Like a lot of people, I can find cases to be made on both sides and I tend to side with ownership here (even though I understand the union NEVER wanting to give back any dollars they had gained through bargaining previously). But even supporting ownership in general, it is AT LEAST somewhat hypocritical for owners to ask for money to come off the top to combat costs when they don't even, internally, uphold expectations that each individual owner (of the 32) will do their part. Why is it that Jerry Jones kicks into the pot by leasing his stadium name for $7Million/year and shares that but the Brown family (and about 4 other owners) do not? Right there alone is about $20-$30Million/year that owners could be helping themselves obtain, but don't. So its kind of hard to buy into it (MUCH Like the TV deal that got overturned) that owners are trying to maximize revenues BEFORE asking the NFLPA to share in that burden.

Right here is where I find issue with the whole 'opening the books' and questioning maximization of revenues. Stadium naming rights seems like a pretty easy one. What's the downside to selling off naming rights? But where is the line you are drawing on maximizing revenue, and ultimately, it is going to be the fans that get bit in the ### by it...

 

[shader]

I guess baseball is back.....but I don't see it.

I could be wrong, but baseball seemed like the premier sport in America before the strike.

Now it is a distant number 2 to football.

And I'd be curious to know what numbers indicate that baseball is "back". If it's just attendance numbers, that isn't really relevant, imo.

World Series Ratings

A look at the above link shows that ratings in the 80's and early 90's were ridiculous for the world series. Now? Not even close. Meanwhile football is at an all-time high each and every year.

 

[menobrown]

I could be wrong, but baseball seemed like the premier sport in America before the strike.

Yes you are wrong. Baseball got passed by the NFL long before the strike. This is why examining what happened to baseball and relating it to the NFL is an exercise in futility.

 

[TheWheel]

I will never understand why someone would put who presents the game over the game itself. I watch sports for the sport first and any team allegiance second. If the game isn't there it really isn't anything off my back. My only interest is entertainment. I don't get how their fight effects your life unless you work for them--for which any bitterness I can understand. If anything a work stoppage makes me want to see more.

Hockey's work stoppage is a special case because they fundamentally changed the game. I really only watched hockey for the fights and the hits so unless the NFL goes NFFL I'm still in.

 

[daveR]

I will never understand why someone would put who presents the game over the game itself. I watch sports for the sport first and any team allegiance second. If the game isn't there it really isn't anything off my back. My only interest is entertainment. I don't get how their fight effects your life unless you work for them--for which any bitterness I can understand. If anything a work stoppage makes me want to see more. Hockey's work stoppage is a special case because they fundamentally changed the game. I really only watched hockey for the fights and the hits so unless the NFL goes NFFL I'm still in.

The commodity being exploited, the thing that drives the big $, is the fans' competitive nature. Pulling for "your" team is why people throw the extra dollars into flags, jerseys, etc.

 

[Runningman]

One thing I find funny is the use of the term "insane" when describing the two sides fighting over the portions of the 9 billion in revenue. If I had a stake in getting aportion of 9 billion I definitely would want to get as much of it as I could or thought I deserved. "Insane" would only come into play when one side wanted it all or a huge proportional increase. And I don't count the owner's wanting another billion (about 12%) off the top as insane. It might be excessive but not insane.

 

[netnalp]

Yes, you are right, it is $9 billion in revenue, not profit. My mistake. I was wrong, but my point remains the same. It is a GREAT AMERICAN SCANDAL that WE have to pay for their stadiums and the rich benefit from it. With that much money coming in, at the very least they could pay for thier own buildings to play in.

I am addicted too. I follow every little bit of NFL news every day. The NFL is my crack, but I'm not so blinded by it that I can't see the filth and slime in all of this.

Like I said, how do I come up with a legitimate arguement to convince my father that his hard earned money should go towards paying for a $1 billion stadium when we have a league that brings in $9 billion annually? Does this not bother anyone else here?

I agree that there's something not right about it. In his book, Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol comments on the tax payer money spent on Paul Brown stadium for the Bengals. This article mentions the comment but I don't think it's a direct quote "if all the taxpayers' money which went to building the home of the world-class Bengals had gone to public education instead, there would have been enough to raze and rebuild each and every elementary, junior high and high school in the city ... and give every teacher in the system a raise" http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hfYl2TsYe3wJ:www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-7537-the-education-system-gets-on-the-same-page-cincinnati.html+savage+inequalities+bengals+stadium&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

I'll have to find my copy of the book, my recollection is that Kozol said that all the Cincy schools could be rebuilt or every public school in Ohio upgraded to a level equal to the best schools in Ohio.

 

[Shutout]

I could be wrong, but baseball seemed like the premier sport in America before the strike.

Yes you are wrong. Baseball got passed by the NFL long before the strike. This is why examining what happened to baseball and relating it to the NFL is an exercise in futility.

Can you provide proof to that statement? many people have their own mindset on the topic and it CAN be measured in many ways, but the general consensus is that the baton was officially passed during the '94 lockout when many frustrated fans turned their backs. Thats when all the "important" measureables were changed (loss of ratings, revenue from sales, etc).There are quite a few articles on it. In my mind, football has always been better but the people that measure things with dollars (which seems to be a lot of people) generalyl point to the work stoppage in '94. So, IMO, it is VERY relevant to compare the two. To me, it is very conceivable that this will hurt Football, as the OP states. Granted, football is crushing every other sport by SUCH a wide margin that it may seem like a small setback but its much more than that. Any setback to the NFL is damaging to them (as alluded to by my post earlier re: how the NFL isn't satisfied by what they already have..hence seeking to tap into international markets). We have to keep broad minds on this. We do NOT know how this may change things by going to litigation. For example, New rules may prevent owners from negotiating the same kinds of TV deals in the future because of the scam in the previous one. That is a HUGE revenue piece in the equation. It is also a HUGE medium for how we get access to the games. These are the kinds of things that can snowball and change football for a long, long time.If NOTHING else, the NFL should at least look at the comparison to baseball's work stoppage and see how it DID negatively affect them and should have sought to prevent that.

 

[roadkill1292]

While losing football is certainly a bad thing, at least in the short term, losing about half the fans will only benefit those of us who are left (and I'm using the term "fan" to describe myself very loosely).

 

[JaxBill]

After a successful off-season ticket drive last year, Jaguars' season ticket renewals are only at 59%. No doubt that some people don't want to fork over money with the season in doubt.

http://www.jaguars.com/charts/generalbowl.aspx

 

[dparker713]

For one of the OP's questions: I guess you could tell your father that the reason he shouldn't mind paying his tax dollars for a new stadium is because it is, in many ways, the same as if those dollars were being used to build a new university in his state. The new stadium still creates new labor jobs, new permanent jobs for those working all in and around the stadium, marketing, telecommunications, etc. I know; its football and it looks like more pleasure than real work but many vendors, bar owners, hotels, etc, etc, ALL benefit andd help the local economy when you build a stadium that lots of people want to come to.

This will INDEED harm the NFL and the baseball strike should illustrate that. currently, the NFL is attempting to follow the NBA, NHL, MLB models to grow revenue internationally. That demonstrates they want to grow beyond what they have actually captured here. But, like baseball in '94, they will take a huge step back and lose enough of what they already have here to notice it significantly. The "casual" fans make up a LOT of revenue. The cancelled baseball season was a death Knell for baseball. That was really when college sports and NFL blew by baseball. I know a lot of people that migrated off baseball when that happened and while I don't remember the particulars now, I think there is a case to say that ended season effectively killed the Expos franchise in Montreal. They had a great season going and all their revenue, fan base growth momentum died instantly and then they were gone.

Someone mentioned that 23/30 teams had their best attendance seasons recently. 1) Don't confuse that with best REVENUE seasons recently and 2) That shouldn't be looked at as "look where baseball IS". It should be looked at as "Look at where baseball WAS and that it has taken 16 years to get back there". That's the important thing.

Like a lot of people, I can find cases to be made on both sides and I tend to side with ownership here (even though I understand the union NEVER wanting to give back any dollars they had gained through bargaining previously). But even supporting ownership in general, it is AT LEAST somewhat hypocritical for owners to ask for money to come off the top to combat costs when they don't even, internally, uphold expectations that each individual owner (of the 32) will do their part. Why is it that Jerry Jones kicks into the pot by leasing his stadium name for $7Million/year and shares that but the Brown family (and about 4 other owners) do not? Right there alone is about $20-$30Million/year that owners could be helping themselves obtain, but don't. So its kind of hard to buy into it (MUCH Like the TV deal that got overturned) that owners are trying to maximize revenues BEFORE asking the NFLPA to share in that burden.

The contention that new stadiums generate revenue for a city is complete bunk. How did baseball have a death knell? It's revenue is the highest its ever been and attendence is solid despite most teams moving into ballparks with smaller capacities in the past 20 years. Yes, its transformed from a national to a local sport - you can watch all 162 games of your local team, so the national games of the week (or the World Series) are hardly a big draw. Plus, that strike has led to unprecidented labor peace for the league that shows no sign of abating even with a new round of negotiations needed.

 

[pablito]

NFL lockout: Owners get the keys to stadiums, fans get the bills

from the Washington Post

 

[roadkill1292]

NFL lockout: Owners get the keys to stadiums, fans get the bills

from the Washington Post

I like that story. Football fans have been pushing around the common taxpayer for far too long.

 

[Ksquared]

NFL lockout: Owners get the keys to stadiums, fans get the bills

from the Washington Post

I like that story. Football fans have been pushing around the common taxpayer for far too long.

You do realize the expected lack of public financing in the future is one of the reasons the owners have stated the business model they have used in the past will not work in the future. From my perspective that is good, the taxpayers don't need to be subsidizing these stadiums. But I also see the owner's $$ side of their previous business strategy and this nest of available money is now probably dried up. Thus the request for more than the $1 billion off the top to "grow" the game.

 

[roadkill1292]

NFL lockout: Owners get the keys to stadiums, fans get the bills

from the Washington Post

I like that story. Football fans have been pushing around the common taxpayer for far too long.

You do realize the expected lack of public financing in the future is one of the reasons the owners have stated the business model they have used in the past will not work in the future. From my perspective that is good, the taxpayers don't need to be subsidizing these stadiums. But I also see the owner's $$ side of their previous business strategy and this nest of available money is now probably dried up. Thus the request for more than the $1 billion off the top to "grow" the game.

Yes, the connection is a fairly obvious one. And we should have regular debate about the merits of public financing for NFL stadia, which may be a poor public spending policy.

 

[Rovers]

I used to be an absolutely RABID baseball fan. NEVER missed a Mets game. Went to 20 games a year for decades. I haven't spent a dime on baseball since the roiders destroyed the record book, went on or threatened to strike, the umpire strike, I just walked away... forever. Cooperstown, a place I used to love to visit is a joke... meaningless. I'll never go back.

I am getting close to dropping my 5 FF teams. I can't afford game tickets anymore, so I can't hurt the NFL that way. I'm pretty close to done. That would mean walking away from dynasty leagues I am already paid for. I'm very close to not being a fan of any major pro sports. I'd rather go watch HS football, minor league baseball, or just about anything rather than spend another dime on these greedy so and so's.

 

[hooptd]

I used to be an absolutely RABID baseball fan. NEVER missed a Mets game. Went to 20 games a year for decades. I haven't spent a dime on baseball since the roiders destroyed the record book, went on or threatened to strike, the umpire strike, I just walked away... forever. Cooperstown, a place I used to love to visit is a joke... meaningless. I'll never go back. I am getting close to dropping my 5 FF teams. I can't afford game tickets anymore, so I can't hurt the NFL that way. I'm pretty close to done. That would mean walking away from dynasty leagues I am already paid for. I'm very close to not being a fan of any major pro sports. I'd rather go watch HS football, minor league baseball, or just about anything rather than spend another dime on these greedy so and so's.

I'm with you. I've said it in another post but no one has been a bigger ff and NFL fan than me (I'm sure I could gets lots of guys to argue that). The point is I'm 42 now and I've been a fan of one team since I was 10 years old. I've played ff for the last 8-9 years and it's a passion, I even check my leagues daily. I'm ready to walk away from these greedy SOBs if there is one game missed. I'm half tempted now just for the fact that it's screwing up the flow of the offseason.I too used to be a big baseball fan, had season tickets when I lived in the Bay Area. I haven't followed my team in 5 years, just lost interest. I couldn't tell you one starting pitcher on the team. These football players are getting me to that point now.I know a vast majority of folks younger than me would return as fans, I just wonder how many like me there would be?