How Much is To Much ? Will the NFL Ever Put a Limit on Contracts ?

[Jauronimo]

1 hour ago, dneveu said:

Cap goes up - contracts go up 

League revenue goes up which drives the cap and size of contracts.  

[Kirby Jackson]

It’s never going to change if the revenues continue to increase. The players get a percentage of the revenue and the owners get a percentage of the revenue. If the revenues go up the contracts go up. 

[row_33]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

Shouldn't the star QB's of today make more than the star QB's of yesterday?

 

I personally don't see much of an issue. The NFL still gives less of a percentage of revenue to players than many other sports leagues.

 

the risk of career limiting or ending injury is huge, one is a practice away from a major injury

 

the players union is the weakest by far of the major sports because of this

 

and the NFL owners are smarter than the NBA, as shown every year

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

My only beef with the nfl is there is no 1 thing I can subscribe to and watch all of my team’s games. 
 

But As long as every team has the same cap, let them figure out how to distribute it. 
 

I do think the minimums should be more of a focal point than the top end salaries. All these guys risk debilitating harm to entertain. 

And owners Gaining profits is fine too, they are the one investing their billions to support the team to begin with. 
 

Like every business trying to scale, we just need to hope they don’t kill quality it trying to grow $. 
 

 

 

[CLTbills]

1 hour ago, nucci said:

doesn't the salary cap put limits on contracts......who cares how much players make....good for them...owners bring in billions...they can afford this. 

While I don't exactly disagree with you, that's a bit of a misleading statement. The owners don't individually bring in "billions." One report I read used the Green Bay Packers as an example. In 2018, the NFL earned $8.1 Billion in national revenue, meaning each team got about $255 million of that. Then, you get your local revenue (in this case, for the Packers, it was $196 million) which brought their total revenue, not profit, to $455 million. Of that, $213 million went to players, another $208 million to "stadium upkeep, marketing, and team and administrative costs." This left them with an operating income of $38.5 million. A far cry from the "billions" that you claim they bring in. Sure, other teams may bring in more, and maybe the Packers did a big stadium upgrade that year.

 

But the point is, if an owner has invested, like Mr. Pegula, $1.4 BILLION of his own money to buy a team, why shouldn't he want to make a return on that investment? $38.5 million a year is a pretty crappy return for a year on a billion and a half dollar investment, if you ask me. He'd have to own the team for over 36 years at that rate to break even on that investment. And yes, I understand that the value of the team will increase (and already has) over time, but that's not cash in his pocket until he sells the team. I don't blame the owners, if they're only making that much, for wanting to try to retain a bit more. That'd be like you or me investing $14,000 in the stock market and only getting a return of $385 for the year. 

[boco357]

Will go soccer/NBA route soon and have ads on jerseys/helmets/field.  I'm cool with it if it takes some more commercials away.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

3 minutes ago, CLTbills said:

While I don't exactly disagree with you, that's a bit of a misleading statement. The owners don't individually bring in "billions." One report I read used the Green Bay Packers as an example. In 2018, the NFL earned $8.1 Billion in national revenue, meaning each team got about $255 million of that. Then, you get your local revenue (in this case, for the Packers, it was $196 million) which brought their total revenue, not profit, to $455 million. Of that, $213 million went to players, another $208 million to "stadium upkeep, marketing, and team and administrative costs." This left them with an operating income of $38.5 million. A far cry from the "billions" that you claim they bring in. Sure, other teams may bring in more, and maybe the Packers did a big stadium upgrade that year.

 

But the point is, if an owner has invested, like Mr. Pegula, $1.4 BILLION of his own money to buy a team, why shouldn't he want to make a return on that investment? $38.5 million a year is a pretty crappy return for a year on a billion and a half dollar investment, if you ask me. He'd have to own the team for over 36 years at that rate to break even on that investment. And yes, I understand that the value of the team will increase (and already has) over time, but that's not cash in his pocket until he sells the team. I don't blame the owners, if they're only making that much, for wanting to try to retain a bit more. That'd be like you or me investing $14,000 in the stock market and only getting a return of $385 for the year. 

 

The value of the 1.4 billion is mostly tied up in being in that specific club of billionaires.  It's basically a hedge fund that is guaranteed to A- make you annual profit and B- guaranteed to go up in value should you ever decide to sell.  Reinvestment into things like a field house and gym all do nothing but likely increase the value of your asset. 

 

A stock has no value until you sell it either.  Bill Gates is worth 112 billion dollars, but the majority of that is tied up in hedge funds.  These increase the value of that 112 billion, but in the same way - there's no actual physical value to it.  

 

[RoyBatty is alive]

1 hour ago, BigBillsFan said:

I think we're close to the time of "peak football" and the decline of the NFL. Baseball had it's resurgence in the 90's with Sosa and McGuire after it's strike and I believe the same is true for football.

 

I think we're only a decade away from more empty stadiums as TV/internet improves and the fan base of going out to the game with dad in the seasons will be seen as too primitive.

 

I also believe a lot of fandom today are not fans at all. Many of our ratings today are based around fantasy people. I think fantasy teams destroy the sport. It's hard not to root for your guy against the interests of your team. It's great for short term gain, terrible for long-term viability.

 

Once we are past the age of peak football I think that's when things get bad: hold-out, strike, and fans don't care as much = decline and less revenue

 

Peak Hollywood was the 90's. Peak baseball was the 90's too. Basketball and football are still doing well. I think CTE, more players retiring early, and less great QBs might accelerate the decline.

 

 

Excellent and couldnt agree more with most of what you say.

 

Actually depends how you define "peak".  In the 1930s Baseball by far was #1 followed by Boxing then hiorse racing.  Now it is football, basbeall and basketball.

 

The concept of a "stadium" is rapidly becoming an anachronism, like shopping malls.  Why go to a crowded,  overpriced stadiums used 10-12 times/year esp with TVs getting larger &  higher defintion and all the amenties of home/sports bar.   One of the reasons i dont think there wil EVER be another NFL sized stadium built in WNY.

 

And yes CTE is going to accerlartte football's demise.  Only a matter of time before Colleges start  paying foobtal olayers which means they are de-facto employees which means the CTE lawsuits in college are inevtiable.  Fewer and fewer parents/kids want to pariticpate in football. 

 

Only thing i disgaree with is your fantasy football take, i think it has been a boon to the NFL, people watch just for fantasy and TV revenue is the #1 driving force.

Edited February 21, 2020 by RoyBatty is alive

[Shaw66]

46 minutes ago, Chaos said:

A cap on the highest individual salary is a completely separate variable from the owners getting richer. Conceptually the salary floor and total payroll cap dictate how much is left for the owners.   An individual cap actually disrupts competitive balance. For example  If the Indvidual cap was 20 mm and mahomes and dak Prescott both make 20 that is a huge advantage to the chiefs.  

I agree.   

 

The point is, there are a lot of problems that get created when you start trying to control how much money someone can make, in any environment.   The NFL does what the NBA first did - agree with the players what percentage of the revenue, as they choose to define it, will go to the players.   That's what the salary cap does.   How the teams choose to divide it up among their players is there business.   Capping salaries for a position, or capping the highest possible salary, is really a question for the players' union.   Do they want to agree among themselves to reduce the highest comps to increase the lowest?   

 

I'm with you.   If I'm on any other team, I WANT the Chiefs to pay Mahomes a ton of money, so they'll have less for other teams.   On the other hand, capping Mahomes at $20 million max may not be a good thing for the Chiefs long-term, because if Mahomes can make $20 million and no more, wherever he plays, he'll insist on a series of one-year deals, so he can leave KC for someplace else as soon as he sees a coach or a roster that his likes better.   

 

I really think how much these guys get paid is just a lot of noise that distracts people from football.   Millions of people get paid more than they're worth, and millions or tens of millions more get paid less than they're worth.   That's the way of the world.  

 

 

[nucci]

19 minutes ago, CLTbills said:

While I don't exactly disagree with you, that's a bit of a misleading statement. The owners don't individually bring in "billions." One report I read used the Green Bay Packers as an example. In 2018, the NFL earned $8.1 Billion in national revenue, meaning each team got about $255 million of that. Then, you get your local revenue (in this case, for the Packers, it was $196 million) which brought their total revenue, not profit, to $455 million. Of that, $213 million went to players, another $208 million to "stadium upkeep, marketing, and team and administrative costs." This left them with an operating income of $38.5 million. A far cry from the "billions" that you claim they bring in. Sure, other teams may bring in more, and maybe the Packers did a big stadium upgrade that year.

 

But the point is, if an owner has invested, like Mr. Pegula, $1.4 BILLION of his own money to buy a team, why shouldn't he want to make a return on that investment? $38.5 million a year is a pretty crappy return for a year on a billion and a half dollar investment, if you ask me. He'd have to own the team for over 36 years at that rate to break even on that investment. And yes, I understand that the value of the team will increase (and already has) over time, but that's not cash in his pocket until he sells the team. I don't blame the owners, if they're only making that much, for wanting to try to retain a bit more. That'd be like you or me investing $14,000 in the stock market and only getting a return of $385 for the year. 

I don't think Pegula bought the Bills to make his money back...these guys are already billionaires...they are never going to make back what they paid. they all make a profit from the revenue. it''s the prestige of being an NFL owner

[ColoradoBills]

I'll say it again, more money from league, owners and players should go into funding their workplace (stadiums).

[jletha]

4 minutes ago, nucci said:

I don't think Pegula bought the Bills to make his money back...these guys are already billionaires...they are never going to make back what they paid. they all make a profit from the revenue. it''s the prestige of being an NFL owner

They make it all back when they sell. Its like any other asset. You buy and then sell at a higher value, even if you lose or break even on revenue year over year. If Pegula ever wants to sell in 10 years or so he would make hundred of millions, close to a billion compared to the purchase price.

[Lurker]

How much is too much?

 

This thread is a good example of that...

[nucci]

12 minutes ago, jletha said:

They make it all back when they sell. Its like any other asset. You buy and then sell at a higher value, even if you lose or break even on revenue year over year. If Pegula ever wants to sell in 10 years or so he would make hundred of millions, close to a billion compared to the purchase price.

Thanks, I understand this

[Don Otreply]

 

 

49 minutes ago, boco357 said:

Will go soccer/NBA route soon and have ads on jerseys/helmets/field.  I'm cool with it if it takes some more commercials away.

But it won’t, 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Don Otreply

[BigBillsFan]

1 hour ago, nucci said:

there will always be players wanting to play in the NFL....for many of these players, it's the only chance they have for a better life....fantasy football has actually increase the interest in sports. The NFL doesn't make as much off of tickets and they used to. They don't care why people are watching, as long as they watch. I don't like some things about the game...."the look at me after i make a tackle" after every play is annoying but I still love watching

 

Short-term fantasy has a strong upside. Fans will watch more games. It's working... for now.

 

This is a long-term disaster. Let's pretend we're playing the Browns and you drafted Chubb and he gashes us for 150 yards. Are you not going to celebrate secretly when he rips an 80 yarder? Of course you will.

 

So what that does is destroy your idea of love of your team. We love teams like we love dogs, we love them not because they're beautiful, but because we feel like they won't betray us and we won't betray them. Destroy that idea and watch fandom die.

 

It's working now because you love a team. Watch a kid who's dad loves the Bills and they want to play on the net more and do fantasy. Do you really think with such divided loyalties your son will care as much? They can't, they are privately celebrating every touchdown against their home team without the deep seated love we have for their team.

Edited February 21, 2020 by BigBillsFan

[nucci]

Just now, BigBillsFan said:

 

Short-term fantasy has a strong upside. Fans will watch more games. It's working... for now.

 

This is a long-term disaster. Let's pretend we're playing the Browns and you drafted Chubb and he gashes us for 150 yards. Are you not going to celebrate when he rips an 80 yarder?

 

So what that does is destroy your idea of love of your team. We love teams like we love dogs, we love them not because they're beautiful, but because we feel like they won't betray us and we won't betray them. Destroy that idea and watch fandom die.

 

It's working now because you love a team. Watch a kid who's dad loves the Bills and they want to play on the net more and do fantasy. Do you really think with such divided loyalties your son will care as much? They can't, they are privately celebrating every touchdown against their home team without the deep seated love we have for their team.

I agree but not everyone plays fantasy and thinks this way...maybe the kid wouldn't even watch football except for fantasy...now he watches and follows every game. I've had conflicts before as I've played for many years. I always want the Bills to win . Chubb can run for 150 and Bills can still win. Not a big deal

[Albany,n.y.]

2 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

I think we're close to the time of "peak football" and the decline of the NFL. Baseball had it's resurgence in the 90's with Sosa and McGuire after it's strike and I believe the same is true for football.

 

I think we're only a decade away from more empty stadiums as TV/internet improves and the fan base of going out to the game with dad in the seasons will be seen as too primitive.

 

I also believe a lot of fandom today are not fans at all. Many of our ratings today are based around fantasy people. I think fantasy teams destroy the sport. It's hard not to root for your guy against the interests of your team. It's great for short term gain, terrible for long-term viability.

 

Once we are past the age of peak football I think that's when things get bad: hold-out, strike, and fans don't care as much = decline and less revenue

 

Peak Hollywood was the 90's. Peak baseball was the 90's too. Basketball and football are still doing well. I think CTE, more players retiring early, and less great QBs might accelerate the decline.

You are underestimating how legalized sports betting will greatly expand further NFL growth.  As gambling on the NFL continues to grow there won't be a peak until all states have it for years.  Also, once gambling availability comes within walking distance of the stadiums, or even in the stadiums themselves, your theory of empty stadiums dies.  Right now there is a sports book in the Meadowlands complex.  You can walk to the Meadowlands race track from your parking spot & they even have shuttle buses to get you there.  That is the future of the NFL: Go to the game, bet the game at either the stadium or a short distance away and root on your bet.  The time of peak football isn't even close to the present.  

[DrDawkinstein]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Junction said:

I think this has been a sore subject since the early 90’s when GB pissed off the owners by guaranteeing that Sterling Sharpe the highest WR salary. It was a precedent the league didn’t want to set. Still, I’m surprised that no one has bargained down for a 100% guaranteed contract. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/1994/9/16/19131074/sharpe-catches-top-pay-as-receiver

 

Cousins has a fully guaranteed contract in Minn, if I'm understanding what you mean.

[Albany,n.y.]

10 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Short-term fantasy has a strong upside. Fans will watch more games. It's working... for now.

 

This is a long-term disaster. Let's pretend we're playing the Browns and you drafted Chubb and he gashes us for 150 yards. Are you not going to celebrate secretly when he rips an 80 yarder? Of course you will.

 

So what that does is destroy your idea of love of your team. We love teams like we love dogs, we love them not because they're beautiful, but because we feel like they won't betray us and we won't betray them. Destroy that idea and watch fandom die.

 

It's working now because you love a team. Watch a kid who's dad loves the Bills and they want to play on the net more and do fantasy. Do you really think with such divided loyalties your son will care as much? They can't, they are privately celebrating every touchdown against their home team without the deep seated love we have for their team.

As a gambler, I can't agree.  This year in the Bills regular season finale I saw a golden opportunity to bet against the Bills because I knew they were resting their key players.  I bet the Jets on the money line & cashed the bet.  Yes, I was rooting against the Bills 2nd stringers, but it didn't effectively reduce my long term love of the team.