*edit* Please note, it got political.

.
..
.
.
Capitalism saves the NFL?
--
Earlier this summer, the NFL enacted a rule allowing teams to sell sponsorships for the practice jerseys; sponsors can place a logo no larger than 4 1/2 by 3 1/2 inches. The New York Giants inked a 15-year, (estimated) $35 million sponsorship deal with Timex for practice jersey logos and naming rights for the Meadowlands practice facility, now called the Timex Performance Center, writes the New York Daily News.

The Rams signed American Airlines as sponsor for the practice jerseys, while the Jets and the Bears have hospital deals and the Colts jerseys are being sponsored by an insurance company, according to CNBC.

http://www.mediabuyerplanne...ip-logos-on-jerseys/

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-03-2011).]

didnt know the NFL needed saving?

anyways, I think "commercialism" would be more acurate

tho, who sees the practice jerseys??

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 03-03-2011).]

Just as pointless as a ball peen hammer when roofing.

Why are hospitals paying to advertise for the Jets and Bears? I doubt that's helping to drive down the cost of a hospital visit. In fact, if I saw a hospital logo on a jersey, I would probably make an effort to go to a different hospital.

CBA runs out tonight at midnight. They don't get a deal done? They're gonna need a lot more than 3X4 inch logos on practice jerseys to save them. Its called fan disenfranchisement. It happened to MLB after the Toronto Blue Jays won the series back in the early 90s and baseball fans, including me, never forgave the players and owners for their greed.

Then again, it could give me a better chance to get higher on the Green Bay season ticket queue.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Capitalism saves the NFL?

What does this title have to do with the article or the financial "saving" of the NFL for that matter?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-03-2011).]

If viewed solely in reference to the current negotiations and possible lockout/strike--nothing, but in the bigger picture, the gist is, that the ever increasing high costs associated with free agency are dipping into the owners' pockets, and even tho there is a revenue sharing plan of some sort (I forget the details) the individual clubs are looking for new ways to parially offset expenses of player contracts, rather than passing up the higher quality (expensive) franchise players. Some teams are very profitable--some are barely hanging on in comparison to the better teams' revenues. $200 million bucks may not exactly "save" the league, but it ain't nothing to sneeze at either. The Giant's $35 million contract would go a long way in that organization, and if all/each teams have similar results, well, you get the picture. No team owner is in the business just to see all their revenue go out the door just to pay salaries to players. The more lucrative team ownership is, the more likely someone will buy teams, and there are several teams that are rumored to be on the sale block now or in the very near future as the original owners are getting old, the return is not what it once was, and of course, the players' salaries, even with current caps, eat into the bottom line.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-03-2011).]

Here is food for thought: Back a few decades ago, my Girlfriends Grandpa was in charge of his own accounting firm. This accounting firm was responsible for the monetary portions of many of Green bays football players. He cut the contract off the year before the pay raises came about as he did not agree with a person being paid multi million dollars for chasing a lathered pigskin ball around. In talking to him i found out that the peak salary of the top NFl player for the Green Bay packers was only just shy of $75,000.

This was in the 80s IIRC.

Now the STARTING salary of that years "rookie" players bumped up to about 5 million and could be seen as up to 25 million depending on their record of win/loss in HS, their overall health, and a few other things that were taken into consideration.

I can catch a football, run pretty fast, and i can also tackle people. Did i play ball in HS? No, because i just couldn't understand the game for the life of me. What player does what, who guards who. I don't even know what a First down means. (i suspect its something to do with tackling the QB) does that mean that i can get paid 80 million a season just sitting on the sidelines as a backup?

Sure--go for it!!

Walk on tryouts happen next training camp.

Revenue sharing is the big issue IMO, in the past ten years players percentage of revenues look like accroding to this site.
http://www.sportpost.com/ne...0246a5be53012658b50a

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Players’ Percentage of All Revenues 56.5 52.6 51.8 50.5 52.3 51.1 52.7 51.8 51.0 50.6
Players’ Percentage of "Total Revenue" 61.7 57.1 56.1 54.3 57.0 55.1 58.4 58.0 57.7 57.1

With revenues increasing it means that the Salary cap gets adjusted accordingly and the small market teams have less and less of a margin, however a comprehensive revenue sharing structure would ceertainly healp that and keep the league more competitive.

As for the old guys selling their teams how much profit on initial investment do you think they will make in todays market?

The bottom line is effected by the economy. No residuals from jersey and merch sales hurts the owners. Lets not forget, the owners hold the reigns on these business deals. They were the ones who negotiated and approved the enormous player salaries so they can "win now".. they are the ones who created the culture of overpaid players. Now most teams are in the red, are blaming player salaries, but really they need to blame themselves for not having the foresight to keep salaries down in the good years for when the bad years come. Every NFL owner is a billionaire.. I have trouble feeling sorry for the bed they made.. now they must lay in it.

A good model of how to run a team is Green Bay. They cut AJ Hawk yesterday because his contract called for 10 mil, or a top 5 average, whichever is higher. This morning, they gave Hawk a new 5 year contract extension, and his salary this year will be about half what he was promised... but he will make all his money back and a lot more over those 5 years.. just not so much this year. Green Bay is one of the only teams that posted profits this year, and they had more players on their roster than any team during the season. If his salary is not matching his playing output, they will drop him like a hot potato. A lot of other teams were salivating for a chance to get Hawk, but he wants to stay in Green Bay and took a pay cut. That organization keeps its players happy, and as a result, the players are more liklely to sacrifice for their team, and not just on the field. Same with the Patriots.. to go to a winning team, good players took a pay cut.

Now look at a team like the Bungles, and they paid 7 million to Antonio Bryant in guaranteed money last year, and dropped him before the season even started. Now, who's fault is that for losing that money? Mike Brown, the owner. That lost salary $$$ is BIGGER than the profit margin for the Packers this year. (Which was down by over 60% from 2009) Those kinds of poor business decisions KILL a team's profitability, and the owner is the one complaining about not making enough money? YOU JUST THREW 7 MILLION DOLLARS AWAY!

Owners/GMs need to run their business better and expect leaner times.. they just didnt. But now, players are going to be blamed for the high cost of running a team. Tell that to Jerry Jones, he helped cause the problem with the best team money could buy. And still lost. Still, contracts get dropped by NFL teams all the time, breaking promises made by owners. Its written into them., If the owners really wanted to save money, they would drop the bigger salary players and try to win with late round and undrafted picks, as well as players from the practice squads and off the street. (Those outside looking in REALLY want to play, even at a discount.) Until owners are willing to drop high salry players and try to win without them, they have only themselves to blame for their financial issues.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 03-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Ramsespride: Now the STARTING salary of that years "rookie" players bumped up to about 5 million and could be seen as up to 25 million depending on their record of win/loss in HS, their overall health, and a few other things that were taken into consideration.

Take a look at NFL minimum contract salary numbers, you might be surprised.

Nascar comes to mind, hehehe...

So, when will Mountain Dew sponsor a football team?

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-03-2011).]

Minimum NFL salary is 310,000 in 2010. Usually about half the team makes numbers along those lines. Thats about 8-10 million out of the 130ish million cap. In a startling similarity to real life salries, over 50% of the players usually make about 10% or less of the team's salary wages.

There is no team in the history of the NFL that has given ANY player, 1st round draft pick or otherwise, a 25 mil/year salary. Still, Peyton Manning is not done with his re-negotiation, so we'll see.

25 Million dollar contracts? Sure, over 5-7 years. But not 25 mil a year. I believe Julius Peppers, prize of last year's free agency, has the highest per-season salary of any player (about the same as Fat Albert) The contract is worth $91.5 million with $42 million guaranteed. Peppers will make $40.5 million over the first three years. The number could increase if he makes the Pro Bowl, records a certain number of sacks or is defensive player of the year.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 03-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Sure--go for it!! Walk on tryouts happen next training camp.

I feel embarrassed asking this but, what is a training camp for football?

yeah yeah take the "man" card. not that it means anything to me

.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Ramsespride: Here is food for thought: Back a few decades ago, my Girlfriends Grandpa was in charge of his own accounting firm. This accounting firm was responsible for the monetary portions of many of Green bays football players. He cut the contract off the year before the pay raises came about as he did not agree with a person being paid multi million dollars for chasing a lathered pigskin ball around. In talking to him i found out that the peak salary of the top NFl player for the Green Bay packers was only just shy of $75,000. This was in the 80s IIRC. Now the STARTING salary of that years "rookie" players bumped up to about .5 million and could be seen as up to 2.5 million depending on their record of win/loss in HS, their overall health, and a few other things that were taken into consideration. I can catch a football, run pretty fast, and i can also tackle people. Did i play ball in HS? No, because i just couldn't understand the game for the life of me. What player does what, who guards who. I don't even know what a First down means. (i suspect its something to do with tackling the QB) does that mean that i can get paid 80 million a season just sitting on the sidelines as a backup?

The price i pay for letting toddlers play on the computer The Period button isnt working so im going to re edit my post using the backup one in the numberpad.

quote Originally posted by Ramsespride: I feel embarrassed asking this but, what is a training camp for football? yeah yeah take the "man" card. not that it means anything to me

No worries.. its where players get into pads and practice drills and plays they plan on implementing during the regulars season. It starts at the beginning of August. Its basically "getting into your routine" and it ends right before pre-season games start. Lots of padded practice, people getting used to laying on hits and taking hits, etc. Lots of players get injured for the season in training camp.. usually 2-3 a team. Its not just picking daisies and riding bikes, I'll tell you that.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: That is totally untrue... completely untrue. The league minimum for 2011 is $345,000, not 5 million. Practice squad players get SUBSTANTIALLY less than that, on average, about $85,000 if kept through the entire season. Teams are explicitly.. EXPLICITLY prohibited from tracking any player prior to their Junior year of College, so wins / losses in high school have absolutely no bearing on anyone other than scouts at the college / NCAA level. No comment on anything else.

Just repeating what i was told, dont shoot the messenger- it looks really bad on the resume

.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: What does this title have to do with the article or the financial "saving" of the NFL for that matter?

Just the possible strike. Maybe it will ease the need somewhere. I'm not super up on it, just heard a few things.

Another article:

"In 2011, the owners could lock out the players to pressure the players' union to accede to a new CBA.
..
The owners say the CBA is unsustainable for several reasons. First, they argue that the NFL needs a rookie wage scale. The owners are upset about shelling out huge guaranteed contracts to unproven rookies that often don't live up to expectations. Second, as reported by ESPN shortly after the CBA opt out, owners want some mechanism for recovering bonus money from players that "breach their contracts." Third, owners, according Scores Report, say that disbursing 59.5% of total league revenues to the players places undue stress on many teams, some of which face the double whammy of rapidly rising stadium costs and declining revenues because of the current weak economy. Finally, the owners want to investigate the elimination of one of the four preseason games and instead add a 17th regular season game to bring in additional regular season television contract money, according to the New York Times."

http://www.associatedconten..._players_strike.html

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Just the possible strike. Maybe it will ease the need somewhere. I'm not super up on it, just heard a few things. Another article: "In 2011, the owners could lock out the players to pressure the players' union to accede to a new CBA. .. The owners say the CBA is unsustainable for several reasons. First, they argue that the NFL needs a rookie wage scale. The owners are upset about shelling out huge guaranteed contracts to unproven rookies that often don't live up to expectations. Second, as reported by ESPN shortly after the CBA opt out, owners want some mechanism for recovering bonus money from players that "breach their contracts." Third, owners, according Scores Report, say that disbursing 59.5% of total league revenues to the players places undue stress on many teams, some of which face the double whammy of rapidly rising stadium costs and declining revenues because of the current weak economy. Finally, the owners want to investigate the elimination of one of the four preseason games and instead add a 17th regular season game to bring in additional regular season television contract money, according to the New York Times." http://www.associatedconten..._players_strike.html

I would expect with the revenues and salaries involved a deal will get done before kick-off in September, at least I hope so.

As for the article I definately agree with some sort of rookie wage scale, Jemarcus Russell comes to mind as the poster boy for that.

I've always liked the idea of incentive laden contracts in sports but sometimes those are unfair depending on so many factors.

Maybe the NFL owners can get Wisconsin's governor to help them out with the player's overinflated union wage scale. What am I saying? NFL football is absolutely necessary for our survival but teachers are expendable and should be happy with whatever the good guv gives them.

quote Originally posted by starlightcoupe: Maybe the NFL owners can get Wisconsin's governor to help them out with the player's overinflated union wage scale. What am I saying? NFL football is absolutely necessary for our survival but teachers are expendable and should be happy with whatever the good guv gives them.

bwahahaha!

what?! Priorities?! bwahahaha!

WD

.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-03-2011).]

are you really gonna try and suggest that football is more important than education?

or even close?

.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: are you really gonna try and suggest that football is more important than education? or even close?

See: Texas high schools

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: In case it's not obvious... the NFL employes literally, half a million people on game day. At any given stadium, there are at least 20,000 people being employed at every stadium x 16 stadiums. That's 320,000 people JUST at the stadiums that are getting paid because the NFL is hosting a game. That's not including the people at all the news stations (not at the stadium) who are handling the feeds from the NFL games, that's another couple thousand people. Then you have the people at ALL the sports bars which get overtime pay, additional staffing, etc... ALL because there's a football game on. That accounts for WELL over a million people. In total, there's many millions of people across the United States that get paid BECAUSE the NFL hosts a game on Sunday night.

Forgive me but I don't see your point other than the NFL employs a lot of people. 320,000 a week for what? 12 weeks a year? About the same as migrant workers or meat packers. I was only a substitute teacher and made $75 a day--that is less than $8 an hour--and I know my job wasn't as physically demanding as an NFL player's employment but in some ways I think it was more important.

On any given day for about nine months out of the year, at least a few million teachers are at work and most times at night as well. One job is for entertainment and the other is an investment in our future. Having read his posts, I think Cooter is a gifted teacher and his worth is beyond measurement especially compared to the worth of the NFL.

We could make the same comparison with TV or Hollywood. As I said, forgive me if I don't understand your comparison or figures.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Are you really going to try to suggest that Football is unimportant to the economy, or even close?

nope. not suggesting that at all.
it is entertainment. and the entertainment industry is LARGE.

.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ....... So... you can compare everyone's penis sizes all you want, but just so you know... you don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about if you seem to think the NFL doesn't have a major contribution in the US economy.

it still is NOTHING compared to education
even in the amount of money which moves because of each

.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-03-2011).]

I love the NFL, I just think the owners are putting the financial blame on players salary, which is laughable considering they approved those contracts. May not be an NFL fan for long if there is a lockout, though.

I completely agree that the NFL does provide a lot of people with jobs and helps the economy. Still, did you know that today is the first day that many NFL teams opened their books and show them in negotiation with the player's union? If they had nothing to hide, they should have done complete disclosure, as was asked, months ago. Green Bay (sorry to harp on them) being a publicly owned team, I believe were the only ones to do so before today. And the deadline is midnight tonight to get the CBA done.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 03-03-2011).]

Question?

I think I heard on ESPN a few days ago that the owners have in effect purchased an insurance policy from the broadcasters, where they will be paid a percentage of the broadcast rights even if the game is not played....thereby in effect strengthening the owners bargaining position with the players.

Anybody heard of this?

quote Originally posted by Gall757: Question? I think I heard on ESPN a few days ago that the owners have in effect purchased an insurance policy from the broadcasters, where they will be paid a percentage of the broadcast rights even if the game is not played....thereby in effect strengthening the owners bargaining position with the players. Anybody heard of this?

Great site for football news and rumours. http://profootballtalk.nbcs...category/rumor-mill/

as to the incurance thing...http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/03/standard-poors-revisits-nfls-situation-after-lockout-insurance-ruling/

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-03-2011).]