I actually support the NFLPA on this (NFL ending revenue sharing)

[SPTO]

Quote:

The National Football League has informed the players' union that they will end the revenue-sharing program starting this coming March, reports ESPN. The $100-million program is used to subsidized teams with lower revenues. According to ESPN, the players' union is expected to challenge on the grounds no move can be made without their approval, as their current agreement does not expire until 2011. The NFL is expected to counter by arguing only seasons with a salary-cap and 2010 will not have a cap. "Revenue sharing helps maintain the 'any-given Sunday' dynamic in the NFL," NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told ESPN. "The amount of money some owners propose to pull out of the system in 2011 could mean the difference between playoffs and blackouts for many teams."

I'm guessing the Jerry Jones, and Daniel Snyder camp is running things for the owners if the NFL wants to end the revenue sharing program. I agree with the NFLPA that this is something that shouldn't be tampered with not just for the reasons above but teams that can't afford the big money spending like Green Bay, JAX or STL are going to find it awfully hard to keep a competitive balance with the big spenders out there.

Do we really want an MLB type situation where there are clear haves and have nots from a salary point of view?

[wco81]

No doubt some owners like Jones would like to have a number of elite teams and the rest of the teams be like the Washington Generals.

Barely enough to survive but not a competitive threat.

Yeah it's incredible the owners want to mess with the most successful sports league in the nation, especially in this economic environment.

Will they get the same lucrative TV contract if the NFL becomes like the NFL or the EPL? Many teams could lose a lot of fans and when ratings aren't there, the TV money won't be either.

[Burns11]

I have no real opinion on it without knowing more: what teams qualified, for how much and why exactly they needed the money. If it comes down to these 9 teams not making the money because they aren't trying, instead just leaning on this welfare from the other teams, then I can see a point to cutting it out.

Edit: Oh, and the thread title and original quote are misleading, this isn't cutting out revenue sharing in general, this is an extra fund paid into by the top 15 teams that is given to teams that qualify for it, this year there were 9 teams. I never could find the qualifications for this extra money and the NFL didn't say who the 9 were.

[shnuskis]

The total revenue shared by the NFL is $6.5 billion according to this SI article. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html This is only a supplemental fund. There is no change to the tv revenue or the box office revenue. As stated, only only 9 teams qualified for this last year and according to the SI article the NFL isn't identifying those teams. I have seen it reported that the Minnesota Vikings qualified last year for a total around $10 million dollars. (Combine that loss with the additional $4 million they have to may in rent next year, they will definately feel it.)

And just so we are not spreading some wrong information here, the Packers actually are in the top half of the league in revenue and as far as I can find, not one of the 9 teams that qualified for the supplemental fund.

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/...s_Revenue.html


So far the media has done a very poor job of giving us the facts in this. They seem to be implying all revenue sharing is done next year.

I personally think this starts things down the wrong road. The current competitive balance of the NFL is what keeps the NFL stronger than the other sports. Remember, by having this supplemental fund available, the teams in the NFL have to reach a minimum on spending for players. With this change in revenue sharing, they will no longer have to reach this threashhold. So as a response to the comment earlier about owners who don't care, now this opens it up for owners to pull a Pittsburgh Pirates policy in the NFL. Something they previously couldn't do.

[CW McGraw]

The NFL is the world's most successful sports league. You don't change what isn't broken. If this happens, Roger Goodell will go down as the worst commissioner in NFL history.

[J0nnD0ugh]

I don't see why the lower earning clubs would allow the rest of the NFL to do this. They are poking their own eye out to spite their face.

[TheWatcher]

As far as competition goes, it doesn't worry me at all.

Football is not like Baseball, and it's been proven many times by teams like the Redskins for example, that you can spend the most money and still suck.

As long as free agency remains intact and football remains a team game that has to be coached properly and run by smart organizations in order to win, you won't be seeing the Redskins or the Cowboys going on any sudden dynasties if this happens.

[shnuskis]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheWatcher

As far as competition goes, it doesn't worry me at all. Football is not like Baseball, and it's been proven many times by teams like the Redskins for example, that you can spend the most money and still suck. As long as free agency remains intact and football remains a team game that has to be coached properly and run by smart organizations in order to win, you won't be seeing the Redskins or the Cowboys going on any sudden dynasties if this happens.

You need to realize though, in the current system with a hard salary cap, when the Redskins spend BIG money on free agents, they then have less money to spend on other positions and depth. If a team is free to spend as much as they want, there isn't a trade off for spending on a big name player. You can keep all your depth and add any big name player you want. If it were to be uncapped for more than a year, you would see dynasties.