View Full Version : AJR II On Revenue Sharing

Atlanta Dan
03-27-2007, 08:17 AM
The issue of the big market/small market teams continuing to battle over revenue sharing once again is on the front burner at the owners' meeting.

This Trib-Review article says the Steelers, who are at the low end of the top 15 teams that will contribute to revenue sharing for smaller revenue teams, reluctantly voted for the latest plan (Bills & Bengals voted against) but did not like it.

The 15 teams that contribute money to a pool will be divided into three categories based on their gross revenues. What category those teams fall into will correlate into how much they give to the revenue sharing pool, but their contributions won't be based on a percentage of gross revenue....

"We had talked about a system where we would contribute somewhere around 34 percent of each team's revenue into this pool," Rooney II said Sunday. "Our view is something like that, a percentage applied to all of the teams across the board. Then you go back and look after you do that who would be entitled to revenue sharing."

One concern the Steelers may have is that under the current system there could develop a gap between the top and bottom teams in the 15 organizations that have to pay into the revenue-sharing pool.


In another article on the subject in the P-G, AJR II criticizes the big market teams for not conceding more on revenue sharing and states the NFL will be drifting to a major leaague baseball have/have not system if something is not worked out soon.

"There's no question we have a problem in the league that I'm very concerned about on a going-forth basis," Rooney said during the annual NFL spring meetings. "I think the biggest problem with it really is the attitude of some of the high-revenue teams. I think the only way to say it is that they have a different attitude than some of the big-market people from the old days."

Rooney said if owners do not agree to fix the system, ultimately the Steelers will get dragged down with it.

"We're in a market that's not growing," Rooney said. "When you look at spendable income statistics in our market, the last time I looked we rank somewhere in the 50s in terms of household spending.

"We're in a market where we have to be concerned about things like this. We look at it as a very serious situation, both in terms of the standpoint of looking at it from a Pittsburgh situation but also a league-wide standpoint."

Rooney estimated that 20 NFL teams, including the Steelers, "are in markets where we're really challenged to continue on an ongoing basis to generate that kind of revenue" to stay competitive.

"Then you have another 10-12 teams -- some of them are doing fine, some are doing big money. That's where the revenue-sharing situation has to kick in to equalize things out."


It looks like last year's collective bargaining agreement simply kicked the can down the road on this issue. Don't be surprised if either the small or big market ownership groups exercise the opt out clause in the CBA after 2008 and all hell breaks loose then.

Livinginthe past
03-27-2007, 10:46 AM
Well, lets hope they can get something hammered out.

As I stated in another thread, profit redistribution must seem like an alien concept to your average businessman.

The fact is, every single team owners wants his franchise to dominate the NFL - that is their mission statement at the beginning of every year - what better way to give yourself a competetive advantage than to ensure you have more revenue than your competitor?

The problem, of course, is killing the goose that is laying endless golden eggs.

If you want to see how competetive sports pan out with no 'checks and balances' - look no further than baseball , or a world I am more familiar with - soccer.

For many years the 'big teams' of European soccer have been trying to form a breakaway league consisting of the elite - by cutting out the small guy - they get to keep all the profits themselves.

As that hasn't worked out, they are doing the same thing, but by stealth - small market soccer teams are effectively priced out of being competitive - the spoils are divided amongst the big teams.

Let me tell you - this is not a good thing and sooner or later most fans will become totally disillusioned with a scenario that has 3 competitive teams out of a total of 20.

If the NFL doesn't watch itself it could be heading down the same route.

Livinginthe past
03-27-2007, 10:56 AM
I'll throw in a couple of recent quotes from Robert Kraft regarding the revenue sharing issue.

One of the things he [the new commish] spoke about was something we just dealt with in the [meeting] room by approving the qualifiers of how we’re going to do revenue sharing for the rest of our agreement. So I think there is a feeling from a number of us that we appreciate what a great league we have, and how special it is. We’re partners inside. The real enemies are outside the room.

“I don’t think anyone is 100 percent happy with it [the new plan for revenue sharing], but when we did our labor agreement it was contingent on having this plan. I think it was a wonderful compromise with the committee. I’m glad it didn’t have to go to the commissioner and we got 30 out of 32 votes. I think it’s a very fair plan.”

When I read that only two teams voted against the new revenue sharing plan, I presumed it to be Buffalo (who incidentally refuse to maximise their own worth by selling naming rights to their stadium) and Cincy.

Turns out Buffalo voted for it and the two teams 'on the outside' are Cincy and Jax.

Atlanta Dan
03-27-2007, 01:04 PM
Apologize for saying Bengals rather than Jax voted against the plan.

I think the situations in both Buffalo (brain dead ownerhip with demographics and an economy that make Pittsburgh look like Silicon Valley) and Jax (decent facilities but in the heart of SEC country and too small a market to sell out the Gator Bowl) are terminal.

I suppose one might land in San Antonioo and the other might go to LA, now that the situation in New Orleans has at least temporarily stabilized, but I do not see a lot of markets that can support a NFL franchise that do not already have one.

Livinginthe past
03-27-2007, 02:47 PM
Buffalo actually voted yes.

Cincy and Jax are the two teams against the revenue sharing proposal as it stands.

03-28-2007, 06:54 PM
As usual, the Rooney's understand the matter perfectly and proposed the correct solution, which seems to be sort of a "flat tax". Understandable, though, why the Jerry Jones' and Daniel Snyder's of the league wouldn't be happy with it...34% of 100 million is a lot more than 34% of 10 million.

Jerry Jones is the biggest prick. If it was up to him, the Cowboys would have Chico's bail bonds patches on the backs of their jerseys and there would be NO revenue sharing.