Agreed.
Well, if they do deprive us our games, then I agree. But so far, I can't make that claim.
Let's hope that the fans' interests creep their way into all of this and get something done.
Owners? Profits? Owner profits go to who? Who owns the Kansas City Chiefs? Is it one person, or many? Is it the same with big company's? You know who should walk out, all the coaches and trainers. The staff of a NFL Franchise. Then we will see how fast things get done.
You might also factor in some numbers that weren't expressed in the article. One of them being the real and implied debt load of each team not including the players and their salaries. For example, the much vaunted Cowboys may make a profit on the field, but the cost of the field and the sheltering building will not for many, many years. Jerry Jones may be a genius at self-aggrandizement, but when he uses his team and their resources to that end, he's making an error in taste (well, in his case that's a hard word to spit out.) and judgment. While it may be true that, once, the Cowboys were America's team, that's a fading memory and fading with it are the profits made from licensed merchandise. Also few teams have the in place loyal following as has Kansas City. And one that can afford to be loyal. No NFL tickets can be construed as a bargain but, for what you get in terms of play, sight lines, stadium, Kansas City has few competitors. Per capita KC is one of the wealthiest cities with a franchise (and yes, I know, it's hard to explain Green Bay on the quick) and only a modest group who feel the team costs the city too much. (These groups exist in every city with a team, no matter what sport.) However it may look to Forbes, I'll argue that the Chiefs are better placed over the long haul than many other teams. You mention the Bills and their thriftiness. All well and good but, apparently, they're permanently on the edge of being moved, they're already being "shared" with Toronto.
Interesting write up and Thank You for it.
^ So then do we get to factor in all the taxpayer incentivized perks the teams get? Taxpayer funded stadiums, tax breaks, roads and infrastructure paid for exclusively by the cities/states the teams reside in? The owners get to keep those type of assets for as long as they stick around in a city. The players do not benefit from that directly, and only indirectly via the players share of the profits of the team during the time they play.
Well then you have to factor in the benefits of revenue from the host NFL City. Jobs, sales tax on ect! I know for a fact, that there is an increase in sale of beer, anytime the Chiefs Crowd has members coming to a game, and they spend money on other things as well. Having a NFL Franchise makes money for the taxpayer. Yes it may not seem so for those who pay those taxes, but it does more than you think in increasing the economy of your tax base.
We are talking about what the teams get out of it, not what it brings back to the city, becuase in that case, the players are just as much to blame for bringing that economic increase in said host city, so you cant show that as something the owners can hold over the players head. Regardless of any economic boon to a NFL town, the owners are the one who get the lifetime benefit of the free infrastructure.
Bad comparison I used to own a flooring company until the economy went south, in construction most of your expenses go toward labor probably 30% and that's working as your own foreman. But if you do no work like the owners of these teams then your labor can easily be around 50%, not to mention customers are paying for a product whether it be a new deck or new floors they don't care who you hire as long as the end result meets their expectations. If you compare a huge construction company like JE Dunn I bet the owner would be pretty happy with 13%, because 13% of billion is 10's of millions, for essentially having people run your business while you come in and collect checks and yell at them.Also the NFL on the other hand is all about the labor. We watch the NFL because it's the best players in the world not the second best but the very best. Not to mention many of these players play 10 years or less and many of them don't reach their 60th birthday because of all the abusive their body receives. Why shouldn't they be well payed?
exactly
This was my thought as well. All the new renovations going on at tax payers/fans expense. Still cannot seat the people they sell tickets for(see super Bowl in Dallas last year-nicely done Jerry!)Not saying that renovations are not needed, but they are not done without taxpayer/fan approval. So it would be interesting to know how much we/they factor in.