Yahoo Sports: Goodell sends letter to players, bypasses NFLPA

[CaliforniaSkin]

No one said the share all revenue, they share a large portion of revenue... it's still revenue sharing. Just like one business with many franchise owners. I agree with the Supreme Court in certain aspects that it is seperate businesses, but as owners, I feel if they want to all do common things for the good of their own league (key words: their own league) then they should be allowed. If someone does not like it, don't participate in it, go form another "league", What's next the NFL gets forced to add teams, add franchises even if they don't want to expand.

What hte SUpreme Court actually said was the NFL "can" be considered 32 seperate businesses when it comes to selling jerseys and caps. Nothing about wages.

No, what the supreme court said is that the NFL are separate businesses. Not can be considered, are. To quote, "Each of the teams is a substantial, independently owned, and independently managed business," and further that "teams are acting as 'separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests," and that "they are still separate profit maximizing entities." It further stated that "the justification for cooperation is not relevant to whether that cooperation is concerted or independent action." And, "the mere fact that the teams operate jointly in some sense does not meant that they are immune" to antitrust legislation.

The court did state that "football teams that need to cooperate are not trapped by antitrust law." But it further states that such actions were "still concerted activity under the Sherman Act that is subject to section 1 analysis."

Although.... MLB has broad-anti-trust protection....

That is from a very strange 1922 ruling that held that baseball was an 'entertainment' and thus not interstate commerce. The court, while upholding the 1922 ruling (mostly due to stare decisis

I just don't see how a court is going to settle this and tell how much of revenue has to be paid towards players.

So, there is going to be a judge that decides the % of revenue that must go to the players? Who's a judge to say

You're completely missing the point. This isn't legislating how MUCH the players can be paid but how LITTLE. The discussion is about a salary CAP, not floor. A judge isn't going to tell ownership how much to pay players, the judge might tell ownership that they cannot conspire to collectively limit how much they pay players.

Then the MARKET will decide what percentage of revenue goes to the playrs.

How do they have those stadiums. They were either paid for by tax payers (for the owners who couldn't afford it), or they are still paying for it. And you ask, "Why?" Go ask NY why they just spent $1.1billion and go ask Jerry Jones why he spent $1 billion on a stadium and he wants more money to pay for that. It's a treat to the people that make it all happen: the fans. The more cut the players get, the less the owners get... and that means certain things such as stadiums will be paid for by taxes because some cities are stupid. IT's happened... a lot.

So you think JJ paid that money simply to provide a 'treat to the people that make it all happen?' Did he also sell those $200 tickets to watch the SB on a TV outside the stadium out of similar altruism? How about the seats he sold that didn't exist? That was his way of giving back too I suppose.

He built the stadium to make more money. And if you believe that owners will take one dime less from public sources simply because they are making a larger profit, you're incredibly naive. The Cowboys are the most valuable and profitably franchise in the NFL; that didn't stop JJ from taking $325M in public financing for the stadium (not to mention the costs of infrastructure improvements).

Come on? How do you consider if something is "in the ballpark" as you mention?

How about businesses comprising 99% of the market? The AFL had revenues of less than $90M (probably far less) last year and the UFL of only about $1 or $2M; the NFL of $9.3B. so the NFL teams collectively comprise over 99% of the market.

I'll say it again. If a player (employee) doesn't like what the owner (employer) is paying them, they can find another job... it is there "right" to choose not to work for a particular company or choose a different career.

But that's just it, they are not free to find another job. Owners of businesses comprising over 99% of the market are colluding to fix wages and restrict employment (the salary cap, draft and restrictions on free agency). In the absence of a collectively bargained agreement, antitrust regulation applies and those actions are illegal.

Here's the issue: are they really separate businesses? Are 20 McDonalds seperate businesses? McDonalds is one large company. WIth many IBOs. To a degree, but the NFL has revenue sharing. If they are truly separate businesses then they wouldn't have to share revenue.

Many, many, many businesses share some revenue. AT&T shares revenue with Verizon from iPhone sales. There are thousands upon thousands of others. It is so common that, I'd bet more companies than not in the Fortune 500 have some revenue sharing agreements. NFL teams do share more than most, but that alone clearly doesn't change the fact that they are separate profit maximizing entities. NFL teams have sued the NFL. They are different firms from all GAAP principles and have been always acted as legally distinct businesses.

I know some court just ruled about the merchandise thing, but that's up for appeal.

That would be the Supreme Court so obviously no, it's not up for appeal

If the NFL gets cornered and some judge says they are all separate, I could see the teams doing what they have to do to make it one NFL business with 32 shareholders.

"Some judge" didn't, ALL nine of the Supreme Court Justices did.

There is not even a tiniest remote chance of the teams scrapping their 80+ year old business model and merging. First of all, it almost certainly wouldn't pass muster with the DOJ or FTC on antitrust grounds. Even if we ignore that, you are proposing that each owner sell his team for a stake in all the other teams.

Aside from the extreme unlikelihood of some like Dan Rooney selling the team that has been in his family for 80 years for a stake in other teams, it would be terrible business for a bunch of the owners. The Cowboys had revenues of $420M last year, the Jaguars revenue of $220M. The Cowboys had operating income (EBITDA) of $143M. The Dolphins lost 7.7M. Do you think Jones would trade a share of his highly profitable company for an equal share in the Dolphins who are losing money? These teams have different values, besides being illegal, you couldn't merge the teams without giving some owners a much bigger share than others.

It would also be a competitive nightmare. Who would decide how much each team spent on each player?

---------- Post added March-23rd-2011 at 11:00 AM ----------

Market value and this business aren't as cut and dry. What's the market value for a football player? In the NFL it's different that what the CFL is offering.

It's pretty straightforward. Market value for a football player is the amount they can get paid in an unrestricted market of the owners. It's the same in the CFL. The amounts are obviously going to be different because the businesses (teams) are different and have different revenue streams. Market Value is different for each player, but how it is determined (bidding in an open market) is the same.

Think about this: What's the market value for an owner who created the league? SHouldn't they get more of a cut?

Owners don't have a market value, their businesses (teams) do. And the original owners did get more of cut. But they're all dead. :pfft:

Tim Mara paid $500 to found the NY Giants in 1925. The team is now worth $1.18B. Even for 80 years that's pretty astoundingly, amazingly, almost unbelievably good. The Dow has increased by about a factor of 100 in that time, the Giants by a factor 2,364,000.

Closer to the present, it cost Tex Schram $1M in expansion fees to found the Cowboys (the stadium was 100% built by the city). The Cowboys are now worth $1.8B and 180,000% increase in value over 50 years. Again, pretty spectacular.