clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Professor Blue: The CBA - Reader Requests

Now that I've written a couple of stories to illustrate the primary gripes of the owners and the players, I thought I'd pause to respond to some reader requests.

Coltsfan58:  I’d be interested in the most recent updates on this undercurrent in the current stalemate: the owners’ interest in having the players discount the amount of revenue pooled for distribution to the players as salaries to offset capital expenditures the owners have undertaken.

Professor Blue:  Coltsfan58, hopefully I addressed this issue in my Owners' Perspective post.

kasey_junk:  Lots of people have talked about the agreements for revenue sharing between the players and the owners, but another major issue (and one that could be more detrimental to the Colts) is revenue sharing amongst the owners. Specifically:

1. What is the agreement in place now.

2. What does Indy get from this.

3. What are they proposing moving forward.


Professor Blue:  Thanks for the question, kasey_junk.  The agreement in place is that teams share about 70% of media and licensing revenue equally, regardless of market.  They also share ticket ("gate") revenue, with 60% to the home team, 40% to the visitors.  Indy has annual earnings (revenue) of $233 million, of which an estimated $116 million comes from media revenue, $55 million from gate revenue, and $62 million from licensing or non-shared sources.


I am not aware of any official proposal on the table, but large-market owners are definitely interested in reducing the percentage that is shared so that they keep more of what they generate.  There are actually a few more interesting angles on this story, so I will address more comprehensively in another post.



strandedincarolina: I realize that the rookie cap is a big issue. The thing is that the players will not give in unless they can be guaranteed that money and/or get something else in return. There are a couple of issue I would be interested in.  Specifically:

1. How much money do some big market teams give up through revenue sharing and what do small market teams get?

2. How big of an issue is revenue sharing in this problem?

3. What percentage of revenue do the players get now?

4. What is the floor in the salary cap structure and how many teams are being forced to spend more than they want?


Professor Blue: It's hard to find enough information to quantify what big market teams give up to essentially fund the smaller market teams, and the situation is muddied by big market teams like the Cowboys who have invested in large stadia to improve the product.  I did find a note that the Redskins generate as much as $100 million more than the Cardinals.  The players get 59% of "Total Revenue."


The previous floor was 87.6% of the $128 million cap, or $112 million.  The cynic in me says that 32 of 32 teams were forced to spend more than they wanted.  At the very least, I assume every team felt they overpaid for some players but not for others.  On a cash basis, only the Giants, Dolphins, Texans, Saints, Bears, Jets, Steelers, Packers, Titans and Panthers spent above the cap; but this does not account for the cap impact of player bonuses.