How much of the money that NFL teams generate locally should they keep for themselves?
That’s the crucial question facing the league today, and the answer will have far-reaching effects.
The NFL has always been the league best able to handle issues such as this. Unanimity of purpose has been the league’s biggest strength for almost half a century, since the first leaguewide television contracts were signed in 1961.
Collectivism has worked well for the league up to now, but with so many more millions of dollars at stake than there were even 10 years ago, and with the amount of debt being carried by so many teams, it’s not surprising that some owners seem to be worried more about the size of their piece of the pie than they are with the size of the pie as a whole.
Many of those same owners, though, wonder why they should share the money they generate through hard work and new ideas with owners who don’t maximize the revenue opportunities in their own markets.
The committee appointed by Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to tackle revenue sharing hasn’t made much progress, but the answer to the riddle affects just about every other issue facing the league as its 2005 season kicks off, including:
Labor. The NFL’s collective-bargaining agreement doesn’t expire until 2007, but that date is weighing heavily on just about everyone involved with the game.
For example, deals with rookies and free agents had to be approached more creatively than ever this year because signing bonuses couldn’t be prorated for as many years as they were in past contracts, changing the way that each player’s contract fit under the salary cap.
While that relatively small problem would only be exacerbated if there’s still no deal at this time next year, the bigger issue is that the league and union are at odds over the very question being debated at the owners’ meetings: How much local revenue should be shared?
Not only does the union want all local revenue to be included in the big money pie, of which the players get a substantial piece, but it wants each team to be able to bid equally for the services of players.
The owners, on the other hand, want to know how much money they’re splitting with one another before they decide how much they’ll give to the players.
Parity. Major League Baseball pays lip service to the idea that every team starts the season with a legitimate chance to win it all, but when it comes to the NFL, most fans can find a reason to believe that their team really does have a shot, or that, if it doesn’t, it’s because of bad personnel decisions and not because the team can’t compete for players.
A potential problem arises because local team revenue, while not shared, does factor into the money considered when the salary cap is set. The more money brought in by, say, the Dallas Cowboys, the more the salary cap goes up, along with the percentage of revenue a smaller-market team has to devote to salaries.
It’s just another factor in the equation that makes revenue sharing, and whatever philosophy the league adopts to advance or impede it, the most crucial issue facing the NFL.
