The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

yupchagee wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

skinsfano28 wrote:it sounds as though yupchagee is opposed to logic as well.

the rookie salary cap would make the league just like any other business, and since players can be cut (fired) and signed (hired) on a whim or because of poor performance, it makes sense that a rookie (entry level, just out of college, has not proven himself in the workplace) ought to be paid less than someone who has proven themselves time and time again and is rock solid at their craft.

companies set aside money for their entry-level folks, its called a cap, they just don't put it that way. 34.75 mil to never even step on a football field is rigoddamdiculous.

I look at each ream as a business. Agreements among multiple businesses to limit what they will pay is colusion & forbidden by Federal law. Some kids right out of B-school get exorbitant salaries to start.

As do some kids right out of law school; but in both cases, it's less than people who are in the same firm and have more experience.

Look at the NFL as one giant firm. Paying a first year associate (Matt Ryan) in a lawfirm the same as you'd pay the senior partner (Peyton Manning) is just ridiculous.

But who should make those decisions? I say the team FO's.

But then you'd potentially end up with a lot more of the Eli doesn't want to play for the Chargers pre-trade machinations because team X pays their rookies more than team Y.

Fios wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

skinsfano28 wrote:it sounds as though yupchagee is opposed to logic as well.

the rookie salary cap would make the league just like any other business, and since players can be cut (fired) and signed (hired) on a whim or because of poor performance, it makes sense that a rookie (entry level, just out of college, has not proven himself in the workplace) ought to be paid less than someone who has proven themselves time and time again and is rock solid at their craft.

companies set aside money for their entry-level folks, its called a cap, they just don't put it that way. 34.75 mil to never even step on a football field is rigoddamdiculous.

I look at each ream as a business. Agreements among multiple businesses to limit what they will pay is colusion & forbidden by Federal law. Some kids right out of B-school get exorbitant salaries to start.

As do some kids right out of law school; but in both cases, it's less than people who are in the same firm and have more experience.

Look at the NFL as one giant firm. Paying a first year associate (Matt Ryan) in a lawfirm the same as you'd pay the senior partner (Peyton Manning) is just ridiculous.

But who should make those decisions? I say the team FO's.

But then you'd potentially end up with a lot more of the Eli doesn't want to play for the Chargers pre-trade machinations because team X pays their rookies more than team Y.

I previously said:

I am also philosophically opposed to the team cap & for that matter to the draft.

GM's & owners would have to do a good job of determing the value of players. What's wrong with that?

Because it would still come down to a "fair market value" scenario based on comparable sales, which, without question, would skyrocket and only the wealthiest of franchises, or owners, could afford the best players. The salary cap, the draft and free agency was instituted for more equity and balance in the league, which is far more enjoyable to fans, as opposed to one or two of the richest teams always getting the best players and winning all the time.

yupchagee wrote:GM's & owners would have to do a good job of determing the value of players. What's wrong with that?

Player Agents. To have it your way they would have to eliminate the draft because if an owner says I'm only paying X, and the player agent says he isn't playing unless he gets x+1, where does that leave the team? Without a draft pick. And, under the current CBA, without any options.

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:GM's & owners would have to do a good job of determing the value of players. What's wrong with that?

Player Agents. To have it your way they would have to eliminate the draft because if an owner says I'm only paying X, and the player agent says he isn't playing unless he gets x+1, where does that leave the team? Without a draft pick. And, under the current CBA, without any options.

I previously said: Quote:
I am also philosophically opposed to the team cap & for that matter to the draft.

yupchagee wrote:
GM's & owners would have to do a good job of determing the value of players. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that if that were the only determining value of a player's worth.

Agents have added value to arbitrary items having nothing to do with the player's actual NFL ability.

Player Agent wrote:Our player was taken in the first round, 6th overall, at x-position. He was the first player of his position picked, and the first in that position last year made x-amount. The player picked 5th made y-amount, so my player is worth z-amount and if we don't get it we will refuse to play for your team.

Now, if we refuse to play, you can't go back and change your mind about whom you would like to pick instead...the draft is over. It's us or nobody. You obviously need a player at our position, and if you don't pay us what we're asking you will go down in flames as the FO/GM who wouldn't spend to help his team.

It would be different if the FO/GM knew what they asking price of the player was before they drafted him, but they don't. They can't because a large percentage of what the player is asking for is based directly off where he was picked in the draft (1st, 3rd, 199th).

By the time you've risked your draft pick on him, the ball is entirely in the player's court.

Yes, Investment Bankers, and Doctors make a lot of money straight out of college, but they never make more than the President of the firm, or the Chief Resident of the Hospital. They never make more than any of the other people who have been working there in comparable positions.

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:GM's & owners would have to do a good job of determing the value of players. What's wrong with that?

Player Agents. To have it your way they would have to eliminate the draft because if an owner says I'm only paying X, and the player agent says he isn't playing unless he gets x+1, where does that leave the team? Without a draft pick. And, under the current CBA, without any options.

I previously said: Quote:
I am also philosophically opposed to the team cap & for that matter to the draft.

All Redskins fans should be opposed to the salary cap. Since the advent of the salary cap, the Skins haven't done too well. I have no idea what they would do to replace the draft, though. I can't think of another fair way of distributing the college prospects.

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:GM's & owners would have to do a good job of determing the value of players. What's wrong with that?

Player Agents. To have it your way they would have to eliminate the draft because if an owner says I'm only paying X, and the player agent says he isn't playing unless he gets x+1, where does that leave the team? Without a draft pick. And, under the current CBA, without any options.

I previously said: Quote:
I am also philosophically opposed to the team cap & for that matter to the draft.

All Redskins fans should be opposed to the salary cap. Since the advent of the salary cap, the Skins haven't done too well. I have no idea what they would do to replace the draft, though. I can't think of another fair way of distributing the college prospects.

Same way other competing businesses distribute workers.

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:GM's & owners would have to do a good job of determing the value of players. What's wrong with that?

Player Agents. To have it your way they would have to eliminate the draft because if an owner says I'm only paying X, and the player agent says he isn't playing unless he gets x+1, where does that leave the team? Without a draft pick. And, under the current CBA, without any options.

I previously said: Quote:
I am also philosophically opposed to the team cap & for that matter to the draft.

All Redskins fans should be opposed to the salary cap. Since the advent of the salary cap, the Skins haven't done too well. I have no idea what they would do to replace the draft, though. I can't think of another fair way of distributing the college prospects.

Same way other competing businesses distribute workers.

OK, In your way, whats to stop the Cowboys from buying up all the good talent for crazy money, before the Skins even get a chance????????????

What's to stop them from buying up everybody in the first and/or second round??????? With no salary cap either?????????????

We would be stuck with the same players we have, or the guys the other teams release. How would every team be able to compete a high level???

The anwer is they wouldn't be able to. One team, like the yankies would dominate every year, football would get boring, and we would have no hope(if we were a poor team) of ever winning a SB again. That would be a wonderfull world of football. One team winning every year. All the Stars on only one team. Who would need the Pro-bowl? or SuperBowl or really why even watch or even be a fan at that point?

BnGhog wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:GM's & owners would have to do a good job of determing the value of players. What's wrong with that?

Player Agents. To have it your way they would have to eliminate the draft because if an owner says I'm only paying X, and the player agent says he isn't playing unless he gets x+1, where does that leave the team? Without a draft pick. And, under the current CBA, without any options.

I previously said: Quote:
I am also philosophically opposed to the team cap & for that matter to the draft.

All Redskins fans should be opposed to the salary cap. Since the advent of the salary cap, the Skins haven't done too well. I have no idea what they would do to replace the draft, though. I can't think of another fair way of distributing the college prospects.

Same way other competing businesses distribute workers.

OK, In your way, whats to stop the Cowboys from buying up all the good talent for crazy money, before the Skins even get a chance????????????

What's to stop them from buying up everybody in the first and/or second round??????? With no salary cap either?????????????

We would be stuck with the same players we have, or the guys the other teams release. How would every team be able to compete a high level???

The anwer is they wouldn't be able to. One team, like the yankies would dominate every year, football would get boring, and we would have no hope(if we were a poor team) of ever winning a SB again. That would be a wonderfull world of football. One team winning every year. All the Stars on only one team. Who would need the Pro-bowl? or SuperBowl or really why even watch or even be a fan at that point?

All the owners would have to compete for talent, just like any other business. I don't recall seeing any NFL owners waiting in lines at soup kitchens.

Let's be realistic. There is no chance of the NFL eliminating the draft. I do, however, have a solution for eliminating the salary cap and still keeping player salaries within reason.

The only way to satisfy both the owners and the NFLPA is to have a guaranteed flat salary for all players based upon tenure, and to have performance-based incentives that are paid when actually earned. The CBA needs to eliminate the B.S., such as signing and roster bonuses, bonuses for still breathing, etc.
That way the players who make the plays are rewarded, regardless of whether they are veterans or rookies.
The NFL is a "What Have You Done For Me Lately?" business. So, in reality, nobody gives a crap about what Brady, Wayne, Tomlinson, Allen, Willis, Cromartie, et. al. did last season.

The NFL pays every week or every two weeks, just like most other employers. So, players who perform would see the results in their next paycheck. Kind of like those bonuses and commissions some of us break our tails to earn.

Think about this for a minute: Your employer doesn't care if you've had ten consecutive years of improved work. If you have a bad year after ten consecutive good ones, your employer is going to want to know what is going on? Did you lose interest in giving your best effort? Is there a "Rookie" at considerably less expense who should be considered for your position? Would fresh talent with fresh ideas meet the company's goals? The one's you've met every year except this one.

The above is also true in the NFL. Just because a player has been a performer his entire career doesn't guarantee him anything. One bad season and ownership is asking the same questions as any other employer.

The NFL is no different from any other business. The player agents and the players sell the NFL players as entertainers. The NFL owners buy and sell NFL players as a commodity, to be paid for services rendered.

Performance-Based Contracts would satisfy the Owners. Salary Scale based upon Tenure would satisfy the NFLPA, particularly the veteran players. Elimination of the B.S. incentives from the CBA would satisfy everyone except the player agents. But neither the Owners nor the Players Association really care about the player agents. Those same player agents that represent the seasoned, performing veterans are the ones negotiating the even more ridiculous contracts for the rookies. So, most of the veteran players are at least as disgusted with their agent as they are with anything else about the current CBA.

Let's be realistic. There is no chance of the NFL eliminating the draft. I do, however, have a solution for eliminating the salary cap and still keeping player salaries within reason.

I know, but I can still wax philosophical, can't I?

yupchagee wrote:

Let's be realistic. There is no chance of the NFL eliminating the draft. I do, however, have a solution for eliminating the salary cap and still keeping player salaries within reason.

I know, but I can still wax philosophical, can't I?

You can wax anything you like, just do it privately.

Seriously, from a business perspective, the NFL Owners aren't making anywhere near the Profit most people seem to think they are making.
The current CBA stipulates that every team must spend a minimum of 57.5% of Projected Total Revenue on player salaries. And that teams may spend no more than 61.68% of Projected Total Revenue on player salaries.

The Projected Total Revenue per NFL Franchise is $208 Million.
Teams must spend a minimum of $119,600,000.00 on player salary.
Teams may spend a maximum of $128,294,400.00 on player salary.
Teams must spend an average of $2,657,777.77 per player to meet the minimum under the current CBA.
Teams may spend an average of $2,850,986.66 per player to reach the maximum.
The average NFL team spent 59.5% of Projected Total Revenue on team salary last season.
59.5% equals $123,760,000.00 per team or $2,750,222.22 per player.
That is $171,888.88 per player per game. Or one might say "per hour."

Subtracting the average 59.5% of $123,760,000.00 from the Projected Total Revenue of $208,000,000.00 leaves $84,240,000.00.
Further subtracting salaries of Front Office personnel and Coaching Staff, Lease Payments, Stadium Tax, City Tax, County Tax, State Tax, Federal Tax, Utilities, non-essential team and stadium personnel, Security, etc. probably cuts that $84,240,000.00 in half. Subtract shareholder dividends and that number is likely cut in half yet again.

I think it was already posted that the Redskins lead the NFL in Profit.
The Redskins are also one of the very few teams that own the Stadium, so that undoubtedly saves Dan Snyder between $50 Million and $100 Million per year that many other teams are paying for their stadiums.

Most NFL Franchises are operating at a loss.
And the Salary Cap percentage was to have gone up .50% to 58% under the current CBA while the Cap Number was to have gone up .36%, thereby eliminating small profit margins and shrinking large ones.

It isn't the owners who are greedy. It is the NFLPA. No group of 45 people is worth an average of $171,888.00 per person per hour unless they are curing every form of disease known to mankind.

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

Let's be realistic. There is no chance of the NFL eliminating the draft. I do, however, have a solution for eliminating the salary cap and still keeping player salaries within reason.

I know, but I can still wax philosophical, can't I?

You can wax anything you like, just do it privately.

Seriously, from a business perspective, the NFL Owners aren't making anywhere near the Profit most people seem to think they are making.
The current CBA stipulates that every team must spend a minimum of 57.5% of Projected Total Revenue on player salaries. And that teams may spend no more than 61.68% of Projected Total Revenue on player salaries.

The Projected Total Revenue per NFL Franchise is $208 Million.
Teams must spend a minimum of $119,600,000.00 on player salary.
Teams may spend a maximum of $128,294,400.00 on player salary.
Teams must spend an average of $2,657,777.77 per player to meet the minimum under the current CBA.
Teams may spend an average of $2,850,986.66 per player to reach the maximum.
The average NFL team spent 59.5% of Projected Total Revenue on team salary last season.
59.5% equals $123,760,000.00 per team or $2,750,222.22 per player.
That is $171,888.88 per player per game. Or one might say "per hour."

Subtracting the average 59.5% of $123,760,000.00 from the Projected Total Revenue of $208,000,000.00 leaves $84,240,000.00.
Further subtracting salaries of Front Office personnel and Coaching Staff, Lease Payments, Stadium Tax, City Tax, County Tax, State Tax, Federal Tax, Utilities, non-essential team and stadium personnel, Security, etc. probably cuts that $84,240,000.00 in half. Subtract shareholder dividends and that number is likely cut in half yet again.

I think it was already posted that the Redskins lead the NFL in Profit.
The Redskins are also one of the very few teams that own the Stadium, so that undoubtedly saves Dan Snyder between $50 Million and $100 Million per year that many other teams are paying for their stadiums.

Most NFL Franchises are operating at a loss.
And the Salary Cap percentage was to have gone up .50% to 58% under the current CBA while the Cap Number was to have gone up .36%, thereby eliminating small profit margins and shrinking large ones.

It isn't the owners who are greedy. It is the NFLPA. No group of 45 people is worth an average of $171,888.00 per person per hour unless they are curing every form of disease known to mankind.

I haven't checked their books, but I know that when a franchise goes on the market, it always brings in 9 figures. Now either they are profitable or a lot of people who have managed to make a lot of money are very stupid when it comes to money.

yupchagee wrote:I haven't checked their books, but I know that when a franchise goes on the market, it always brings in 9 figures. Now either they are profitable or a lot of people who have managed to make a lot of money are very stupid when it comes to money.

To my knowledge, only one NFL franchise is valued at ten figures. The selling price is only as high as anyone is willing to pay in any case. But to suggest that because a team sells for nine figures means that the owners have that much personal wealth is inaccurate. Very few, if any NFL teams, have a single owner. Most have a majority owner, several minority owners and silent partners.

The other problem with that logic is that an owner would be obligated to sell portions of ownership in the team to meet payroll. Companies don't last long by selling off assets to meet payroll.

Washington Redskins NFL Daniel Snyder $1.1 billion

Dallas Cowboys NFL Jerry Jones $923 million

Houston Texans NFL Robert McNair $905 million

New England Patriots NFL Robert Kraft $861 million

Philadelphia Eagles NFL Jeffrey Lurie $833 million

Denver Broncos NFL Pat Bowlen $815 million

Cleveland Browns NFL Randy Lerner $798 million

Chicago Bears NFL McCaskey Family $785 million

Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL Malcolm Glazer $779 million

Baltimore Ravens NFL Steve Bisciotti $776 million

Miami Dolphins NFL Wayne Huizenga $765 million

Carolina Panthers NFL Jerry Richardson $760 million

Green Bay Packers NFL Public $756 million

Detroit Lions NFL William Ford $747 million

Tennessee Titans NFL Bud Adams $736 million

New York Yankees MLB George Steinbrenner $730 million

Pittsburgh Steelers NFL Dan Rooney $717 million

Seattle Seahawks NFL Paul Allen $712 million

Kansas City Chiefs NFL Lamar Hunt $709 million

St. Louis Rams NFL Georgia Frontiere $708 million

New York Giants NFL W. Mara/P. Tisch $692 million

Jacksonville Jaguars NFL Wayne Weaver $688 million

New York Jets NFL Woody Johnson $685 million

Cincinnati Bengals NFL Mike Brown $675 million

Buffalo Bills NFL Ralph Wilson Jr. $637 million

San Francisco 49ers NFL Denise DeBartolo York $636 million

New Orleans Saints NFL Tom Benson $627 million

Oakland Raiders NFL Al Davis $624 million

San Diego Chargers NFL Alex Spanos $622 million

Indianapolis Colts NFL Jim Irsay $609 million

Minnesota Vikings NFL Red McCombs $604 million

Atlanta Falcons NFL Arthur Blank $603 million

Arizona Cardinals NFL Bill Bidwell $552 million

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

$208 Million is roughly 19% of The Redskins $1.1 Billion.
$208 Million is roughly 38% of The Arizona Cardinals $552 Million value.
Every other franchise is somewhere in between.

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:I haven't checked their books, but I know that when a franchise goes on the market, it always brings in 9 figures. Now either they are profitable or a lot of people who have managed to make a lot of money are very stupid when it comes to money.

To my knowledge, only one NFL franchise is valued at ten figures. The selling price is only as high as anyone is willing to pay in any case. But to suggest that because a team sells for nine figures means that the owners have that much personal wealth is inaccurate. Very few, if any NFL teams, have a single owner. Most have a majority owner, several minority owners and silent partners.

The other problem with that logic is that an owner would be obligated to sell portions of ownership in the team to meet payroll. Companies don't last long by selling off assets to meet payroll.

Washington Redskins NFL Daniel Snyder $1.1 billion

Dallas Cowboys NFL Jerry Jones $923 million

Houston Texans NFL Robert McNair $905 million

New England Patriots NFL Robert Kraft $861 million

Philadelphia Eagles NFL Jeffrey Lurie $833 million

Denver Broncos NFL Pat Bowlen $815 million

Cleveland Browns NFL Randy Lerner $798 million

Chicago Bears NFL McCaskey Family $785 million

Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL Malcolm Glazer $779 million

Baltimore Ravens NFL Steve Bisciotti $776 million

Miami Dolphins NFL Wayne Huizenga $765 million

Carolina Panthers NFL Jerry Richardson $760 million

Green Bay Packers NFL Public $756 million

Detroit Lions NFL William Ford $747 million

Tennessee Titans NFL Bud Adams $736 million

New York Yankees MLB George Steinbrenner $730 million

Pittsburgh Steelers NFL Dan Rooney $717 million

Seattle Seahawks NFL Paul Allen $712 million

Kansas City Chiefs NFL Lamar Hunt $709 million

St. Louis Rams NFL Georgia Frontiere $708 million

New York Giants NFL W. Mara/P. Tisch $692 million

Jacksonville Jaguars NFL Wayne Weaver $688 million

New York Jets NFL Woody Johnson $685 million

Cincinnati Bengals NFL Mike Brown $675 million

Buffalo Bills NFL Ralph Wilson Jr. $637 million

San Francisco 49ers NFL Denise DeBartolo York $636 million

New Orleans Saints NFL Tom Benson $627 million

Oakland Raiders NFL Al Davis $624 million

San Diego Chargers NFL Alex Spanos $622 million

Indianapolis Colts NFL Jim Irsay $609 million

Minnesota Vikings NFL Red McCombs $604 million

Atlanta Falcons NFL Arthur Blank $603 million

Arizona Cardinals NFL Bill Bidwell $552 million

http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/forbes.html

$208 Million is roughly 19% of The Redskins $1.1 Billion.
$208 Million is roughly 38% of The Arizona Cardinals $552 Million value.
Every other franchise is somewhere in between.

Nothing wrong with my logic. my points are:
1) Those who own teams have a lot of money.
2) They did not get that way being stupid when it comes to money.
3) They are willing to value franchises at hundreds of millions of dollars.
4) It would be stupid to pay that much for a business that always lost money.
Therefore, these teams, contrary to what owners want us to believe, are not losing money.

yupchagee wrote:Nothing wrong with my logic. my points are:
1) Those who own teams have a lot of money.
2) They did not get that way being stupid when it comes to money.
3) They are willing to value franchises at hundreds of millions of dollars.
4) It would be stupid to pay that much for a business that always lost money.
Therefore, these teams, contrary to what owners want us to believe, are not losing money.

the value of football teams is highly inflated given the amount of earnings. The mean team operating income in the NFL is $17.8 million, which is only a 1.85% return on the $950 million average market value. Put another way, the “enterprise value ratio” of the average team is over 50 (950 divided by 17.. Typically, publicly traded businesses are around 10.

http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com ... casso.html

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Nothing wrong with my logic. my points are:
1) Those who own teams have a lot of money.
2) They did not get that way being stupid when it comes to money.
3) They are willing to value franchises at hundreds of millions of dollars.
4) It would be stupid to pay that much for a business that always lost money.
Therefore, these teams, contrary to what owners want us to believe, are not losing money.

the value of football teams is highly inflated given the amount of earnings. The mean team operating income in the NFL is $17.8 million, which is only a 1.85% return on the $950 million average market value. Put another way, the “enterprise value ratio” of the average team is over 50 (950 divided by 17.. Typically, publicly traded businesses are around 10.

http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com ... casso.html

So you're saying that the people who have bought these teams ARE stupid when it comes to money? I suspect that they have more than 1 set of books. Noone outside the organisation ever sees the books that tell the truth.

FYI GSPODS, that list of franchise value is greatly outdated.

As of 2007, Forbes valued the Cowboys at 1.5 billion.

The NFL is the richest sports league in the world, with the average team worth some $957 million. And the Dallas Cowboys, the most valuable team in the NFL, are now the single most valuable sports franchise on the planet, worth $1.5 billion.

But there is no reason to pity the other 31 owners. The NFL is still the richest sports league in the world (the average team is worth $957 million, 7% more than last year) as well as the most profitable (mean operating income in 2006 was $17.8 million on $204 million in revenue).

It's the richest AND most profitable sports league in the world. The average franchise is 957 million.

While I agree that the NFLPA also is greedy, NFL owners are making a ton of money. Don't feel too bad for them.

PulpExposure wrote:FYI GSPODS, that list of franchise value is greatly outdated.

As of 2007, Forbes valued the Cowboys at 1.5 billion.

The NFL is the richest sports league in the world, with the average team worth some $957 million. And the Dallas Cowboys, the most valuable team in the NFL, are now the single most valuable sports franchise on the planet, worth $1.5 billion.

But there is no reason to pity the other 31 owners. The NFL is still the richest sports league in the world (the average team is worth $957 million, 7% more than last year) as well as the most profitable (mean operating income in 2006 was $17.8 million on $204 million in revenue).

It's the richest AND most profitable sports league in the world. The average franchise is 957 million.

While I agree that the NFLPA also is greedy, NFL owners are making a ton of money. Don't feel too bad for them.

The mean operating income is 1.8% of the franchise value. There are the haves and the have-nots but for profit businesses normally fold with a profit margin that small. It's all relative, but the $17.8 Million is equal to the salary of two or three players on most teams. How long do you suppose it takes an owner to break even on the investment of $957 Million when he is only making $17.8 Million per year back? 50 Years? How many owners are even around that long? Half that long?

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:FYI GSPODS, that list of franchise value is greatly outdated.

As of 2007, Forbes valued the Cowboys at 1.5 billion.

The NFL is the richest sports league in the world, with the average team worth some $957 million. And the Dallas Cowboys, the most valuable team in the NFL, are now the single most valuable sports franchise on the planet, worth $1.5 billion.

But there is no reason to pity the other 31 owners. The NFL is still the richest sports league in the world (the average team is worth $957 million, 7% more than last year) as well as the most profitable (mean operating income in 2006 was $17.8 million on $204 million in revenue).

It's the richest AND most profitable sports league in the world. The average franchise is 957 million.

While I agree that the NFLPA also is greedy, NFL owners are making a ton of money. Don't feel too bad for them.

The mean operating income is 1.8% of the franchise value. There are the haves and the have-nots but for profit businesses normally fold with a profit margin that small. It's all relative, but the $17.8 Million is equal to the salary of two or three players on most teams. How long do you suppose it takes an owner to break even on the investment of $957 Million when he is only making $17.8 Million per year back? 50 Years? How many owners are even around that long? Half that long?

Were that true, they would be stupid to pay so much. I don't think they are stupid.

GSPODS wrote:The mean operating income is 1.8% of the franchise value. There are the haves and the have-nots but for profit businesses normally fold with a profit margin that small.

In what world does profit margin = operating income/business value?

Profit Margin = Net Income/Net Sales Revenue. Of course,

The profit margin is mostly used for internal comparison. It is difficult to accurately compare the net profit ratio for different entities. Individual businesses' operating and financing arrangements vary so much that different entities are bound to have different levels of expenditure, so that comparison of one with another can have little meaning.

More relevant and useful is Operating Margin which is Operating Income/Revenue.

I even provided the figures in the quote to you:

The NFL is still the richest sports league in the world (the average team is worth $957 million, 7% more than last year) as well as the most profitable (mean operating income in 2006 was $17.8 million on $204 million in revenue).

That's nearly 9%. Defense companies who contract with the US Government are limited statutorily to 10%. Yeah, it's not the 25% you see Pfizer running away with (and basically that's only the big brand-name Pharma companies, most generic makers are in the single digits), but the average NFL franchise does quite well.

It's all relative, but the $17.8 Million is equal to the salary of two or three players on most teams. How long do you suppose it takes an owner to break even on the investment of $957 Million when he is only making $17.8 Million per year back? 50 Years? How many owners are even around that long? Half that long?

Somehow they survive, and they've made the NFL the most profitable sports league in the world. If the NFL is struggling so much, I can't imagine how, say, baseball survives.