If you're wondering how hard the battle lines are going to be drawn in the coming CBA negotiations between the NFL and its players, union, look no further than this spin-heavy news item. The Green Bay Packers released financial information that shows a $20.1 million profit for the fiscal year that ended March 31, and Packers CEO Mark Murphy used the occasion to cry poverty.Players union head DeMaurice Smith has called on NFL owners to release audited financial statements to support their claim that they're struggling financially. The owners have so far refused, but the Packers, as a publicly owned franchise, are the one franchise that has no choice in the matter. Their financial information shows an increase in total revenue from $241 million to $247.9 million.
More Coverage: Rodgers Takes the High Road
But as Murphy told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, NFL owners don't seem to think their revenue is growing fast enough to cope with the growth of players' salaries, which Murphy says increased by $14 million in the same time period:
"The current system looks at total revenue and doesn't recognize the cost the owners incur to generate that revenue," Murphy said. "You invest in new stadiums, incur a huge annual debt service and there's no credit for that. That's a big flaw in the system."The numbers the Packers released, as outlined in the Journal-Sentinel story, show the Packers' national revenue from the NFL up to $147.1 million (including $94.5 million in national TV revenue) from $135 million ($87 million from TV) the year before. It shows a drop in local revenue from $105 million to $100.8 million and a drop in "Marketing, Pro Shop and Atrium Revenue" from $50.2 million to $43.7 million. But as pointed out in the story, much of the local revenue drop is likely attributable to the facts that the team went 6-10 and longtime franchise icon and marketing magnet Brett Favre was no longer its quarterback.
"Despite the tough economic conditions, team officials emphasized that it would have no impact on the franchise's football operations. 'We have placed no restriction on football in terms of what they need to be successful,' Murphy said. 'We are continuing to provide them all of the resources they need to sign players and be competitive on the field.'Smith told FanHouse last week that early talks with the league have convinced him of an intent on the part of owners to lock the players out in 2011 in an effort to alter a collective bargaining structure that currently allots nearly 60 percent of league revenues to players. Part of the reason the union believes this is that the newly extended TV deals the league has with national networks will pay off even if there are no games that season. The Packers' "piggy-bank" concept would seem to feed into the notion that the owners would not only survive but could potentially make money in the event of a lockout.
At the same time, the team is sound financially, team officials said. The Packers' Preservation Fund, a piggy-bank of sorts for the franchise, remains at $127.5 million."
Regardless, the Packers' financial information doesn't do a lot to support the owners' claim that they're in any kind of desperate financial straits. If anything, it suggests that they're just not making quite as much money as they're all used to making.
Join the club, fellas.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-21-2009 @ 3:41PM
autumnwriter said...
It doesn't matter what the owners' pprofits are, NFL players' salaries (as well as other pro athletes')are far too high and it is for this reason that so many of them are in trouble with the law, on drugs, steroids and engaging in any other immoral act one could think of. It's the fault of TV and its advertising dollars, and of course the fans, who put up with it.
Reply
6-21-2009 @ 5:08PM
lrreamon said...
Its folks like autumnwriter that NFL owners count on to make the false argument that its the players salaries that are "outta control", meanwhile the billionaire owners who use public funds to build those same stadiums and fund operations get a pass.
Reply
6-21-2009 @ 6:39PM
Tom said...
The players's salaries ARE out of control and and if you look at a professional sports organization's total profit compared to a CEO's compensation of 2 to 3 times that for underperforming companies, I would say things are out of kilter. Investors, company workers, taxpayers and sports fans get the dirty end stick every time.
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 1:06AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
1. Player salaries are fine. as long people tune in, buy merchandise and come to games then the salaries make sense.
2. Owners, like any business owner, want max profit. This is how business is set up.
3. People complaining about pay need to get their heads out of their butts.
About 1800 guys work for NFL on field. In return for that visible on-field work they help generate billions in revenue. Even if every team only turns 20 million in profit, that's 600 million total profit for the entire nfl. Players are overpaid? What? Can you claim that your efforts helped generate 20 million in PROFIT for your employer?
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 2:40PM
owendan30 said...
I don't have a problem with the Manning's, Brady's, L.T's, ect getting the huge money. They've earned it. I do have a big problem with the rookies getting the huge paydays when they haven't earned anything. The NFL absolutely needs a rookie salary cap. Other than that, the play is pretty fair I think.
Peace
Dan
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 2:42PM
Jimmie said...
20 million IS a lousy profit.. especially when you have to spend a quarter of a billion dollars to make it. In the business world, that's living paycheck to paycheck.
Reply
7-03-2009 @ 3:25PM
dazerwb said...
It's called a free market and it's the cornerstone of capitalism. If the players are the main reason their industry generates billions of dollars -- and they are, especially winning players -- then they should be appropriately compensated. If some of them misuse that money, the fault is theirs, not the system's.
Reply