Schefter: Revenue loss could potentially lead to lower salary cap

[1of10Charnatives]

5 minutes ago, Anybodyhome said:

The NFL's current TV contract doesn't expire until 2022. That contract accounts for about 50% of the NFL's revenue stream. Unless that contract were suddenly null and voided due to exigent circumstances, the numbers simply don't support a cap reduction. 

Are you saying that a 50% reduction in revenue (if the TV money is half, it's a pretty safe bet the other half is getting mostly hammered right now into virtual nonexistence.) wouldn't justify ANY reduction in the salary cap? That seems patently absurd. If there is no season this year, an outcome entirely possible at this juncture, it seems likely that not only will all gate receipt and the vast majority of ancillary revenues (how many unemployed bartenders do you see buying jerseys of their favorite team that isn't even playing?) go up in smoke, but the networks on the other side of those tv deals will seek to have their payouts reduced in some fashion since the NFL cannot produce the product they are for. A reduced season of fewer games could also have a corresponding effect.

I think it's entirely possible that there could be a cap reduction due to the COVID 19 impact. If there is and players pitch a fit about it, it won't look good.

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, Billy Love said:

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. It would be a bad decision for everyone involved if the NFL owners make this move.

Debatable, but notice I didn't speak to what NFL owners should do, merely what they can do, and what the law should uphold. I have many reasons not to be particulary fond of NFL owners. To me, enforcing relevant CBA clauses as is their right under a fairly negotiated contract would rank far behind any number of other considerations. Why negotiate something into a contract in the unlikely event of extreme circumstances, and then when extreme and unlikely circumstances occur, decline to exercise your own rights simply because some people think you shouldn't?

The salary cap is based upon a percentage of total league revenues because players have long insisted as imo they rightfully should, that their collective share of the pie should be based on total revenues from the sport they play. That's a pretty fair and equitable approach. If that pie is temporarily greatly diminished due to extreme circumstances like COVID 19, it seems only fair to me that players also bear some burden of decreased revenues.

[Billy Love]

Have ever heard the old adage: “can’t see the forest for the trees”.

I’m not arguing the legality of it. If the NFL has this option in fine print of the CBA agreement then they legally have the right to exercise that option if they choose. And millions of fans can exercise their right to not watch or buy tickets too. So who wins? NFL owners reduce their short term labor costs, yes. But risk long term fan popularity future growth and revenue.
 

 

[1of10Charnatives]

6 minutes ago, Billy Love said:

Have ever heard the old adage: “can’t see the forest for the trees”.

I’m not arguing the legality of it. If the NFL has this option in fine print of the CBA agreement then they legally have the right to exercise that option if they choose. And millions of fans can exercise their right to not watch or buy tickets too. So who wins? NFL owners reduce their short term labor costs, yes. But risk long term fan popularity future growth and revenue.
 

 

So your contention is that if NFL players pitch a fit about salary reductions due to perfectly contractually valid salary cap reductions, that a majority of fans will view this negatively towards owners and this will lead to negative business consequences for them long term?

Possible, but imo on the list of things owners do or don't do that risk alienating fans and leading to long term brand damage and decreased revenue, this is further down the list than you seem to think.

[Billy Love]

7 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

So your contention is that if NFL players pitch a fit about salary reductions due to perfectly contractually valid salary cap reductions, that a majority of fans will view this negatively towards owners and this will lead to negative business consequences for them long term?

Possible, but imo on the list of things owners do or don't do that risk alienating fans and leading to long term brand damage and decreased revenue, this is further down the list than you seem to think.

I think good businesses look after their employees and customers during difficult times. Those who do, stand a better chance of sustainable success over those who don’t. 

[1of10Charnatives]

4 minutes ago, Billy Love said:

I think good businesses look after their employees and customers during difficult times. Those who do, stand a better chance of sustainable success over those who don’t. 

True, but professional sports, as de facto monopolies, sort of fall under different rules. You might hate your coke dealer, but if you're an addict, you're still coming back even if he's a dbag, especially if he's the only supply where you live. It would take an awful lot for us as a country to stop being addicted to the NFL, and I say that fully self aware that I should be going to meetings somewhere with a name tag on my shirt while sipping bad coffee. Could a bad move on this by owners be one more little thing that moves us all closer to deciding we don't really need to spend our Sundays in the fall worshipping at Our Lady of Legalized Blunt Force Trauma?

Maybe.

But right here right now I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

By the way could you pass me that needle and rubber bands?

Offseason suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

[stbugs]

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Under that situation, I could honestly see some star players saying "See ya in '22 then!" and some aging stars simply hanging up the cleats a year early.

And yet we’d likely still keep paying Short. 

[Billy Love]

1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

True, but professional sports, as de facto monopolies, sort of fall under different rules. You might hate your coke dealer, but if you're an addict, you're still coming back even if he's a dbag, especially if he's the only supply where you live. It would take an awful lot for us as a country to stop being addicted to the NFL, and I say that fully self aware that I should be going to meetings somewhere with a name tag on my shirt while sipping bad coffee. Could a bad move on this by owners be one more little thing that moves us all closer to deciding we don't really need to spend our Sundays in the fall worshipping at Our Lady of Legalized Blunt Force Trauma?

Maybe.

But right here right now I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

By the way could you pass me that needle and rubber bands?

Offseason suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

I’ve enjoyed our debate, as you’ve made some very valid points. I can only hope we have an entertaining and competitive 2020 NFL season to enjoy. I tip my hat to you sir.

[Woodie]

1 hour ago, thefuzz said:

@Woodie

This was exactly what I was warning about when talking about the cap going up to make CMC's deal seem better in a couple years.

You CAN look at it that way, but the cap stalling, or even going down isn't unheard of, and we may be seeing it again....key word MAY.

 

I get what you were saying, and understood it at the time.  But it was always a worst case scenario that was unlikely.  Teams cannot run their organizations out of fear for what might happen...especially when nobody thinks it will.  They can only make decisions based on the anticipated situation, which was that the salary cap was likely to make a significant jump once the new TV deal kicks in.  

Any time you make a big investment you assume a certain amount of risk, but sometimes you just have to do what is right for the organization based on the likely outcomes.  And lets be clear here, this is only a possibility.  There is still a lot of things that will have to happen for it to come to pass.  Also, there is a huge amount of sensationalizing going on here.  Right now everyone is looking for a story to keep themselves relevant, and this is Schefter's headline attention grabber...despite the fact that in-stadium attendance won't really effect the tv deal (which is where much of the salary cap jump was going to come from).  

Bottom line, it is very unlikely that the NFL could convince the NFLPA to absorb that much of the league's losses (if they even lose that much, which is definitely no given).  This sounds more like some teams trying to hyperbolize potential losses in an effort to pass the buck and find any way not to take the losses on themselves.  

[MMA]

And then the NFL fug us again

[bigdavis]

I've read 4 pages of arguments on this subject, and all are centered on which of 2 entities takes the hit -- owners or players.

Yet there's a 3rd possibility that must be considered:

the taxpayer.

If the Cruise Industry ( which can be viewed as  far less important  and 'essential' to the average American citizen) can get Federal bailout money (Billions), then the NFL might make a plea for similar relief.

[Riverboat Ron]

As a rich American I endorse taxing the middle and lower classes an extra 50% to cover player salaries. Don't tax me though, I'm a job creator that trickles down money to the plebs.

[Ornias]

New Orleans would have to disband if this happened.

[thefuzz]

18 hours ago, Woodie said:

I get what you were saying, and understood it at the time.  But it was always a worst case scenario that was unlikely.  Teams cannot run their organizations out of fear for what might happen...especially when nobody thinks it will.  They can only make decisions based on the anticipated situation, which was that the salary cap was likely to make a significant jump once the new TV deal kicks in.  

Any time you make a big investment you assume a certain amount of risk, but sometimes you just have to do what is right for the organization based on the likely outcomes.  And lets be clear here, this is only a possibility.  There is still a lot of things that will have to happen for it to come to pass.  Also, there is a huge amount of sensationalizing going on here.  Right now everyone is looking for a story to keep themselves relevant, and this is Schefter's headline attention grabber...despite the fact that in-stadium attendance won't really effect the tv deal (which is where much of the salary cap jump was going to come from).  

Bottom line, it is very unlikely that the NFL could convince the NFLPA to absorb that much of the league's losses (if they even lose that much, which is definitely no given).  This sounds more like some teams trying to hyperbolize potential losses in an effort to pass the buck and find any way not to take the losses on themselves.  

My entire point in that thread and this one....is you cannot justify the CMC contract by saying that the salary cap IS going to go up, or WILL go up.  You have to HOPE it goes up.

I'm just saying I don't like when people use that specific example to try to justify a salary....because it HAS got us in the ass before.  Likelihood?  Not likely, but if could happen.