The NFL Rich get Richer; the Chicago Bears are Rich
by Mike Mueller on Dec 16, 2009 10:00 AM CST
in Notes
Email
Print
The competitive balance in the NFL is maintained in several ways. The salary cap (& floor), draft, and revenue sharing program all help uncompetitive teams make dramatic turnarounds into contending teams. The negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) are likely going to drag on leading to an uncapped 2010 season. Kevin detailed what the implications of that mean to the NFL and especially the Bears.
Avoiding much mainstream attention is this story from the National Post in which the NFL:
will cut a $100 million annual supplemental revenue-sharing program that subsidizes lower-revenue teams.
That plan, which is a small portion of the $6.5 billion shared in full by all 32 teams, will be cut because the 2010 season will not have a salary cap.
What is the supplemental revenue-sharing program?
The program the league plans to terminate involves the top 15 revenue teams placing funds into a pool from which many of the lower income clubs can draw. It does not include television monies or box office revenues.
Nine franchises qualified to receive funds this year, although the league has not identified them.
I wonder who is in the top 15 in revenues, and has contributed to the fund?
Forbes link here on team valuations, sorted by revenues. So the Bears were 8th in 2008 in overall revenue at 241 million dollars. The Redskins were at the top earning 345 million, while the Lions were low man earning just 208 million. The Bears also ranked 8th in Operating Income (PROFIT!) at 41.6 million. The Redskins once again easily beat the field with operating income of 90.3 million. I wonder why they throw money at free agents every season? Easy answer: because they can.
Also of note, is that the Bears were 7th in revenues in 2007 (rev = 226 mil, oper income = 33.7 mil), and 8th in 2006 (rev=209 mil, oper income = 36.9 mil).
This supplemental revenue-sharing took money from the top 15 revenue earners, which the Bears are always a part. It allows lower earners to draw from that pool of money to, in theory, spend money on players.
Supplemental revenue sharing was a key demand of the NFL Players Association in the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement to help the lower-earning teams keep paying both up to the theoretical salary floor (and cap) and keep signing and paying players in free agency and the draft.
With this program terminated, the bottom revenue teams might sit this free agency period out, or at least scale back their spending. The top 15 earning teams will have extra cash to throw around. No excuses for the Bears. Either buy some players, or buy-off your current coaches so we can get some new ones.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good Information
So there’s no reason why the Bears can’t make a move on these inept group of coaches and GM based on productive and results, which for the last 3 years since the Super Bowl, missed the playoffs.
The decision to keep them for contractual reasons is nonsense, be it that this top earn club will have cash, which would have helped low earning teams, now in their pockets. So the money Lovie is owed is a waste, with the end of revenue sharing and top 10 in profit earnings. Therefore, make the fans happy with a quality coach and GM and I’m sure the Bears will move from 8th on Forbes list to at least 6th, on hype alone from a name like Cowher.
"there’s no reason why the Bears can’t make a move on these inept group of coaches and GM"
Except that Virginia McCaskey would be tossing millions of dollars down the drain to try and improve a team that likely won’t be close to contending next year. First off, it’s easy to say “oh, there making $41 million a year, so why can’t we spend a few more bucks on coaches?” Well it’s a lot harder to make that statement when the money’s coming out of your own wallet.
Second, there is no coach good enough to win a super bowl with this roster as currently constructed. There are just way too many holes. And seeing as we don’t have a 1st or 2nd round pick, and the coming free agent class is pretty weak, odds are we’re not gonna be significantly better next year. So bringing in new coaches for next year won’t make a damn bit of difference.
So what’s going to happen is that the Bears will go with Lovie and co. for one more lame-duck year, and then fire the coaches in 2011. You may not like it, but doing anything else would be moronic fiscally.
by Poloplaya14 on Dec 16, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
"So bringing in new coaches for next year won’t make a damn bit of difference."
Of course bring in new coaches next year can make a different, especially if the experienced coach is know (track record) to maximize player product. Furthermore, the new coach can accurately evaluate potential free agents, rookies, undrafted, veterans and walk-ons who can honestly help this team – plughole effectively. This coaching staff and GM has failed miserably with indentifying these players, so bring back the same guys and further cripple this team would be like leaving money on the stage of a strip club and walking away. This staff has failed to bring return to Virginia McCaskey investment. And for any investor, the plan is to bring in more money into the organization. We all know, "you have to spend money to make money". Our government is doing exactly that. The McCaskey’s could potentially move up the revenue chart by cutting ties with Lovie and then collecting a quality head coach – only if ownership gets the right man. Alone, a move like previously mentioned can breathe confidence throughout the fan base, in turn significant ROI for ownership.
I can say without certain that the Bears ownership is leaving money on the table. This city and team history is no different from Washington. However, the Redskin’s ownership constantly brings in talent, which drives the expectations of the fan base and more money into Synder’s pocket. Synder’s methods have been to spend money and based on evidence has made money.
If there's one team in the NFL I don't want the Bears to model themselves after...
It’d be the Browns, but the Redskins are pretty close behind.
The fact is we don’t have a 1st or 2nd rd pick. And there are no big difference-making free agents available this offseason. This team will not compete next year, and no changing coaches won’t change that.
by Poloplaya14 on Dec 16, 2009 11:43 PM CST up reply actions
It's helpful...
Because we will rely heavily on free agency this offseason, since we don’t have a 1st day draft pick. And we may make major organizational changes and pay out the remainder of contracts.
But… the Redskins and Cowboys will be driving the market, spending to compete against eachother (like the Yankees and Red Sox), and the Bears will be outbid on players they target.
Also, keep in mind that while the Bears are #7 or #8 in revenue, they have a stadium lease… unlike the Redskins and Cowboys who own their stadiums and don’t have to share that revenue… raking in bundles from parking, concessions, and tickets.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.
Also...
The Cowboys, through an agreement back in 2001 or 2002, are the sole distributor of all of their merchandise and apparel. I don’t know of any other teams that have a similar agreement. The Cowboys make more money on merchandise and apparel than any other team in the league because of that.
For example… when someone buys an Urlacher jersey, or a Bears hat, the Bears are sharing that revenue with the rest of the league. But, when someone buys a Romo jersey or a Cowboys hat, the Cowboys don’t have to share any of it!
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.
No doubt the Redskins and Cowboys will lead, but the Bears' should be right behind.
From Forbes:
The Bears have one of the best stadium deals in the NFL. The team pays $5.7 million a season in rent and gets all football-related revenue at Soldier Field. A big plus for the Bears: $35 million a season from premium seating. The Bears also have one of the leanest operations in the NFL, a tradition that started with the team’s founder, George Halas. As a result, the team should still make a fortune this season despite not increasing ticket prices.
by Mike Mueller on Dec 16, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions
Yes... it's a nice deal.
But I doesn’t compare wnywhre near the revenue that the Cowboys will make. When U2 comes into Dallas, Jerry Jones gets all that money. When U2 rolls into Chicago… the Chicago Park District gets that money. The big soccer games hosted at Soldier Field every summer… all to the Park District… when a college football game is hosted at Soldier Field… all to the Park District.
Cowboys Stadium is getting concerts, huge Texas college football games, the Cotton Bowl, UNC vs Texas NCAA basketball, the NBA All-Star game, and FELD Motor Sports.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.
Yes but. . .
Chicago Bears did not front the 1 billion for a new stadium like the Cowboys did, the Park District did. So they get the sweet lease for the team and still did not have to front the money.
The Cowboys didn't front $1 billion... they financed it.
And they’re making a monthly payment on that loan, just like the Bears are making a monthly payment on their lease.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.
Good points on the first 2.
But the lease would be taken into account already in the operating income numbers.
That's all fine and dandy...
But, because they lease… they don’t get any revenue from non-Bears related events held at the stadium. Unlike teams that own their stadiums. See my post above. So, teams like the Cowboys are killing the Bears in that revenue area.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.
Why try to make football MORE like baseball?
This seems like not such a good idea, but probably because I live in the heart of d*****bag nation and don’t want that experience in two sports.
Is Jerry Angelo fired yet?
I hate this idea.
It will probably wind up with only the big market teams like the Cowboys in the Super Bowl every year.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan.
No band-wagoner fans allowed, pick a team and stick with em, throughout the good and the bad.
Regardless of the extra revenue from concerts,
the bears are a major market team, with a very dedicated fan base. No matter what the Sox, Cubs, or Bulls are doing, the Bears are always king in this market. Because of this, there will never be a shortage of dollars to allow the owner of this team to keep us competitive.
A better product=winning=profit. Smart investments in coaching and executives create dividends in the long run. Why do you think organizations like the Steelers have such a huge fan base? The championships over the years have created generations of a nationally strong, loyal fan base that purchases merchandise and fills seats not just in Pittsburgh, but wherever they play.
I’m not saying throwing money at a problem will fix it. Well run organizations are both financially prudent and successful on the field. Every Skins fan knows that Dan Snyder can’t buy them a championship, no matter how much money he throws around.
It’s in Virginia’s best financial interest to put the right people in place to win on a consistent basis.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
