S197 wrote:
If owner's don't lose any money over salary then why was the Packer's profits slashed by more than half last year? The average player in the NFL makes $1.9 million per year. $25 million per year in profits when your average salary is $1.9 million per employee is a racket?
I get the gist of your post, it's a business and we shouldn't feel sorry for the owners, they're making out rather well. Fair enough. But it's not like the players are walking away impoverished either. I don't feel sorry for either side, it's a business and both sides went in knowing what they were getting into.
Assuming I understood the article correctly: The packers
'local profit' was slashed...yet it was still augmented by a 1/32 share of $6billion(over $180m) and the number is about to go up next season...due to the renewal of the new CBS and direct tv deals. They have 2 streams of income....one is guaranteed gravy of well over $150m per season. There is no real risk, especially with the salary cap. It's an
insanely good deal for the owners, because they don't actually have to perform well to profit. The Packers big dip was due to the 3 big salaries they took on last season.....not sure how it goes for them beyond.
Players have to perform to earn their money or they get cut. The average player does not have significant guaranteed money and they are the ones putting their bodies on the line so even owners
who consistently field crappy teams(raiders, jags, rams etc) can stick their hand out for over $100million of media sourced profit sharing money.
While the average player gets $1.9m...there is a guy or 3 on nearly every team making
at least $10m and up to $20m in some cases....which means there are
a lot of guys not actually making $1.9m.(packers had 51 players making less) Not that they aren't making a decent living compared to you or me( I make about $10,000)....but when you look at who does the actual work and risk, versus who is getting the lion share of the profit, it's not exactly a fair situation for every player. And yes, it's the situation they have collectively bargained for(although ownership never opens up their books) so, I don't advocate feeling sorry
for any of them on either end. I do think the NFLPA could do better....but would much rather see the league limit it's own profits and do some
real good in the world. (entirely different can of worms)
I just get tired of hearing about players who 'owe' their team something extra based on a contract as if it's some sort of financial imposition for ownership...cause it's not. And in the case of Adrian Peterson and the Wilfs: the Vikings aren't even the Wilfs only stream of multi-million $ yearly income.
It's utter nonsense, to me, to suggest in any way that Peterson has somehow screwed the Wilfs out of money or that he owes them something out of loyalty or anything else because they paid him last season.
That's my basic point.....not to feel sorry for him.
Edit to add: The Packers overall profit was less.....their local profit was actually up 6%
Local revenues for the Packers were $136.3 million, up 6.4 percent from last season. Factoring in expenses of $298.5 million, the Packers pulled in a $25.5 million profit, down nearly 53 percent from last season.
Murphy said the main reason for the decline were player costs of $171 million. The team signed big contracts with Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Julius Peppers and Sam Shields, parts of which were included in this fiscal year.
