chef8181
August-19th-2005, 03:01 PM
Really? I'm sure Synder agrees with him but the reason the NFL is the greatest sports league in the world is revenue sharing. Smaller market teams (Green Bay anyone) can not compete with big market teams without it.
Jerry Jones Says Revenue-Sharing Not Crucial
By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; 10:57 AM
OXNARD, Calif. -- Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones says that he and his fellow NFL team owners don't necessarily need to reach a revenue-sharing accord at the same time they complete an extension of the league's collective bargaining agreement with the players' union.
Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has been conducting the two sets of talks -- the revenue-sharing deliberations among the owners and the labor negotiations with the NFL Players Association -- concurrently, hoping to have deals in place on both fronts around October. The union also wants a revised revenue-sharing plan to come as part of a new labor deal.
But Jones says the owners could ensure continued labor peace for the NFL by extending the collective bargaining agreement without settling the contentious revenue-sharing issue.
"The two, in my mind, from my perspective, aren't connected," he said during an interview here Thursday at the Cowboys' training camp. "That's those [owners] that want to get more revenue-sharing and want to make that an issue. I don't see that. I think if we ultimately see something that is do-able between labor and the league, then you can have it without any additional revenue-sharing."
Tagliabue is attempting to get the owners to agree to a system that would transfer more locally generated revenues -- from suites, sponsorships and stadium naming-rights deals, among other things -- from the wealthiest franchises to less prosperous clubs.
Some owners have expressed concerns that the growing revenue disparities between the richest teams -- including the Washington Redskins, New England Patriots, Houston Texans and Cowboys -- and the other clubs eventually could lead to a competitive imbalance. The league's strength, those owners argue, was built on the competitive balance created by teams sharing their revenues equally, as they do with national television contracts.
But Jones says that teams already share 85 percent of their revenues and that's enough. The richest clubs deserve to keep their additional revenues, Jones says, because those owners generally have paid more for their franchises, have more debt and have invested more money to create new revenue streams.
"That allows that entity that has put in a substantial investment to compete with 26 or 23 other clubs that don't have that kind of investment," Jones said. "These are teams that we're talking about that want additional revenue-sharing that don't have anything like the investment of teams that don't want to share the revenue."
Jones says that if the clubs share more of their revenues, it would make no sense for a potential owner of a prospective Los Angeles franchise to pay the sort of premium price that the league will be seeking for a team in the nation's second-largest TV market.
"If there were no difference [in revenue-generating potential] between Los Angeles and Indianapolis, do you really think you're going to get a team in Los Angeles?" Jones said. "Let's be real . . . . If we keep things like they are right now, the incentive is there for a team to come into L.A. But if we think it's going to come in as part of a communal effort by the NFL, it doesn't happen.
" . . . Nobody is thinking they're going to come out here and put a team here and become a multimillionaire. I don't know anybody that comes into the NFL like that. They've got a lot of places they could put their investment and do better than that. But they can't get their financial soul handed to them if they come in. It's got to somehow make some sense at some time that you could get on a livable basis with the other teams in the NFL. But if you look at teams that want to share more revenues, they're teams that don't have a lot on the table. They've long since not had any serious investment in their team."
Players Association chief Gene Upshaw is seeking, as part of the labor negotiations, to expand the pool of revenues from which the players are paid, and says the league's current proposals are insufficient. Jones says the union should be wary of seeking drastic changes to a system under which the players have flourished financially.
"That's what I'm trying to be a proponent of: Let's look at what has happened with the revenue that we do share and that we don't share, and how the league has had success and gone forward on that basis," Jones said. "Now if players want to change their percentage that they've done so well with and want more, then that's another negotiation. That has nothing to do with the revenues. If they think they could get more by making those seven or eight teams at the top [share more revenues], watch out what you wish for because it will probably lessen the kinds of revenues that come into this league. That's my point."
Jerry Jones Says Revenue-Sharing Not Crucial
By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; 10:57 AM
OXNARD, Calif. -- Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones says that he and his fellow NFL team owners don't necessarily need to reach a revenue-sharing accord at the same time they complete an extension of the league's collective bargaining agreement with the players' union.
Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has been conducting the two sets of talks -- the revenue-sharing deliberations among the owners and the labor negotiations with the NFL Players Association -- concurrently, hoping to have deals in place on both fronts around October. The union also wants a revised revenue-sharing plan to come as part of a new labor deal.
But Jones says the owners could ensure continued labor peace for the NFL by extending the collective bargaining agreement without settling the contentious revenue-sharing issue.
"The two, in my mind, from my perspective, aren't connected," he said during an interview here Thursday at the Cowboys' training camp. "That's those [owners] that want to get more revenue-sharing and want to make that an issue. I don't see that. I think if we ultimately see something that is do-able between labor and the league, then you can have it without any additional revenue-sharing."
Tagliabue is attempting to get the owners to agree to a system that would transfer more locally generated revenues -- from suites, sponsorships and stadium naming-rights deals, among other things -- from the wealthiest franchises to less prosperous clubs.
Some owners have expressed concerns that the growing revenue disparities between the richest teams -- including the Washington Redskins, New England Patriots, Houston Texans and Cowboys -- and the other clubs eventually could lead to a competitive imbalance. The league's strength, those owners argue, was built on the competitive balance created by teams sharing their revenues equally, as they do with national television contracts.
But Jones says that teams already share 85 percent of their revenues and that's enough. The richest clubs deserve to keep their additional revenues, Jones says, because those owners generally have paid more for their franchises, have more debt and have invested more money to create new revenue streams.
"That allows that entity that has put in a substantial investment to compete with 26 or 23 other clubs that don't have that kind of investment," Jones said. "These are teams that we're talking about that want additional revenue-sharing that don't have anything like the investment of teams that don't want to share the revenue."
Jones says that if the clubs share more of their revenues, it would make no sense for a potential owner of a prospective Los Angeles franchise to pay the sort of premium price that the league will be seeking for a team in the nation's second-largest TV market.
"If there were no difference [in revenue-generating potential] between Los Angeles and Indianapolis, do you really think you're going to get a team in Los Angeles?" Jones said. "Let's be real . . . . If we keep things like they are right now, the incentive is there for a team to come into L.A. But if we think it's going to come in as part of a communal effort by the NFL, it doesn't happen.
" . . . Nobody is thinking they're going to come out here and put a team here and become a multimillionaire. I don't know anybody that comes into the NFL like that. They've got a lot of places they could put their investment and do better than that. But they can't get their financial soul handed to them if they come in. It's got to somehow make some sense at some time that you could get on a livable basis with the other teams in the NFL. But if you look at teams that want to share more revenues, they're teams that don't have a lot on the table. They've long since not had any serious investment in their team."
Players Association chief Gene Upshaw is seeking, as part of the labor negotiations, to expand the pool of revenues from which the players are paid, and says the league's current proposals are insufficient. Jones says the union should be wary of seeking drastic changes to a system under which the players have flourished financially.
"That's what I'm trying to be a proponent of: Let's look at what has happened with the revenue that we do share and that we don't share, and how the league has had success and gone forward on that basis," Jones said. "Now if players want to change their percentage that they've done so well with and want more, then that's another negotiation. That has nothing to do with the revenues. If they think they could get more by making those seven or eight teams at the top [share more revenues], watch out what you wish for because it will probably lessen the kinds of revenues that come into this league. That's my point."