Re: NFL
 

Which isn't applicable to these numbers.
Took you awhile, but you finally got there.:wnr

Re: NFL
 

Exactly right. Each team is it's own brand and business :tu

The minimum is always three minor league clubs. It gets cloudy after that, there are some teams that exist and compete with no major league affiliation. Minor league teams also change hands rather frequently, i've lost track myself to be honest

And just to be clear, i'm enjoying the conversation thus far. Kudos to everyone contributing constructive posts :tu I like the back and forth and wasn't suggesting anyone was making the thread sour. I'm just surprised it has gone on as long as it has so well, on the old boards I remember a thread like this going south in a matter of hours :r

Oh and I pulled this from a site comparing 2010 baseball salaries and 2009 football salaries:

Re: NFL
 

You did get there. Average salaries for MLB players is 3 times as high as NFL players. :tu

Re: NFL
 

League minimum for 2010 was $310,000 not $193,000. Maybe they were accounting for the tax man, but it would be even lower. :tu

Re: NFL
 

Which is why we have the differing viewpoints.
Right on. I thought it was like that but haven't followed minor league baseball all that closely for the past decade.
Yeah, on a sports message board that I post at from time to time, this thread would've gotten ugly, and ugly fast. Then of course Godwin's Law would've been evoked somewhere a page or so ago and that would've been the end of that.

Re: NFL
 

I'm not sure who said it where, and I hope I have am responding in context...but as for minor league baseball, those players (after receiving their signing bonus) don't get paid all that well. And, they do sell tickets, concessions, parking, etc. at the venues. I would guess most minor league teams are really close to break even - or even making a few dollars.

Re: NFL
 

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I know that the average baseball player makes more than the average football player. Where have I ever said otherwise?

Re: NFL
 

This:

Followed by this:

:tu

I simply helped analyze the data, showing that the top 25 players in the NFL on average make 2/3rds of the average of a MLB player of a similar sized roster. :tu

Re: NFL
 

Single A ball gets paid around 20K, AA and AAA between 30-35k. The contracts are open to negotiation after a year, they don't make anywhere near the 400k MLB minimum but it's also tough to peg a definite salary range. Plus the trend in baseball is changing, quite a few teams are locking up young players early, skewing the salaries a bit. I think most minor league teams do at least break even, agree with you there.

Re: NFL
 

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

Re: NFL
 

Competition is good for sports, not putting a competitive team on the field in an effort to save money is hardly acting in the best interest of any one but the owner. See: Pirates, Bengals, Clippers :2

Re: NFL
 

No, that's not what you did. You ignored a good percentage of their monies received because, well, actually I don't know why you did that. But you did.

Re: NFL
 

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

Re: NFL
 

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter? So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

Re: NFL
 

The title of this thread should be NFL Vs MLB. How did that happen LOL.

The players decertified the union and left the negotiation table so the owners had nothing else to do but lock them out. Next time you go to sign a work contract tell the owner you want to see his last ten years of audits so you can decide how much you want to get paid and see where that gets you!

Re: NFL
 

That was not a lockout, that was a player strike. This is a owner lockout, will not be anybody playing football untill it is resolved.

Re: NFL
 

(Playing Devil's Advocate) What right then does MLB have to tell the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Mets and Dodgers that they have to give up almost a third of their revenue (last time I checked revenue sharing was at 31%) to prop up these struggling franchises?
No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

Re: NFL
 

The players decertified because they were backed into a corner. And yeah, if you're going to pull a BILLION dollars off the table because you claim you're losing money, do you just expect the players to take the owners at their word, seeing how untrustworthy they've proven to be? The owners were not negotiating in good faith, period.

Re: NFL
 

There was one of these ;) after it, so yours still stands as the silliest.;)

Re: NFL
 

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers. The Panthers especially. Jerry Richardson acted out of his own self interest this past season in preparation for the lockout. Made big cuts, hurt our competitiveness, but it set him up nicely in case there is no NFL this season. That's not just a baseball issue. He's not as cheap as the Pirates, but that's still cheap. See the quote below:

There are always exceptions to the rule, but as long as they are selling merchandise and bringing in fans, then it is good for baseball. Now, if all the teams acted like the Pirates, then it would not be good for baseball, but remember they are (along with a few other teams) the exception to the rule, just like the NFL has exceptions too.

Re: NFL
 

It took a left turn somewhere in the first 20 posts. I like the direction it went, though. It's been a fun conversation.:tu

Re: NFL
 

I'm not going to defend Richardson's douchiness (for an example see here) but his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).
What's good for baseball (at least in terms of selling merchandise and people tuning in) is if the popular teams keep winning to keep the casual fan interested (just like the NBA). We've seen (in this own thread no less) what happens when those teams aren't represented in the playoffs/World Series.

Re: NFL
 

:tpd:

Re: NFL
 

Because you said salary vs. salary, not salary vs. salary plus signing bonuses, roster bonuses and player incentives. And like I said all of that money wasn't recieved by those players because at least 8 of them were not on the roster. Its not a big deal, just comparing apples to apples, your contention that they make the same or more is flawed. ;)

Re: NFL
 

I thought we were talking about how the owners spend (or don't spend) money on their franchise. The Bengals are notoriously cheap, spending little to no money on players. It is why players who get drafted there leave, and then come back to hang on for a few extra years. Its unfortunate that Mike Brown is only worried about the cash in his pocket when Art Rooney continues to put trophies in his office.

Getting lucky and finishing first in the division twice in the last 8 seasons isn't exactly a history success when they follow those years with less than 6 wins. Even a blind squirell....or something like that. :tu

Re: NFL
 

I believe the discussion started when it was said that MLB players make significantly more money than their NFL counterparts, despite being the most popular sport in America. :tu

Re: NFL
 

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one last time, slower still...Did you see? If not, I'll break it down again...
You comparing salary vs. salary is a strawman set up by yourself to knock it down. The only time I even used the word, "salary" is when I directly quoted the source (USA Today page here) which included all bonuses earned for total compensation.
Pleae tell me which eight players out of the top twenty five were no longer on the Saints roster...

Re: NFL
 

Does reading comprehension escape you? Seriously man...
That should about bring you up to speed. Now you can get back to constructing strawmen...;)

Re: NFL
 

The franchises aren't struggling, that's where your going wrong. The few teams that are in tough financial shape actually use the money the money effectively. The teams that receive it that don't really need it pocket it. What is the MLB suppossed to do, tell a perfectly profitable franchise to change the way it operates because it's making money? Your argument doesn't make sense.

Wrong again Stephen. Baseball fans in many markets have shown they are willing to support their team with or without a winning product on the field. They don't come to root for accountants, they come to have fun at a game. I will say it again, the Royals and Pirates are making money being terrible, while the Marlins and Rays have good teams that go virtually unnoticed despite putting a winning product on the field. YOU might want to see a competitive team but that doesn't apply to every fan. Maybe if what you think rang true, fans would stop supporting teams like those two and they would be forced to improve to stay afloat.

Re: NFL
 

If they're not struggling, why share revenue?
Just so I'm clear, you're saying that win/lose, average attendance will remain the same in, "many of these markets?"

Re: NFL
 

Baseballs attempt to give mid and small market teams a better chance to stay competive with large markets without capping salaries. Team that do use it properly use it to good effect. Revenue sharing itself isn't enough to save a team running in the red, look at the Expos. The Marlins have it toughest in all of baseball finacially, yet they still turn a profit.

Absolutely. You'd see a slight increase across the board but it would remain the same mostly. Case in point, the Tampa Bay Rays. Despite winning the AL east (toughest division in baseball) twice in the last three years and making one trip to the WS, their attendance hasn't increased much past where it was when they were a perennial loser. The Pirates have lost some fans, but it took 17 losing seasons to really effect their bottom line. They still draw a crowd larger than either Florida team, despite being significantly worse.

This applies to many smaller teams. The Brewers, Reds, Padres, Mariners, etc all draw decent crowds whether they are winning or losing.

Re: NFL
 

Tampa and Miami are not baseball towns. There are too many other things to do there rather than attend baseball games. MLB teams don't truly belong in tourist towns IMHO. Yes, I know the Dolphins do well in Miami, but they only play there 8 times a year vs. 81.

So if you take away the Florida teams, I'd say that most winning teams draw decent crowds. I don't have the numbers on that to back it up though.

Re: NFL
 

No argument here. My point is that even non winning teams draw crowds. Thats's why I keep bringing up the Pirates/Royals. And if a team draws enough attendance to stay profitable, what really is the problem?

Re: NFL
 

I know it applies to the Reds. Management put a winning ball club on the field this year, yet ticket sales were only up by a small margin. Their pathetic attempt in the playoffs were sold out though.

Re: NFL
 

I wasn't trying to argue. I was attempting to support your point.:)

Re: NFL
 

I know Andy :tu

To add to what you said, I do think that any team that makes the post season will see attendance spike. But the regular season numbers will be mostly the same, regardless of winning %.

Re: NFL
 

Now the NFLPA is sending letters to the top prospects to boycott the NFL draft, after one of the proposals is to cap rookie salaries.
I'm sure that's going over big with the guys coming out?

Re: NFL
 

Funny thing is the NFLPA wanted a lower cap on the rookies also, they just didn't agree with what to do with the money saved. But I think they agreed on the lockout.

Funny how the NFL players are no longer part of the NFLPA, and in fact the undrafted players would not be anyway. But NFLPA is still running the show? Please!

Re: NFL
 

What I just heard on the radio is the NFLPA was going to hold it's own draft with the draftees at a different venue, and sell the TV.
It is kind of brilliant, but who would butt heads with the NFL, Ted Turner is a wild card he don't give a crap, HBO ?

Re: NFL
 

I'm sure finding a network would be the easy part. Even if they do its not the same thing as being at the real draft. If you are a top 10 prospect you would be crazy not to attend the real deal and get to walk across the stage. You only get to do it once. Not far for the NFLPA to ask these guys to do this, the lockout will be over in a few months no mater what but you missed out on a day you should never forget!

Re: NFL
 

so the nflpa is asking people who aren't even part of a union that no longer exists to do stuff? at this point I don't care if football ever comes back. ****em all

Re: NFL
 

Players don't hold a lot of power in this whole process. Sadly the people who exploit them do. Encouraging the college players to not attend the draft is slightly pointless as the draft will go on regardless. Without free-agency it makes the draft even more of a crap shoot. There are a lot of free agents out there and no one knows where they will end up. Once a player is drafted he will have little to do anyways. There won't be a single contact with coaches or negotiations for a contract anyway, so what is the point of having the draft. :hm

Re: NFL
 

So if the NFLPA holds a draft, where do they get drafted to?:confused::confused: Do they come in as free agents?

Re: NFL
 

exploiting them? i'll tell ya what, you pay me 58 million and you exploit the hell out of me.:rolleyes:

Re: NFL
 

But doesn't that fly in the face of what you said earlier?
If the Wal-Mart down the road isn't making any money, the Wal-Mart that is successful out by the interstate isn't going to cut them in on the action.
(Devil's Advocate off)

I'll let you have the last word to close the chapter on this issue; I'm a socialist like that.:D

Re: NFL
 

Whether people want to agree with the priciple or not, the players make far more money for the owners than they are compensated for. Ticket prices and revenues continue to rise and players salary have not kept up. Now the owners complain that they need more money to build new stadiums (paid for by tax money :rolleyes: and giving them the ability to raise prices on everything) and to keep from taking a loss. Owners won't show their books to show the deficit that they have, something has to give. :hm Without the players, there is no product. :2

Re: NFL
 

and i make more money for my boss then i'm compensated for...this is not their unique and special situation it's the way of the world.

also, without the fans there is no league

Re: NFL
 

Well when people start paying millions and billions of dollars to show up to watch teachers in the class room or fire fighters fight a fire or my wife crunch numbers, then everyone else might have a bit more bargaining power. I'm not saying its right, its just the way people pay to watch these guys play. :2

Its the owners who are saying they don't make enough money, and if they don't get more, everyone else is without a job and they will keep all the revenue. The lockout works out immensely well for the owners, they still have TV contracts and such that will get paid regardless and they won't have to pay a single dollar of salary to players or anyone else for that matter. Nothing like bringing in revenue with no overhead. :hm

Re: NFL
 

The fans will be there whenever it is settled. And they will pay the ticket prices the owners demand and buy merchandise and beer at those games. Television contracts aren't going to be dropped like they were for hockey :sad. Unlike any other sport, football has the fan base to absorb owners stupidity for now (unfortunately the owners know this). Fans will pay money for teams who meddle in obscurity for years, a few months of this won't lose enough fans to effect the league as a whole. If there is a full season lockout (unlikely), then you may see a decline in viewership, but it will rebound much faster than hockey or baseball suffered during their labor disputes. :2

Re: NFL
 

How so? The part where I said I didn't care much revenue sharing lol.

Wal-Mart vs Wal-Mart analogy doesn't work, same chain. Wal-Mart vs any other business sure. If Wal-Mart forces a local store out of business, they don't share their profits to keep them around for competition :r

No one is calling you a socialist Stephen, just the NFL ;):D:r