HOW MUCH MONEY DO THE NFL TEAMS MAKE????

[ISLAND BUCS]

There has been a lot of talk about how much money the NFL teams make. 

I presume that the Green Bay Packers are the only publicly owned team.  I saw some figures on the Packers and were surprised how low the earnings were.

 Does anyone have some somewhat solid figures on what a typical NFL team nets?

My feelings are that once the Union played the court card, we have opened the door to all kind of surprises.  If the courts decided that Sport teams should
not be exempt from the Sherman Anti Trust Law, well that would be the end Pro football as we know it.  Just feel uncomfortable that the Union volunteered
to bring the courts into the situation.  Hearings---trials---appeals---could stretch out over a year or two.  I noticed that the League hired David Boies as soon as the Union took the matter to court.  I am sure the Union is well represented, but Boies is remarkable and is well liked by the Supreme Court justices.

[tatmanfish]

Surprisingly, most dont make as much as youd think. the last publishing was by Forbes in 09, but only lists operating income which isnt the same as net profit but as close as youll get as most teams dont release that info.

http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61

theres some players that netted more the last couple years than the owners they are playing for. Two teams were even in the red. I imagine it didnt get any better with the economy as the Packers profits took a huge hit a year after this report.

[docbravo]

Surprisingly, most dont make as much as youd think. the last publishing was by Forbes in 09, but only lists operating income which isnt the same as net profit but as close as youll get as most teams dont release that info.

http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:inside-the-2009-forbes-nfl-franchise-valuations&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61

theres some players that netted more the last couple years than the owners they are playing for. Two teams were even in the red. I imagine it didnt get any better with the economy as the Packers profits took a huge hit a year after this report.

So you mean to tell me that the owners might actually be telling the truth about losing money in the long term? Imagine That....

[TBayXXXVII]

I think the term "losing money" is a load of crap.  All businesses use that bull as an excuse to raise prices.  They aren't LOSING money... they're just not making as much as they used to.  If a team NETS $100 mil one year... then $90 MIL the next followed by $85... they CLAIM that the LOST $15 mil over the last 2 years... BULL!!!  They didn't LOSE $15 mil... they MADE $15 mil LESS.  It's NOT a LOSS.

[tatmanfish]

two teams in 09 were in the red.....that means not making anything......or LOSING money.

[MUSCLE_HAMSTER]

Well, if you take the 4.5 Billion they got last year from the 50-50 split in the last CBA, each team made over 140 million. I'll be honest and admit that I don't know how the league revenue system works. I don't know if that includes separate deals for each individual teams (like sponsors, tv deals, etc)

[BucsBay]

Without the complete books it's almost impossible to tell whether a business is making or losing money, and even when you have the whole books it's not easy. For example the Packers completed a new practice facility in 09'. I haven't taken a look at the numbers they put out, but they could have easily included the cost of the facility and used accelerated depreciation on the different ammenities that went into the facility to drastically reduced their reported gains.

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/packers_putting_final_touches_on_renovated_practice_facility/631878

I think you'd have to assume that the Cowboys are one of the teams who were in the red last year with the expenses of the new stadium, but building that was Jerry Jones decision. That should have nothing to do with what the players are paid.

I find it hard to believe that the NFL teams are having trouble covering their expenses with a $4.4 billion TV contract in their back pocket. Does it make sense that the NFL feels that the players should have less of a share of that $4.4 billion of TV money and $9 billion total, so that the Owners have more capital for stadiums, and practice facilities, and interest payments? I'd say yes, but I'd also say that a 50/50 split is fair, and the owners are trying to overplay their hand.

[BucsBay]

I've heard estimates that NFL teams average $30-$40 million a year in profit, and that sounds pretty accurate to me.

[jlr0714]

Considering the owners are the ones with their personal fortunes at risk....I don't care what they make.   They own a business...they are entitled to make money.   If I feel they are making too much money at my expense...I can express myself by not buying tickets or attending the games. 

Pro sports must be the only world in which 'employees' think they are entitled to know what their boss makes, and that they are somehow 'entitled' to share in the profits.    Having played a little 'semi-pro' ball for the pure joy of participation....I'm tired of these guys thinking they are so special.   I'm sure there are several a__hats in the ownership group (the Jerrys come to mind)....but I'll have more empathy for the players' position the first time one of them says "hey....you know what...I stunk it up this year.  I underplayed my contract, and I want you to dock my pay".  They are more than happy to whine that they should be paid more....but I've yet to see a player offer their team a 'refund'.   I also don't see them rushing to take a pay cut when the team profits drop based on a poor economy.

[doobiedoright]

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/packers_putting_final_touches_on_renovated_practice_facility/631878
 I'd say yes, but I'd also say that a 50/50 split is fair, and the owners are trying to overplay their hand.

That means you side with the owners as the players were making 59% of the income!
To me a 51-49 split is fair!
I dont see how the players should get 59%.

[ISLAND BUCS]

Tatman:  Following your lead I was able to come up with Forbes numbers as of Aug, 2010.

Link;   http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

Seems like the opportunity to make money is by buying a franchise and selling in some years later, ie the capital appreciation of the asset.

On the other hand  the income from franchise is more like corporate bonds.  Assuming the franchise could be sold for the amount it is valued at and comparing that amount to the operating income, Dallas had a return of 7.9%, Tampa 5.4% and Atlanta 4.2%.; I just chose the 3 teams at random. Certainly the idea that NFL franchises are rolling in money is not true.  It is by buying and holding that the money is made---see the Glazers' investment in Manchester United. And of course if more teams show a loss or the economy continues depressed, there will not be an appreciation in the value of a franchise.

I had heard recent numbers on Green Bay and didn't believe them, but now it seems believable.  The quote I saw was that Green Bay made 3 to 4 million for 2010. That figure doesn't compare too well with the salaries of some Green Bay Players.

[ISLAND BUCS]

I understand that the TV revenues are included in the teams revenue.  If you take 4.4 billion and divide that by 32, it is 137.5 million per team. And considering salaries and opereating expenses, etc, all at once the TV revenue doesn't look so enormously big. Football teams start to look more like any business with the possibillity of making or loosing money. 

[ISLAND BUCS]

There are areas around the Balkan mountains where Moslem and Christians have been fighting since 700 AD. So every family has a history of some terrible thing the other side did to them and those feelings are so deeply engrained in their  minds and emotions that they are unable to think clearly where the other side is involved.

In the same way, people have deep rooted feelings about Labor and Owners.  Both side have, in the past, caused harshness to the other side, and it is easy for your your early family and environment to shape your thinking.  And this is the way it is, and that is O.K.

Maybe best to try and drop your deep seated beliefs and just see the present NFL -- Players situation as clearly as you can based on the facts involved.

Professional Baseball and Basketball are two sports where a lot of teams are getting squeezed.  The Rays had to allow a number of players to walk because there just wasn't enough money. The best results come when everyone is making money.  When, in the case of Green Bay, a number of players on the roster make more money than the team---this is an indication of a unhealthy trend.

If the Teams and Players really valued the fans interests, they could have started mediating two years earlier.  The League took out insurance instead; the Players Assoc, seemed less interested in negoiation and played the "Court" card and Anti-trust threat in an attempt to scare the owners.  We fans are left with an uncertain future.

[jcaulfield8]

if they were losing money they would have no problem opening up their books to show players and the public this so that they can get a better deal.  The franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  Businesses dont get valued that high if they are losing money

[ISLAND BUCS]

But J, there are a couple of teams that lost money.  It should not be so hard to believe that in times when the average family has taken a severe "hit" and that teams depend on those same people to buy tickets, that the profit picture is affected.  When a team signs a contract with a McCoy for 60 mil or a Bradford for whatever it was, 80 mil or so, and neither of them had yet played in the NFL---that is hard to defend. Every year  the salary of the first player taken in the draft goes up. If that continues, who would want to own a team, there are many ways to invest money that yield a bigger return with less headache.