Finances w/ the New CBA and Expanded Games

I decided to post this as its own thread as an FYI for anyone curious about some of the current CBA parameters surrounding the now-approved 17-game regular season schedule. Good question by @Steel Hog in a related thread, one that I got rather long-winded with answering, but on a subject I think important for fans to know more about.

This is, IMO, a good question, as the 'benefits' players are receiving with the latest CBA play better when speaking in more general, rather than specific, terms. For measure, in the previous CBA the NFL's collective revenue was divided 53%/47% between owners and players, with the 47% comprising the annual salary cap each team was assigned to use for its players.

In the deal agreed upon last March, the NFLPA was able to negotiate an inrease topping at a 48.5% share for the players, a roster expansion from 53 to 55 per team, and an increased minimum salary. So the league effectively created 64 more jobs, increased the minimum wage, and gave the players an increased share of the profits. All of that is well and good.

However, specific considerations to players currently under contract are harder to discern. While the increased revenue under the recently signed TV/Media contract - coupled with the 1.5% increase in share - will mean more money allotted to the players, it largely fails to impact those currently under contract. In fact, it's easy to see scenarios where to them it carries little impact at all.

For example, in 2019 the NFL reaped $16b in revenue. If you allot an extra 1.5% of that to the players, it adds $240m to the salary cap league-wide, or $7.5m per team. Then add in the two extra roster spots at a minimum of $610k each in salary (double that if they are veterans), and you have $6.3m left to spread over the remaining 53 players. About $120k per player. If, however, a player is already under contract they'll be waiting for their chance to try to even negotiate that sum until it ends. In the meantime, they'll be playing that extra regular season game with no additional compensation.

On the other side of the ledger, you have the owners. In 2019, each on-site NFL game took in about $11.6m in fan revenue. This amount is typically split 60/40 (local team/NFL enterprise) to help spread the wealth with low-attendance teams. Using the enterprise number, the addition of a 17th game works out to $4.6m in additional shared revenue for the NFL. Of this, the owners would receive $2.4m (totaling up to $9.4m if a home game). The players would see it as a $2.2m bump to following year's cap - theoretically $40k if spread evenly over a 55-man roster - but again, mid-contract players are mostly left to dry until a new contract hits their horizon.

Further, there are other measures that can be taken (and in some instances, are) to shift money from players to owners. Under the latest CBA, the most a player could make in the 2020 playoffs was $300k - a function of a Wild Card team that swept through the Super Bowl over four games - an equivalent of $75k per game. That number pales not only for veterans and players on blue chip rookie contracts, but in comparison to the $150m the expansion is estimated to have hauled in for the league. Of course, the players will see 48.5% of that reflected in the following season's salary cap, but again, the majority of that compensation will only be seen by players in contract years.

In addition, some reports suggest that that teams will begin pushing for more split contracts (variable weekly pay depending on whether the player is active or injured) on lower-leverage free agents/rookies and, especially concerning, a proposal that league disability payments to former players be reduced to those that also receive social security.

 

Someone stated on ESPN that the extra game could lead to an extra billion in revenue during the length of the new TV deal, which is an 11 year deal. That would equate to 485 million to the players (if correct), 44 million per year, or roughly 1.37 million per team each year....divided by 55 would be about 25,000 per player.

Now my figures my be way off, if I am on a minimum rookie contract that might be a good pay day, but if I am on a an 8 million per year deal, making 500,000 per game and you say do an extra one for 25,000 I would not be happy.

I know my figures are simplistic and the compensation will be different, but really I see little to be excited about if I am a player.

 

Yikes. But hey, it's all about player safety. Playing an extra game at the end of the season for $25,000 when half the league's season is already over isn't that much of a risk, is it?

 

Yes they are cutting a preseason game (I do not think the players get paid much if anything in pre), so the extended revenue of TV and another home game every other year certainly benefits the owners more than the players. Abillion bucks looks big on paper, but really comes down to a pittance for most involved.

 

Factor in the risk of injury and the exponential wear on a player's body, it's going to cost players more than $25K a year.

 

the players signed off on this, as a unionized workforce with lawyers and everything, Either they don’t care about the risk or they figure the compensation is worth it. Obviously, risk of injury was a not a deal breaker. They agreed on the money split too. The players have no beef.

 

The world needs accountants.

 

I have a feeling that there was an ultimatum given to them about it. If they didn't accept it, the alternative would have been less appealing. Just my opinion, but I think their acceptance of this was the lesser of two evils. Doesn't really matter now, though. It's a moo point.

 

Yes and no. The body of players, past and present, voting on these measures numbers about 2000. The new CBA passed 1019 - 959. As was shown, most of the of the player incentives are more tangible for those on rookie and lower-dollar contracts. Assuming each team's 22 starters on offense/defense hold the bulk of higher-end rookie and vet deals across the league, that totals 704; the remainder of the (then) 53-man rosters, 992 - almost a third more.

Basically, the packaged increases are significant primarily to those on the deeper end of rosters - those seeing a fraction of the playing time - the starters and primary backups less so while taking on the bulk of the wear of the extra game(s). There are also quotes from some, like Rodgers, stating they didn't even know extra games were in play when they originally voted. Not sure whether that's valid or not.

 

For Rodger's to make that statement just shows ignorance, either by him for not reading the document, or the rep for not contacting each of his teammates for not explaining it to them. Further ignorance that this key provision was pretty much fully vetted on national media, if he was to busy counting his millions than to get involved in the process then he now needs to keep his mouth shut I agree with this close of a vote it was the likely the younger guys who voted yes. The extra boost in the minimum was significant enough for them, many who will not even get a sniff at a 2nd contract. I think the internal argument among the rank and file should be why they have such a weak union.

 

Yeah I'm not absolving the players, I just don't get how they came to the conclusion that this was a good idea. Man, just look at the way teams that are out of the hunt check out in the last few games of the season.

 

One of the offsets in this money making bonanza that is not often talked about is the growing pool of legalized betting. I have no idea of how much the players get from the league profit on this, but as that number grows every team owner's bottom line increases without really doing anything. The more games played the more bets placed, they get a skim off from that regardless of how well their team plays, or for that matter who plays in that game

 

Something I just heard on NFL Radio about 2 hrs ago, though I didn't get the name of the source. He was very critical of whoever is the current head of the NFL player's union. Outright stated that the leadership is more concerned with their own salaries and job security and that the players didn't overall want the 17th game, but took it as a concession for other benefits (source didn't think they were commiserate). That betting revenue kickback makes sense. I'll try to track this down.

EDIT: Free live feed playback cut off at 5pm unfortunately, but I think it was Brian Broaddus on "The End Zone" with Zig Fracassi and Adam[sic] Caplan.

 

What I was always told was that a player was paid 1/16 of his Salary after every game.

His base salary divided by 16 was the amount of his check after every game. During the preseason and playoff games every player makes the same amount that the NFL dictated. That is why you hear about players taking huge paycuts during preseason and playoff games.

So the question is are the players taking their Salary now divided by 17, basically taking a pay cut every game, or is the league going to increase everyone's salary and every teams total cap space to reflect the increase for a 17th game paycheck?

 

That's like saying the country signed off on everything an elected president did his entire term. Unless the vote was 100% to nothing and all knew in advance that the union would advocate for a 17th game, this is a false statement.

 

And this is being done because a bunch of people who serve no real useful function, are handed millions of dollars, and are too dumb to make a budget.

Nope, there’s nothing wrong with this picture.