You're right, but in the owners' minds it's not worth the risk to find out. Going for the "safe money" (white, male conservatives make up the prime demographic of the NFL's audience) is a much sounder business practice than trying something risky that may or may not pay off for you. That's why all the owners came down on one side of this. Of course there's nothing to say it will stay that way forever. If Kaepernick lays low for a while, lets things cool down, and becomes willing to accept less money, I'm sure there's a team that will then have no problem taking a chance on him.
[RD] Colin Kaepernick
- Thread starter civvver
- Start date
You're right, but in the owners' minds it's not worth the risk to find out. Going for the "safe money" (white, male conservatives make up the prime demographic of the NFL's audience) is a much sounder business practice than trying something risky that may or may not pay off for you. That's why all the owners came down on one side of this. Of course there's nothing to say it will stay that way forever. If Kaepernick lays low for a while, lets things cool down, and becomes willing to accept less money, I'm sure there's a team that will then have no problem taking a chance on him.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
So now your argument is, "They make lots of money but it's from TV." I mean yeah, TV is fickle, we'll never know if it's gonna catch on and people will watch. What the hell does that even mean??
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's not, but when the majority are either racist or complacent in the face of racism, pandering to that racism is functionally identical to racism.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
You can drive a truck through the holes in that logic.
Glad you like it. It means there has been a large non-repeating infusion of cash from television. It means NFLs are not good long term investments. It means your analysis swung and missed, badly.So now your argument is, "They make lots of money but it's from TV." I mean yeah, TV is fickle, we'll never know if it's gonna catch on and people will watch. What the hell does that even mean??
I hope you use a portfolio manager.
J
Last edited:
The cash infusion from tv has been repeating since the 1950s. TV has repeatedly driven your mythical truck to the NFL and dumped cash on the league and its teams.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Not in new money it hasn't. When the NBA was ascendant in the 80s and 90s, NFL teams struggled. However, it makes the run up look more impressive if you cherry pick the end points.
J
The latest contracts give over 5 billion over 9 years, up from about 3 billion from the previous 9 year period and less than a billion over a 9 year period in the 80s. Since the 1950s, there has been an repeating and increasingly lucrative series of contracts.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,718
Jay, if you're really living next to Geroge Bush's parents, perhaps you should stop listening to them and getting your ideas from them.
Actually, my numbers for recent contracts were understated. The contracts for 2014 to 2022 are almost 40 billion. The contracts from the 1960s to 2013 combined added up to about 20 billion.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
What in god's name are you talking about? They get new TV contracts every time an old one expires. Have been doing so for decades. This is the dumbest thing I think you have ever posted, and believe me, that is an accomplishment. Holy hell.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
The NFL does not get massive raises in revenue every time the old contract expires. They have not been doing so for decades.
There have been large, non-repeating raises on the last couple of cycles, from which we have two Sunday night games and Thursday night every week. Markets are saturated and ratings are down. Your analysis did not even touch on these factors. That's--what was the word you used?
Large, non-repeating increases.
J
Last edited:
It doesn't matter to the NFL if the ratings are down, so long as there are broadcasters willing to pay. I just don't get your non-repeating take. The NFL repeatedly signs new contracts for massive increases in revenue and has been doing so for decades. The losers here have been the networks (their loss leader has become more expensive), not the NFL.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Incorrect on two points. One, ratings are the source of willingness to pay. Two, you assume past activity continues.
You documented the large increases. Consider why they exist which will lead you to why they are non-repeating.
J
Gen.Mannerheim
Grand Moff
TV monies are a large part of absolute explosion of the business of professional sporting in the last 20 years.
Both the NFL and European Soccer are only able to pay the monstrously rising salaries of players and coaches because of TV money. Ticket and merchandise sales by themselves don't nearly cover the expenses of professional teams today. Professional soccer also makes a killing due to teams licensing players to sponsorship deals.
This is especially a problem for soccer, as when a team gets relegated from the top flight, the will quickly lose a third or more of their revenue immediately. And if they cannot get back into the top flight quickly, then they will have to start selling off players and spiraling into decline.
Both the NFL and European Soccer are only able to pay the monstrously rising salaries of players and coaches because of TV money. Ticket and merchandise sales by themselves don't nearly cover the expenses of professional teams today. Professional soccer also makes a killing due to teams licensing players to sponsorship deals.
This is especially a problem for soccer, as when a team gets relegated from the top flight, the will quickly lose a third or more of their revenue immediately. And if they cannot get back into the top flight quickly, then they will have to start selling off players and spiraling into decline.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,354
This was your original claim:
emphasis added. When metalhead proved you utterly incorrect in that claim, you shifted to the likelihood that owning an NFL franchise would be a good investment going forward:
I only bother pointing this out, because the phrase "moving the goalposts" has such a delicious resonance in this particular context.
emphasis added. When metalhead proved you utterly incorrect in that claim, you shifted to the likelihood that owning an NFL franchise would be a good investment going forward:
I only bother pointing this out, because the phrase "moving the goalposts" has such a delicious resonance in this particular context.
Considering the impact of fantasy. Football fantasy is worth billions upon billions of money. Top that on top of straight up gambling on football and I doubt the value of TV contracts is going down despite anybodies theory on over saturation. To say that owning a team is not a good investment is just ludicrous.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Exactly. The explosion of video platforms produced an explosion of revenue streams, some of which channeled into sports. The point is that the process has run it's course.
Gori makes a good point. Metalhead did show that 20 years ago NFL teams were a good investment. They are not now and historically have not been, but there was a period in which they were very profitable.
J
sophie
Break My Heart
Because you are dividing a population into groups based on racial criteria and then treating the different racial groups differently because of that race, in this case because the size of the disparate racial groups. They could have categorized based on age, or sex, or geographic location, or simply chosen not to categorize at all, but they categorized based on race, and that makes the actions racist as such.
Gen.Mannerheim
Grand Moff
The stability of the MLS is beginning to attract some wealth support their way. But for most of the existence of professional sporting, owing a team wasn't considered a great investment. Even in this TV-rich age, owners often have to inject buckets of their own greenbacks to help a team compete. The problem is that most Western ownership actually expect to take their investment back, instead of just breaking even.
Look at Japan, where almost all the teams operate at a loss because they're considered a marketing extension of their owners respective cooperations. While this means that while they can't compete for talent at the international level, their leagues generally are pretty fair and stable.
Each new contract the NFL has signed has resulted in a substantial increase, the latest one (during the so-called ratings decline era) being twice the revenue as signed in all previous contracts combined. The NFL is also securing additional broadcasting dollars (Twitter, Amazon prime) that it did not have before. The worst case scenario for the NFL is that the dollars go down (which has never happened), but they still have a steady, ongoing, repeating source of revenue from broadcasters. So far, the broadcasters have been willing to keep ponying up increasing dollars,
