No you are completely missing it here. Teams set prices to maximize revenue. Always. The price of a ticket has virtually nothing to do with the cost behind it. All that determines the cost is maximizing revenues for the teams because the supply of tickets is essentially fixed. Teams come with a number, call it X, and that’s what they charge for tickets. After coming up with that number, they don’t look at their costs and say, well shoot, revenue doesn’t cover costs so lets increase X, because increasing X decreases revenue.
You still haven’t answered the question. Do you agree that teams set ticket prices to maximize their revenue?
We should have a pretty good idea in a couple months, when the sale of the Rams goes through; the AP article linked estimates a sale value of about $750 million.
Mostly by the players? Really? Nevermind the hundred million dollar new stadiums, practice facilities, broadcast networks, merchandise sales and hundred year legacies, for which the players bear no cost. As much as I love these players and what they can do, the NFL would be 90% as successful if they fired all these guys and hired the next thousand or so football players toiling away in the CFL, AFL, UFL and recently out of college.
No, they wouldn’t. Because someone would be smart enough to hire the ex-NFL players for half their current salaries and create the New NFL, and everyone would know which league was superior. (Of course it won’t come to that because the owners are smart enough not to murder the goose that’s been laying golden eggs for them for decades).
Back to the original purpose of the thread, to discuss breaking news and developments, the owners walked away from the negotiating table today following a supposed 50-50 offer by the players.
The cost of most of the new stadiums and practice facilities were extorted from the taxpayers - build us a palace or we’ll move the team - so I take those team costs with a grain of salt. Broadcast networks and merchandise/licensing sales generate INCOME to the teams, not costs. I have no idea what you mean by “hundred year legacies.”
I assumed players were paid 1/16th of their salary for every game they play. What hard does a lockout in March do to the players? The players won’t be losing any money and I assume the only people who will be losing money would be the support personnel. The owners would save some money, but the players likely wouldn’t be facing any financial loss until August or September and therefore wouldn’t be getting any serious pressure to settle until then. Why not start the lockout then?
There are several examples of this kind of extortion. The Bengals are a perfect example. Yes, the Hamilton county voters approved the sales tax increase to try to shoulder the burden of the construction and the ongoing maintenance of Paul Brown stadium, but at the time, the economic collapse could not be foreseen. Now Cincinnati is considering a plethora of budget cuts to essential services just so Mike Brown will keep his team here. Its fucking bullshit.
The whole thing is ugly. I appreciate the position of both sides. IMO, players, especially 1st round rookies, get way too much guaranteed money for never having played an NFL down. Its a lot of risk and financial investment for the owner in that case.
OTOH, players don’t really have guaranteed contracts like baseball does, and given the short shelf-life of NFL careers, I’m inclined to be sympathetic towards them.
Ultimately, like any NFL fan, I’m hoping for a compromise of some sort. But whatever.