NFL revenue-sharing issues
I frequently hear the guys over at profootballtalk.com get criticized for posting rumors that never come to fruition. But I peg most of that to mainstream media player-hating. Because when Mike Florio and Co. are on their game, the site is solid. I just stumbled across this quality piece on NFL revenue-sharing.
I'm sure Bengals fans will be happy to learn how much money their franchise has been making for their owners over the years of on-the-field futility:
"... revenue and profit are two very different concepts. There are plenty of teams that are making less revenues than other franchises. But because those teams have little or no stadium debt and/or little or no purchase debt and/or little or no operating expenses, they remain extremely profitable business enterprises.
"The example we repeatedly have heard in this regard is the Bengals. They paid nothing for their stadium, they have no purchase debt, and they pocket the entire amount of their Personal Seat Licenses. So even though the Bengals were 27th in revenues in 2005, they were one of the most -- if not the most -- profitable franchise in the sport."
Due to the length of the whole piece, and the fact that you can't link directly to it, I've Swamped the whole thing.