Are efforts to have an NFL season really what's best for all?
As much as we'd all love to have the NFL back as soon as possible, and no one is anywhere near certain just how that can be pulled off, it seems nobody is asking the more important question - why are the NFL owners so determined to make it happen?
On June 25, a Suffolk University Poll said 69% of Americans said the country is on the wrong track with its handling of the coronavirus.
On July 1, a Monmouth University Poll said 64% of Americans believe the country is attempting to reopen too soon.
On July 11, according to the ABC/Ispos Poll, 59% of the country believed it was too soon to try and return to normal.
And perhaps most relevant to this question, a recent poll from the Green Bay Press-Gazette (this was an unscientific poll) showed 54.7% of Packers fans said they wouldn't attend a game this year, mostly due to the public health crisis.
All of us would love to have the NFL back as soon as possible, and I'm sure most of us will watch even if games are played in empty or practically empty stadiums with tricked-up TV broadcasts to make it feel real.
And it is assumed that because unlike any of the other major professional team sports, the NFL relies so much more on its broadcast revenues than stadium revenues for profitably, that is why the league is trying so hard to move forward.
But a little deeper dive leaves one to wonder how true that premise is.
According to a study by Forbes, NFL teams stand to lose as much as $5.5 billion or 38% of their total revenue this season without stadium revenues - tickets, concessions, sponsors, parking and team stores - if they play in empty buildings based on 2018 reported figures.
The pain could be much greater for some teams. The Dallas Cowboys, derive $621 million, or 65%, of their total $950 annual revenue from game days. The New England Patriots get $315 million, or 52.5%, of their $600 million from their game-day haul. At the other end of the spectrum, the L.A. Chargers earned just $93 million from stadium income, just 25% of $375 million in total revenue. The Cincinnati Bengals $99 million, or 26% of $380 million in annual revenue.
With the salary cap for players alone set at $198.2 million this year and significant other expenses for team facilities, staff, benefits, marketing, etc., perhaps some teams will break even, but it seems most or all, everyone of which has been profitable in recent years will lose money this year.
And while I do apologize for throwing all these numbers at you, as we continue to pull threads on the owners' plans for this season there is even a more curious question that emerges.
According to both the current and new extended Collective Bargaining Agreements, NFL players should receive 47% of total football revenues this season and 48% next year.
That salary cap has increased by an average of about 10% a season for a number of years now.
But since the league must commit to the cap prior to the beginning of the season, that amount has to be based on last season's revenue.
So should the league play this year but lose an average 35% of its total revenue with the loss of stadium dollars, could the owners attempt to lower the cap by 35% next year?
As I reported last week, right now the players and owners appear to agree on next to nothing, and it's hard to imagine the uproar from the players should things be back to normal next season and the owners plan is to recoup this year's losses by cutting players salaries next season.
One would think the owners would know better, but much stranger things have happened or at least been tried from their side of the table.
Like so many other aspects of this country's handling of the pandemic, we are left to ask, would we all really be better off if we just bit the bullet and put everything else on hold, including the NFL until we have this virus under control?
• Twitter: @Hub_Arkush