Sunday, February 27, 2011

No to 18 games

Despite ongoing labor negotiations, it appears that - at least by most press reports - that the league is moving inexorably to an 18 game schedule despite concern by the players union and a complete lack of demand by fans. 18 games certainly doesn't make sense from a labor standpoint - the two extra games only add to the wear and tear of what is already a debilitating 16 game season for players (63% of all players were injured in 2010-11 season). (And the NFLPA needs to be doubly sure to reduce the vesting time for an NFL pension from the current 4 years down to 3 years and perhaps 2 if they are going to increase the season by 12%.)


18 games doesn't make sense from a competitive standpoint either. For many teams - and fans - the additional two games means having to endure an even longer slog to mediocrity and what had previously been a 6-10 season, into a 7-11 season. Ugh.

No, the reason the 18 game season is even in play is for money, pure and simple.The owners see it as a way to increase revenue as a bargaining chip in reducing the players' share of revenue. But even from a financial standpoint, the 18 game schedule doesn't make sense.

First off, these aren't "new game" but essentially the "repurposing" of 2 preseason games. Since preseason games are a required purchase in every team's season ticket package, transforming the preseason games, er, "exhibition" games, to actual games will have very little impact on the live gate. Since many of the purchased seats go unused, teams will probably see an increase in concession sales, but that extra money on a single home game would be peanuts relative to the gains hoped for in the television revenue.

No, the real projected money comes in the form of increased fees for the television contracts. But even these projections are questionable.


This works out to $193 million/week based on a 16 game schedule. So the addition of two extra games/weeks, should increase potential rights fees by $386 million ($193 x 2).

Wow, that sounds like a lot. But when you break it down, it may be a windfall to the owners (essentially free money) but it isn't a very good deal for the players.

Presuming that player salaries would be 55% of league revenue in a new CBA, these additional two weeks only amount to $212 million. Divided by 32 teams, it is only an extra $6 million to each team's salary pool. Divided between 55 players (one of the NLFPA's positions is that in return for an 18 game schedule, teams would add two roster spots to their 53 man rosters), it amounts to only $120,000 per player. Admittedly, $120,000 is a sizeable increase to the median player salary, which for most teams is in the $800,000 range, But it is less for the average team salary, which is roughly between $1.6 and $2 million/year. Of course, the $6.6 million is not going to be distributed equally among all roster players meaning that most journeyman players will see only minimal increases. Indeed, the NFLPA would be wise to increase the minimum salary requirements to ensure most of this increase is fairly disseminated.

Having said all that, the projected revenue numbers I used are probably higher than they actually would be. For some of the reasons stated above, TV networks likely wouldn't just proportionally increase their payouts for the two additional games. Most teams will be out of the playoffs by then, so the two additional weeks would likely see lower ratings. Also, the increase chance of injury would also have a negative impact on ratings for teams whose major contributing players are out.

Also, and this seems to get lost in all the talk about the extra money generated by the two extra games - those games are already being broadcast and the teams are getting payouts from local affiliates to do so. I haven't been able to find information about the preseason television contracts but these are certainly worth several hundred thousand dollars per game and should be subtracted from any potential gains of a new 18 game television contract. 

No comments: