Nooooooooo!!!!!

[Hambone]

Just to have some factual information, I'd like to know what was obtained by the CFL and its teams from the association with Rona, Scotiabank, and Coastal Capital Savings (and any others I've missed)--the companies whose logos I've seen from time to time on CFL uniforms. And how was the money distributed? Did a portion go to each team, with the CFL keeping the rest? How much money was involved and how much did each team get? I suppose that, if the amount was really substantial, it could be argued that this kind of commercial affiliation is necessary to keep the league afloat. But I wonder whether the total received rose to that level.

Well put it this way when looking at the 2012 financial reports from the community owned teams one finds the following when it comes to sponsorships:

Riders - $4.985 Million - 15% of all revenues
Eskimos - $3.597 million - 19% of all revenues
Bombers - $3.039 million - 18% of all revenues

These numbers do not include the CFL disbursements part of which would include teams' share of TV revenues and league negotiated sponsorships. Those ranged around $2.1 million per club.

Suffice it to say those annoying (in some eyes) little patches and sideline boards help contribute significant coin into the pockets of each club.

Thanks, Hambone; that's good information to have. After looking at the numbers, I'm experiencing a little confusion, however, about the 'proportion of revenues' part of it. If the sponsorship money received by the Riders, as one example, is $4.985M, and this is 15% of all team revenues, this means that team revenues run to about $33M. And yet the team pays its players the salary-cap of $4.4M, which would be about 13% of team revenues. As you know, most pro sports share close to 50% of team revenues with the players in the form of salary, and we know that the CFL players are negotiating for 56% (which they probably won't get). Still, if they were to settle for 50% of team revenues, this would mean something like a 300% increase in players' salaries, wouldn't it? Even if we use the lowest of the three values you present (Bombers), team revenues would seem to be close to $17M, leaving their salary portion at close to one-quarter of team revenues, and a 50% share with the club would about double the salaries for their players. So, I guess I'm missing something with these numbers. You can probably explain the seeming discrepancy.

The Riders showed $31M in revenues to the end of their 2012 fiscal year.
Gate receipts $10.76M
Merchandise - $6.97M
Sponsorship - $4.98M
Concessions - $3.83M
CFL - $2.05M
Friends of Riders Inc. - $1.24M
Interest & Investment income - $346K
Fundraising and other - $845K

Even though the revenues are high for merchandise and concessions they also eat up a lot of expenses. They show merchandise and concessions expenses of $5.47M and $2.52M respectively. So a $1.5M profit on merch and $1.3M profit on concessions. The Lions don't get any concession revenues as far as I know.

For purposes of cap calculation the 50% in other leagues is not 50% of team revenues. It's 50% of specified revenues. The old CFL CBA indicates ticket sales, TV and broadcast revenues and some league generated revenues are "defined gross revenues". In the numbers above probably only the gate receipts and CFL entries would apply. The NHL term is "hockey related revenues".

[South Pender]

The Riders showed $31M in revenues to the end of their 2012 fiscal year.
Gate receipts $10.76M
Merchandise - $6.97M
Sponsorship - $4.98M
Concessions - $3.83M
CFL - $2.05M
Friends of Riders Inc. - $1.24M
Interest & Investment income - $346K
Fundraising and other - $845K

Even though the revenues are high for merchandise and concessions they also eat up a lot of expenses. They show merchandise and concessions expenses of $5.47M and $2.52M respectively. So a $1.5M profit on merch and $1.3M profit on concessions. The Lions don't get any concession revenues as far as I know.

For purposes of cap calculation the 50% in other leagues is not 50% of team revenues. It's 50% of specified revenues. The old CFL CBA indicates ticket sales, TV and broadcast revenues and some league generated revenues are "defined gross revenues". In the numbers above probably only the gate receipts and CFL entries would apply. The NHL term is "hockey related revenues".

That's very helpful. If you add gate receipts and CFL (which is mainly the TV contributions, I suspect), we get $12.81M. At that rate, the players' share is only 34%. Of course, this will vary by team, with the Riders probably at the top in total revenues. Still, it puts the 56% share the players' association wants in perspective and makes it seem completely unreasonable. I wonder what we would get if we averaged, across the teams, the total of gate receipts and CFL-generated revenues, and then saw what $4.4M is as a fraction of that. I'd also be interested in knowing what portion of the $2.05M "CFL" part is league-negotiated sponsorships. That's the part that ends up on players' jerseys!

[Hambone]

That's very helpful. If you add gate receipts and CFL (which is mainly the TV contributions, I suspect), we get $12.81M. At that rate, the players' share is only 34%. Of course, this will vary by team, with the Riders probably at the top in total revenues. Still, it puts the 56% share the players' association wants in perspective and makes it seem completely unreasonable. I wonder what we would get if we averaged, across the teams, the total of gate receipts and CFL-generated revenues, and then saw what $4.4M is as a fraction of that. I'd also be interested in knowing what portion of the $2.05M "CFL" part is league-negotiated sponsorships. That's the part that ends up on players' jerseys!

For the Eskimos in 2012 Gate receipts + CFL = $10.5M. For the Bombers it was $9.9M......nearly $3M less than the Riders.

[sj-roc]

With sports, I believe there's a similar force at work that I like to refer to as "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt the existence of this phenomenon, just listen to almost any conversation between fans of different teams. Heck, it even happens between fans of the same team. Fans argue all the time over various minutiae of sports, who's the better QB, who's the better goalie, who's the better pitcher and selectively cite whatever facts support their views while ignoring those that don't.

I think that the more salient cognitive/emotional adjustment among fans of pro sports is the "Willing Suspension of a Belief in a Just World." You know, thuggish clods making $2M a year as enforcers on a pro hockey team, while the scientist with 12 years of post-secondary education working 70 hours a week on cancer research gets a measly (in comparison) $150K. This particular mental adjustment might be a subset of your "Willing Suspension of Rationality," but it's by far the most salient part for me. I lost all interest in the NHL after the last strike and am hoping this phenomenon doesn't sap my interest in football. Time will tell....

Love the Seinfeld take on this!

When you put it like that, I'd say it's very much a part of my WSR concept. WSR probably captures a lot of stuff when it comes to pro sports fandom.

But to play devil's advocate so to speak, consider: how many people would be willing to plunk down $100 or so, every couple of weeks or even more often, for months on end to watch someone fight cancer for three hours? *shrug* Not making a value judgment with this line of inquiry, it's just the way it is.

Incidentally, that Seinfeld clip was from the same episode where Jerry couldn't pawn off unwanted Super Bowl tickets to Kramer because he's "only interested in Canadian football."

[South Pender]

When you put it like that, I'd say it's very much a part of my WSR concept. WSR probably captures a lot of stuff when it comes to pro sports fandom.

But to play devil's advocate so to speak, consider: how many people would be willing to plunk down $100 or so, every couple of weeks or even more often, for months on end to watch someone fight cancer for three hours? *shrug*

Good point. But how many might be willing to plunk down 200 times that to be ensured that they would never die of cancer? And consider it money better spent than putting that money into entertainment.

[sj-roc]

When you put it like that, I'd say it's very much a part of my WSR concept. WSR probably captures a lot of stuff when it comes to pro sports fandom.

But to play devil's advocate so to speak, consider: how many people would be willing to plunk down $100 or so, every couple of weeks or even more often, for months on end to watch someone fight cancer for three hours? *shrug*

Good point. But how many might be willing to plunk down 200 times that to be ensured that they would never die of cancer? And consider it money better spent than putting that money into entertainment.

Very true.

Also another Seinfeldesque take, from The Onion, exposes much of the WSR aspect of sports fandom:

You Will Suffer Humiliation When The Sports Team From My Area Defeats The Sports Team From Your Area

[JohnHenry]

The Riders showed $31M in revenues to the end of their 2012 fiscal year.
Gate receipts $10.76M
Merchandise - $6.97M
Sponsorship - $4.98M
Concessions - $3.83M
CFL - $2.05M
Friends of Riders Inc. - $1.24M
Interest & Investment income - $346K
Fundraising and other - $845K

Even though the revenues are high for merchandise and concessions they also eat up a lot of expenses. They show merchandise and concessions expenses of $5.47M and $2.52M respectively. So a $1.5M profit on merch and $1.3M profit on concessions. The Lions don't get any concession revenues as far as I know.

For purposes of cap calculation the 50% in other leagues is not 50% of team revenues. It's 50% of specified revenues. The old CFL CBA indicates ticket sales, TV and broadcast revenues and some league generated revenues are "defined gross revenues". In the numbers above probably only the gate receipts and CFL entries would apply. The NHL term is "hockey related revenues".

That's very helpful. If you add gate receipts and CFL (which is mainly the TV contributions, I suspect), we get $12.81M. At that rate, the players' share is only 34%. Of course, this will vary by team, with the Riders probably at the top in total revenues. Still, it puts the 56% share the players' association wants in perspective and makes it seem completely unreasonable. I wonder what we would get if we averaged, across the teams, the total of gate receipts and CFL-generated revenues, and then saw what $4.4M is as a fraction of that. I'd also be interested in knowing what portion of the $2.05M "CFL" part is league-negotiated sponsorships. That's the part that ends up on players' jerseys!

The Riders aren't a typical CFL team, revenue-wise. The Esks and Bombers generate around $16 million in gross revenue, which is similar to the Als, Lions and Stamps. The Argos and Ticats are closer to $14 million. So any new CBA has to be affordable for the Ontario teams, not just the Riders (with a couple million added on for the new TV contract).

That's why the players are demanding team revenue sharing, which is essential for them to attain a minimum share (56%) of league revenues.

The problem is the CFL consists of 8 independent businesses. The league works for them and so do the players. The idea that the Riders should have to give a million each to the Argos and Ticats every year to "share the revenue", will be a tough sell.

With regards to the Riders merchandise sales generating only $1.5 million profit on $7 million sales, I'd suspect the Riders have a big warehouse full of green merchandise somewhere, containing much of that $5.5 million in merchandise expenditures (and some left over from the previous year and the year before that). As long as the Riders stay green, that will be a good long-term investment (while lowering their declared profits.)

[B.C.FAN]

The old CFL CBA indicates ticket sales, TV and broadcast revenues and some league generated revenues are "defined gross revenues". In the numbers above probably only the gate receipts and CFL entries would apply. The NHL term is "hockey related revenues".

Yes. The old 56% revenue-sharing formula in the 2006 CBA was based on a narrow definition of revenues and a broad definition of player salaries, including signing bonuses and salaries of active and injured players, up to 54 per team, and practice-roster players, up to 7 per team. From what I recall of reading the published financial statements of the community-owned teams, average player compensation per team amounted to somewhere between $6 million and $8 million a year, not the narrrow $4-million-plus that counts toward the salary cap. Here are some excerpts from the 2006 CBA:

In this article, “defined player’s compensation” shall mean the total compensation paid by the Member Clubs during each calendar year (excluding compensation paid to players on the roster for playoff games and Grey Cup games up to a maximum of 54 players per member club) to all Players on the roster (including injured player’s list and disabled players list and players on the practice roster up to a maximum of seven (7) players per Member Club) for:
(i) Paragraph 3 compensation in the Standard Player Contract;
(ii) All bonuses, including signing bonuses and performance bonuses; and
(iii) All other payments to Players for practicing and playing professional football including any payments made for the benefit of the Players; however, not including payments made to Players for the reasonable fair market value for services other than practicing and playing professional football.

The 2006 CBA acknowledged that player compensation (as defined above) exceeded 56% of team revenues (as defined) at the time of signing.

The current economic conditions prevailing in the C.F.L. are such that the defined player’s compensation on a league wide basis is in excess of 56% of the defined gross revenue.
The parties agree that if during any one calendar year during the term of this Agreement the current economic conditions prevailing in the C.F.L. shall improve to the extent that the defined player’s compensation is less than 56% of the defined gross revenue on a league wide basis, the C.F.L. and the Member Clubs in the C.F.L. shall pay to the C.F.L.P.A. the difference.

[WestCoastJoe]

Incidentally, that Seinfeld clip was from the same episode where Jerry couldn't pawn off unwanted Super Bowl tickets to Kramer because he's "only interested in Canadian football."

I almost never watched Seinfeld first time around. I started to watch it from time to time in reruns. That sounds hilarious. I do find Kramer funny. Not so much George or Elaine. Seinfeld himself is OK.

Newman and Kramer with the golf clubs in the Post Office truck and then the farmer's daughter and her Dad ... That was funny!

[notahomer]

Incidentally, that Seinfeld clip was from the same episode where Jerry couldn't pawn off unwanted Super Bowl tickets to Kramer because he's "only interested in Canadian football."

I almost never watched Seinfeld first time around. I started to watch it from time to time in reruns. That sounds hilarious. I do find Kramer funny. Not so much George or Elaine. Seinfeld himself is OK.

Newman and Kramer with the golf clubs in the Post Office truck and then the farmer's daughter and her Dad ... That was funny!

IMO, one of the reasons why it was popular was they were real life type situations. For e.g. a couple of years ago my Grandmother/Aunt and myself 'lost' the car in metrotown malls parking. Okay, we didn't have any goldfish in a bag etc... but the basic concept was similar.

Given a choice, I would have to admit (emberassed) I'd probably go to a Superbowl game versus a Grey Cup game. Only because I've been to a few Grey Cups but I have NEVER been to a Superbowl. Since they are never going up head2head it will never matter. Then again, if the Lions were in the Grey Cup, it WOULDn"T matter, I wouldn't bother doing the Superbowl....