Mahomes' $503,000,000.00 10 yr contract extension

[Sarcasticfury]

How exactly will this be the death of the sport???

Because it's bad when players make more money or something. But not when the owners make enough to make that look like pennies in comparison.

[Rygar64]

Because it's bad when players make more money or something. But not when the owners make enough to make that look like pennies in comparison.

It trips me out too because it's almost like some folks take it personal or start looking for all the reasons a player isn't worth the deal they just got. The money the owners make is in a different stratosphere, and unlike the players, it doesn't hinge on them staying healthy or effective. Folks that want players to take less money to help the team or some other such nonsense are out of their minds. Sure, once I'm already rich and my family is set for life, maybe I'd consider it. But even then, always remember the team will always do what's best for them, so as an independent contractor, you better do the same.

[RAVEN2FLY]

Those types of 10 year deals are unheard of lol.. we might not see another one like it for a VERY long time in the NFL

I expect it to be closer to 5 years 200M

Lamar at 40 million a year? I don't think so. Im looking at 45 mill a season.

[Greg]

Yeah. The contract money isn't pushing the economics. The economics is pushing the contract money.

What I mean is that Mahomes wouldn't get paid this kind of money if this kind of money wasn't already available. It's available because we're still willing to pay the cost of our cable/streaming subscriptions, tickets, parking, concessions, merchandise. The owners are contractually obligated to spend close to 50% of their revenue to pay players.

If paying one guy so much means the Chiefs can't field a winning team and the fans in KC stop supporting them then the money dries up and that would perhaps kill the sport. Until that happens, we will just grin and bear it.

We focus on one guy's deal, but in reality every team is spending about the same, close-to $200MM a year on players. That also means every owner is bringing in about that same figure every year to run the operation and put money in the bank. We talk about Mahomes absorbing 10% of the total revenues a year over many years but we don't talk about the Hunt kids getting 50% in perpetuity.

The owners do NOT get 50% in profits. They pay for the buildings. They pay the stadium personnel. They pay the staff at the facility. They pay the coaches. The charter planes. They pay for hotels. They pay for food at the facility and on the road. The list goes on.

Now don't get me wrong, they do just fine, clearing something in the 5-15% range of revenues for most owners, depending on how lavish they treat their players in the list mentioned above. Some may clear more than 20% and I doubt any are lower than 5%.

But it ain't anywhere close to 50%.

[Greg]

Coming from being a "soccer" fan, I was shocked at how little NFL money goes to the players. There are financial fair play rules in "soccer" to prevent teams from spending more than their entire income on players, yet teams still do everything they can to get around them.

NFL owners probably have the best deal of all sports so it follows that NFL players probably have the worst deal. I suppose that comes from having a monopoly in a one-country sport but the players union should still be able to negotiate a better deal than they currently get.

It isn't a zero sum game where the good deal for the owners means a bad deal for the players.

Quite the opposite, this good owner's deal is also great for fans. As an Orioles fan it is ridiculous my team competes with Boston and New York who have gargantuan TV deals. The Os actually have a pretty good deal in comparison to a team like Oakland. But the disparity in revenues and no cap means the talent is skewed. Basically, I rarely watch baseball and have lost almost all interest. I used to be an avid "watch every game" fan.

Baseball, as a result, is losing fans and revenue growth is pitiful in comparison to the the NFL. NFL players salaries are growing much faster than baseball's.

By the way, I don't have figures but my guess is it costs a shitload more to run an NFL team than a soccer team (outside of salaries). The expenses for everything are likely way higher since there are more players on the team, the equipment is more expensive, a lot more coaches and scouts are involved, etc.

[QtR Nevermore]

It isn't a zero sum game where the good deal for the owners means a bad deal for the players.

Quite the opposite, this good owner's deal is also great for fans. As an Orioles fan it is ridiculous my team competes with Boston and New York who have gargantuan TV deals. The Os actually have a pretty good deal in comparison to a team like Oakland. But the disparity in revenues and no cap means the talent is skewed. Basically, I rarely watch baseball and have lost almost all interest. I used to be an avid "watch every game" fan.

Baseball, as a result, is losing fans and revenue growth is pitiful in comparison to the the NFL. NFL players salaries are growing much faster than baseball's.

By the way, I don't have figures but my guess is it costs a shitload more to run an NFL team than a soccer team (outside of salaries). The expenses for everything are likely way higher since there are more players on the team, the equipment is more expensive, a lot more coaches and scouts are involved, etc.

A salary cap is a great idea for fans but that it's set at c. 50% of income is a great deal for owners. It wouldn't hurt fans if 70-80% of income or more went to the players, as it does in 'soccer'.

I'm not sure an NFL team is much more expensive to run. Soccer teams have to develop some of their own players and they have youth teams right down the age groups and all the scouts and coaches that entails.

[Shas]

The owners do NOT get 50% in profits. They pay for the buildings. They pay the stadium personnel. They pay the staff at the facility. They pay the coaches. The charter planes. They pay for hotels. They pay for food at the facility and on the road. The list goes on.

Now don't get me wrong, they do just fine, clearing something in the 5-15% range of revenues for most owners, depending on how lavish they treat their players in the list mentioned above. Some may clear more than 20% and I doubt any are lower than 5%.

But it ain't anywhere close to 50%.

And players pay agents and trainers and PR people etc. And they pay personal taxes (without corporate write offs).

I recognized the point when I wrote it, but didn't want to get into a quibble war. The point is that the owners, even with the high cost of running the team factored in, still generate far more money for themselves if they want it, and for a much longer number of years if they want it. And then in the end they also have an asset worth billions that they can sell when they are ready to leave football. Joe Flacco didn't get to sell his QB spot to Lamar Jackson.

The money the Hunts keep every year, after expenses, DWARFS the money Mahomes keeps. And their family has been making money off football since before PH was born.

[WrongBaldy]

And players pay agents and trainers and PR people etc. And they pay personal taxes (without corporate write offs).

I recognized the point when I wrote it, but didn't want to get into a quibble war. The point is that the owners, even with the high cost of running the team factored in, still generate far more money for themselves if they want it, and for a much longer number of years if they want it. And then in the end they also have an asset worth billions that they can sell when they are ready to leave football. Joe Flacco didn't get to sell his QB spot to Lamar Jackson.

The money the Hunts keep every year, after expenses, DWARFS the money Mahomes keeps. And their family has been making money off football since before PH was born.

Read The Big Rich…Good stories about the hunt family

[MarkS]

A salary cap is a great idea for fans but that it's set at c. 50% of income is a great deal for owners. It wouldn't hurt fans if 70-80% of income or more went to the players, as it does in 'soccer'.

I'm not sure an NFL team is much more expensive to run. Soccer teams have to develop some of their own players and they have youth teams right down the age groups and all the scouts and coaches that entails.

Wait, what? I don't think that's even remotely correct.

Here is a breakdown of all the EPL clubs, from the 2017-2018 season. It's true that a few of the smaller clubs are forced to spend a higher percentage of their revenue on player salary in order to be competitive, but for all of the "major" clubs, they're spending a pretty similar percentage of their income on players that the NFL does. I am specifically looking at the "Big-6" Premier League teams:

Arsenal: $403/$240 - 60%
Chelsea: $448/$246 - 55%
Liverpool: $455/$264 - 58%
Man City: $500/$260 - 52%
Man United: $590/$296 - 50%
Tottenham: $381/$148 - 39%

https://www.theguardian.com/football...er-united-city

[Greg]

A salary cap is a great idea for fans but that it's set at c. 50% of income is a great deal for owners. It wouldn't hurt fans if 70-80% of income or more went to the players, as it does in 'soccer'.

I'm not sure an NFL team is much more expensive to run. Soccer teams have to develop some of their own players and they have youth teams right down the age groups and all the scouts and coaches that entails.

I bet an NFL team is a lot more expensive to operate. A lot more hotel rooms for coaches and players and other personnel on trips. A lot more food. Traveling costs, etc.

And I don't know what soccer offers for pensions and stuff but all NFL players get a pension, even after short service.

All said, I can guarantee the player's union isn't letting them clear 30-40% profits without demanding more on the salary cap. A team that spends little on facilities and other things like that (Bengals) isn't likely to be making more than 20% profits. A team like the Ravens might be under 10%. The Cowboys and Jerry Jones might be as well except that their name value generates them quite a bit of money they don't have to split.

[Greg]

And players pay agents and trainers and PR people etc. And they pay personal taxes (without corporate write offs).

I recognized the point when I wrote it, but didn't want to get into a quibble war. The point is that the owners, even with the high cost of running the team factored in, still generate far more money for themselves if they want it, and for a much longer number of years if they want it. And then in the end they also have an asset worth billions that they can sell when they are ready to leave football. Joe Flacco didn't get to sell his QB spot to Lamar Jackson.

The money the Hunts keep every year, after expenses, DWARFS the money Mahomes keeps. And their family has been making money off football since before PH was born.

Agents make 3%, trainers a lot less and that is optional, you can use the team trainers. And PR people are for generating income outside the NFL so . . .

They aren't building facilities like the Ravens have and they can eat for free whenever they are in the facility or traveling for games.

Listen, I understand the owners have a great deal. And while the players have the risk of injury the owners all took massive hits from COVID last year. They lost all game day revenue, or about 99% of it given the limited tickets sold. The cap went down this year because of it so they will slowly recoup that money over time but in reality while they will get the lost money back during that time they will be losing the increasing revenues that would have accrued. In a business sense they are never getting that money back.

And I have no issue with the players making big money. I will be the first to defend them when people compare them to teachers or whatever. Bad comparison. The top 0.1% of teachers (like a Harvard professor) will make a damn lot of money over the course of their careers without near the dangers involved.

The point is the owners are not ripping off the players. The union isn't that stupid.

[Ravensblitzkrieg]

I bet an NFL team is a lot more expensive to operate. A lot more hotel rooms for coaches and players and other personnel on trips. A lot more food. Traveling costs, etc.

And I don't know what soccer offers for pensions and stuff but all NFL players get a pension, even after short service.

All said, I can guarantee the player's union isn't letting them clear 30-40% profits without demanding more on the salary cap. A team that spends little on facilities and other things like that (Bengals) isn't likely to be making more than 20% profits. A team like the Ravens might be under 10%. The Cowboys and Jerry Jones might be as well except that their name value generates them quite a bit of money they don't have to split.

Bro you have to factor in they make all that money over 16-17 games. Think about that for a second. The nfl makes more money than the NBA and the nba has 82 games including a 2 month playoffs.

MLB had 172 games or something crazy. So when it comes to expenses to generate all that revenue in about 16-17 games is incredible.

Also they don’t want to generate much profit. Too much tax. These guys don’t need the cash it’s best they probably take a salary and spend the rest on expenses in the business. They just want to see the billion dollar asset continue to get more valuable over time.