But if you look at teams that want to share more revenues, they're teams that don't have a lot on the table. They've long since not had any serious investment in their team.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
That got us started on revenue sharing, and we couldn't have done it without all the teams.
Organizations are trying to save extra money. Players are trying to get extra money. That's the way it is.
The handwriting is on the wall: if you want to have your franchises viable, then you can't have a situation where New York and Chicago and Los Angeles are doing very, very well, and some other teams are, but, I would say, a significant percentage of the teams in our league are struggling financially.
Many players want to make as much money as they can and change teams for ten grand. How is that going to make much difference to their lives?
We need a system where all of our teams have the opportunity to compete and to make a few dollars. That's not a bad desire for collective bargaining for a sports league, and it's great for our fans.
The source of wealth is from individuals with little or no history of interest in the game, who have happened upon football as a means of serving some hidden agenda.
You have to want to put a competitive, Stanley Cup-caliber team on the ice in contrast to wanting to hopefully someday financially break even. So you have to really balance expenses with revenue.
Now there are two or three teams who are very ethical in their outlook who have opened up the economic benefits and that is probably going to be a turning point in the sport.
The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime.
We have a broad array of teams. And if somebody asked me whether a team is a good buy, my response is, 'You'd better hurry up, they're going like hot cakes, and they're going to be even more valuable when we get a system that is even more sustainable.'