2011 collective bargaining agreement
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
1/18
Running head: NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement
Coen De Heus
Sho TakakiKai Tin (Michael) Lee
Giorgio Varlaro
Ithaca College
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
2/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Abstract
Labor issues in the National Football League (NFL) have been widely publicized this
spring (2011). The researchers in this study felt that some of the topics essential to the labor
negotiations where still not publicized widely enough, thus needed further research. Due to this,
the researchers used financial and security valuation theories to try and establish whether the
NFL owners were right in their opinion to cancel the CBA extension of 2006 by the spring of
2008.
Over the last decade, the NFL has grown from a multi-million dollar business to a multi-
billion dollar business. Owners have more and more interest in the business side of the sport,
which could be seen with the rapid rate of new stadiums being erected in NFL cities. These
stadiums increased revenue, and increased team values, which is crucial to the owners.
Furthermore, TV contracts have progressively gotten larger, seeing earnings reach in the billions
within the last century. With an even spread of revenues across the league, due to their labor
agreement, every NFL owner has reaped the benefits of this system as seasons have progressed.
The main balancing factor of revenue is player costs. After the labor issues in the 1980s,
the owners and players combined to create the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in 1993.
Since then this deal has been extended multiple times, with varying conditions, but financial
success caused an overwhelming increase for both sides as wages and NFL team values grew
consistently. However due to the owners choice to opt out of the CBA in 2008, it is clear that
the balance is gone. Legal battles, which mainly revolve around anti-trust law, prove to
strengthen this point.
This study analyzed franchise values of the 32 teams in the National Football League
from 2003 to 2009. Based on the NFL franchise value data from Forbes.com, a repeated measure
2
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
3/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
ANOVA and a simple linear regression were used to examine the changes in NFL teams values
over time and the impact of the NFL CBA on team value changes. In addition, simple line graphs
were created to compare the discount rates of the market with the data collected on the NFL
annual team value growth. This research was done under two main hypotheses. One hypothesis
is that the value of the NFL franchises improved significantly less under the latest CBA,
compared to the situation in the previous CBA and compared to the risk-free rate and major
stock markets in the United States. The other hypothesis is that the average team values
increased over the last six years have significantly diminished.
The owners annual increase in team value diminished by about six percent after the
extension of the CBA in 2006, but diminished even more after opting out in 2008. Even though
there are some issues with the data in this study, it is likely the discovered trends were part of the
information owners had on their franchises. It appears that based on the data available to this
study, the owners made the proper decision to cancel the CBA, since the latest extension had not
increased financially as much as in years prior.
Introduction
The NFL and its players are in debate over a new Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA). Both sides claim that the other is simply making too much money. When reading popular
media articles, it is often suggested that teams are either losing money or making money, but
enough information isnt present to decipher which is more significant. This minute difference
between losing or making money is often the basis for public debate on which side should
prevail in these negotiations. In this paper we will suggest a different approach. As each NFL
franchise is a for profit organization, we will argue that it is reasonable to expect more than just a
minor annual gain. Then using information from what owners expect as a return on investment,
3
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
4/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
well examine whether the owners made the right decision to opt out of the latest CBA extension
(of 2006) in 2008. This decision will be analyzed using expected and achieved rates of return on
franchise values.
Literature Review
NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement
All of the current NFL franchises, besides the Green Bay Packers are privately owned.
Due to this, annual financial statements do not have to be administered to the public. Since the
Green Bay Packers are the only team in the National Football League (NFL) which provide a
financial statement, this increases the difficulty to establish whether the NFL is in crisis mode.
Furthermore, the Packers, who had a franchise value of $1 billion last season, are in the middle
of the pack within the 32 member league (NFL Team Valuations, 2010). For outsiders it is thus
difficult to establish the variance of team values and financial data of the other NFL teams. With
scarce financial information available, it will be important to rely on secondary sources such as
the Forbes Team Valuations. The previous Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) of the NFL
was initially negotiated in 1993 after the league missed a total of 24 regular season games in the
80s (nine games in 1982 and 15 games in 1987) (Lee, 2010). In that agreement, free agency and
a hard salary cap were instilled into the league to maintain competitive balance. Since that time,
the agreement has been extended numerous times until the owners opted out in 2008.
The CBA essentially defines the labor-management relationship between the National
Football League Players Association (NFLPA) and the National Football Leagues Management
Council (NFLMC) (Redding & Peterson, 2009). In the NFL, 224 players enter the league
through a draft system where teams can obtain exclusive rights to a player through a signed
contract. Other rookies enter the league through free agency. Before free agency took affect after
4
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
5/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
the 1993 CBA agreement, the drafting team had maintained exclusive rights throughout a
player's career with the reserve clause and Rozelle rule intact (Fuhr, 2001). After 1993, the new
agreement granted restricted and unrestricted free agents far greater ability to negotiate with
other clubs. This resulted in a change in players earned salaries because their abilities could be
competed for in the open market once their original rookie contract expired. Free agency
provided an increase to player salaries, seeing the average player salary of $55,000 in 1977
increase to $1 million in 1997 (Fuhr, 2001). However, in exchange for accepting free agency, the
owners could limit player payrolls because the agreement set to only allow a hard cap. Under a
hard salary cap, no team could go above a certain sum of money without being penalized the
following season. Due to this cap, there is little variance in a team's spending on player salaries
(NFL.com, 2008; Lee, 2010; Davis, 2011).
The 2006 extension, which could have been valid through the 2012 season, provided both
the NFL and the NFLPA the ability to shorten the CBA by one or two years if the current deal
wasnt working. As stated, in 2008 the NFL and its 32 members opted out of their current
agreement and wanted to keep negotiating a new agreement for the 2011 season and beyond,
thus trying to figure out if a better model could be used (NFL.com, 2008). Negotiations
continued until March 4, 2011 when the previous CBA agreement expired. A 24 hour extension
was executed, which turned into a seven-day extension, but ultimately both sides were unable to
reach a new deal. Due to this, the NFLPA applied to decertify as a collective bargaining
maneuver, which basically meant they were not a union anymore so further negotiations could
not continue. In reaction to the players decertification, the NFL made the decision to lock out the
players, thus forcing both sides into court where anti-trust laws would be argued (Bell, 2011).
5
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
6/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
The issues between the NFL and NFLPA are threefold, namely to readjust revenue
sharing, a possible increase in the number of regular season games, and to incorporate a rookie
wage scale (Redding & Peterson, 2009). The biggest issue both sides cannot agree on is the
revenue sharing. The previous CBA deal favored the players, seeing them receive 60 percent of
the league's nearly $8 billion in revenues after $1 billion was taken off the top for the owners. In
the new agreement, the league was asking for an additional $1 billion off the top before the
revenues were split because the clubs complained about growing expenses due to stadium
construction, increased operating costs and improvements to respond to the interests and
demands of their fans (NFL.com, 2008). Furthermore, the league also wanted to change the
players current 60 percent of total revenues earned to 55 percent (Berman, 2011).
When dealing with the increasement of regular season games, from 16 to 18, the owners
sought for the players approval because it would bring more revenues to the league (Redding &
Peterson, 2009). If an 18-game regular season was agreed upon, two preseason games would be
eliminated and replaced with regular season games in August. The league said that fans did not
like the quality of preseason games, so it would be in the best interest of the league to make a
change (Berman, 2011). Players, who currently average 3.4 years in the league, did not like the
idea because they believed an 18-game regular season would potentially shorten their career and
opportunity to make money. Furthermore, the idea was thought to also undermine players' safety
and health benefits. Under the previous CBA, players could receive post-career health care after
playing three years in the league. With the amount of games increased, this number would surely
go down, thus giving less players benefits after they retire. The NFLPA projects the average
career span would decrease to 2.8 years with an 18-game regular season (Berman, 2011).
6
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
7/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
The final argument which is keeping the league and its players from a new agreement is
the inclusion of a rookie wage scale. The league wants to implement a wage scale because the
first round picks of the draft are believed to be paid an exorbitant salary compared to proven
veterans. An example of this could be seen in 2010 when the No. 1 overall pick Sam Bradford
received a $78 million contract from the St. Louis Rams. What was even more remarkable about
the contract was the $50 million guaranteed in a league which uses incentive based contracts to
keep base salaries to a minimum (Berman, 2011).
In sum, the NFL and NFLPA are trying to negotiate a new CBA which is primarily
focused on how much owners can limit player costs and on how much revenue players can gain.
These factors are among the main influences of the business model of an NFL franchise, and
thus the potential team value. This is significant as owners have only limited avenues of
personally gaining of NFL teams, as we will explain in later sections, increasing team values is
the most important.
Economic Framework of the NFL
The most current Collective Bargaining Agreement was claimed to be insufficient
because it wasnt generating enough revenue for the league. NFL owners, as stated by Murphy
and Topel (2009):
Appear to be claiming that they are not earning enough to be able to afford their
costs. It appears they are focused on net operating income, i.e., they are claiming
that they are not making enough money because net operating income is too
low (p. 2).
When looking at the typical incoming revenues for an NFL franchise, normally media
rights (television and radio), ticket sales (including luxury boxes), concessions, parking, and the
7
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
8/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
sale of team emblems are present (Leonard, 1998). As for the teams top expenditures, these
include player compensation (salaries, bonuses, benefits, etc.) and operating expenses (employee
salaries, equipment and facility costs) (Leonard, 1998). Both revenues and expenditures have
gone up since the last CBA was renewed in 2006.
The confusion of who had a better deal in the last CBA doesnt allow key stakeholders or
the public to put pressure on the league or its players to come to a new deal. Information
provided by the NFL and the players are contradictory, thus upholding the current equilibrium in
public opinion. Leonard (1997 & 1998), Fuhr (2001), Redding & Peterson (2009), Miller (2009),
and Johnson (1988) have looked at the NFL and franchises values. The general consensus is NFL
franchise values have substantially raised. However the question whether this assertion has held
under the latest CBA remains unanswered.
Stadiums are of great essence to the value of a team. From 1991 to 2004, the NFL saw
the average age of a stadium decrease from 18.5 years old to 11.2 (Miller, 2009). This was due to
sports teams often claiming that they needed a new facility to remain competitive. That might
have been true, but research by Leonard (1997), Fuhr (2001) and Miller (2009) reveal that new
stadiums were built by teams because it increased attendance and allowed for the incorporation
of luxury seats. Team owners in the NFL do not have to share revenues for concessions, luxury
seating or venue advertising (Leonard, 1998). As stated by Fuhr (2001), a new stadium adds
considerably to the profits and values of the franchise. Not only does attendance generally
increase, but revenues also increase due to luxury seating (p. 319). The recent move of
incorporating luxury seating has allowed owners to increase profits through price discrimination,
thus reaping higher revenues (Fuhr, 2001). In the NFL this could be seen with the New York
Giants and New York Jets in 2008. Both franchises gained an extra $125 million, resulting in a
8
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
9/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
21 percent increase in team value with the incorporation of a new stadium (Ozanian, 2008). This
increase in value came directly from a sponsorship deal and luxury seating. Examples like this
can be found across the league.
When looking at television contracts, the NFL enjoys a lofty position amongst other
professional sports leagues and has claimed it sport as Americas Game in recent years
(Redding & Peterson, 2009). Also, Redding & Peterson (2009) state that:
Entering the 2007 season, the NFL had television contracts in place with the
following television rights holders with annual values as follows: ESPN ($1.1
billion through 2013), Fox ($712 million through 2011), CBS ($622.5 million
through 2011), NBC ($660 million through 2011), and DirecTV ($700 million
though 2010 and $1 billion per year 2011-2014) (p.95).
Media revenues in the NFL average out to $2.1 billion before owners even sell a ticket.
Since 1994, media contracts have contributed to over two-and-a-half times the amount of gate
receipts, as opposed to 34.5 percent back in 1974 (Leonard, 1998). Due to the increasing media
figure, researchers have provided more evidence that teams are making profits from the ever-
increasing value of their franchises (Fuhr, 2001). To show this in figures, before the NFL started
raking in $2.1 billion from 2007-present, the league was earning $17.6 billion from 1998-2006
(Fuhr, 2001).
Contrary to the notion that NFL owners make money, the average franchise value has
only risen 13.9 percent since the CBA was extended in 2006 (Gaines, 2011). 13.9 percent is a far
cry from the franchise value rise from $279 million to $1.022 billion since 1998. Furthermore,
NFL franchise values are actually down more than $500 million within the last two years. Only
two teams, the Cowboys and Giants have reached at least eight percent annual growth on average
9
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
10/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
in the previous four years, while 23 teams have averaged less than four percent growth during
the same time period (Gaines, 2011). Even worse, the Jaguars, Lions and Rams have lost value
since 2006. Evidence like this suggests that NFL Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer Ray Anderson was correct in saying that, for every dollar of new revenue generated by
the league since the CBA was renewed in 06, the league has lost $0.06 and the players have
reaped $0.75 (Redding & Peterson, 2009, p.102).
Financial Valuation
For the purpose of this study, we claim to argue that owners of sports franchises should
be seen as investors who invest in assets. Whether this analogy is perfect is debatable, as owners
willingly overpay for teams, which can be referred to as an ownership premium (Vine, 2004;
Humphreys & Mondello, 2008). Investors, whether it is in the stock market or in the less visible
underhand market, consistently put a value on potential assets. If the asset to them is more
valuable than the current price of the asset, investors will 'strike' and buy the asset. Similarly,
when the asset is in their possession, they will evaluate it. If the asset's price becomes higher than
the value they feel the asset is worth, it is likely to be sold. Using these investment principles for
valuation indeed appear to be a valid approach to look at what value owners expect from their
teams (Alexander & Kern, 2004).
However, while many businesses value their assets of cash flow, income, or revenue
generated, sports franchises appear to operate in a somewhat different framework. For most
sports franchises annual operating losses do not necessarily mean decreases in business value,
which is contrary to most non-sports businesses (Humphreys & Mondello, 2008). Compared to
most businesses, sports franchises are overpriced, at least according to the limited information
available (Humphreys & Mondello, 2008). In fact, estimates suggest that owners pay about 27
10
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
11/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
percent over valuation models based on assets and annual operating income (Vine, 2004). This
overpricing is suggested to be the utility an owner gets from the status of owning a franchise
(Humphreys & Mondello, 2008). While the value of a sport franchise might be overpriced the
moment an owner makes the transaction, this does not mean the owner isnt expecting a return
on investment. Indeed over the period between 1969 and 2006 teams increased their franchise
values by an average of 15 percent per year (Humphreys & Mondello, 2008). Thus while
negotiating with the NFLPA over a new CBA agreement, owners might complain about financial
hardships, but owning a franchise should average out to be profitable with what has just been
suggested.
It is therefore crucial to understand what leads to value in businesses, or at least be able to
understand how these are assessed by operators in the market. Forbes Magazine annually
assesses the value of sports franchises, based on the often limited information available. Even
though this valuation is a difficult task, it appears that Forbes' values are relatively accurate
(Murphy & Topel, 2009). Forbes collects data from inside sources, public data, and peripheral
companies, as many teams have transactions with public companies. Based on this information
Forbes runs their valuation analysis, with the core foundations of operating income and revenue
generated at the stadium of the franchise. It is essential to realize that this valuation is trying to
establish an average team value (Forbes, 2009). Forbes is trying to exclude other potential assets,
such as television networks, so individual teams within the league can be compared
(Badenhausen, Ozanian, & Settimi, 2009).
In finance and investment education, valuation is taught in one of three ways: discounted
cash flows, relative valuation, and option pricing (Damodaran, 2006). It appears that Forbes uses
a combination of each. Franchises tend to be in a consistent flux regarding their operations.
11
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
12/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Either teams have just moved into a new stadium, are moving into a new one soon, or are
looking to optimize their current stadium by adding new premium seating. This probably forces
Forbes analysts to compare the profitability of one stadium to the other, and also to other sports
entertainment venues in the same region. Each investor in the market can be expected to evaluate
the options available. Based on this valuation the investor selects which asset would be most
profitable at this current moment at current prices (Ross, 1976). This last part is significant, as
every investor also has an expected annual increase of value in mind, called the discount rate
(Penman, 2007). Owners of NFL teams do not only expect to break even with their franchises,
they expect a certain amount of financial increase annually.
Generally, investors can reap the benefits of owning an asset in two ways. They can earn
dividends or they can sell the stock (Murphy & Topel, 2009). The Green Bay Packers do not pay
any dividends and for the rest of the NFL it is not know how much dividends the owners reap
from their operations. One of the assumptions in financial valuation is that it generally does not
matter when and how much a dividend is paid. While investors will see paid dividends as a
positive signal for the financial health of operations, earnings reported far outweigh the value of
dividends (Liu, Nissim, & Thomas, 2007). Above all, the price of the asset will have discounted
these 'negative' streams of cash flow (Penman, 2007).
A plethora of options exist which establish the proper discount rate for an asset. The
discount rate is the basic indicator of what the owner, or potential owner, of the asset expects in
cash generated from the asset (Penam, 2007). This discount rate can be divided in two parts, the
risk free rate and the risk premium. The risk free rate is a widely accepted interest rate that one
can get from investing in the most riskless assets available (Ross, 1976; Penman, 2007). It is
extremely difficult to establish the risk free rate because it is continuously changing (Penman,
12
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
13/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
2007). It is important to understand however that this rate indicates that asset holders always
have the option in something with minimal or no risk. Any asset will thus at least need to
outperform this standard (Penman, 2007).
More important than the discount rate is the risk premium that is set. This risk premium is
an indication of the annual growth on equity expected by an investor, when added to the risk free
rate (Penam, 2007). Risk premium is an indication of how much risk one expects in an asset, thus
the higher the risk, the higher the premium expected. The logic behind this is that when it is more
likely an asset will not pay out its initial price, the more possible returns an investor plans to
expect. If an investor then spreads the investments in strategically placed, though risky,
investments, the investor should be guaranteed gains above a certain level (Penman, 2007). One
of the challenges of this study will be setting the appropriate discount rate based on these risk
premiums. It appears that investing in an NFL franchise has been a generally secure operation,
however that can change over time (Murphy & Topel, 2009). Over the last fifteen years the
values of franchises have increased dramatically, something not observed in the decades
previous to these years (Murphy & Topel, 2009).
A final notion on valuation ought to be made. The total value of a team will concern both
debt and equity assets. An owner is only concerned with the equity side of the equation (Murphy
& Topel, 2009). This is a valid way of assessing the financial viability of the venture. Since debts
always have to be paid off first, their discount rates are rigid, thus the variability of value for a
company will generally lie in the changes in equity. The expected rate of return can be skewed
positively by taking on debt at a rate below the owner's discount rate (Penman, 2007). However,
across teams the discount rate on equity taken on its own is expected to be stable, so the ease of
attaining this rate could be affected by the franchises' debt position, yet that does not
13
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
14/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
significantly alter the expectations of the equity position. This study will thus focus primarily on
the gains in equity by the owners, as it is nearly impossible to find accurate debt interest rates per
team.
Current Development of NFL Franchise Values
Forbes annually publishes a list of estimated sport franchise values. Over the history of
the publication, until 2007, the list did not show any decreases in NFL franchise values. Due to
this, the image of sport franchise values as a growing entity needs to be reevaluated.
Furthermore, through 2009 the league as a whole decreased in value (Badenhausen, Ozanian &
Settimi, 2009). A prevailing reason for this decrease could be due to a lack of possible investors.
The value of a franchise is affected by the lack of potential investors (Badenhausen, Ozanian &
Settimi, 2009). It appears that the recession may have affected the league in this way, since
annual operating income managed to rise. A possible explanation may thus be that costs increase
faster than the revenue generated within sports franchises. As argued, player costs are among the
highest for a franchise, and player costs are highly affected by the CBA. If this is true, the
owners were right to reject the CBA since their financial position needs to improve. Furthermore,
it is arguable that even a slight increase in franchise value might not be enough as owners expect
to outperform the risk-free options in the market. If these messages of a lack of profitability
spread throughout the market, this could possibly lead to even less interested investors, which
brings to the forefront a need for change in the CBA.
Methods
Participants
This study researched team values consistent with the National Football League (NFL).
The NFL includes 32 separate teams throughout separate cities in the United States. Separating
14
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
15/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
franchises in the NFL are conferences and leagues, which are based on geographic location. The
conferences consist of the American Football Conference (AFC) and National Football
Conference (NFC). Each conference consists of 16 teams, which are further broken down into
four divisions, the North, South, East and West (NFC North, NFC South, NFC East, NFC West,
AFC North, AFC South, AFC East and AFC West).
Materials
The data regarding the NFL were gained from the Forbes Web site (www.forbes.com).
Forbes Web site offers data which includes: team value, one-year value change, revenue and
operating income of all NFL franchises. The data looked specifically from 2003 to 2008 which
directly associated with extensions with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The data used
from Forbes were chosen for this study because annual financial information of NFL teams is not
documented publicly. Each NFL franchise, except the Green Bay Packers is a private entity, thus
financial information cannot be examined because it is not accessible. The only instance where
NFL financial information is distributed is in the court of law. This is why the National Football
League Players Association (NFLPA) is asking the owners to provide current financial data in
response to complaints by the NFL owners financial difficulties. In response to the NFLPAs
request, the owners declined to provide current financial information. Although it is best to use
the direct data to analyze the economics of NFL team ownership, it was found through a study
done by Murphy & Topel (2009) that comparisons of Forbes data with the financial information
from the Green Bay is reasonably accurate. Hence, we decided to use the Forbes data for this
study, assuming that Forbes data is a good predictor of NFL financial information (Murphy &
Topel, 2009).
15
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
16/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Design
A repeated measures ANOVA was used in this research because it is appropriate as a
design when the same participants participate in all conditions of an experiment (Field, 2009). In
this studys case, the same participants were the NFL teams and the experiment was the 2006
CBA. This was not a controlled experiment, but a so-called natural experiment. The change in
the independent variable and other variables can be observed, but cannot be affected. The
repeated measures ANOVA were conducted by looking at each teams annual increase in team
value. The one dependent variable used was the team value annual increase percentage. As for
the independent variable, time was used in this repeated measures ANOVA design. This test was
executed to explore whether any of the average annual increase percentages of team value have
changed over the years, when compared to the rest of the average annual increases.
In addition, we wanted to examine the relationship between CBA (independent
variable) and the team value annual increase percentage (dependent variable), thus a simple
linear regression was chosen for this research. Two models of simple linear regression were
conducted with a dummy variable (CBA). Model one separated the time period between 2003 to
2009 into two time periods, and model two used three time periods, thus two dummy variables
were needed. The period before the 2006 CBA extension was chosen as the baseline. Model one
allowed us to compare the team value annual increase percentage before the 2006 CBA
extension and after the 2006 CBA extension. Model two allowed us to compare the data pre-
extension (until 2005), post-extension (until 2007), and post-cancellation (2008 and after).
Finally, simple line graphs were created to compare the discount rates of the market
with the data collected on the NFL annual team value growth. For the purpose of this study we
have selected a variety of possible discount rates. The first rate looked at was economic growth.
16
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
17/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
The reasoning for these rates is that if one does not outperform the general economy, the relative
value of a person goes down, thus a person relatively loses profit. The indicators chosen here are
inflation rates and GDP Growth. However it can be argued that this is below what individuals
discount at.
Owners of professional teams are generally wealthy enough to be significant players in
the stock market. Two of the premier stock market indexes were chosen as well, namely the Dow
Jones Index and S&P 500, as used in Murphy and Topel (2009). Furthermore, with the
exceptional growth rate of the NFL, this creates a low risk for potential investors, which is being
sought for as a comparable discount rate. Governmental bonds are among the most risk free
bonds, and tend to generate fairly low interest, thus for this study we chose the highest
government interest rate, a AAA bond. Comparing the growth of team values against these
discount rates should give us a much better image of the situation.
Hypothesis
1: Under the latest CBA, the value of sports franchises improved significantly less, compared to
the situation in the previous CBA; compared to the risk-free rate and major stock markets in the
United States.
2: The average team values increases over the last six years have significantly diminished.
Results
Mauchlys test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated ((14) =
34.253,p < .05). The Greenhouse-Geissor correction on the degrees of freedom shows that team
value increase was significantly affected by time (F(3.33, 103.17) = 45.025,p< 0.01). The data
shows that generally the annual growth in team values has decreased over time. The increase
over time between 2006, 2007 and 2008, did not significantly differ from each other. Nor did the
17
-
8/6/2019 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement
18/18
NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
increase in 2005 differ from 2006 and 2008. The increase between 2003 and 2004 was relatively
larger than all the other years, while the increase between 2008 and 2009 was relatively the
smallest.
In the regression analysis the variance predicted that 30 percent (R2= .304) of CBAx
(after 2006) accounted for dTV (the team value annual increase percentage). The model appears
to fit the data, thus having a greater explanation for the error in the model (F = 83.141, p < .001).
The CBA appears to have had a negative impact of 7.9 percent on team values in this model (B =
-.079).
Model 2 appears to have better explanatory power (R
2
= .359) than model 1 by explaining
about 6 percent more. This model also fits the data significantly (F= 52.847,p