An interesting read...Judge for yourself.

[RogueFactor]

The thing is, NFL players are paid out of the TV deal, the other pro players are paid out of money from the TV deal, merchandising, on field sponsorships (as well as some getting off field sponsorships). And the owners, make money (I was going to say all, but someone will come up with a 1972 counterexample or something). Once you put out a profitable product then one can discuss salary.

How do you explain these Pro Leagues(NFL, MLB, etc) say they are operating at a loss, and the Pro Players still get paid?

I have no problem with the owners wanting there investment, and return on investment back before handing it out to the players.

I do have a problem with it. Those players are spending their time working, in large part, for the betterment of the owners, and should be compensated for it regardless if it turns a profit. There isnt a business model I can think of where the "employees" must assume the risk of the owners loss.

In essence, the players are employees. No employee should work for free.

And I think the point that the original poster was making is.....Smart Parts is controlling an event under the guise its an actual tournament to promote themselves at the loss of the players and the league itself.

[Lohman446]

How do you explain these Pro Leagues(NFL, MLB, etc) say they are operating at a loss, and the Pro Players still get paid?



I do have a problem with it. Those players are spending their time working, in large part, for the betterment of the owners, and should be compensated for it regardless if it turns a profit. There isnt a business model I can think of where the "employees" must assume the risk of the owners loss.

In essence, the players are employees. No employee should work for free.

And I think the point that the original poster was making is.....Smart Parts is controlling an event under the guise its an actual tournament to promote themselves at the loss of the players and the league itself.

Show me where the NFL or MLB are working at a loss? The NFL television deal (at least according to ESPN) pay the entirety of every player's salary (granted not directly). The NFL as a league may operate at a loss (though I question that ) but the individual players / owners are not. The only reason they may show a leage loss is for tax structure reasons. Though I have never heard MLB or the NFL mention working at a loss.

The players are not employees of the league - they are individual contractors. Don't like the contracts, don't sign them, don't play (as some are saying the will not). As to SP promoting itself through a tournament series. If the people who are fronting the money are working in a manner that they see acceptable, and taking steps to maximize there profit / exposure can you really blame them? If SP can meet there goals for this tournament (and it does include exposure of paintball remember) more power to them.

[p8ntball72]

[RogueFactor]

Show me where the NFL or MLB are working at a loss?

Sure, I have their numbers right here in my back pocket

I am sure I can find you something that shows either an owner/team or league operates at a loss. But as youve stated, you would question that too

The NFL television deal (at least according to ESPN) pay the entirety of every player's salary (granted not directly). The NFL as a league may operate at a loss (though I question that ) but the individual players / owners are not. The only reason they may show a leage loss is for tax structure reasons. Though I have never heard MLB or the NFL mention working at a loss.

The players are not employees of the league - they are individual contractors. Don't like the contracts, don't sign them, don't play (as some are saying the will not).

So they do get paid, regardless if the league/team/owners takes a loss---as part of the contract. So what was the point you were trying to make?

As to SP promoting itself through a tournament series. If the people who are fronting the money are working in a manner that they see acceptable, and taking steps to maximize there profit / exposure can you really blame them? If SP can meet there goals for this tournament (and it does include exposure of paintball remember) more power to them.

Yes I can blame them, as it sounds some of teams are doing. Its not what they are doing, its the manner in which they are doing it.

Not much different than the way the whole SP litigation thing. Sounds like Deja Vu all over again. :rofl:

[thefool]

good read...
thankfully you copied it over

theres always nppl...

in fact thats what got shown first

[punkncat]

Well the situation certainly is convoluded (sp?)....

I have never seen an investor be payed back their original capital right off the start. Generally the repayment of their investment is a structured payment over the course of time, also generally including intrest or a cut of profit. This is of course so that the buisiness will have capital to run on as it grows. This is of course assuming the company makes a profit and is able to pay back its investors. That of course is the risk of being an investor is that you take a risk of loaning money, or putting money into something in speculation that you will be repaid with intrest/profit for your investment.

To ask the players (employees) to prove themselves profitable before gaining anything for their effort is ludicrous. No one in their right mind is going to work for free until the company turns profit. As already stated by Rouge its not the employees problem. They will not be making the capital gain the investor will, so they should not bear the risk.

I really can't see a problem though. If any teams are foolish enough to sign on for this then thats their deal. If SP and the rest can get their thing on TV and turn a profit, and everyone involved gets something they want out of it more power to them.

Just like above...everyone will know its fake, but if it entertains then isn't it accomplishing its goal?

[Lohman446]

These are not employees of a company though. They are independent contractors whose profit is dependent on the profitability of the whole. Do I find it dirty that SP would make a stand alone event seperate from the NXL? Yeh, but I can see the reasoning behind it and even the justifications for it

[RogueFactor]

They are independent contractors whose profit is dependent on the profitability of the whole.

Thats just not true. Independent Contractors are not paid dependent on the profitability of the whole. As youve stated, they are independent, and not part of the whole you speak of

Since you were previously unaware that leagues often operate at a loss, here are some links for you to read:

Show me where the NFL or MLB are working at a loss? Though I have never heard MLB or the NFL mention working at a loss.

MLB-2002

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0808/1415598.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/06/sports/main320297.shtml

"Baseball's operating loss was $232 million this year, including a major league-leading $52.9 million by the Toronto Blue Jays."

NHL - 2003

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1733664

"Painting a gloomy financial picture that could lead to a lockout, the NHL released a report Thursday that its 30 teams combined for $272.6 million in operating losses last season."
" In addition, the league released figures to The Associated Press that show 10 consecutive seasons of operating losses totaling $1.544 billion on operating revenue of $12.98 billion."

The NFL as a league may operate at a loss (though I question that ) but the individual players / owners are not. The only reason they may show a leage loss is for tax structure reasons.

Yankees, 2004 -

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=2415834

"Forbes estimated the Yankees had a $50 million operating loss before interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization."

8 MLB Teams - 2004

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/0415/092add2.html

NBA - 2006

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&storyId=SBD2006041114

"NBA Franchise Notes: Nets Post $24M Operating Loss"

Packers, 2000

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/may00/pack28052700.asp

"The Green Bay Packers had an operating loss of $419,000 last year, the first time the franchise has reported such a loss in more than 10 years."

The only reason they may show a leage loss is for tax structure reasons.

There is a second reason, which you have neglected to recognize.....that they actually had a loss :spit_take

[Resurection]

Please don't lose sight of the fact that there is a big difference between 'Not Enough Money' and 'Operating Loss'.

Net Operating Loss
A net operating loss (NOL) occurs when your deductions are more than your income for the year. A loss from operating a business is the most common reason for an NOL. An NOL can be carried back to previous years and carried forward to future years to offset income. MSN

My point actually is the difference between 'Debt' and 'Deficit'. As in deficit is what happens when the expenses are more than the income for a given period. The amount of difference becomes debt if there are no cash stores available.

Some major league sports franchises have had NOL during a single year or over a short period of time, but they in no way are not making money. They are just making less than expected for a given period. Now, with the NHL, NFL, etc. the owners blamed this shortage of profitability on the rising salaries of the players. The players blamed this on the lack of effort by the owners to budget properly.

The truth is that salaries and free agency are a devilish downward sprial that took each league one by one out of control.

As for how all of this applies to Paintball, it doesn't because what paintball players lack that all leagues have is a formal union. Without that there is no power in the hands of the players and there never will be. As long as the producers of product have all the power, SP and others will be in total control of the game. Which in reality is a business and not a game at all.

So if the pro teams and other players think this situation sucks, they only have one real option. Gain control over their chosen activity and exert real muscle.

In the end, players will always be at the whim of the promoter because he is the only one taking real risk with puttin gon events. He leverages the potential sales of crowds to draw in sponsors, and the begs sponsors to come in for prizes and such to draw in the players and crowds. The first time either side decides to call bluff, its over for that promoter.

[hitech]

There isnt a business model I can think of where the "employees" must assume the risk of the owners loss.

EXACTLY. That is the risk the owners take. And since when did ANY business expect to recoup ALL it's investment BEFORE paying salaries?

[nippinout]

It's amazing how so many people are still thinking that the common American has any interest in watching paintball.

[hitech]

Looks like Smart Parts is going the way of the WWF/WWE...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The only sad part is how close to the truth that is...

[hitech]

Show me where the NFL or MLB are working at a loss?

I'd be willing to bet that when they first started the league(s) they had a hard time turning a profit.

[nippinout]

You don't win friends with salad.

You also don't win friends by taking a bigger slice of the pie.

[Resurection]

I updated my earlier post. I had to clarify what I was saying.