Is Brian Daboll toast? Is Brian Callahan the new Rich Kotite? Has the Too Deep Zone run out of Saints salary cap jokes? The answer to these questions and more in Part 1 of Week 4 Mailbag.
I believe in family ownership too, but I believe it is in its twilight years.
As franchise values race past $10bn they get into a stratosphere where there simply aren't enough families with enough wealth to support continued growth. The current cohort of owners, keen on continued >10% CAGR of their NFL investment, realise the traditional ownership structure is a headwind to growth and have already propped the door open for VC cash.
The end state looks like the English Premier League in which Stan Kroenke, Shahid Khan, the Glazers, 49ers Enterprises and Fenway Sports Group are already owners. Along with the sovereign wealth funds of Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia, a Chinese private equity firm and, until recently, a respectable selection of legitimate businessmen from Russia.
We might see NFL teams as midlevel regional businesses, but their owners see them as Global Brands.
It's a damn shame. Even the Giants jumped on that "sell 10% to private equity" deal as soon as it was okay'ed. It's kinda funny though that Mike Brown was the one vote against that...
I wonder if that will give the few remaining family-owned properties a competitive advantage. A private equity firm driven mostly if not entirely by profit will balk at a $200 million QB or a DE asking for $44 million/year. A family-run team will recognize that those numbers are the cost of winning, Dallas notwithstanding. Yes, I'm hoping this leads to a string of Eagles championships will other teams worry more about a clean balance sheet instead of filling the trophy case.
It comes down to whether the leadership sees winning as a key element of growth or not. I'm worried that private equity is going to do here what it does everywhere else: focus on the cheapest possible way to keep making money. If fans keep showing up to watch the Pittsburgh Pirates pretend to play baseball, why would anyone pay more than the league mandated minimum on the roster? Sure, they will complain and fly fire the owner banners, but they're still paying for tickets and $34 bottles of water. Sports will really start to suck if every team sees this as the path to financial success.
On the other hand, if the PE owner firm decides that winning 3 SB's will drive the 25% increase in value over 5 years that they promised their investors, then they will go all moneyball trying to build an ultra competitive roster.
The NFL needs competitive balance in order to remain viable. All it would take to ruin that is for three or four teams to be taken over by private equity firms that strip expenditures to the bone, maintaining their profitability from the TV contracts.
The salary floor is pretty high, though. It's deliberately hard for teams to do what you're suggesting. I guess new owners could try and push a different direction on that but I suspect they wouldn't want to change too much given what a cash cow the NFL is now.
And a team like Cincinnati have shown that even if you strip back on the non-salary cap expenditure you can still be competitive as they have largely been for the last 15-20 years.
The CBA says that 48% of revenues goes to players (aka salary cap). Owners can't just not sign players to large deals and stash the proceeds.
But they can jack up food prices, skimp out on stadium maintenance, hire less coaching/back office staff, cut all philanthropy, etc. I think your overall point still stands that non profit driven teams will do better than what the profit obsessed cheapskate ownerships do.
This bit about Jeff Lurie has stuck with me: “One recent former NFL head coach, who interviewed multiple times for head coaching vacancies, said he doesn't think many owners have a specific idea of what they're looking for when they enter a coaching search. Only one owner of the more than 10 he interviewed with gave him a list of specific qualities he wanted in a head coach. The former head coach said Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie explained to him why he preferred hiring offensive-minded head coaches and laid out all the factors that he thought can derail a head coach.”
I think that gives you a real insight into why they have been so successful with multiple different coaches. It’s not just about the money spent but complete alignment from the top down with a clear, defined vision. That’s rare everywhere these days, but especially in sports.
Yeah, I don't know! He did fill a lot of Lurie's criteria though. I think it probably hardened his resolve valuing people who are emotionally intelligent. But you can see the through lines from Andy Reid to Chip to Dougie P to Sirianni. Lurie avoids falling into the "must hire an opposite of the last guy" trap. And he's also usually decisive when it comes to his decision making.
The best ownership situation in the league (and all of major American sports) is very clear: the Green Bay Packers. A team should exist for its community, not as a vanity plaything for a spoiled narcissist.
Also, I don’t think it’s fair to call Derek Carr a journeyman. He had only played for the Raiders before the Saints.
Regarding the Packers, the league made sure another Green Bay couldn't occur within its bylaws. To be sure, I don't think another Green Bay could occur. It'd be hard to raise $10 billion in a town the size of Green Bay just to purchase a team. The Packers became community-owned when the team leaders raised a few thousand dollars to cover expenses nearly a hundred years ago.
It’s hard for me to tell any difference between Irsay and Jerry Jones. They both used their football team to become a celebrity instead of just some uber-rich guy we’ve never heard of. They both gave endless interviews about how much they “love” their teams and how bad they want them to win. They also talked incessantly about themselves. Seriously, I know more about Jerry and Jim than all the other owners combined
In any leadership role, it's very unlikely that there's an opening because everything is going great. It's usually because the operation is a tire fire and the big boss needs someone to come in and fix it. On the plus side, it's easier to show improvement when the bar is low. Hey, we only lost half as much money this year!
I believe in family ownership too, but I believe it is in its twilight years.
As franchise values race past $10bn they get into a stratosphere where there simply aren't enough families with enough wealth to support continued growth. The current cohort of owners, keen on continued >10% CAGR of their NFL investment, realise the traditional ownership structure is a headwind to growth and have already propped the door open for VC cash.
The end state looks like the English Premier League in which Stan Kroenke, Shahid Khan, the Glazers, 49ers Enterprises and Fenway Sports Group are already owners. Along with the sovereign wealth funds of Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia, a Chinese private equity firm and, until recently, a respectable selection of legitimate businessmen from Russia.
We might see NFL teams as midlevel regional businesses, but their owners see them as Global Brands.
Agree 100000% Martin. It will likely be almost all Private Equity Firms in say 30 years.
Sad but likely. I hate it here.
It's a damn shame. Even the Giants jumped on that "sell 10% to private equity" deal as soon as it was okay'ed. It's kinda funny though that Mike Brown was the one vote against that...
I wonder if that will give the few remaining family-owned properties a competitive advantage. A private equity firm driven mostly if not entirely by profit will balk at a $200 million QB or a DE asking for $44 million/year. A family-run team will recognize that those numbers are the cost of winning, Dallas notwithstanding. Yes, I'm hoping this leads to a string of Eagles championships will other teams worry more about a clean balance sheet instead of filling the trophy case.
It comes down to whether the leadership sees winning as a key element of growth or not. I'm worried that private equity is going to do here what it does everywhere else: focus on the cheapest possible way to keep making money. If fans keep showing up to watch the Pittsburgh Pirates pretend to play baseball, why would anyone pay more than the league mandated minimum on the roster? Sure, they will complain and fly fire the owner banners, but they're still paying for tickets and $34 bottles of water. Sports will really start to suck if every team sees this as the path to financial success.
On the other hand, if the PE owner firm decides that winning 3 SB's will drive the 25% increase in value over 5 years that they promised their investors, then they will go all moneyball trying to build an ultra competitive roster.
The NFL needs competitive balance in order to remain viable. All it would take to ruin that is for three or four teams to be taken over by private equity firms that strip expenditures to the bone, maintaining their profitability from the TV contracts.
The salary floor is pretty high, though. It's deliberately hard for teams to do what you're suggesting. I guess new owners could try and push a different direction on that but I suspect they wouldn't want to change too much given what a cash cow the NFL is now.
And a team like Cincinnati have shown that even if you strip back on the non-salary cap expenditure you can still be competitive as they have largely been for the last 15-20 years.
The CBA says that 48% of revenues goes to players (aka salary cap). Owners can't just not sign players to large deals and stash the proceeds.
But they can jack up food prices, skimp out on stadium maintenance, hire less coaching/back office staff, cut all philanthropy, etc. I think your overall point still stands that non profit driven teams will do better than what the profit obsessed cheapskate ownerships do.
As Warren Buffet taught those of us who were listening even a little, creative accountancy can mold profit as it desires (unlike say, sales).
I thought it was a percentage of the revenue, rather than of profits?
Good catch, I meant to say revenues. Profits would DEFINITELY lead to some creative accounting.
On the subject of NFL owners, Kalyn Kahler wrote a great piece about them last year for ESPN:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/43439332/nfl-coaching-carousel-2025-agents-package-deals-consultants-goodell-concern
This bit about Jeff Lurie has stuck with me: “One recent former NFL head coach, who interviewed multiple times for head coaching vacancies, said he doesn't think many owners have a specific idea of what they're looking for when they enter a coaching search. Only one owner of the more than 10 he interviewed with gave him a list of specific qualities he wanted in a head coach. The former head coach said Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie explained to him why he preferred hiring offensive-minded head coaches and laid out all the factors that he thought can derail a head coach.”
I think that gives you a real insight into why they have been so successful with multiple different coaches. It’s not just about the money spent but complete alignment from the top down with a clear, defined vision. That’s rare everywhere these days, but especially in sports.
I wonder if that started after Chip Kelly, a notorious prick.
Yeah, I don't know! He did fill a lot of Lurie's criteria though. I think it probably hardened his resolve valuing people who are emotionally intelligent. But you can see the through lines from Andy Reid to Chip to Dougie P to Sirianni. Lurie avoids falling into the "must hire an opposite of the last guy" trap. And he's also usually decisive when it comes to his decision making.
My impression was that Sirianni isn't all that "emotionally intelligent"? Mike, what say you?
The best ownership situation in the league (and all of major American sports) is very clear: the Green Bay Packers. A team should exist for its community, not as a vanity plaything for a spoiled narcissist.
Also, I don’t think it’s fair to call Derek Carr a journeyman. He had only played for the Raiders before the Saints.
Regarding the Packers, the league made sure another Green Bay couldn't occur within its bylaws. To be sure, I don't think another Green Bay could occur. It'd be hard to raise $10 billion in a town the size of Green Bay just to purchase a team. The Packers became community-owned when the team leaders raised a few thousand dollars to cover expenses nearly a hundred years ago.
Irsay had lots of personal issues -- but he was a great owner. He was/is beloved in Indianapolis. He did more good than harm.
Revisionist history at it's finest.
It’s hard for me to tell any difference between Irsay and Jerry Jones. They both used their football team to become a celebrity instead of just some uber-rich guy we’ve never heard of. They both gave endless interviews about how much they “love” their teams and how bad they want them to win. They also talked incessantly about themselves. Seriously, I know more about Jerry and Jim than all the other owners combined
I will never not be convinced that Rich Kotite is the worst head coach in NFL history.
In any leadership role, it's very unlikely that there's an opening because everything is going great. It's usually because the operation is a tire fire and the big boss needs someone to come in and fix it. On the plus side, it's easier to show improvement when the bar is low. Hey, we only lost half as much money this year!