Skip to comments.Roger Goodell's NFL Compensation Exceeds $44M In 12-Month Period
Posted on 02/14/2014 3:13:32 PM PST by xzins
The NFL paid Commissioner Roger Goodell $44.2M in the 12-month period that ended March 31, 2013, the league told SportsBusiness Journal earlier Friday. That figures include $9.1M of deferred pension and bonus earned the previous year. The league expects to file its tax return, which will include the pay figures, with the IRS on Tuesday. That return will show Goodell earned a $3.5M salary and a $40.36M bonus, though $5M of the bonus was earned the prior year. Disclosure of Goodells nearly $30M compensation at this time last year reverberated through the industry. Sean Gilbert, a contender for the top spot at the NFLPA, penned a book called the The $29 Million Tip, arguing Goodells pay was gratitude from owners for what the former player contends is a pro-management labor deal struck in 11. Even Congress has brought up Goodells pay as part of attacks on the leagues non-profit status. Prior to the '11 labor deal, Goodells top pay was $11.5M.
The league stressed that $9.1M of Goodells pay came from deferred bonus and pension from the 11 lockout period and that his true pay is around $35M. Goodells compensation reflects our pay-for-performance philosophy and is appropriate given the fact that the NFL under his consistently strong leadership continues to grow, NFL owners Arthur Blank, Robert Kraft and Jerry Richardson wrote in a letter to their fellow owners that is scheduled to be e-mailed friday afternoon. The three owners comprise the leagues compensation committee.
The pay almost assuredly makes Goodell the highest-paid sports exec. MLB in recent years changed its tax status to for-profit, so it no longer is required to make public its return, but when Commissioner Bud Selig signed his latest two-year contract in 12, ESPN reported the final year would pay him $22M, though other sources placed the figure north of that in the $30M range.
Normally, I wouldn’t care what some executive makes.
But the NFL is officially a “not for profit” enterprise.
All the belly-aching about “the rich” during the last campaign. I’m no fan of Romney’s, but this non-profit commissioner will make in 6 years what Romney’s made in a lifetime.
Which Fox (or ex-Fox) news babe is Goodell married to?
Married to Jane Skinner. She had a rather infamous blooper moment on Fox News back when she was anchoring.
Roger Goodell is a despicable man who is trying to turn the NFL into the XFl. The NFL won’t be worth watching at all very soon.
That is a name from the past. Whatever happened to her?
I take it back. I went to a High School football game in 1968 because my girlfriend wanted to.
Housewife and Mother.
If you don’t care for football, then even more unnerving should be the fact that the US government allows them non-profit status.
I dislike the US government even more than I dislike football.
And he enables owners to steal taxpayer dollars for their game factories. I care.
Now remember that the people at home have better seats than anybody in a stadium. Therefore they deserve to pay a premium to watch an NFL game at home.
The average football fan watches three games a week. That's $75 times 80,000,000 viewers and that equals $2 billion dollars in pure revenue.
Now multiply that over a 17 week NFL season (remember bye week) and you have $34 billion.
Now for the playoffs, you will want to charge $100 a game for the Wild Card week and given that 100,000,000 people will watch all four games, now you have $10 billion right there.
Ditto for the Divisional playoffs - another $10 billion
Now for the AFL and NFL title games, you will want to charge $250 a game and 150,000,000 will watch and you rake in $37.5 billion.
Finally the Super Bowl. Some 250,000,000 around the world will be watching. Charge $500 per person and that's a Super $125 billion.
So with me in charge, I will bring in a total of $216.5 billion in TV revenue.
The League sure isn’t getting much for its money.
Love that clip, because you could swap Shep and Jane and still make all the same jokes.
“But the NFL is officially a not for profit enterprise.”
The NFL itself. Not the teams. “Not for profit” does not mean it is a charity, but rather that it nets zero. Anything “left” is not kept, but passed on to the teams where it is taxed...so there is nothing to tax except money passing through, which would be unreasonable.
They get the lions share of their money by sales and not by donations. They negotiate deals and contracts for money, they sell merchandise and/or license merchandise for sale, they research means of greater revenue, and they take a portion of the proceeds for their personal and organizational funding.
Just because they spend all their profit doesn’t make them a non-profit.
It has nothing to do with donations, unless you mean the revenue sharing between teams which goes through the NFL shell.. It has to do with the structure, and the structure is that the NFL shell retains nothing upon which to pay taxes on, and the funds are transferred to teams which do pay taxes on net earnings. Are you trying to argue that they should pay taxes on the money twice or more?
I’m trying to argue that the corporate headquarters of a corporation comprised of many different businesses is playing a shell game if it pretends it isn’t trying to make a profit. Non-profit means something in the minds of normal people, and it means those who are exempt from taxes because its purpose is some kind of social benefit, and because it is not merely a cover for a money-making operation.
I think you will need different economic times to accomplish that.
The difference between the for profit and not for profit designations is in paperwork they fill out, and in whether some funds are subject to double taxation if they follow certain paths. They aren’t illegitimately evading taxation by the designation.
Crony capitalism at its worst protected by government.
Someone being paid 44 million in a “non-profit” job is rubbing the nation’s nose in his little corner of cronyland.
Interesting perspective. Part of the problem is that very few people would pay $25 to watch an NFL game at home. And once the number of viewers declines, the television advertising revenue will decline, too.
Your proposal is interesting, but that’s $3000 per year to watch the games that you propose. I doubt the average fan would be willing (or able) to pay that. I am a casual fan; I usually watch at least part of a game on Sunday, but there is no way I would pay $25 to watch a game.
A pay-per-view option is interesting, but it needs to be set in the more $2.99-$5.99 price range, and it should only be out-of-market games. But the network affiliates wouldn’t like that, so it’s probably a non-starter.
I think otherwise. Maybe that was true years ago when TV was crappy and you had to bang on the TV and bend a coat hanger to get the signal to come in halfway decent. Even with a decent signal, you had to deal with cheesy graphics and second-rate audio. Check out these highlights from a 1978 game and you get the picture of how awful it was. And this was a playoff game!
In recent years, the technological advances in televising football are simply astonishing. You are practically part of the action on the field now and soon you will have ability to control your own camera angles and rewind and replay whatever angle you choose. Then you have add-ons like the NFL Redzone experience - that allow you to automatically switch to games when a scoring opportunity presents itself. I saw this feature at my brother-in-laws house and words cannot describe how awesome that was. If I wasn't cutting my cable, I'd be signed up for it already. (BTW, I would pay $25 a game as a pay-per-view.)
People are giving up season tickets because the best seat in the house is now in their own living rooms. So you see, the very business model of televised football would change if it was no longer offered for free (along with that incessant barrage of obnoxious commercials).
I do think enough people would pay $25/game to not only make it feasible but to earn the NFL and networks even more revenues than they ever made before.
And yes, they could do it without commercials.
Sure, you would initially get a lot of outraged fans who would vow to never watch another game again. But slowly, they will come around and decide that $25/$50 for an afternoon of football is not such a bad deal after all. Especially when you can invite your friends over to split the cost and take advantage of all the technology you will have at your fingertips (ability to control camera angles with unlimited replays.)
By the way, I think pay-per-view should extend to everything, not just sports. True a la carte audio programming. Not only would it make us be more selective with what we choose to watch (we might pick up a book a little more) but all the crap that we see on the 200+ channels will start to disappear. Quality programming will be directly rewarded.
If it were that strong a business opportunity I think the NFL would have done it by now. One big flaw I see in that model is that some games will generate hardly any revenue at all. Who — including die-hard fans of the teams themselves — would pay $25 to see a game between the Cleveland Browns and the Carolina Panthers?
Pay-per-view is more likely to take hold in a sport that simply doesn't have much appeal to casual viewers. The NHL would probably be ideal for it, since it is much more of a "cult" sport than a "popular" sport.
So long as they choose to watch a game, the dollars will roll in!