IF You Ever Wonder About the Bengals Not Having Any Money

[masterpanthera_t]

(03-31-2017, 12:59 PM)jowczarski Wrote: @oncemoreuntothejimbreech (and to others): I'm not saying NFL owners are poor or should cry poor like they do. Was just stating the facts for them, which is that smaller markets bring in less revenue than others (just like in the NBA and MLB). Are they "poor?" No. But compared to the Patriots and Cowboys and soon, the L.A. Rams -- well, they definitely do not make near that much in revenue. It is a business. They are in it to make money and then win some games. So when small market teams have to use most of their revenue to pay for operating costs (salaries, etc), they are making "less" than the top tier of revenue-generators. Again, not saying they're poor. But in their 32-team world, there are sizeable differences, and let's be real - the all operate in their 32-team world. Again, that's why you've seen three teams move and you'll see Buffalo and Jacksonville threaten to, in the relatively near future.

Jim, this is a serious question.  Assuming that the tv dollars are shared equally, and ticket prices (and stadium sizes) are relatively equal, which I'm not sure is true or not, then, gate receipts for teams can also be assumed to be equal.  So, what means do larger market teams have to make more money than smaller market teams?  Is the difference purely coming from merchandise sales?  What other sources can say a team from L.A leverage that the Bengals cannot?