The 2010-2013 CBA eliminated the players 56% share of "defined" revenues contained in previous CBA's (in exchange for a minimum team cap of $3.6M). In 2013 the Riders had $31M in revenue, so that could have meant $17.4M for the players had they used "gross" revenues in the share calculation.
Guaranteeing a percentage of revenues just doesn't work in a small league like the CFL where the overhead to operate a pro league must be spread over far fewer teams, players and fans, compared to the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL.
Actually the CFL salary cap accounted for about 20% of "gross" revenues in 2013 and probably even less today. Obviously the "defined" revenues used in 2009 were much lower than "gross" revenues (not including the TV contract, sponsorships and merchandise sales, for example). That's why the player's 56% share of revenue was misleading and only a public relations exercise.
The maximum and minimum team salary cap went up $50k this year (nearly $700 per player), so the players have little to complain about (but they probably shouldn't quit their day jobs.;))
And Jones has proven to be a jack of all these trades but a master of 1!
Great stadium and fans couldn't lure Huffnagel away for 1million, as was attempted
Back to the topic
Paying players based a large proportion based on total revenue works fine when revenue is in the 100's of millions. In the CFL revenues simply are not high enough. Between overhead costs, operation costs and profit expectation, most teams would not be sustainable if players got 45% of all revenue.
As it is, assuming most teams are at or close to the 5 million plus cap, players already are receiving a pretty big piece of the pie!!
Defined revenue does not equal gross revenue. It simply states what does and does not constitute actual revenue to be counted by both sides. In the NHL for example, the league did not count luxury suite sales towards hockey related revenue. That definition was altered through the last session of bargaining. You take an aggregate of what the entire league is producing upon agreed parameters and average it out and then you get a number.
Although the size of the league does make some difference as to league overhead, it has a converse effect on pushing costs down because you don't need to spend as much either, so it goes both ways.
However, no matter what the formula used, the players share should never go down unless its actually necessary (as it was in the mid 1990's) or they gain something in return. In this case players got hosed and received magic beans byway of watching Football Ops departments and coaching staffs get enormous raises. That's not right. And with the 50K raise to the cap there is plenty to complain about seeing as the cap should have been $500K higher to begin with even if you use the leagues wonky math.
The CFL players do have a legitimate beef. The problem is, they don't have the bargaining power of athletes in the NHL.
Johnny would be surprised if CFL players were getting as much as 30% of the league revenues.
Maybe Ambrosie would like to be transparent and let the public know what the actual percentage is. Of course, he could always lie. Without an independent audit, nobody knows what the league revenue is.
These are really big deals to the players wanting to be in Sask, I would imagine same for football ops staff.
As far as $ moving to more being spent on management etc - I see it happening for sure, but the game and product is changing too. Plus management must work hard year round in this ever complex world of free agency - vs a 6 month stint from players under contract. IF we can get more attendance in this league and higher TV revenues, all would benefit more, MOSTLY the players who need a raise.
I can't see that ever happening. Owners and management can't be bound within the same SMS type of budget that puts the players onto the field. It would be chaotic. For example, a community owned team must keep its books public and is set up much differently than a privately owned team. A privately owned team can massage their numbers much more easily and differently. All legal. Salaries reported between the two types - would be very inconsistent and even punitive to some teams.