Roger Goodell

[DUKIECB]

Can someone tell me why the NFL owners just agreed to pay him $40 million dollars a year for 5 years? He is universally disliked by players and fans, has made a mess of many different matters surrounding the league and in my opinion the NFL is way worse off than when he signed his last extension. To say this is a less than stellar performance review is an understatement but the owners just fell all over themselves to give in to every demand he made including a private jet and health insurance for the rest of his life???

Couldn't they have found someone competent that would have taken, I don't know, about a tenth of that salary. What am a missing here?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Can someone tell me why the NFL owners just agreed to pay him $40 million dollars a year for 5 years? He is universally disliked by players and fans, has made a mess of many different matters surrounding the league and in my opinion the NFL is way worse off than when he signed his last extension. To say this is a less than stellar performance review is an understatement but the owners just fell all over themselves to give in to every demand he made including a private jet and health insurance for the rest of his life???

Couldn't they have found someone competent that would have taken, I don't know, about a tenth of that salary. What am a missing here?

What you are missing is that he works for the owners, not players or fans. And Jerry Jones notwithstanding, he performs a service for the owners that he is quite good at. Think of it as "good cop, bad cop," where the owners are the good cops (bleah) and use Goodell as the figurehead to get blasted by players, fans, and media.

He serves at the pleasure of the owners. They clearly appreciate what he does.

[DUKIECB]

What you are missing is that he works for the owners, not players or fans. And Jerry Jones notwithstanding, he performs a service for the owners that he is quite good at. Think of it as "good cop, bad cop," where the owners are the good cops (bleah) and use Goodell as the figurehead to get blasted by players, fans, and media.

He serves at the pleasure of the owners. They clearly appreciate what he does.Good point but I think the biggest strike against him, and one that I would think the owners would have a problem with, is the image of the NFL is not what it was a few years ago. In my opinion the finger should largely be pointed at him. TV ratings are down which equals less dollars in the owner's' pockets. I get that he's their fall guy but he has also been directly responsible because of how he handled situations that have not been good P.R. for the league.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Good point but I think the biggest strike against him, and one that I would think the owners would have a problem with, is the image of the NFL is not what it was a few years ago. In my opinion the finger should largely be pointed at him. TV ratings are down which equals less dollars in the owner's' pockets. I get that he's their fall guy but he has also been directly responsible because of how he handled situations that have not been good P.R. for the league.

Well, if and when owners stop piling up hundreds of millions of dollars, I assure you he will be fired. It actually suggests that perhaps the difficulties of the NFL have been blown out of proportion. I can imagine several reasons this would be the case.

I promise that if owners were suffering losses, Goodell would be gone.

[PackMan97]

good villians are hard to find.

[DukieInKansas]

good villians are hard to find.

Aren't they dressed in baby blue in chapel hill? ;)


(Ducks and waits for my post to be deleted.)

[PackMan97]

Aren't they dressed in baby blue in chapel hill? ;)


No, good villians always get their comeuppance.

[BD80]

Did he get the lifetime health insurance and private jet? They were reported to be demands, but not confirmed. No report that they actually made it into the contract.

The $40 mil is the max based on incentives. $4 mil is his base salary. My guess is that the incentives are tied to NFL profits, so if he makes the $40 mil, the owners will be happy as heck.

BTW, the reported "demand" was $50 mil/yr.

[moonpie23]

Roger "MILHOUS" Goodell...

[elvis14]

Interesting take. I'm OK with Goodell and think he has done a decent job. He's had some tough situations to deal with, including some rather polarizing issues (perhaps driving the initial rant that started this thread). I don't think anyone should panic because ratings are down for a year...and it just happens to be the year that the NFL has some polarizing issues that coincide, timing wise, with other, larger polarizing issues the entire country is working through. The ratings will rebound over time once all the knee jerk reactions wear off. Better to play the long game.

As for healthcare coverage and use of private planes, that's just good negotiating on Goodell's part. I suspect that there are plenty of executives that negotiate similar provisions. I know there are jobs that allow people to keep their health are after retirement once they have a qualifying number of years of service.

[swood1000]

Apparently (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-12/nfl-teams-split-record-7-8-billion-in-2016-up-10-percent), the NFL had revenues in 2016 of $14 billion and distributed $7.8 billion to its teams. In 2010 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/02/29/thanks-to-roger-goodell-nfl-revenues-projected-to-surpass-13-billion-in-2016/#672ec6121cb7) the NFL had revenues of $8.5 billion, so there has been a 65% increase over six years, due not in small part to Goodell's negotiation of television rights deals and Players Association deals. Goodell announced in 2006 a goal of $25 billion in revenue by 2027 and they are halfway there in six years. This might look to the owners like pretty good progress. The same rate of progress over the next six years would put them at revenues of $23 billion. Maybe many other people would have achieved the same results, but maybe not.

Goodell’s salary represents 0.0028 of the 2016 revenue. One might say that it is more than anybody should be paid in one year but some players are being paid $25,000,000 per year. Are they worth it? Each player just helps one team. If Goodell’s salary is being shared equally by 32 teams, he is costing each team $1,250,000 per year, or 25% more than the minimum salary (https://landryfootball.com/understanding-nfl-minimum-salaries-veteran-cap-benefit-rule-free/) in 2017 for a ten year player. I can understand how the owners might see that cost as worth it, given his track record, lack of surprises, and experience. They could get someone for half what he will be getting, saving each owner $625,000 per year, but that is a pittance compared to the revenues and other numbers we are talking about, and is it worth the potential surprises from a replacement, and the possible adverse impact on the rate of revenue increase and player relations under someone new?

Perhaps his handling of the protests has been subject to criticism, but neither has the league had a walkout of uncertain length, and neither is it clear that anybody else could have handled this thing any better.

[BD80]

... Perhaps his handling of the protests has been subject to criticism, but neither has the league had a walkout of uncertain length, and neither is it clear that anybody else could have handled this thing any better.

When is the last time anyone talked about the protests? When is the last time a player knelt or otherwise protested during the National Anthem?

I'd say it was fairly well handled.

[Chicago 1995]

(1) He's presided over the league at a time when its made money hand over fist. You can argue whether Goodell had anything to do with that, but he's been in the right place at the right time.

(2) He's perfect at taking all the heat that should be pointed at the owners and absorbing large bunches of it himself. He's botched a lot of stuff, but you do really think Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson and Bob Kraft would have handled brain trauma or domestic violence or the anthem protests better than Goodall did? And Goodall allows for a degree of separation.

(3) He knows where the bodies, or to be more direct, brains, are buried. Count me in the group that thinks Roger would have been offended enough by the league kicking him to the curb that his ego wouldn't allow for his own vindication.

He's a pretty awful, empty suit in my opinion, and he apparently harbors some political dreams when he's done with the NFL. Hopefully this isn't a violation of the rules of this board, but LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

[RPS]

Better to play the long game.I think this is the heart of the matter.

Given their (presently, at least) short-sided business interests, the owners were right to retain Goodell. But longer-term issues remain and remain largely unaddressed. Relationships with the players and the PA have deteriorated. Injuries are a huge issue. The quality of play is blah. Attendance and ratings are down. There is a dirth of young superstars. The relocations to Los Angeles were horribly bungled. League "discipline" is a joke. And CTE seems destined -- at some unknown point -- to decimate the game.

But if the goal is the most cash now, Roger Goodell is your guy.

[swood1000]

I think this is the heart of the matter.

Given their (presently, at least) short-sided business interests, the owners were right to retain Goodell. But longer-term issues remain and remain largely unaddressed. Relationships with the players and the PA have deteriorated. Injuries are a huge issue. The quality of play is blah. Attendance and ratings are down. There is a dirth of young superstars. The relocations to Los Angeles were horribly bungled. League "discipline" is a joke. And CTE seems destined -- at some unknown point -- to decimate the game.

But if the goal is the most cash now, Roger Goodell is your guy.

But does the goal of "cash now" conflict with the longer-term goals you mentioned? Is it either/or? There are a number of goals and at least he achieved that one. Can you point to what the commissioner should have done differently with respect to the longer-term goals you mentioned, or show evidence that someone else would have made better progress there while also doing as well on the financial side and not screwing up elsewhere?

[RPS]

But does the goal of "cash now" conflict with the longer-term goals you mentioned?Not necessarily in every instance, but I think "Yes" generally. If I'm wrong, then Goodell is an even worse commissioner than I thought, which is pretty amazing.


Is it either/or?Ditto.


There are a number of goals and at least he achieved that one.Indeed, he did.


Can you point to what the commissioner should have done differently with respect to the longer-term goals you mentioned, or show evidence that someone else would have made better progress there while also doing as well on the financial side and not screwing up elsewhere?Without a control, one can only offer a best guess. But the NFL's consistent "deny and delay" approach to CTE (similar to big tobacco's response to the health risks of smoking) fits the pattern well, I think. Addressing the issue head-on (pardon the pun) and proactively making rules changes should help the sport long-term (it would certainly benefit players) but would almost surely impact revenue short-term. Violence has been a key NFL selling point for decades; it has been toned down a bit (http://theclassical.org/articles/keep-your-helmet-on-espns-jacked-up-in-retrospect), but hardly eliminated. Anything that mitigates the violence or amplifies the real danger to players comes with real risk (cf. boxing).

The lone exception I can think of is the incredibly cynical idea that there is nothing that can save football in the long run (like smoking), so the goal should be obfuscation all the way down to keep the most money flowing for the longest time. But that would require Goodell to be an evil genius. I can buy the "evil" part, but nothing about Roger says "genius" to me.

[swood1000]

Not necessarily in every instance, but I think "Yes" generally. If I'm wrong, then Goodell is an even worse commissioner than I thought, which is pretty amazing.

Well, I guess I agree that resolving the CTE problem without a hit to the league's profits may require someone with skills far beyond those of Goodell, or of any other mortal. Can football be converted (back) into a game of agility and less violence without losing fan interest?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Maryland_Hopkins_football.jpg/275px-Maryland_Hopkins_football.jpg

Will players and owners consent to changes in the rules if these changes will cut deeply into revenues and thus into their incomes? Does a salary of a million dollars per year compensate a player for the possibility that he may later suffer a lower quality of life? Is that a decision that players should be allowed to make? Difficult questions.

[RPS]

Well, I guess I agree that resolving the CTE problem without a hit to the league's profits may require someone with skills far beyond those of Goodell, or of any other mortal.Yup.


Can football be converted (back) into a game of agility and less violence without losing fan interest?I don't know. Current leadership seems committed to not trying.


Will players and owners consent to changes in the rules if these changes will cut deeply into revenues and thus into their incomes? Does a salary of a million dollars per year compensate a player for the possibility that he may later suffer a lower quality of life? Is that a decision that players should be allowed to make? Difficult questions.Indeed.

[swood1000]

I don't know. Current leadership seems committed to not trying.

Do you know of any suggestions that seem workable, that will reduce head trauma without converting football into an entirely different game? How about the rule that any contact of a player's helmet with any part of an opposing player or with the ground is a 15 yard penalty? Should they just bite the bullet and change the rule?

[RPS]

Do you know of any suggestions that seem workable, that will reduce head trauma without converting football into an entirely different game? How about the rule that any contact of a player's helmet with any part of an opposing player or with the ground is a 15 yard penalty? Should they just bite the bullet and change the rule?I have heard of quite a few proposed solutions, but there hasn't been enough receptivity to take a thorough look at them. Change will likely have to come at lower levels, where participation levels are already shrinking mightily. To offer one anecdotal example, one of my sons played D1 football, but he and his wife (also a D1 athlete) have already decided that their kids won't play football.