NFL owners say 70% went to players salaries. Yet an accounting firm says it was 53%.
Who do you believe?
Since the League would have an interest in overstating the percentage, I'd have to lean toward the outside view. But then, who hired the accounting firm, the players?
At the heart of the dispute is what is considered "revenue". The owners want to count only a portion of their actual "take" as revenue. And so depending on the denominator, you get a smaller or bigger percentage.
Dont confuse actual salaries and accounting salaries. When accruals are taken into consideration and possible benefits added, the numbers can vary. Bonuses may be accrued but not paid for years. If one is cash flow and the other GAPP accounting, it would easily explain the difference.
Dont confuse actual salaries and accounting salaries. When accruals are taken into consideration and possible benefits added, the numbers can vary. Bonuses may be accrued but not paid for years. If one is cash flow and the other GAPP accounting, it would easily explain the difference.
There's no dispute between the owners and the players as to the salary number. (it's real money, not funny money/cap dollars.) The dispute is in what the count as revenue.
What accounting practice allows you to exclude $1 Billion before stating incoming dollars as revenue?
Defining terms is a fairly common practice. Just as you have gross income, net income, adjusted gross income, etc. Just dependson how you define terms in your agreement
Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
Hope is not a strategy
RIP
Neither is lying they are both accurate numbers. One is using Gross profit (all money brought in, that is 53%) the other is using Net Profit (after expenses before salary expense 70%)
Were from Philly F in Philly no one likes us we DON'T CARE!
Comment