(02-11-2020, 05:55 PM)ATLjag Wrote: With all the talk of the 2nd game going to London, it is difficult, no impossible, to understand the Jag's profitablility when they, and 30 other teams are privately held, and do not disclose the financials.  However, the Green Bay Packers team, within the league's smallest market, is public, and does disclose a limited amount of figures.  Obviously, the success of the team, fan base, history, stadium size (81k capacity), and other factors would lead one to believe it to be generally more profitable than the Jags.  But, it is interesting knowledge to gain some possible perspective...

For the 2018 season (reporting 3/2019), the Packers received $247m for their equal share of the NFL's national revenue.  Including local revenue, the team had total revenue of $478m.  Due to some significant atypical expense hits (ie. Rogers deal, concussion settlement), they managed to make just under $1m in operating profit.  They indicated $56m of expenses were due to these atypical or not normal expenses.  In other words, they would have made about $57m if not for some not normal expenses.  The previous season, in comparison, they made $34m, and $75m two seasons ago.  The successive 2 years of profit drop was explained by the club largely due to increases in player salaries (ie. increasing cap), travel costs, NFL concussion settlement costs, and coaching changes. 

I think I heard on 1010xl that each game in London delivers the Jags an estimated add'l $6-8m in revenue.  If true, the incremental $12-16m in local operating revenue is likely a sizeable share of the operating profit.  Before seeing the Packer's figures, I thought the profit being generated by an NFL team was far greater.  I was wrong in my beliefs, and likely now have a greater understanding of the additional London game decision.