Bret,

>The new coach/manager would then decide which players are overpaid and dump them.

I don't see this happening often though.
>
>The NFL divides television revenue equally among the teams, so the ones in smaller markets can still be competitive. That could be part of the cause of the fact that Los Angeles lost both football teams to much smaller cities - Oakland and Saint Louis, which presumably offered their owners better deals on stadium revenue.

Generally a smart move by the NFL, I would say. Also, the NFL has always been a relatively short season with high gate prices anyway (as I see things).


>
>>Yes, the modus operandi here too is to fire the coach/manager and keep the players. That basically applies to all sports this side of the pond.
>>
>>And yes, the richer teams are dominant. Here there are a number of richer teams (but less than half, I venture) so it can still look competitive. But if you follow one of the poorer teams at all (I followed Montreal religiously until things got ridiculous several years back) you see it clearly.
>>
>>These wages also make the cost of attendance atrocious too, but heavy marketing, much of it of the free variety by ingratiating sports writers and sports casters, keeps many of the stadiums near full.
>>
>>
>>>I did not know that it was played in Canada (hey - I got to upset the Canadians too!).
>>>
>>>That is a lot of money: has it started to affect the game as much as it has football (soccer) in the UK? The game is dominated, certainly in Scotland, by the richest teams. Also, something which always strikes me as strange, when a team fails, they sack the manager and NOT all the expensive players.