The NFL exists to make money.
Tebow was good for the bottom line.
They got rid of him anyway.
At the same time the league continued and continues to have players on the payroll that were and are far less productive and/or engaged in behavior that was/is detrimental to their teams and the league.
Why?
Here’s a way to to find out...
Someone ask Tebow a yes or no question: Are you party to any NDA involving the NFL.
If Tebow answers anything other than a definitive negative, then I’d say there’s something to my theory.
Well, the NFL used to exist to make money...
Now I’m wondering if, like Hollyweird, it now exists, at least in part, to launder money.
Most of its revenue comes from its television contracts and merchandise sales. And these revenues are split evenly among all 32 of the teams. So the Denver Broncos would make a ton of money even if every football fan in the state of Colorado stopped watching the Broncos on TV, tuned into 49ers games, and bought a new Patrick Mahomes jersey.
For individual teams, ticket revenue and stadium revenue is a big deal. I haven't seen any information to suggest that an NFL team would have generated more revenue with Tim Tebow as their starting QB than with any ordinary NFL quarterback. And keep in mind that the biggest revenue boost an NFL team can get is from hosting playoff games.
If you ever see a team keeping a troublesome player on its roster, it's based only on the expectation that the troublesome player gives them a better chance of winning than any alternative they can find.
At the same time the league continued and continues to have players on the payroll that were and are far less productive ...
Can you cite any of these -- particularly for quarterbacks?