View Single Post
Old
09-12-2004, 03:19 PM
  #42
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Why don't the players agree to be paid based on revenue? I'm the only one who's given an answer to that question.
Because player costs should be a variable, not a fixed cost. It is ridiculous to suggest that the successful teams, the high revenue teams, would be paying the same percentage of their revenue to players as unsuccessful teams. They don't. It will be a higher percentage. It is ridiculous to suggest that the same revenue split is appropriate for a $1.5 billion industry or a $2.5 billion industry.

The owners are not guaranteeing the player share. They are capping the player share. If revenues have stopped growing, the player share will stop too. If revenues actually fall, one would expect the player percentage of those revenues to fall too. We certainly see that happening with individual teams as their revenue fluctuates. This is right and proper. The fixed costs have to be covered. The players will get a larger and larger share of the rest of those revenues as those revenues increase.

That's the way it should work. The owners want to convert the variable cost to a fixed cost too. Even if the negotiated split is equitable for revenues of $2 billion, it will definitely not be equitable if revenue rises to $2.2 billion. The owners want to assure a profit when revenues are down and very fat profits when revenues are up.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline