View Single Post
Old
10-03-2012, 08:26 AM
  #29
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
It is my belief that the revenue sharing in other leagues comes from the revenue generated by the league.

Somewhat, but maybe better put, the amount of revenue generated by the league in the other sports make revenue sharing more palatable.

NFL for example does a great job of sharing revenue, but they have the advantage of having only a 2-1 difference between the bottom revenue team vs the top revenue team. Secondly, they also have a huge TV deal. So why the Cowboys may grumble about writing out a large revenue sharing cheque every year, they amount they get back is still a fair bit larger, so its palatable.

MLB does a 30% local revenues share, but its chalk full of holes ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ing-spree.html ). Again though, they have such a large TV deal it makes it palatable. And to make this deal more palatable to rich teams, they have set up a system whereas teams with money can generally compete every year and those that do not have a tough go at it. They have thrown parity to the wind.

NBA does an OK job at revenue sharing, mostly harmed by a limited TV deal (900M a year). Again, they have thrown parity out the door though to placate the higher spending teams that now pay a luxury tax.

All in all with league revenues, I think probably only the LA Lakers, maybe the NY yankees, actually pay more into revenue sharing than they get out in all the other three leagues.

So ultimately the lack of a huge TV deal hampers revenue sharing, but more could be accomplished if the league was willing to drop parity. Lets face it, if you ask 2 or 3 teams to give up a huge chunk of money, they want something for it, and that means being able to buy their way into competitiveness. Its not a fun choice.

I've been a proponent of first settling on a revenue split, figuring out the savings, and setting up a revenue sharing plan so that the richest team (TO) breaks even on the deal. What they lose in RS, they get back in player salaries. The further down the revenue list you are, the more you get back compared to what you put in. That ends up targeting the teams needing it most, while not costing the richest teams a cent difference from the last year. That has to be palatable to the owners.

For example, say they can decide on a 50/50 split. I think revenues were projected at 110M per team this year. a 50/50 split would save teams 9M this year. So set the revenue sharing at 10% of local revenues. Leafs put in 20M in the pot on one end. Bottom end NYI put in 6.5M. Overall Total pot is 300M. Each team gets 10M back. Toronto basically pays 20M in revenue sharing, gets back 19M (9 in reduced salaries, 10 in revenue sharing). Palatable. NYI pay 6.5M, get back 17M (7M savings on salaries as they do not spend to cap) for a 10.5M gain.

I cannot see how that system is not palatable to all teams. It directs any savings in player salaries t the needier teams, not to profits on the larger teams. The 50/50 split the players may argue about, but revenue sharing goes down if the players percentage goes up, so they could only go so high to make it work.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote