Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

CrazyCanuck · 05-30-2005, 01:59 PM

Great posts guys. Here are my random thoughts:

- Revenue sharing in sports is not only desired but vital. The fact is certain markets will always generate more revenue than others. Without any revenue sharing this discrepency between big markets and small markets would continue to grow exponentially until the quality and competitiveness of the league hits rock bottom (ie MLB).

- Individual people are greedy for the most part. The NFL is lucky because they came up with revenue sharing decades ago when the league had no revenue. If they tried to instate this rule now I don't think it would ever get passed, or the sharing would be much much less.

- The heart of the revenue sharing problem (IMO) is the TV money. That's where the big bucks are and therefore these are the most important revenues to share. Baseball has big problems because every team has their own tv deal and they are far from equal. The Yankees for example have their own tv network, while my beloved Expos actually spent a year with no tv deal AND no radio deal. The only solution I see for baseball involves gathering all the TV rights into one big package so it can be spilt appropriately by the league. But this is almost impossible due to the splintered nature of the market - ESPN, TBS, YES, WGN, NESN, etc.

- Fox sports is baseball's best hope IMO (believe it or not). They already have a bunch of individual tv deals set up. Plus they are big enough that they can split their broadcasts by region (ie Fox east, Fox West, etc.) This way they get the one big tv deal, and still have the capability to broadcast regionally (which is needed for baseball). Once all the TV money is being split evenly then the league might finally start to see some competitiveness and balance between markets.

- Back to football. Like you guys mentioned, teams like the Skins are pissed because they spend effort and energy to increase revenues in creative ways, then have to ship out a bulk of these to other teams who don't lift a finger. This is why the MINIMUM salary cap is just as important as the MAXIMUM. It prevents cheap teams from fielding a crap product and raking in the profits. The minimum cap is also what the players are concerned about, as this is the only amount of money that the union is guarnateed to see. The difference between the min cap and max cap is like $20M, so even today some teams are raking in an extra $20M just by playing cheap and short-changing their fans. This is why I think we should be grateful to have Snyder as owner.

- It's a tough debate as to what is fair regarding the side revenues that currently are not shared (ie luxury boxes, etc.). I'll let you guys debate it. My view is that any inherent advantage (ie larger markets) should be removed through revenue sharing, while anything that is already on a level playing field should not. This way hard work and creativity are rewarded while greed and frugality are not.

Sorry for the long rant.

05-30-2005, 01:59 PM	#11
CrazyCanuck Serenity Now Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Re: Revenue Sharing. Great posts guys. Here are my random thoughts: - Revenue sharing in sports is not only desired but vital. The fact is certain markets will always generate more revenue than others. Without any revenue sharing this discrepency between big markets and small markets would continue to grow exponentially until the quality and competitiveness of the league hits rock bottom (ie MLB). - Individual people are greedy for the most part. The NFL is lucky because they came up with revenue sharing decades ago when the league had no revenue. If they tried to instate this rule now I don't think it would ever get passed, or the sharing would be much much less. - The heart of the revenue sharing problem (IMO) is the TV money. That's where the big bucks are and therefore these are the most important revenues to share. Baseball has big problems because every team has their own tv deal and they are far from equal. The Yankees for example have their own tv network, while my beloved Expos actually spent a year with no tv deal AND no radio deal. The only solution I see for baseball involves gathering all the TV rights into one big package so it can be spilt appropriately by the league. But this is almost impossible due to the splintered nature of the market - ESPN, TBS, YES, WGN, NESN, etc. - Fox sports is baseball's best hope IMO (believe it or not). They already have a bunch of individual tv deals set up. Plus they are big enough that they can split their broadcasts by region (ie Fox east, Fox West, etc.) This way they get the one big tv deal, and still have the capability to broadcast regionally (which is needed for baseball). Once all the TV money is being split evenly then the league might finally start to see some competitiveness and balance between markets. - Back to football. Like you guys mentioned, teams like the Skins are pissed because they spend effort and energy to increase revenues in creative ways, then have to ship out a bulk of these to other teams who don't lift a finger. This is why the MINIMUM salary cap is just as important as the MAXIMUM. It prevents cheap teams from fielding a crap product and raking in the profits. The minimum cap is also what the players are concerned about, as this is the only amount of money that the union is guarnateed to see. The difference between the min cap and max cap is like $20M, so even today some teams are raking in an extra $20M just by playing cheap and short-changing their fans. This is why I think we should be grateful to have Snyder as owner. - It's a tough debate as to what is fair regarding the side revenues that currently are not shared (ie luxury boxes, etc.). I'll let you guys debate it. My view is that any inherent advantage (ie larger markets) should be removed through revenue sharing, while anything that is already on a level playing field should not. This way hard work and creativity are rewarded while greed and frugality are not. Sorry for the long rant.