PDA

View Full Version : Revenue Sharing Column


Lip Man 1
01-29-2010, 08:05 PM
Has some interesting comments and a possible outlook over the next labor issue, i.e. why won't poor clubs getting all this money spend it?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings010129

Lip

Oblong
01-29-2010, 10:15 PM
I think it's a very fair question to ask. Forget the baseball side of it and focus on the business side. These guys are partners. Some partners were told that they need to pay up some of their share to others to help prop them up and improve the overall product (in theory everybody benefits). If they have reason to believe that they're just banking that money and not improving the product then they need to speak up and work it out. Revenue Sharing money should be tied to capital improvements, meaning salaries, player development, etc. It shouldn't be simply to improve the bottom line on the balance sheet.

Jpgr91
01-29-2010, 11:58 PM
I think it's a very fair question to ask. Forget the baseball side of it and focus on the business side. These guys are partners. Some partners were told that they need to pay up some of their share to others to help prop them up and improve the overall product (in theory everybody benefits). If they have reason to believe that they're just banking that money and not improving the product then they need to speak up and work it out. Revenue Sharing money should be tied to capital improvements, meaning salaries, player development, etc. It shouldn't be simply to improve the bottom line on the balance sheet.

Team owners are focused on the value of their franchises, not on the overall value of the MLB. Teams are bought and sold, not the entirety of MLB. Because of this it is not accurate to consider it a partnership.

Making a few teams on the low end of the revenue sharing spectrum spend money will do nothing but raise the overall cost of MLB talent. If it did not help raise player salaries, why would MLBPA be pushing for them to spend the money?

Oblong
01-30-2010, 08:36 AM
But they are partners. That's why you need approval from the others to buy into the league. It's why they share expansion fees. There's lots of things, beyond revenue sharing that's referenced here, that they share.

If they were not partners then there wouldn't be a need for the Anti Trust Exemption from Congress.

russ99
01-30-2010, 11:43 AM
I think it's a very fair question to ask. Forget the baseball side of it and focus on the business side. These guys are partners. Some partners were told that they need to pay up some of their share to others to help prop them up and improve the overall product (in theory everybody benefits). If they have reason to believe that they're just banking that money and not improving the product then they need to speak up and work it out. Revenue Sharing money should be tied to capital improvements, meaning salaries, player development, etc. It shouldn't be simply to improve the bottom line on the balance sheet.

I don't know if they're going to go anywhere with this. There's only 3-5 big market teams with massive revenue streams, and the mid-market ones will likely side with the small ones. I doubt teams like the Rangers and Rockies would side with the Yankees and Red Sox on this. I can't see how the big-market teams with little fiscal responsibility have any leverage to tell a small market team how to run their business and that they need to spend more on players.

May need to be a CBA issue, and could be solved by revenue sharing tied to a soft cap and floor, but the union would need major concessions to even consider something like that.

Jpgr91
01-30-2010, 12:30 PM
But they are partners. That's why you need approval from the others to buy into the league. It's why they share expansion fees. There's lots of things, beyond revenue sharing that's referenced here, that they share.

If they were not partners then there wouldn't be a need for the Anti Trust Exemption from Congress.

I believe that MLB anti trust exemption was a Judicial action and not a Legislative one. I think the exemption was based on the Supreme Court saying that Baseball was not interstate commerce, so the anti trust laws did not apply.

jamokes
01-30-2010, 02:27 PM
The Red Sox and Yankees control baseball. It is very unfair when you look at with these teams take in/spend compared to others.

The NFL is a much more fairer system of revenue.

MLB should control all radio/tv revenues and split them equally.

This of course will never happen.

Lundind1
01-31-2010, 11:12 AM
I don't know of any franchise/franchisee relationship where there is profit sharing. It would be ridiculous to think of McDonalds doing something like that.

That being said, there should be some way of forcing the underperforming teams to pay more for talent and draw better at the gate.

MisterB
01-31-2010, 03:50 PM
I don't know of any franchise/franchisee relationship where there is profit sharing. It would be ridiculous to think of McDonalds doing something like that.

That's comparing apples to kumquats there. McDonalds franchises aren't restricted to competing only against other McDonalds franchises in order to make money.

Do you think the Yankees would make as much money as they do if they were a barnstorming team? The whole enterprise is based on the competition against other teams in the league. No competition, no money.