I was reading something on ESPN when I noticed a troubling stat.
Tampa Bay has a payroll of $30 million. They receive $30 million in revenue sharing alone. Add to that ticket sales (however small they are), parking, concession, TV and radio revenue and you get a pretty nice sum. Also keep in mind that in baseball a visiting team gets portion of the ticket sales - for example if Tampa Bay visits Yankees they got a portion of the Yankee ticket sales for that game.
So as the result, you get the owner of Tampa Bay pocketing a pretty nice sum of money from revenue sharing. In other word, whatever teams like Yankes, Sox, Angels and Cubs contribute to the shared pool goes directly into few owners pockets. Seems not fare right?
So I have a suggestion - revenew sharing money should be only available to a team if their budge is in the red. For example, lets say Diamondbacks have payroll of $60 million plus $10 million operating expenses. Their earnings (tickets + media + merchandise) is $55 million - so they're $15 million under. As the result they receive $20 million in revenue sharing to put them $5 million over.
On the other hand, Tampa Bay has operating expenses of $35 million, while their income lets say is $40 million. As the result - they don't receive any revenue sharing, even though they're the poorest team.
Does anybody see any sense in this? I think salary cap could be good for baseball, but it'll be almost impossible to get PA to agree. Meanwhile, this simple rule would make games a lot more competitive. It would also make revenue sharing go towards the teams that are actually trying to compete.
Tampa Bay has a payroll of $30 million. They receive $30 million in revenue sharing alone. Add to that ticket sales (however small they are), parking, concession, TV and radio revenue and you get a pretty nice sum. Also keep in mind that in baseball a visiting team gets portion of the ticket sales - for example if Tampa Bay visits Yankees they got a portion of the Yankee ticket sales for that game.
So as the result, you get the owner of Tampa Bay pocketing a pretty nice sum of money from revenue sharing. In other word, whatever teams like Yankes, Sox, Angels and Cubs contribute to the shared pool goes directly into few owners pockets. Seems not fare right?
So I have a suggestion - revenew sharing money should be only available to a team if their budge is in the red. For example, lets say Diamondbacks have payroll of $60 million plus $10 million operating expenses. Their earnings (tickets + media + merchandise) is $55 million - so they're $15 million under. As the result they receive $20 million in revenue sharing to put them $5 million over.
On the other hand, Tampa Bay has operating expenses of $35 million, while their income lets say is $40 million. As the result - they don't receive any revenue sharing, even though they're the poorest team.
Does anybody see any sense in this? I think salary cap could be good for baseball, but it'll be almost impossible to get PA to agree. Meanwhile, this simple rule would make games a lot more competitive. It would also make revenue sharing go towards the teams that are actually trying to compete.
Facebook
Twitter