MLB Lock-Out

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

sportscoach

Snarly's Gaming Rival!!
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
9,722
Reaction score
4,094
Points
113
I’d rather they came up with something that says X amount of your funds received through revenue sharing are to be earmarked for reinvestment back into the team but that’s just me.

The question is does every team get equal revenue sharing?
 

BimboColesHair

I'd rather be golfing.
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
17,804
Reaction score
31,763
Points
148
The question is does every team get equal revenue sharing?

For the most part, yes.

There are some market based refunds typically given back to the bigger markets, but the league pools and shares equal distributions of 48% of local TV revenues and all the national tv revenue. Typically comes to about $200m per team.
 

sportscoach

Snarly's Gaming Rival!!
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
9,722
Reaction score
4,094
Points
113
For the most part, yes.

There are some market based refunds typically given back to the bigger markets, but the league pools and shares equal distributions of 48% of local TV revenues and all the national tv revenue. Typically comes to about $200m per team.

So in a sense, shouldn't every team just have the same cap based off of revenue like that, to keep it competitively fair?
 

daddywags

All-Star
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
5,213
Reaction score
6,866
Points
113
For the most part, yes.

There are some market based refunds typically given back to the bigger markets, but the league pools and shares equal distributions of 48% of local TV revenues and all the national tv revenue. Typically comes to about $200m per team.

The Dodgers team payroll in 2021 was about 214 million. They took in 239 million from their (unshared as far as I know) local TV deal (Fangraphs). In a sense, then, they didn't spend any of their revenue sharing money on player salaries.
 

BimboColesHair

I'd rather be golfing.
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
17,804
Reaction score
31,763
Points
148
So in a sense, shouldn't every team just have the same cap based off of revenue like that, to keep it competitively fair?

There’s never going to be a cap in the MLB. Not a hard one. Just, will never happen.

The problem with the current revenue sharing system is there was a gentleman’s agreement between owners and the MLBPA where owners from smaller markets receiving huge paydays promised to invest those back into their teams to remain as competitive as possible. That’s clearly not happening though.

So if we assume $200m is what, say, the Orioles got last year with their $42m payroll, on top of the remaining 52% of their TV revenue which is ~$28m that is a net of $186m they made before factoring in merch, tickets, concessions, etc.

Where is all of that money going is a legit question the MLBPA should be asking ownership groups.
 

BimboColesHair

I'd rather be golfing.
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
17,804
Reaction score
31,763
Points
148
The Dodgers team payroll in 2021 was about 214 million. They took in 239 million from their (unshared as far as I know) local TV deal (Fangraphs). In a sense, then, they didn't spend any of their revenue sharing money on player salaries.

And that’s why the Dodgers will continue to be happy to pay the soft tax.

They’re profitable every year they operate. But that’s also why the MLBPA won’t set their sights on that market. They’re spending, that’s what they want.
 

BimboColesHair

I'd rather be golfing.
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
17,804
Reaction score
31,763
Points
148
Also, keep in mind, revenue sharing wasn’t started as a money making apparatus for teams. That’s not what the system is for.

It was instituted by smaller markets in the argument that they could use those funds to remain competitive spending against markets that generate more income than theirs and still turn a profit.

They aren’t supposed to be pocketing almost 100% of it year in and year out. But there are no rules set in stone that dictate how they have to spend those funds and some places take advantage of that.
 

sportscoach

Snarly's Gaming Rival!!
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
9,722
Reaction score
4,094
Points
113
There’s never going to be a cap in the MLB. Not a hard one. Just, will never happen.

The problem with the current revenue sharing system is there was a gentleman’s agreement between owners and the MLBPA where owners from smaller markets receiving huge paydays promised to invest those back into their teams to remain as competitive as possible. That’s clearly not happening though.

So if we assume $200m is what, say, the Orioles got last year with their $42m payroll, on top of the remaining 52% of their TV revenue which is ~$28m that is a net of $186m they made before factoring in merch, tickets, concessions, etc.

Where is all of that money going is a legit question the MLBPA should be asking ownership groups.

Well if you don't get big market spending under control though, you will end up with teams that cannot compete financially plus tickets will get out of price range for a lot of people...

That's why I wish we could set a minimum cap and a hard top cap... that way teams have to use that money regardless, but if you don't have both it almost makes the idea useless..

Maybe they need to have a transparency setup for the revenue sharing? I mean during a legit rebuild, you will cut cap a lot, there isn't any ifs ands or buts about it, but at the same time if revenue sharing is supposed to be for salaries only, maybe the money not used, has to go back into the pool to spread out again the next season?
 

Sebastian

Sisu, Sauna ja Sibelius
Staff member
Real Cleveland Fans
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
21,000
Reaction score
36,911
Points
148
Perhaps paying minor league players more generously might convince more athletes to play baseball!
Yeah, thanks to the media, sexy liaisons with middle aged women with expert level knowledge of the game, and how it is played, is simply not enough!

I blame Glee. Fuck you, Glee.
 

Sebastian

Sisu, Sauna ja Sibelius
Staff member
Real Cleveland Fans
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
21,000
Reaction score
36,911
Points
148
Also, keep in mind, revenue sharing wasn’t started as a money making apparatus for teams. That’s not what the system is for.

It was instituted by smaller markets in the argument that they could use those funds to remain competitive spending against markets that generate more income than theirs and still turn a profit.

They aren’t supposed to be pocketing almost 100% of it year in and year out. But there are no rules set in stone that dictate how they have to spend those funds and some places take advantage of that.

It is amazing that this has been allowed to occur. Ironically, if the NFL had been doing this in 1995, Modell may never have moved the team.

IZWHPZt.jpg


HOJKcYH.gif
 

BimboColesHair

I'd rather be golfing.
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
17,804
Reaction score
31,763
Points
148
Well if you don't get big market spending under control though, you will end up with teams that cannot compete financially plus tickets will get out of price range for a lot of people...

That's why I wish we could set a minimum cap and a hard top cap... that way teams have to use that money regardless, but if you don't have both it almost makes the idea useless..

Maybe they need to have a transparency setup for the revenue sharing? I mean during a legit rebuild, you will cut cap a lot, there isn't any ifs ands or buts about it, but at the same time if revenue sharing is supposed to be for salaries only, maybe the money not used, has to go back into the pool to spread out again the next season?

You don’t need to “get big market spending under control” though.

Even with friendlier revenue sharing (an increase from 48%) or a cap floor with a soft taxed cap big markets will always spend more than small markets. They make more money than them, always will. Spending doesn’t equal winning, so it’s not viewed as a problem.

A hard cap is not going to happen. For better or worse, the MLBPA would never agree to one. They’d rather not play again than agree to that.

Only way to make it a fair footing is 100% revenue sharing, but that will most certainly never happen.

As for the last question the proposed idea would be unspent money from revenue sharing meant to go to player payroll would still do that, and would be shared equally amongst the teams 40 man roster.
 

Criznit

Sixth Man
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
2,942
Reaction score
1,841
Points
113
I seem to remember a few years ago MLBPA "investigating" 3-4 teams in regards to how they were using their shared revenue money. The Rays, The Pirates and I can't remember the 3rd team.. Can't recall what came of that, obviously nothing.

Edit - found it. Had some of the details wrong. From early 2018.
 
Last edited:

daddywags

All-Star
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
5,213
Reaction score
6,866
Points
113
And that’s why the Dodgers will continue to be happy to pay the soft tax.

They’re profitable every year they operate. But that’s also why the MLBPA won’t set their sights on that market. They’re spending, that’s what they want.

I don't disagree. I was only suggesting that, since money is fungible, an argument that teams shouldn't "take revenue sharing money as profits" could be applied to the Dodgers. IOW, it's a good sound bite but not, IMO, a useful argument.

The real nub, as you've pointed out (and I agree), is that MLBPA wants to find ways to force lower spending teams to spend more on player salaries. If I understand you correctly, MLBPA also wants to accomplish that without overly taxing higher spending clubs. All of that makes perfect sense.
 

BimboColesHair

I'd rather be golfing.
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
17,804
Reaction score
31,763
Points
148
I don't disagree. I was only suggesting that, since money is fungible, an argument that teams shouldn't "take revenue sharing money as profits" could be applied to the Dodgers. IOW, it's a good sound bite but not, IMO, a useful argument.

The real nub, as you've pointed out (and I agree), is that MLBPA wants to find ways to force lower spending teams to spend more on player salaries. If I understand you correctly, MLBPA also wants to accomplish that without overly taxing higher spending clubs. All of that makes perfect sense.

Dodgers aren't taking revenue sharing as a profit though, they are typically taking it as a loss. They almost always give considerably more to the revenue sharing pool than the ~$200m they get back.

They make up for it with their remaining 52% and the 50% ownership they have in their network deal. Which, as the system is set up to be, is the way it should be for every team. Revenue sharing proceeds are meant to cover or add to your teams payroll. The remainder of teams TV deals that aren't added to the pool on top of ownership in the network, ticket sales, merch, concessions, etc are the profit they're supposed to pocket each year.

And to reference the above grievance filed by the MLBPA on the Pirates from Criznit, they did that because the Pirates conveniently reported a profit that matched their revenue sharing receipt the same year they cut payroll.

But yes, the MLBPA wants teams to spend, they also want the typical big spenders not hesitant to spend more, where the tax aspect becomes tricky for them to agree to anything.
 

daddywags

All-Star
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
5,213
Reaction score
6,866
Points
113
Dodgers aren't taking revenue sharing as a profit though, they are typically taking it as a loss. They almost always give considerably more to the revenue sharing pool than the ~$200m they get back.

They make up for it with their remaining 52% and the 50% ownership they have in their network deal. Which, as the system is set up to be, is the way it should be for every team. Revenue sharing proceeds are meant to cover or add to your teams payroll. The remainder of teams TV deals that aren't added to the pool on top of ownership in the network, ticket sales, merch, concessions, etc are the profit they're supposed to pocket each year.

And to reference the above grievance filed by the MLBPA on the Pirates from Criznit, they did that because the Pirates conveniently reported a profit that matched their revenue sharing receipt the same year they cut payroll.

But yes, the MLBPA wants teams to spend, they also want the typical big spenders not hesitant to spend more, where the tax aspect becomes tricky for them to agree to anything.

Okay. Having read up a bit about revenue sharing in MLB, it's much more complicated than I had supposed. I will bow out of this discussion for now. I'm assuming the following linked article is reasonably accurate.

 

Help For Business Hit By Covid

Total amount
$1,170.00
Goal
$1,000.00

Rubber Rim Job Podcast

Episode 1:6 "Follow the DG Leader"
Top