2006-07-07 02:34:37 · 8 answers · asked by Creepy Man2 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
teams in bigger cities, have more people, more people = MORE MONEY.
2006-07-07 02:39:54 · answer #1 · answered by LongShot™ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a lot of answers to this question. The salary cap is not one of them. A salary cap might help poorer teams keep pace with richer teams but it doesn't answer the question about why some teams are rich and some are poor.
Teams in large cities with a deep tradition tend to have greater revenues (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Mets). Every team gets the same amount of money from the national television contract. The big difference is in local television and radio money. That's where the teams from larger cities have an advantage. The Yankees, Red Sox and Mets actually own their own sports channels. This gives them a huge advantage over temas like Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Minnesota.
The revenue sharing plan only provides minimal relief for the small market teams. The other problem is that some small market teams take the money given to them from the revenue sharing plan and don't spend it on players ( this was pointed out earlier).
The key is the disparity in local television revenue. That money is not shared and is a great source of new revenue. The criticism of David Glass is right. What he does have, he is not spending on improving the team. The Royals draw decently and there are small market clubs that have won. The poorer teams are at a disadvantage, but they could win if they were run properly.
2006-07-13 11:34:29 · answer #2 · answered by ulbud k 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's no revenue sharing in baseball like there is in other sports. Some markets (like NY) have large income from local TV. Because baseball teams don't share that $$, the teams with the largest markets have the most $$ to spend. The salary cap/luxury tax that keeps things competitive in other sports is a joke in baseball.
But just because you spend the most doesn't mean you'll win all the time. When was the last time the mets won? How about the orioles? Even the Yankees haven't won it all in years. Those are 3 of the top spenders.
2006-07-07 09:47:36 · answer #3 · answered by Scott 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason for this is because baseball doesn't have a salary cap unlike other professional sports, and until they do, the unfair balance of power will continue to go on. The only good thing that comes out of this for me at least is seeing the richest team in baseball by far (Yankees) continue to fail at winning the World Series year after year. They may even miss the playoffs this year. I would love that.
2006-07-07 09:39:40 · answer #4 · answered by Jeff 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All teams get a piece of the revenue from bigger teams (Revenue Sharing). Teams like the Marlins have over $10 milion dollars they received from teams like the Yankees, but kept it all! These owners ALL have the money to spend (yes, even KC and Minnesota), but some spend it and others keep it. You have to spend to make. You don't get butts in the seats by signing Matt Stairs for $500,000. You get butts when you sign Manny Ramirez for $50,000,000. Teams that take that risk, get the reward
2006-07-07 09:50:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
some of it depends on the market they're in. The Yankees for example have a fat TV contract with the YES network which pays them a buttload of money. Same with teams like the Mets, and Dodgers. Some owners like K.C.'s D.Glass refuses to spend money on their team thus they can't secure descent talent.
2006-07-07 09:41:58 · answer #6 · answered by Chris L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
baseball doesnt have a salary cap -it is an unfair way -they should have a cap like football
2006-07-07 09:40:14 · answer #7 · answered by nancy c 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because some owners want to spend money and some are cheap.
2006-07-07 09:37:24 · answer #8 · answered by David 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋