Does the MLB need a revenue sharing system like the NFL?

Question

I know this will bring out all the Yankee fans but I would like to see a level playing field. Do you?

I said like the NFL. Even things out. It's a very slim one we've got now.

Answer 1

It's conspiracy kid. No one wants to see the Royals or D-Rays in the playoffs, they want to see the Yankees and the Dodgers. Some of these clowns don't no what they're talking about, there are only so many New Yorks and LA's to go around, so obviously not every team can be in a major metropolis area. Money is made from TV contracts, more populous means more ratings, which means more advertising, which means bigger TV deal. What we're seeing now is kind of like smaller market teams preparing players for bigger markets teams kind of like a minor league system and it sucks, ie. Carlos Beltran to New York ie. Soriano going to Chicago. Smaller market teams can't even afford to keep great players and its sad if your a fan of these teams because those are the guys you want to see play. Nothing we can do about it though because the bottom line is money, when the league is successful the contracts get big, and thats what both owners and players want while all the fans gets is higher ticket prices and teams like the DRays. However I am not in favor of a communist system like the NFL, even though it has brought an even playing field to that league, I do not necessarily believe the league has gotten better. My suggestion would to add to the revenue sharing kind of like a franchise player type situation paid for by the league.

Answer 2

No I do not think that baseball needs a NFL revenue sharing system. The current system while not great is working to a point. The NFL's system has cause an increase in free agency to the point that your team change to the point that you need programs just figure out where everyone is playing this year. It makes it harder to root for your team when you lose all you favorite players every other year. Plus you get a watered down team with no chemistry. Where baseballs is not perfect at least it keeps most 2nd level stars in place. Also is not fun to watch those teams spend a quarter of a billion dollars and still not be able to win a World Series!

Answer 3

What came first?The chicken or the egg?Revenue sharing won't force teams to spend money back into the team.If some of the "small market" teams would spend on one or two big-name free agents,they would attract more people to the games.If those players then brought a winning attitude to the team,they would attract more players willing to play in the smaller cities.That works in larger markets as well.The Chicago White Sox convinced Carlton Fisk to leave Boston and that changed the team.Two years later,they were in the World Series,albeit on the losing end.The Cubs are another example.They are one of the most profitable teams in the league and have spent money like drunken sailors,but still have yet to win anything.Would revenue sharing make them winners?Doubtful,I'd say.
On the other side of spending are the Florida Marlins.A few years ago,they won the World Series with a "small" payroll.On the heels of winning that championship,their owner dismantled the team,effectively ending their chances of repeat success.He then asked taxpayers to fund a new stadium at a cost of several hundred million dollars.How would revenue sharing change that?
The NFL has acheived a level of mediocrity where .500 teams make the playoffs,is that really success?Small market teams in the NFL do compete.Just look at the Colts.They won the Super Bowl and aren't a big market team,by no means.In MLB,the Cardinals were a great story last year,but I don't think America wants a .500 team to win the World Series every year. Revenue sharing is not the answer for MLB,what they need is responsible owners who are dedicated to winning and not making a fast buck and getting out.

Answer 4

Yeah Baseball's revenue sharing is approaching socialist levels.Taking from teams that actually SHOULD have baseball teams and giving it to teams that were stupid enough to start a franchise (it is a business remember) in a market that could not handle it (i.e. generate enough revenue for the team to turn a profit). Tampa Bay is a perfect example of it. Anyone that's been there knows that one professional sports team is a stretch, but 3??? (That is if you still consider Hockey a professional sport). We got expansion crazy in the 90's and people saw how good the return was for many other franchises so they wanted to start their own... but they seemed to have given little thought to whether an area would be able to support such a cost hungry enterprise.

A possible salary cap would make much more sense as it too would level the playing field, and likewise prevent regions from getting in over their heads.

Answer 5

Sure does, but it will never happen. Rozelle saw this problem back in the early 60s when football began to boom on TV and he made sure the TV pie was cut in equal pieces to be distributed evenly. Baseball, on the other hand, guarded it's local media revenues like a hawk. Now that you have NESN, YES, SprotsNY ...too much money for those owners to want to "help" out their fellow owners. That horse has left the barn and is three counties away by now.

Answer 6

I don't agree with revenue sharing. I look at it this way. If you cannot afford to be in a certain city then GET OUT! Coke doesnt share their profits with Pepsi do they?

Answer 7

revenue sharing is approaching socialist levels. ever wonder why fidel castro loves the MLB and baseball ?

Answer 8

They do have a revenue sharing program

Answer 9

Boy wouldn't that be a wonderful thing. YES!!!!!!!!!! That way the Yanks and Boston would not be able to spend 51 million on 1 player. All teams would have a chance at better players.

Answer 10

Yes I would - much to g. steinbrenner & yankee fans horror.