Small market team fans have long wanted salary cap, and revenue sharing. What about if you had a guy like Mark cuban, or Donald Trump has your owner people you know will put money in the team. Will you still want a Salary Cap or Revenue Sharing. Those people would find a way to make those teams profitiable. I want you Fans to REALLY think about being able to afford players and if you would still would want a salary cap and revenue sharing. I don't want to hear about the good of the game I want to hear you has a fan of your team.
2007-04-01 10:37:00 · 5 answers · asked by Dodgerblue 5 in Sports ➔ Baseball
What would be even better than a salary cap would be non-guarantee contracts with a salary cap so teams can get rid of underpreforming players. The economical advantage that a few teams have with local tv contracts is really unbalanced. It was not that long ago that the Royals had the highest payroll. The salary cap and contracts have really made football be able to dominate sports. The fact that you can put teams in Indianapolis, Green Bay, and Jacksonville proves this.
The big market teams still would have advantages by being able to put more money in coaching, facilities, scouting, and minor leagues systems.
2007-04-01 10:53:06 · answer #1 · answered by john b 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Fans of a team want a chance to win.The owners who don't want to spend the money argue for a salary cap and revenue sharing.If you can't afford a team then why own one. George Steinbrenner is not the richest owner by far. He is just the most concerned about winning and giving the fan the best product he can Before he came the team was terrible and drew one million fans.Now they drew over four million fans. If you put the time and money into your team the fans will come.Money isn't the only answer, a good general manager and scouting department is.
2007-04-01 10:53:38 · answer #2 · answered by Joel M 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
cuban and trump would not continue to pour money into an unprofitable venture.
all we want is when the yankees play us, to share the revenues. here's the math using hypotheticals:
team tv revenue
yankees 100 mil
rest of MLB 200 mil
the yankees would take half their tv revenues, 50 mil, and share it with baseball. the rest of base ball would do the same.
the yankees would pocket 50 mil plus 9 mil from the pool, giving them 59 mil tv revenue.
the rest of the teams would pocket 9 mil, plus 2 mil from the yankees pile, giving them 11 mil tv revenue.
the yankees would still have a 5 to 1 revenue advantage. but it is more equitable than the 20 to 1 advantage they have now.
also, teams would be forced to spend 75% on player salaries, or give back to the pool what they do not spend.
and while we're at it, let's get a REAL commissioner...
2007-04-01 10:55:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Look at what the Marlins did. They sold out the team and made money off of it. The Yankees are another team. They just spend money so they are always on top. And seeing the same teams on top is boring. The NFL always has a team that comes from the bottom due to free agency and salary cap
2007-04-01 10:41:55 · answer #4 · answered by PTK 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The NFL has addressed his quite well.
Teams in Green bay andTampa Bay do just as well as teams in Phila or Chicago.
I hate to say it, but the present baseball commissioner is, well, ..............
))useless?))
2007-04-01 10:43:27 · answer #5 · answered by TedEx 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋