Why should teams that actually care about their team share their profits, while teams that don't give a flying squash just pocket their money?
2007-12-05 14:15:59 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Revenue sharing makes a good bit of fundamental sense due to MLB's territorial rights and market exclusivity, and that it still has that anomalous anti-trust exemption in force.
MLB does not allow teams to move anywhere they like -- and the ATE lets them enforce this -- so, as the primary example, the New York metropolitan market belongs to the Yankees and Mets. Another team cannot simply up and move into, say, northern New Jersey without approval (which would never happen). The Y&M get full authority to exploit the NY metro area -- easily the biggest media market in the land -- and the amount of local revenue generated is easily bigger than any other market in the leagues.
Now, the Y&M do deserve a lot of that local money (monies generated by league-wide, national contracts -- broadcasting, merchandising, Web -- are shared equally regardless of team popularity) because, in part, it depends upon the teams' marketing ingenuity and local cost-of-living. But because MLB and its constitutent teams have agreed that the Y&M and ONLY the Y&M get to exploit the NY metro area, it is also fair that SOME of that market-based largesse (the sheer amount of revenue the Yankees and Mets can derive from local sources, especially local television) be shared with the rest of the league. And this also applies to the other 28 teams, though the effect in, say, KC or Milwaukee is practically negligible next to what NY or LA can deliver.
MLB grants market exclusivity to the teams, so yes, it is fair that the teams share PART of what they can generate locally. Sorting out the exact percentages or dollar figures is best left to the accountants, but conceptually revenue sharing has merit behind it.
There are other ways MLB could try to even out the advantages of local revenue sources -- the one I'd most like to see is broadcast rights be owned by the home team. But that's a topic for another time.
As for requiring revenue sharing dividends be used to improve the team rosters (or at least the minors), there is no meaningful enforcement mechanism in play, so it amounts to a stern warning and is readily ignored.
2007-12-05 14:48:56 · answer #1 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Its easy to care about the team when you have a tv contract that is around 10 times the normal for the league.
I really wish that MLB was like the NFL and had a centralized tv contract.
Put every team on a equal playing field and I believe that some of the larger market teams that like to throw money at problems would get completely owned.
2007-12-06 00:18:39 · answer #2 · answered by Shawn C 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah look at the marlins. They have all this Revenue sharing money and they still trying to cut payroll. The marlins should be contracted with the Rays. It is clear florida does not care about baseball.
2007-12-05 23:14:00 · answer #3 · answered by Dodgerblue 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was designed so that small market teams would have a chance in the signing of players by getting their fair share. It is just that some haven't done what they should have. It is up to baseball to police this better.
2007-12-05 22:19:07 · answer #4 · answered by Sharon S 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is supposed to help less fortunate teams with not as much money to spend get a chance to get better.
It is fair if you think about it.
An example is the Royals signing Gil Meche last year, they were able to get him with the sharing. This year they signed Jose Guillen...
2007-12-05 22:54:37 · answer #5 · answered by miles c 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
http://www.mlbjerseyoutlet.com
2014-05-14 00:47:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they are doing it for their team..people who dont care are obviously just there to make their money.
2007-12-05 22:20:43 · answer #7 · answered by imsmartkid 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
it helps the "familia"
2007-12-05 22:59:13 · answer #8 · answered by jasonpickles 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋