[Goody]

Originally Posted by mlyons

I'd rather the money go to the players than the owners, personally.

At the cost of league parity.

I want whatevers best for the league. Whatever makes the league as a whole to be fun to watch...

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Goody

Its not really ironic. Its the flaw. Its the entire reason for my lamenting.

When Green Bay faces Indianapolis in the NFL....plenty want to watch.

The NFL doesn't have markets, though. The vast majority of their money comes from national TV contracts, which pay Green Bay the same amount of money that they do New York. Tickets sales make up a miniscule part of NFL team revenue (and supply is so limited that revenues don't have much relation to on-field success) and local TV contracts (the vast majority of MLB revenue) don't exist. It's an entirely different model, and one which you can't conceivably compare with baseball's.

The NBA and NHL are far more similar to MLB in revenue streams, so it'd be worthwhile to see how well their salary caps have done in creating competitive leagues. The answer, I fear, is not very well, though.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Goody

At the cost of league parity.

I want whatevers best for the league. Whatever makes the league as a whole to be fun to watch...

It is fun. Just not for you.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by mlyons

It is fun. Just not for you.

I guess so. I love going to Nationals games and having to buy tickets from some rich politician that bought up all the seats....just to get a good view. To watch a team that should lose anyways. And knowing that the ticket I bought doesn't really change anything in the long run...that the ticket was already bought and counted as "attendance" whether I show or not.

I live near Washington, so I want to adopt them as my team to help baseball overall. But its futility.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Goody

Its not really ironic. Its the flaw. Its the entire reason for my lamenting.

When Green Bay faces Indianapolis in the NFL....plenty want to watch.

Green Bay and Indianapolis are both top 10 in merchandise sales in the NFL. Those are teams with a lot of fans. Colts is also top 10 in ticket prices.

They should be allowed to spend more than others due to their higher earning capability, instead of being limited to be like the Bills or the Browns.

Revenue sharing and salary cap basically limited the incentive for teams to invest to get better and attract fans.

Think in terms of those rich European football clubs. They invested big to buy stars and build up brand name. They tried very hard to expand global following. Then they get rewarded for good investments.

In NFL, teams like the Cowboys get punished for building up such a great brand, since they have to share revenue with everybody else. Why bother then? You don't make much less money by being a lazy owner.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Goody

I guess so. I love going to Nationals games and having to buy tickets from some rich politician that bought up all the seats....just to get a good view. To watch a team that should lose anyways. And knowing that the ticket I bought doesn't really change anything in the long run...that the ticket was already bought and counted as "attendance" whether I show or not.

I live near Washington, so I want to adopt them as my team to help baseball overall. But its futility.

You can't blame Washington on revenue disparity. They're in what should be a huge market -- large population with lots and lots of disposable income (Fairfax County is usually the wealthiest in the nation). MLB and the Nationals ownership have done exactly nothing right with that franchise, though. You might be able to blame Pittsburgh and Kansas City on revenue issues, but the Nats are screwed up on an entirely different level.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Goody

I guess so. I love going to Nationals games and having to buy tickets from some rich politician that bought up all the seats....just to get a good view. To watch a team that should lose anyways. And knowing that the ticket I bought doesn't really change anything in the long run...that the ticket was already bought and counted as "attendance" whether I show or not.

I live near Washington, so I want to adopt them as my team to help baseball overall. But its futility.

The ticket you bought definitely change a lot. It counts as revenue, and the team is going to determine its spending depending revenue projections.

More people interested in the tickets would encourage the team to spend more, and hopefully building better teams. That in turn could get more people interested in the tickets. It's how things should work.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Goody

It wouldn't be easy...because of the point its gotten to. Its so outlandish to have one team spending 200 million while another is less than 30 m.

Except that those two teams are not directly competing against each other thanks to the division structure.

The only clubs who have a genuine complaint are the Blue Jays, Orioles, and Rays, because they're the clubs stuck in the same divsion as the Yankees and Red Sox.

Originally Posted by yankeesrule

only way the union agrees to a cap is if theres a minimum also, and teams like the pirates, marlins, royals ownership will never agree to this because they enjoy pocketing their $$$ rather than putting it back into the team

Actually, not long after revenue sharing was brought in, the clubs which usually were net payors in the system quickly realized that a salary floor was desirable. This was because they saw clubs which were net recipients from revenue sharing usually just pocketing the income as profit and doing little to improve their teams.

The net payor clubs thus wanted a salary floor. The MLBPA was steadfastly against the idea of a salary floor, with the reason being they feared that by allowing a salary floor it would open the door to allowing a salary cap, and they absolutely do not want a salary cap. So the idea of a salary floor was nixed.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Green Bay and Indianapolis are both top 10 in merchandise sales in the NFL. Those are teams with a lot of fans. Colts is also top 10 in ticket prices.

They should be allowed to spend more than others due to their higher earning capability, instead of being limited to be like the Bills or the Browns.

Revenue sharing and salary cap basically limited the incentive for teams to invest to get better and attract fans.

Think in terms of those rich European football clubs. They invested big to buy stars and build up brand name. They tried very hard to expand global following. Then they get rewarded for good investments.

In NFL, teams like the Cowboys get punished for building up such a great brand, since they have to share revenue with everybody else. Why bother then? You don't make much less money by being a lazy owner.

Why bother? For the love of the game.

To be part of something great. A competitive sport that is fun and fair across the board. Where the Green Bay Packers can still defeat the Dallas Cowboys machine for the good of the game as a whole. They'll still all be rich in the end. But are they just rich, or are they adding to something great...historic...respectable...

[Walkoff]

I think we all know that unless the MLB is close to tanking that the MLBPA will never, ever allow a salary cap.

Just won't happen. Those kinds of things need to be put in place long before teams and players have such disparity in salary.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The ticket you bought definitely change a lot. It counts as revenue, and the team is going to determine its spending depending revenue projections.

More people interested in the tickets would encourage the team to spend more, and hopefully building better teams. That in turn could get more people interested in the tickets. It's how things should work.

The ticket was already bought from the team by some rich politician or investor or business owner. The seat would be empty if I didn't buy it from them, but the team still has their money.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by mlyons

The NFL doesn't have markets, though. The vast majority of their money comes from national TV contracts, which pay Green Bay the same amount of money that they do New York. Tickets sales make up a miniscule part of NFL team revenue (and supply is so limited that revenues don't have much relation to on-field success) and local TV contracts (the vast majority of MLB revenue) don't exist. It's an entirely different model, and one which you can't conceivably compare with baseball's.

Indeed. If one parses the latest Forbes repoprt on NFL club values, one finds that ticket and concessions sales account for about 24.9% of NFL revenue. Broadcast revenue accounts for 49% of league revenue. The source for the remaining 26.1% of revenue isn't mentioned, but presumably it includes such things as merchandise sales, advertising, promotions, and sponsorships.

In comparison, here's the breakdown of revenue for MLB as a whole for 2006, in millions of dollars:

Ticket sales: $1,933 (34.6%)
National broadcasts: $935 (16.8%)
Local broadcasts: $837 (15.0%)
*Other local revenue: $1,212 (21.7%)
**Other national revenue:$34 (0.6%)
Domestic merchandising & licensing: $207 (3.7%)
International merchandising & licensing: $105 (1.9%)
MLB.com: $317 (5.7%)
TOTAL: $5,580 (100%)

*includes luxury suites, sponsorships, advertising
**includes All-Star Game revenue, royalty payments from minor leagues, miscellaneous items

Local and national television combined only accounts for 31.8% of total MLB revenue, a smaller percentage than ticket sales.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Goody

Why bother? For the love of the game.

To be part of something great. A competitive sport that is fun and fair across the board. Where the Green Bay Packers can still defeat the Dallas Cowboys machine for the good of the game as a whole. They'll still all be rich in the end. But are they just rich, or are they adding to something great...historic...respectable...

I am pretty sure the Dallas Cowboys had something great, something historic, and something respectable. Same as the New York Yankees.

For the love of the game, you should make sure the system would reward those who invest money in it, and those who spend effort marketing it.

As I said, that's what happened with those European football teams where the owners tried very hard to invest money in and push the fan base global. Why do you want to reward the lazy?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Goody

The ticket was already bought from the team by some rich politician or investor or business owner. The seat would be empty if I didn't buy it from them, but the team still has their money.

And that's the point. It's very important that the tickets are sold, but not as important of the tickets are empty.

The bad thing about empty seats is still related to ticket sales, since a lot of empty seats would send out a signal that the seats are unwanted, and people don't want to buy unwanted things.

[Skipaway]

The thing that actually makes sense to increase parity while not rewarding bad owners is to allow teams to move wherever they want.

That way you can probably expect something like the Reds moving to New York, or the Royals moving to Boston. That way you are more likely to balance out the market. That way you are more likely to have ambitious owners investing even more in improving and marketing MLB. The Angels were turned into a popular and successful team that way. How great it would be if some billionaire can just move the Rays to New York and make it big like the Angels?

[Le Grande Orange]

For all the talk of the salary cap in the NFL, it's worth noting that the league opted out early of the CBA with the players' union, meaning the 2010 NFL season will be played without a salary cap and setting the stage for a possible lockout in 2011.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The thing that actually makes sense to increase parity while not rewarding bad owners is to allow teams to move wherever they want.

That way you can probably expect something like the Reds moving to New York, or the Royals moving to Boston. That way you are more likely to balance out the market. That way you are more likely to have ambitious owners investing even more in improving and marketing MLB. The Angels were turned into a popular and successful team that way. How great it would be if some billionaire can just move the Rays to New York and make it big like the Angels?

I seriously dislike this idea. There was a great uproar back in the 70s or whenever, when teams were moving constantly from their old hometowns. Like the Dodger, for instance. The Dodgers were disliked for many many years because they moved out west.

I highly doubt a team like the Royals could break in on a market like NYC, simply because NY already has two franchises, both of which have long traditions. Especially the Yankees. I think other teams that would try to break in NY would have an even more of a tough time. Plus, I'm sure New Yorkers wouldn't want to foot ANOTHER bill for ANOTHER stadium. NYC already has 4 stadiums, and 4 arenas.

Another reason why I would dislike this idea, is simply because both coasts would be inundated with teams, and the middle part of the country would have teams that are few and far between. Not really represntative of America, the way the MLB is currently structured. Plus, you will have really odd divisions, like the NFL has, where western or eastern teams would need to be placed into central divisions. Teams would then have to travel longer distances more often, since they tend to play their division rivals more often than any other team.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The thing that actually makes sense to increase parity while not rewarding bad owners is to allow teams to move wherever they want.

That way you can probably expect something like the Reds moving to New York, or the Royals moving to Boston. That way you are more likely to balance out the market.

In other words, the open league model used in European football.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

II think other teams that would try to break in NY would have an even more of a tough time. Plus, I'm sure New Yorkers wouldn't want to foot ANOTHER bill for ANOTHER stadium. NYC already has 4 stadiums, and 4 arenas.

Uh, the reason why taxpayers are often paying the cost for a new stadium is precisely because of the closed league model used by North American sports leagues. Teams threaten to move, effectively blackmailing the host city into coughing up concessions or else lose the team. In an open league model this doesn't work, since if a club leaves another club can immediately move in because there are no territorial restrictions or limitations.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Another reason why I would dislike this idea, is simply because both coasts would be inundated with teams, and the middle part of the country would have teams that are few and far between. Not really represntative of America, the way the MLB is currently structured.

Actually, that would be far more representative of America. The population really is mostly concentrated on the two coasts. Half of the country's population lives within fifty miles of an ocean and in the middle part of the country people are few and far between (relatively speaking).

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Actually, that would be far more representative of America. The population really is mostly concentrated on the two coasts. Half of the country's population lives within fifty miles of an ocean and in the middle part of the country people are few and far between (relatively speaking).

No, that is not what I meant at all.

I meant that, in this case, the league could be filled with teams form NY. It would be NY NY NY NY, ATL ATL, Philly, Philly, Philly, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, LA LA LA LA. Maybe the occasionaly team from Dallas or something.

That type of set up would not be any fun at all. I like seeing a team from KC. People get the chance to see different cities on TV, other than the stereotypical NY/LA.

And besides the fact that, how would they fill out the divisions? Unless there are no divisions like it used to be. But in that case, you'll end up seeing the same two or three teams in the playoffs, because only two teams will actually get the chance of making it. Maybe 4 with the WC.

If you did have divisions, you would have very odd divisions, with maybe ATL have to be placed in either the central or western divisions.