Baseball and revenue sharing is vaguely a cap. A lot of money comes from media rights etc which is not shared.
Yankees continuously outspend and come up basically empty considering the $$ spent and performance. They have a fan base at least. Oakland A's were fielding a competitive product but have no other ways to make money except continuously sell assets. 5-1 or 3-1 spending differential between teams.
In NFL, are caps working or is it all myth like rent control?
and watch Green Bay fold....that ain't happening.
No in that it is hard to keep all your homegrown talent. Teams change so much year to year.
I would like teams to be able to sign their own without impacting the cap. Also, the cap does not take into account different tax rates—however the Miami teams are not running away with the best teams each year.
Quote:
May the biggest spender win. That would be fun to watch.
and watch Green Bay fold....that ain't happening.
Green Bay would only fold if the revenue share was removed. They would just be less competitive if the cap was removed.
Revenue sharing was introduced in the 60s. The Salary cap was introduced in the 90s.
In the MLB you have a lot of teams that just pocket the revenue sharing and don't spend on players. It makes sense for them because the ROI for putting money into the team is just not there.
SO MLB players, as a whole, get a smaller cut of the revenue than any other major sport.
In the MLB you have a lot of teams that just pocket the revenue sharing and don't spend on players. It makes sense for them because the ROI for putting money into the team is just not there.
SO MLB players, as a whole, get a smaller cut of the revenue than any other major sport.
I have read the opposite. It's hard to get exact numbers since MLB revenue is not public AFAIK, but MLB actually pays the highest percentage of revenue to the players (potentially).
Here is one source:
Under the terms of the new CBA, the players would receive a guaranteed 48% of revenues in 2021. This number would increase to 48.5%, via a "media kicker", for any season that includes 17 regular season games (an increase from the current 16 regular season games).
NBA Deal
Under the terms of the current collective bargaining agreement, players will earn "no less" than 49% of basketball-related income (BRI) and no more than 51%. The collective bargaining agreement maintains a 49-51% "band" in order to account for years when the league falls short or exceeds its revenue projections.
Basketball related income includes a number of different revenue sources, including regular season ticket sales, premium seat licenses, national broadcast rights and more.
MLB Deal
These numbers are hard to come by, as Major League Baseball keeps its books closed.
According to reports that have not been disputed by Major League Baseball or its players, players typically receive between 48.5% - 51.5% of total revenues, and this has been the case for more than a decade.
Some people argue that the number is closer to 54-55% if all player benefits are included.
NHL Deal
Hockey-related revenues are split down the middle, 50/50.
If player salaries exceed 50% of revenues in a given season, escrow money is withheld by the league to even things up.
Hockey-related revenues include ticket sales, broadcast deals and more
and another (before the 17 game season):
Seems like it's working for the owners and some of the players (not all). The fans, I don't know. I liked the '80s Giants with LT, Carson, Banks, Reasons, Headen and Hunt all at LB - not sure you could do that today.
more entertaining = better ratings, more fans, more $
so if you're a fan they work.
if you're a small market team with lower revenue who wants to compete they work.
for players the dynamics of what they get paid are not really salary cap specific as much as value over replacement specific (and a result of their CBA priorities).
I believe (IMO) that this might stem from the Bears bailing them out by playing the game in the Polo Grounds with Red Grange when the game was originally scheduled to be played in Chicago in 1925. Without that gesture the Giants might have gone under.
The evidence is there to support this. Teams kick the can down the road all the time. Especially winning teams. Eventually you have to adhere and it can and will be painful, but it’s not the annual hard line in the sand…
People hate this take and I’m really not sure why. It’s not even a hardline stance. It just allows for the nfl salary cap dynamic to contain some nuance and wiggle room.
teams have real decisions to make regarding the actual dollars they pay players. The cap is mostly accounting.
I've read about this elsewhere, cant remember exactly but maybe The Athletic or PFF, and I think it would be an interesting idea. Allow teams to pick 1 player, probably the QB, to exclude from the 'team' Cap. The thing I read was saying just let ownership pay whatever they want out of pocket. A mix of both worlds. If you think Mahomes is worth $1 billion then go for it.