I'm not a big proponent of revenue sharing at all. It subsidizes incompetence, and may encourage even more accounting chicanery than the current system does.
Printable View
I'm not a big proponent of revenue sharing at all. It subsidizes incompetence, and may encourage even more accounting chicanery than the current system does.
[QUOTE=bagelred]I'm so tired of hearing "Small markets can't compete" in basketball. This is complete BS. What a crock of sh-t.
Now, in baseball, in 2010, the highest payroll amout was the Yankees, at about $206 Million. The lowest was Pittsburgh, at about $35 million. That is close to a [B]600% difference[/B]. A ridiculous difference. Yet I never hear about baseball going to a hard cap. I rarely hear complaints about payroll disparity. The disparity is beyond ridiculous and there truly is NO WAY Pittsburgh can compete with Yankees. But this situation is just accepted.
[/quote]
Actually, this isn't entirely true. There is always talk of a salary cap of some kind making its way into baseball, but it just never does because it makes so much money. And using the Pirates as an example is a pretty bad choice on your part; it's been nearly 20 years since they even had a winning record. They can't pay and they can't compete. It is like having a farm team play in the big leagues most years.
[QUOTE]In 2010, Lakers had $92 million payroll, Sacramento had $44 million. That's about 210% difference. So already that's MUCH closer. Also, three of the best teams in the league had a "low" payroll. The Heat, Bulls, and Thunder had the 20th, 26th, and 27th highest payrolls last year. Gee, I thought they all competed fine on those below average payrolls, don't you?
Didn't San Antonio, a pretty small market, win FOUR championships pretty recently? They couldn't compete?[/QUOTE]
There is a pretty big difference between market size and payroll. In the late 90's and early 2000's, the Red Wings (I'm a hockey fan, so I apologize for this) had a payroll fast approaching $100 million, despite being in a market that was ranked something like 10th in the league. At times, we paid more than $20 million more in salaries than any other team in the league. When the hard cap was introduced in 2005, that cap was set to just under $40 million (to give an idea about where the rest of the league was at). You don't have to be in a big market to have a big payroll and the opposite is true as well, there have been plenty of small market teams that have had huge payrolls before. Hockey related again, but the Buffalo Sabres have the highest cap hit in the league right now despite being in the bottom half of the league in terms of market size.
[QUOTE]Plus the league already has rookie scale contracts, bird rights, salary cap, luxury tax, etc. to help out the small market teams anyway.[/QUOTE]
Those things help, but not nearly enough. Unless the Thunder get truly lucky, they will be screwed when their players start coming up for new contracts because they won't be able to afford them all.
[QUOTE]
I also laugh at how everyone loves capitalism and pushes free markets.....except in sports. Then we need socialism for the small markets "so they can compete." Yeah, NOW we need equality when it comes to the NBA......when its real people in real life situations....hey, it's every man for himself.......lol[/QUOTE]
This is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There is much more to socialism than redistribution of wealth and when it comes to sports, there is more to a team's revenue than the team alone. The opposition has just as much influence on their revenue. Miami coming to LA is a big money event in LA and LA is the only one to get the money from the event. Why?
More hockey, but when Wayne Gretzky was traded to Los Angeles, the Kings owner openly suggested he should be given 25-50% of the revenue from any road game his "entertainment" played in. When Lebron was with Cleveland, one of the worst markets in the country for sports, Cleveland road games would fill every arena and yet Cleveland did not make a cent from that and had to rely on their own team generated revenue to carry them. That, in my opinion, is not the way things should be done.
[QUOTE]And since this isn't NFL, which every game is nationally televised and every game sells out no matter what the city, doesn't the league WANT the big markets to have a LITTLE advantage. Don't we want teams to have a chance to form "super teams". Why the f-ck does the NBA want parity? The NBA does better when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Mavericks etc. are better. That's just a fact. Does the league really want NBA powerhouses in Charlotte, Sacramento, and Cleveland. Cleveland had the biggest star in the league, and Cleveland still didn't do well in national TV ratings....[/QUOTE]
Not true at all. The NBA does best when the entire country is watching their game and not just 8 big cities. Why cut yourself off from the middle of the country by letting teams like Memphis, Oklahoma, New Orleans, etc. die due to low profits? That makes no sense at all.
Not to mention you have teams like Sacremento who can barely afford to put a team on the floor at this point sitting in the middle of freaking California not competing and not drawing in crowds. With some extra cash, you could have another team making money in California, which is what the NBA would like, I imagine.
[quote]It's like the league is pushing for something, a hard cap, to spite themselves. Pandering to the small market owners, who's teams could disappear, and nobody would give a shit anyway..........[/quote]
Again, 8 big cities or an entire country of fans?
[quote]Yeah, I said it........:lol[/QUOTE]
Man, you are just full of yourself, aren't you?
In short, you make money, for the most part, by winning. To win, you need money. So by increasing parity, you increase profits league wide, even for the big market teams who get more money when those smaller market teams come to town. Ask the NFL, the league with the most parity, how well it worked for them.
Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.
[url]http://www.7springs.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.
[url]http://www.7springs.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
Was not aware of that. My mistake. I suppose that is a minor contradiction now. Ironic how that happens.
[QUOTE=Apocalyptic0n3]Actually, this isn't entirely true. There is always talk of a salary cap of some kind making its way into baseball, but it just never does because it makes so much money. And using the Pirates as an example is a pretty bad choice on your part; it's been nearly 20 years since they even had a winning record. They can't pay and they can't compete. It is like having a farm team play in the big leagues most years.
[/QUOTE]
I admit I don't follow baseball as closely as basketball, but I've never heard a serious discussion of a hard cap in baseball.
You are proving my point with the Pirates. It's the BEST example. They can't pay and can't compete. Exactly. And the Yankees have a payroll a gazillion times higher. So don't we agree baseball is ridiculous in this way?
[QUOTE]There is a pretty big difference between market size and payroll. In the late 90's and early 2000's, the Red Wings (I'm a hockey fan, so I apologize for this) had a payroll fast approaching $100 million, despite being in a market that was ranked something like 10th in the league. At times, we paid more than $20 million more in salaries than any other team in the league. When the hard cap was introduced in 2005, that cap was set to just under $40 million (to give an idea about where the rest of the league was at). You don't have to be in a big market to have a big payroll and the opposite is true as well, there have been plenty of small market teams that have had huge payrolls before. Hockey related again, but the Buffalo Sabres have the highest cap hit in the league right now despite being in the bottom half of the league in terms of market size.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, but you glossed over the point of the comment which is to say small payroll teams CAN compete. You just have to be more efficient and smarter about how you manage your payroll. True, large market teams can make more "mistakes" in essence because they have the money but small market teams can easily compete if you pay the right players and get a little lucky. Like I said, regardless of market size, three of the best teams this past year were in the bottom 10 of payroll.
[QUOTE]Those things help, but not nearly enough. Unless the Thunder get truly lucky, they will be screwed when their players start coming up for new contracts because they won't be able to afford them all.
[/QUOTE]
They help ALOT. The thing that helps the most is the rookie scale contract. That benefits the small market teams TREMENDOUSLY. OKC gets Kevin Durant for 4/5 years at WAY below market value because of it. If they had to pay KD big money in his rookie year, they'd be screwed.
That being said, I think OKC will be just fine going forward and keeping all their players because they managed their payroll effectively. KD, RW, JH, KP are all going to get paid and really those are the only guys that matter. They'll be just fine, but until then, they've benefited tremendously from the rookie scale concept.
[QUOTE]This is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. There is much more to socialism than redistribution of wealth and when it comes to sports, there is more to a team's revenue than the team alone. The opposition has just as much influence on their revenue. Miami coming to LA is a big money event in LA and LA is the only one to get the money from the event. Why?
More hockey, but when Wayne Gretzky was traded to Los Angeles, the Kings owner openly suggested he should be given 25-50% of the revenue from any road game his "entertainment" played in. When Lebron was with Cleveland, one of the worst markets in the country for sports, Cleveland road games would fill every arena and yet Cleveland did not make a cent from that and had to rely on their own team generated revenue to carry them. That, in my opinion, is not the way things should be done. [/QUOTE]
Well the socialism thing was more an aside. I'm just making a point the disparity between people's thoughts in real life, where people hate these social programs and have this laissez faire attitude, yet when it comes to NBA players getting paid....NOW we have to restrict that and make everything "fair" and make sure "everyone can compete". I just thought that was amusing.
As to your other point, it really works both ways doesn't it? OK, Cleveland wasn't "benefitting" from those road games. But what about now? Now that Cleveland sucks again, isn't Cleveland benefitting when the Lakers show up and they sell out Quicken Loans? Are they giving that money back to the Lakers? No of course not. So I don't really understand the argument. If you simply think there should be complete revenue sharing amongst all 30 teams, that would be another discussion entirely.
[QUOTE]Not true at all. The NBA does best when the entire country is watching their game and not just 8 big cities. Why cut yourself off from the middle of the country by letting teams like Memphis, Oklahoma, New Orleans, etc. die due to low profits? That makes no sense at all.[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course the country does best when the entire country is watching their game. No brainer. And what attracts more of the country to watch nationally televised games? Lakers vs. Knicks? or Bucks vs. Bobcats?
No one is cutting off the small markets at all. Like we said, they can easily compete if they make smart decisions, just like OKC.
Why was the league so successful this year? Well, the main reason was we had a super team that everyone watched and generated tremendous interest. National television ratings were through the roof. Was that because of parity you think? If you place this hard cap and other restrictions on player movement, you'll never get these "super teams" again.
[QUOTE]Not to mention you have teams like Sacremento who can barely afford to put a team on the floor at this point sitting in the middle of freaking California not competing and not drawing in crowds. With some extra cash, you could have another team making money in California, which is what the NBA would like, I imagine.[/QUOTE]
Well then maybe Sacramento doesn't need to have a team. Maybe the league needs to weed out the small markets that really can't afford a basketball team. Why does the entire league need to prop them up? Is the Sacramento market making or breaking the league?
Clearly its not going to be "8 big cities". But maybe "30 cities" isn't the answer either.
I hate to break it to you. But when the 8 big cities do well, the entire league tends to do very well. It even generates excitement in the smaller cities, because those 8 big cities are the signature franchises. You make it seem like if JUST give more help to the Milwaukee's and the Charlotte's of the league, that would be some tremendous help to the NBA. It won't.
[QUOTE]Man, you are just full of yourself, aren't you?[/QUOTE] You didn't get the self mockery with the :lol symbol? Read between the lines.
[QUOTE]In short, you make money, for the most part, by winning. To win, you need money. So by increasing parity, you increase profits league wide, even for the big market teams who get more money when those smaller market teams come to town. Ask the NFL, the league with the most parity, how well it worked for them.[/QUOTE]
Like we said, the NFL model and the NBA model are completely different. Everything in the NFL is done on a national scale. The NBA doesn't work that way. Of course, you want small market teams to be able to compete, WHICH THEY ALREADY CAN. But this incessant need for 30 team parity, where "everyone needs to be equal" is not what attracts fans. Super teams, signature franchises, superstars are what drives the NBA....not parity.
The NFL makes money because they play football, not because it has parity. The parity it supposedly has is fake on top of that. The only reason it seems like it has parity is that they play a single elimination playoff format. If the NFL moved to a best of 7 series like the NBA, there would never be upsets. The NBA format guarantees the best team always wins, while the NFL format allows for flukes to happen, and then calls it parity. The Giants would never be able to beat the Patriots in a best of 7 series, but because they only had to beat them once, they were able to win the title.
Just think about how much different the NBA would be with a 1 and done playoff. Jordan would lose his first title to the Lakers in 1991. The Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 1993. The Mavs would have won the title in 2006. The Sixers would have beaten the Lakers in 2001, and Iverson would have a ring. Lebron would have a title this year.
I actually agree with bagelred, and have been beating the drum for contraction for some time now. Id like to see it just from a player quality standpoint, but its also relevant to the leagues financial situation bc if a team cant make money, tell them GTFO.
The league really does need to contract, even just two teams would make a substantial difference in schedule quality. Im sick of seeing schedules every nite with charlotte at minnesota, toronto at cleveland, sacramento at golden state, washington at new jersey etc
Of course, fans have no unity and make no demands. Thats why the league has so much revenue for players and owners to argue over. Idiots pay 80 bucks for a jersry, 10 bucks for a beer, 100 bucks for tickets... Ppl just fork over whatever price the league asks.
Fans should be more prudent. People would still play pro ball for less than 20m per year. But fans are too ignorant.
[QUOTE=FourthTenor]I actually agree with bagelred, and have been beating the drum for contraction for some time now. Id like to see it just from a player quality standpoint, but its also relevant to the leagues financial situation bc if a team cant make money, tell them GTFO.
The league really does need to contract, even just two teams would make a substantial difference in schedule quality. Im sick of seeing schedules every nite with charlotte at minnesota, toronto at cleveland, sacramento at golden state, washington at new jersey etc
Of course, fans have no unity and make no demands. Thats why the league has so much revenue for players and owners to argue over. Idiots pay 80 bucks for a jersry, 10 bucks for a beer, 100 bucks for tickets... Ppl just fork over whatever price the league asks.
Fans should be more prudent. [B]People would still play pro ball for less than 20m per year. [/B]But fans are too ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Why should they if they are worth more? A person like Lebron James is worth much more than the 15 or so million he makes. The Cleveland Cavalier went from $222 million before Lebron to $480 million after him. That appreciation in value was not due to the new jerseys they made. The value of the Miami Heat went up $200 million dollars when he signed there. How much of that does he get to see?
The price of tickets has nothing to do with player salaries. It is all based on supply/demand. I would have to pay about $1 million to get Jack Nicholson's seats at a Laker game. Meanwhile I could sit behind the bench in New Jersey for $50. I can get regular seats in New Jersey for under $1. The Knicks have actually lowered their payroll over the last few years, and are now RAISING the price of tickets by 60%!!! The reason they can get away with that is they have 2 new stars and everyone in NY wants to see them play (demand).
[QUOTE]Actually the Pirates can pay and can compete if they wanted to. Their owner is richer than the Steinbrenners, but his team makes money every year (from revenue sharing) and he chooses to not reinvest in the team. Instead he chooses to invest his money in ski resorts.
[url]http://www.7springs.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
Yea I mentioned that once when told they couldnt compete with ___.
Its a joke how people let cheap owners off.
These guys can in many cases pay whatever they feel like. They just choose not to do so.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The NFL makes money because they play football, not because it has parity. The parity it supposedly has is fake on top of that. The only reason it seems like it has parity is that they play a single elimination playoff format. If the NFL moved to a best of 7 series like the NBA, there would never be upsets. The NBA format guarantees the best team always wins, while the NFL format allows for flukes to happen, and then calls it parity. The Giants would never be able to beat the Patriots in a best of 7 series, but because they only had to beat them once, they were able to win the title.
Just think about how much different the NBA would be with a 1 and done playoff. Jordan would lose his first title to the Lakers in 1991. The Knicks would have beaten the Bulls in 1993. The Mavs would have won the title in 2006. The Sixers would have beaten the Lakers in 2001, and Iverson would have a ring. Lebron would have a title this year.[/QUOTE] Good Post. The NFL does not exhibit true parity. Don't look at the top of the league look at the bottom and you'll see the same teams year after year trading the bottom spots of the league.
**** dan gilbert.... no wonder lebron didnt stay... and no wonder Dan showed his personality after that..... but he always showed his horrible GM skills... dude is cheap as ****.... he only wants to make money.... he doesnt care about players (or his players goals of winning a championship)....
[QUOTE=B
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Why should they if they are worth more? A person like Lebron James is worth much more than the 15 or so million he makes. The Cleveland Cavalier went from $222 million before Lebron to $480 million after him. That appreciation in value was not due to the new jerseys they made. The value of the Miami Heat went up $200 million dollars when he signed there. How much of that does he get to see?
The price of tickets has nothing to do with player salaries. It is all based on supply/demand. I would have to pay about $1 million to get Jack Nicholson's seats at a Laker game. Meanwhile I could sit behind the bench in New Jersey for $50. I can get regular seats in New Jersey for under $1. The Knicks have actually lowered their payroll over the last few years, and are now RAISING the price of tickets by 60%!!! The reason they can get away with that is they have 2 new stars and everyone in NY wants to see them play (demand).[/QUOTE]
Bro lebron james value or any other player or team's is set by what people are willing to pay to see them. Everyone talks about how average blue collar joe hates labor negotiations because its rich guys arguing over millions. If hes that concerned about finances, why does he pay 80 bucks for a jersey? Why is he droppin 9 bucks on a pretzel. Do you understand those monies that fans pay to go to games are revenue? What are these negotiations about? Say it with me: revenue.
You could sit behind the Nets bench for 50 dollars per ticket? Ok, i doubt that but even if true, thats 100 bucks if youre takin a date. Yeah, some people can afford that without blinking, but for most fans its a significant amount for one night, and theyd be better off paying less. But they pay it anyway cause they overvalue the product. They wanna go to the nets game, so they pay whatever the nets ask. Pay through the nose for parking and concessions and merch. What im saying to you is if fans stopped showing up till prices come down, the league would just lower prices to keep the fans. If 53% of tbe revenue puts the salary cap at 30M instead of 55, people will still play bball for tht money. They wot have trouble finding the labor. Its the fans who drive players salaries up, by overspending on the product to begin with.
Sure, a lot of fans can comfotably afford a night at the game. But a lot cant and go anyway cuz they love the team. If they had some restraint and discipline, collectively, THEY could be the ones keeping some of that revenue, rather than creating billions for owners n players to share.
[QUOTE=Euroleague]As usual, you just make up whatever bull shit you can think of to support your "arguments". Even if it is totally illogical and delusional and has absolutely no relation at all to the topic being discussed.[/QUOTE]
Hm, I was off in my numbers (it wasn't double) but the Warriors, according to Forbes, are worth $363 million.
[url]http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_land.html[/url]
The Warriors were just sold for $450 million.
[quote]Golden State Warriors owner Chris Cohan reached an agreement Thursday to sell the franchise for a record $450 million to Boston Celtics minority partner Joe Lacob and Mandalay Entertainment CEO Peter Guber.[/quote]
[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5383261[/url]
So, which is it? Is Forbes right? Or are the actual value teams are sold for right?
[QUOTE=FourthTenor][B]Bro lebron james value or any other player or team's is set by what people are willing to pay to see them.[/B] Everyone talks about how average blue collar joe hates labor negotiations because its rich guys arguing over millions. If hes that concerned about finances, why does he pay 80 bucks for a jersey? Why is he droppin 9 bucks on a pretzel. Do you understand those monies that fans pay to go to games are revenue? What are these negotiations about? Say it with me: revenue.
You could sit behind the Nets bench for 50 dollars per ticket? Ok, i doubt that but even if true, thats 100 bucks if youre takin a date. Yeah, some people can afford that without blinking, but for most fans its a significant amount for one night, and theyd be better off paying less. But they pay it anyway cause they overvalue the product. They wanna go to the nets game, so they pay whatever the nets ask. Pay through the nose for parking and concessions and merch. What im saying to you is if fans stopped showing up till prices come down, the league would just lower prices to keep the fans. If 53% of tbe revenue puts the salary cap at 30M instead of 55, people will still play bball for tht money. They wot have trouble finding the labor. Its the fans who drive players salaries up, by overspending on the product to begin with.
Sure, a lot of fans can comfotably afford a night at the game. But a lot cant and go anyway cuz they love the team. If they had some restraint and discipline, collectively, THEY could be the ones keeping some of that revenue, rather than creating billions for owners n players to share.[/QUOTE]
This is not true at all. The NBA has caps on individual contracts. If we let the market determine his value, I am sure James Dolan would have offered him at least $50 million per year. Hell, he would have given him stock in MSG if the league would have allowed it.
As for your other point, of course it's all relative. If the league were only making $2b a year instead of 4, then obviously the players would be making less money. But the fact is the NBA is projected to have rampant growth over the next 10 years, and the players want to be able to benefit from that. Under the owners proposal, the players would be locked into $2b every year for the next 10 years, meanwhile the league will probably be at 8 or 10 billion/year by that point.
Here's the history of TV contracts the NBA has.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-tv-contracts.shtml[/url]
NBA CABLE TELEVISION CONTRACTS
Seasons
Station
Contracts Amount
1979-80 to 1981-82
USA
$1.5 million/3 years
1982-83 to 1983-84
USA/ESPN
$11 million/2 years
1984-85 to 1985-86
TBS
$20 million/2 years
1986-87 to 1987-88
TBS
$25 million/2 years
1988-89 to 1989-90
TBS/TNT
$50 million/2 years
1990-91 to 1993-94
TNT
$275 million/4 years
1994-95 to 1997-98
TNT/TBS
$397 million/4 years
1998-99 to 2001-02
TNT/TBS
$840 million/4 years
2002-03 to 2007-08
TNT
$2.2 billion/6 years
1953-54
DUMONT
$39,000/13 games
1954-55 to 1961-62
NBC
N/A
1962-63 to 1972-73
ABC
N/A
1973-74 to 1975-76
CBS
$27 million/3 years
1976-77 to 1977-78
CBS
$21 million/2 years
1978-79 to 1981-82
CBS
$74 million/4 years
1982-83 to 1985-86
CBS
$91.9 million/4 years
1986-87 to 1989-90
CBS
$173 million/4 years
1990-91 to 1993-94
NBC
$601 million/4 years
1994-95 to 1997-98
NBC
$892 million/4 years
1998-99 to 2001-02
NBC
$1.616 billion/4 years
2002-03 to 2007-08
ABC/ESPN
$2.4 billion/6 years
Notice the trend? They have a new contract coming up. Considering how successful last year was, do you think the contract will be more or less than the last one?