|
Everyone talks about salary caps but I think league revenue sharing is more important. In the NFL, a lot of revenues are shared, but teams still get to keep the money they make on certain things, so that overall about 60% of total NFL revenues are shared. Some of the sharing arrangements are blatantly stupid: for example, ticket and merchandise revenues are shared, except for Dallas who gets to keep theirs and doesn't share the others', for some loving reason. The big difference between the NFL and the other major leagues is that NFL teams share their media revenues; money from advertising during games on TV and radio, mostly, plus usually the ticket sales. In most cases across all the sports, the teams keep their own licensing fees from stuff like stadium sponsorships. This article spells out more of the details. Basically though, the big difference is that there's a strong incentive in all sports to have your team be located in a very large media market, and the revenue sharing arrangements typically have to try to address that to prevent the teams in tiny markets from always being at an enormous money disadvantage. I tend to think that if all the teams have something close to the same amounts of money to spend, then salary caps would be unnecessary. It's actually in the players' best interests to be able to earn more if they're better, which a cap restricts... but if you have (say) 32 teams, but the bottom 10 teams in terms of money could never afford any of the top 32 star players, that's where you have an "unfairness" inherent in the system. As others have said, this matters more in sports where a single star player can make the difference between a playoff run and perennial mediocrity, and less in sports where you have large rosters that rotate in and out of play for over a hundred games a season. Even so, there's also a good argument that guaranteed profits reduce the incentive for team owners to drive hard for championships. I'd say you need to arrange things so that owners get a lot more money when their teams make playoff runs... and that is the case I believe in all of the leagues, where getting into the playoffs means more (and much more lucrative) media and sponsorship revenues, playoff ticket sales, etc. But I don't offhand know how significant that is, and if you're a multi-billionaire owner, maybe you don't give a poo poo about an extra ten million dollars (or whatever) you personally get for a successful championship. e. I think you also shouldn't ignore the money spent on coaching and management. If your team has a tiny budget, it can't afford to attract the best coaches and managers, which translates to poor player acquisition, poor star player retention, and of course, poor game performance. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jul 12, 2017 |
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Yeah, it's actually a confluence of team size X talent dropoff by player X number of games played X frequency of scoring. E.g., tennis has a handful of dominant players (as opposed to an alternate reality where many top players all had similar levels of talent), and then also individual player performance means everything in the game of tennis (as opposed to big team sports like football with over 50 rostered players at every game), and then there are a lot of matches (as opposed to everything being decided based on a handful of games per year) and then there are many many scoring opportunities per match (as opposed to soccer/hockey/etc where a single shot on goal often decides the entire game). So one question then is: why do so few tennis players dominate? Why don't we have a lot more tennis players who are at or close to the talent levels of those top players? Ask the same question about your Curry/LeBron/etc. You can see the same thing in many other sports: Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods, off the top of my head. Where is the guy who is 99% as good as Usain Bolt, pressing him for wins at every race and occasionally beating him when Bolt has an off day? With nearly seven billion people on the planet, it's tough to believe that there is no human being anywhere with the desire and potential to be that guy, so there must be something in the process of locating and developing talent that creates that gap. e. I figured the answer is obvious here but just to be explicit: I'm saying that if there is no parity in basketball, one idea is that there's something structurally wrong with the way the sport is arranged (and I'd agree with that); but another is that we're somehow doing an inadequate job of identifying and developing the nation's absolute best basketball players, such that there's not enough LeBron James-class players to go around a whole league. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 01:41
|
|