Reply With Quote
Who would want to own a big team if they have to share the goods?
Here's an interesting thought (maybe):
Since the Lakers have a huge TV contract now that gets shared with other teams (right?), is it in other teams' interests to have the Lakers become non-contenders?
If the big money teams share their revenues, when they make less, they share less. Small market teams quickly saturate their interested market if they win, and their revenue isn't going to increase nearly as dramatically as a large market team.
So let's say the Lakers miss the playoffs for a few years. It probably won't happen, but if it did, and the Lakers apparel stopped selling because the bandwagon fans stopped buying it, where would the other teams get their revenue? Surely some team would be winning, but is it in the best financial interest of small markets that large markets do well always, and occasionally a small market team can sneak one in to keep it interesting?
Or am I missing a load of contractual information?
Who would want to own a big team if they have to share the goods?
The way I understand what's been presented, large market teams will have to share revenue with some of the smaller market teams. To combat the obvious desire to tank and suck off the revenue teat, it was proposed that ticket sales factor in to the equation as to who gets what. So if your team the bed intentionally and lost customers, they wouldn't be bailed out by revenue, however wouldn't there still be a tendency for bubble teams with good fan bases to want their cash cow in good health?
The down side to that is that when large market teams increase their total revenue, they increase the salary cap and that affects small market teams.
I would only see that floating with the owners if restrictions on going over cap would lessen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
