Yeah, but the NHL's version is akin to putting a banadaid on a missing limb, with one or two decapitations thrown in too.
I don't understand why everyone gets fired up about revenue sharing.
Yeah, it isn't "fair". But tons of things aren't fair in life, and it doesn't affect us as fans AT ALL. With spending capped as a percentage of revenues, that $12 million isn't going to go out and buy a franchise free agent and improve the roster.
The revenue sharing payments doesn't drive up ticket prices. Prices are set at what the market will bear. If the Leafs didn't write the $12 million check/cheque, they're not going to lower their gate revenue $12 million and pass the savings on to the fans.
It's a billionaire handing dough to a hundred-millionaire. Who cares?
They drag the league down in that the top seven teams average over $34 million in profit, but with the bottom 16 figured in, it drops to an average of less than eight million dollars.
It's kind of a fallacious argument, as it implies that there are thirty potential markets in the league that could pull in $34 million a year, and that simply isn't true. But it does validate the notion that you can't everything is perfect everywhere because there's a big number on the bottom line.
And that's true in all leagues. MLB, NFL and NBA have revenue sharing. The NFL shares TICKET REVENUE 60-40 with the visiting team. NFL merchandise is an even split. Doesn't matter which jersey you buy, the profit is split 32 ways. MLB doesn't give an even cut of the national TV revenue to each team, they give the poorer teams a bigger cut.
That's just life. Pure capitalism doesn't work because each team requires other member clubs to play.
Five years later, everyone sees it. Always, always has been about the revenue gap.
Sure, but at what detriment? Thanks to the salary cap, the disparity between richest clubs and poorest clubs payroll is tighter than ever. The competitive advantage isn't as vast as it once was, which makes for a better game/product for all the markets.
Naturally, there's some owners who are willing to spend to win, but there's also been plenty who are giddy at the idea of capping player expenses.
In 2006, the Leafs put a league-high $9 million in revenue sharing into the pot for the poor teams. But their player expenses dropped $16 million from 2004 to 2006 when they added the cap.
The Leafs operating income rose from $14 mil in 2004 to $42 mil in 2006 ($83m in 2010) thanks to capped player spending and increased revenue.
Oh those poor Maple Leafs, writing such a big cheque to the poor teams. That cheque is smaller than what they wrote to their own players pre-salary cap.
The new CBA has made a more competitive league and the owners more money. These owners didn't make their billions by being stupid. They knew what they were doing when they made this financial structure.
.
