gc2005 said:Everyone seems to point at the big market careless teams that spend at will for ruining hockey and driving up salaries. If there had been 100% revenue sharing all along, there's no way the Rangers give Holik $9 million a year. They wouldn't have the revenues to cover it. And, in theory, every team would have the same amount to spend on players so it works the same as a salary cap, as far as competitive balance theories.
Admittedly, this won't work, since some teams don't seem to want a profit or even break even, so they'd still spend more than they take in. Also, assuming all other operating expenses are the same, teams in Canada would have far less to spend on salaries after paying property taxes, something the US teams magically don't have to pay.
It won't just be one team under a system like this running up the salaries, it will be most teams. A player here a player there. Sure it would give each team an equal footing, but it does nothing to curb spending, that got us in trouble in the first place. I'm open to all forms of revenue sharing, but without a super stiff tax or cap, they will not stop anything.