After being halted in 2020 due to the pandemic, Major League Baseball’s revenue-sharing system between bigger-market and smaller-market teams will return in an altered form in 2021, The Athletic’s Evan Drellich reports (subscription required). Smaller-market clubs will only receive half of the normal amount of funds this year, with the other half coming in 2022. The league itself will be covering the 2021 payments in a loan deal, with the larger-market teams expected to eventually pay MLB back.
“Expected” may be a loaded term, however, as Drellich notes that there are still several details about this plan that are unclear, or are open to interpretation based on comments from executives from different teams. One exec from a large-market team believes MLB’s loan is just for the sake of optics (“They can say whatever they want for politics, the understanding is it’ll never be paid back“), while a league source insists otherwise.
There also isn’t much clarity on when exactly big-market teams will have to pay back the league, or the other 50 percent of the 2021 payments directly to the smaller-market clubs, as commissioner Rob Manfred purposely “retained the ability to change payment schedules and the amounts paid based on economic conditions.” It is also possible that the next Collective Bargaining Agreement could change the revenue-sharing system significantly, so the loan repayment plan could be adjusted after the current CBA expires in December.
Revenue-sharing is often a combative issue even in the best of times, and in the words of one executive, there was “a big fight” amongst owners over how (or even if) the system should be restarted in 2021 and beyond. While an increasing number of markets are expecting to have some fans in the stands on Opening Day, the continued uncertainty about the state of the coronavirus pandemic has naturally left all teams wary about how much revenue they can expect to generate this season.
We already saw how the loss of revenues impacted several teams in all market sizes this offseason, as various clubs looked to limit or cut payroll expenditures. Smaller-market teams had less money on hand due to the lack of extra revenue-sharing dollars, while larger-market teams might have saved on those sharing payments but lost more in terms of pure dollars overall.
Exact numbers involved in revenue-sharing aren’t made public, and the total teams pay or receive can differ significantly from year to year. But for 2019, Drellich reports that the Dodgers (roughly $90MM), Red Sox (slightly less than Los Angeles), Cubs (roughly $70MM) and Yankees (over $60MM) were the teams who had the highest revenue-sharing bills. On the other end, the Marlins received around $70MM in 2019, and the Rays received somewhere in the $50MM-$60MM range each year from 2017-19. How small-market teams use those funds is another point of contention, as both the MLBPA and even some larger-market owners take a dim view of small-market teams who don’t reinvest the money into improving the on-field product.
How can there be anything to share at all after allegedly losing billions collectively?
The MLB soap opera continues…
didn’t someone say mlb had no money? it must be one of the most corrupt organization in the country.
i dunno, theres stiff competition for that distinction. can we call Washington an organization?
More like a corporation.
There are now SIX families in NY. Welcome to “the organization” MLB.
MLB isn’t an organization Vizionaire, please understand how companies work. 30 separate corporations. Paying competition to survive, in any business world.. Instead of going under is ludicrous.
Can say all day and night these companies are/are not making money. Fact that some shouldn’t even exist makes a folly of the entire argument.
You know what he means by “organziation”
each teams don’t have monopoly protection. mlb has it it can certainly called a organization representing 30 owners.
John silver – If the goal of MLB teams was to put other teams out of business, who would the “survivors” play?
It’s like this GB.. Markets (some) are not viable for a product, just like in any business. As for “who the survivors would play?” That’s not a very good query.. I remember when the league had just 20 teams. Those which had lousy local support had NO problems pulling up stakes and moving (KC A’s, Washington Senators etc)
Folding outright is also a company which cannot make ends meet. As of right now? Oakland, Tampa and several others are in handout mode to survive. Call it need a stadium (oakland), crappy location and stadium (tampa), just no support at all (miami). Various teams which either need relocated, or gone and PLENTY of teams left to play each other, more than the 20 which existed in the early 60’s after weeding out the leech franchises.
Why? Microsoft paid to keep apple afloat through the 90s…
What part of “loan” did you not understand?
Huh? You can lose lots of money and still have some left.
It’s the wording. MLB plays the victim card. I know (generally) how it works, I was just poking a little fun.
Not where I’m from
seamaholic
Huh? You can lose lots of money and still have some left.
=====================================================================
Are you trying to be sarcastic, or do you not know the difference between assets and income?
Suppose you went to the local card game with $100. You lose a lot, say $75. You still have $25 left over.
No revenue sharing for 2020. Y’know, last year, when they lost money. This is about 2021, where they hope to have fans in the stadiums and thus, be able to have revenue to share.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
When did they claim to lose billions on the 2021 season, the season that this post is actually talking about? Snide comments generally work better when you know what you’re commenting on.
It’s “revenue sharing”, not “profit sharing”.
Revenue would be television money, ticket sales, etc.
Costs are employees, players, rent, etc.
They share some of the revenue, not the costs.
If getting rid of Revenue sharing means that Sternberg, Fisher and Nutting aren’t being handed money they don’t deserve and can’t use their teams as cash cows anymore then I’m all for it. Hopefully it forces them to sell to people that actually care about the on field product.
Oblivious.
The time has come to share all revenues. Every penny. Idiotic to have teams with 470-680 million in revenue that can spend 210 million on payroll and still have an EXTRA 50-150 million they can spend/invest YEARLY on everything from Latin American academy’s to armies of scouts, front office personnel, armies of analysts, nutritional programs, armies of coaches, on and on and on and on and on and on, and STILL make more profit than any small-market team. Shush. You have nothing to say vs those facts. Blow it up. And do it before the players get their reduction of team control over players, which will further hurt the small-markets.
This is not rocket science. The trajectory is large-market superteams vs the field. Could take another decade or two, for this inevitability, but baseball as a whole will continue to lose fans by the boatloads. Fan bases of non-superteams will shrivel and eventually baseball will die. Enough of the competitive disadvantages.
so did the draft pools, international signing pools, and luxury tax just dissapear since I last checked. give me a break. its very much balanced and anything more needed as a balance mechanic is a joke.
DarkSide830
its very much balanced
=========================================================
It’s way more balanced than the other sports.
1-In the last 7 years, 7 different winners.
2-In the last 20, 14 different winners.
3-In the last 20 years, 20 different teams have been to the WS.
Outside of dictating which team will win each year, it is likely impossible to get more balance.
Piss on that idea. It’s time for contraction or moving some teams. I don’t understand how the newest teams are the ones claiming poverty. Florida, Tampa, Denver and Phoenix all put plans together on why they should be allowed expansion teams. Markets like Las Vegas, Charlotte and Portland all missed out on those teams. If Miami and Tampa/St. Pete can’t figure out how to turn a profit those teams need to move. Oklahoma City supports the Thunder and Nashville supports the Titans. Montreal wants a team again and DC seems to be doing just fine with the Nats. I agree a hard salary cap needs to be put in place but instituting communism throughout MLB because some owners don’t know how to attract fans isn’t fair to the owners that do. Why should the Yankees give their money to owners who won’t put that money into a better on field product? The Rays are constantly in the playoff race. They have one of the better ran franchises in the last 20 years. If the city won’t give them a stadium that isn’t way out in the sticks then move them to Portland. We would love to have a winner like the Rays out here. Tired of driving 3 hours to see the Mariners.
the league isnt contracting
Oregon can’t support MLB. nobody likes baseball here. it seems really unamerican but there it is. no team is moving to Oregon
The problem with Oregon is that Portland is their only big city. And the baseball season is scheduled for the same time frame as their rioting season. You’d need to schedule the rioting for the winter.
You’re right. if anything, they’re looking to expand once the pandemic is “over” (in quotes cuz will it ever actually be over?)
I’ll take pointed sarcasm for $100 Alex.
I don’t want to see the Rays stadium get burned down or become a “community garden”, move them somewhere other than Portland.
@stpbaseball
I think Portland could do well and support a 35k person stadium.
The Blazers and Timbers both regularly sell out when the teams aren’t very good. Even the Winterhawks average around 6k fans
I think Portland could do well drawing fans with home runs landing in the Willamette river.
So you’re defending owners like that of the A’s, who seemingly bases his entire payroll on how much he’ll get in revenue sharing in order to not spend a dime on anything? Cuz it’s not like he’s putting any money into the coliseum!
Should the league be responsible for the new Oakland stadium payments too?
Everyone else will just pay for everything while he makes a profit? You’re cool with that?
Socialism for the super rich, but austere capitalism for the rest of us? How is that ok with you?
ABStract
Socialism for the super rich, but austere capitalism for the rest of us? How is that ok with you?
======================================================================
It’s great by me. I spend $100 or so to get almost every game delivered via computer. Call it socialism if you want, or anything else. But I feel like I am getting a pretty good deal.
Bud Selig Fan
Oblivious.
The time has come to share all revenues. Every penny.
=============================================================
So, let’s say you just paid $3B for your large market team. And I just paid $800M for my small market team.
You’re going to give me half the revenue you just paid $3B for? That’s mighty generous of you.
@comrade bud selig- I believe your time would be better spent handing out your little fiction filled propaganda pamphlets for the socialist party instead of spewing your misinformed & ignorant opinions on MLBTR, see ya at the free store.
@JoeBrady. Goth just called you a socialist but your comment to ABStract says you’re a capitalist. That’s a very impressive skill you have there. Are you able to be wet and dry at the same time too? =D
Goth had already posted, I think, so it was pointed at someone else.
But I do take some pride in not holding fast to any particular economic order or political persuasion. Too many True Believers in this country already.
It was to comrade bud selig, SCM. It’s how I began the sentence. Geeez!
Reading is hard
They can’t do that as the larger market owners paid more for their teams that the smaller market owners did. Also, if every team made the same amount of money, there’s no incentives for the smaller market teams to improve their on field product, their stadiums, etc. While you can say MLB is a de facto monopoly, it is still a free market system. Time to move some teams if they can’t get attendance where they are. Levelizing revenues would destroy the game, not help it. The big market teams drive 80% of revenues and attendance. To the victors go the spoils. There should still be some revenue sharing but not to the point where every team gets the same amount…not even close.
I say no. Why should the Yankees and Dodgers share all of their revenue with teams like the Orioles who do not draw flies to Camden Yards and put little (if anything) into player development)?
I totally agree. MLB will enhance their revenues and solidify their future by adapting an NFL type economic model. However, in the short-term, some large market teams may lose money after factoring in debt service. As such, I don’t see it happening.
So the large market owners have to pay more for their teams, they have way higher expenses and liabilities, in many cases they finance and launch regional sports networks, develop separate marketing deals based on their brands, have separate concessions businesses, etc. Your proposal is they do all the work while the smaller teams mostly sit back.
So if all revenues are shared, what is the exact incentive of the larger market teams to do all the heavy lifting when they’ll get a smaller fraction for their work, and teams like the A’s and Rays and Brewers and Royals can simply sit back, do little, and collect on the hard and often innovative work of the larger teams? What will the Rays contribute? What will the Brewers? Why should the larger market teams that carry the sport’s revenues (I’ll get to that in a second) do anything to expand their businesses now? Is John Fischer with the A’s going to call up Mark Walter’s with Guggenheim Baseball and complain that he didn’t negotiate a better RSN deal? Nutting with the Pirates calls Hal Steinbrenner to tell him he should start charging his fans more for their beer concessions I’m sure Yankee fans will be happy to pay $10 for their hot dog so it can help the Kansas City Royals.
Apparently this is rocket science. What you fail to factor in is that baseball is more of a local sport unlike the NFL. Even the idea of “national” TV contracts are a bit of a joke. Do you think the Red Sox and the Yankees love being the Sunday night game more than any other teams on a get-away day? No. They’ve said as much, but that’s the price the networks demand. They want the big market teams, the big brands. that draw ratings from their fans, in order to pay the national TV contracts that then benefit all the other teams that do much less to contribute.
No one, myself included, is arguing against revenue sharing. Your proposal however is nonsense because it does little to incent winning. Teams spending $200M is hardly an issue. Teams spending $40-50M is an issue. They can afford more, and if their markets can handle it, and maybe that is the case in Tampa, in which case you move the teams. Don’t reward bad markets. They’ll all be happy to do what they’re doing now. Sit back and collect the money from the larger teams. U.S. demographics have shifted. There are cities waiting for MLB franchises and are willing to pay.
But if a team makes the judgement that even having a higher payroll won’t put them in contention, why should they be paying $80-$90 MM for not enough wins to make the postseason when they could pay $40-$50 MM and end up in the same position?
Baseball has a version of a salary cap, and it’s actually been quite effective. There’s built in flexbility, but we do see teams managing to it. The Dodgers will pull back under it next year. The Red Sox traded away a generational star in Mookie Betts to get under the luxury tax. The Cubs are giving away Cy Young contending pitchers to the Padres to lower payroll. The Yankees are now dipping back under for the second time in three seasons. Their payroll has effectively flatlined for 15 years since the introduction of the luxury tax, and that’s happened during a period when team revenues have escalated tremendously as have valuations. Steve Cohen, the richest individual owner in MLB, won’t even cross the luxury tax level yet. Every team has benefited from this. So what would happen if the more wealthier teams had to pay even more in revenue sharing? The teams with the low payrolls will still operate with low payrolls, and money will shift from the pockets of one billionaire to another billionaire. I don’t want to reward a billionaire who is not doing his best to win by giving him money from another billionaire. It’s rewarding bad behavior. It should be a non-starter. What MLB needs to do is incent winning. MLB needs to recognize when some teams are abusing the system and put in place regulations that are punitive. I’m not talking over a couple seasons. There are chronic abusers here that MLB has tolerated. Once again. the Dodgers, the Yankees, the Red Sox, the big revenue teams, are not the issue here.
Basically, the Rays don’t need fans since revenue sharing can cover their payroll. They should be moved.
Exactly. It doesn’t mean anything to the Rays if they win or lose….it makes it easier, and likely contributes to their success. Not that they don’t do a phenomenal job, but there’s no pressure.
I’ve been saying for 2 years that Revenue Sharing is the giant elephant in the room for the new CBA; all the other stuff is just filler (nobody really cares about the universal DH).. With the Golden Age of franchise increase probably over (what’s left? Gambling? That’s about it), the big boys may be losing their generous natures. It’s easy to give away crumbs when you’ve got 10 loaves of bread; but those big boys may now only have 5 loaves. They’ll want to keep the crumbs.
Which will come back to bite the game long term. Currently football fans in Pittsburgh expect to beat the Giants and Jets of NY on a yearly basis. They are on equal economic footing but are better ran. Same for fans in Green Bay.
If we turn baseball into the franchises with means vs. the franchises without, there will be a huge disengagement of the fans in smaller markets. Why even bother being a KC or Cincy fan if you can’t really compete?
IMO, the best thing to do is put some teeth into the revenue sharing language that forces the franchises who receive funds to spend them on player payroll and development. No more Nutting getting $1118 million in revenue sharing then kicking out a $91 million payroll like he did in 2018. The big market owners put $27 million of their money straight into his pocket.
Pete Rozelle knew that the NFL could never succeed unless fans in Green Bay could expect their team would be a s competitive as fans in NY. MLB owners were still fighting about televising their games, because it might hurt attendance. Talk about “Neanderthals”.
No one doubts that SOME form of RS is necessary. But the abuses are so rampant on BOTH sides; the Red Sox, e.g. hide a considerable amount of their revenue from NESN, etc. And many small teams just don’t spend where they should.
Ultimately, it decreases the MLB brand. You can just about pick the playoff teams for 2021 already. Yes, we all know the Jacksonville Jags will be lousy next year; but I’ll be watching Trevor Lawrence.
MLB doesn’t have that luxury.
The NFL gets billions from TV that is why they can have the system they have. MLB is not that lucky
Yes. One can admire the Rays for their efficiency but also recognize their management style is a problem because it does little to expand the game within its market, cultivate young fans, and grow the game overall.
There are of course other costs for a franchise besides their player payroll.
Agreed. Stadium deals are different, it cost more to fix a lighting fixture in NY than it does in TB, etc. The REAL disparity is that some teams are so reversely integrated, that much of their revenue is profit. Other teams share, share and then have to share some more.
So can we talk about the real abuser of this system over the years?
THE A’s!
A quick glance at their payrolls and revenue sharing incomes shows a disturbing trend of only investing as much money as they can get for free from the league and obviously no real investments in any other part of the team, as evidenced by their god awful stadium.
There has to be a change in the language of how teams can use their RS money to prevent these Mel brooks “the producers” style con jobs.
Oakland would have at least one ring in the past 30 years if they were forced to actually pay to field a team instead of being payed just to exist, these are f’ng billionaires we’re taking about here for the love of pete, not small business owners!
“These guys were removed from revenue sharing two years ago! PROOF that the current system doesn’t work!”
P.S: They didn’t own a single seat up until 6 months ago when they bought out the counties’ half. Why is it they are to blame for the state of the coliseum, and not the city/county who remodeled it for the Raiders?
I believe the A’s can thrive in a new location. They have a fanbase. I’m not convinced that’s the case with the Rays. The issue is MLB has allowed both the Rays and A’s situation to continue unchecked, and it’s hurting the sport overall. The Indians, btw, are huge abusers too. MLB has created a structure where teams can operate at low payrolls that are paid for by the national TV contracts that only exist because of the large market teams, and revenue sharing from the large market teams. The Dodgers operating a high payroll is not what’s hurting the sport. It’s these small teams who are doing little to expand the sport long term. The owner of the Rays constantly complains about his lack of revenue, but that’s a lie. He has revenue. He also said he has no intention of selling his team. Why? Because his payroll is funded by the large market teams and he knows the value of his franchise is increasing. He has a great deal and little incentive to change. He’s making money. They are more a symbol of the problem. Not teams like the Dodgers.
There were revenues in 2020 if only in the form of national tv contracts. That’s what they will share. But teams claim to have operating loses and cash flow issues. That’s what mlb will cover. The actual pay out. Low revenue teams defer half so mlb doesn’t have to pay the whole thing.
Even the national tv contract did not provide pay for games not played. Even that income was a fraction of the previous year.
I agree that some of these notoriously cheep cheep owners don’t deserve a dime in revenue sharing.
There needs to be conditions and punitive actions against teams that abuse the revenue sharing system.
The A’s, Marlins and Rays can move and be the expansion teams. Teams can save money not paying for Welfare.
[11] comments, [three] of which are utterly clueless.
A’s don’t get revenue sharing anymore, that ended after 2019.
(Nice edit there, HalosHeaven)
Thanks. I’d forgotten the A’s were off the list.
That they got it before was a joke
The biggest problem with revenue sharing is that many clubs don’t spend it on payroll.
Teams put in 48% of local revenue then each franchise takes out an equal 3.3%. In 2018 that figure was $118 million yet a dozen teams didn’t have payrolls of $118 million.
So the players don’t benefit and the big market teams are just lining the pockets of the owners of the small market teams. Put some teeth into the next CBA to force the Pirates and Reds of the world to spend that money on payroll.
Again, there are other costs besides player personnel. What they should do is force all teams to open their books to the league (not publicly), and MLB should then determine how much revenue sharing each team requires to be able to reach a player payroll floor (say, $90m or so), and make that up by taxing the wealthy teams. So the amount of the tax would change each year but would be based on real numbers.
That’s why teams get to keep 52% of their local revenue.
The floor should be the take from the 48% of revenue that is truly shared. In 2018, per BB-Ref, that number was $118 million.
If you can’t cover your payroll using that money then cover your administration costs using the other 52% of your revenue, you aren’t very good at business.
@HHJJ
Largely agree – however….
If you create a salary floor at $118 million, all you’re doing is increasing average player salary. If you go by 2019 figures, 11 teams were below $118 million. Doing rudimentary maths your salary floor just increased league wide payroll by S270 million across those 11 teams.
spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2019/
Think ownership are gonna vote for that – rightly or wrongly?
The owners who pay out more than they receive would vote for it. After all, it is money they are already paying. Not a new expense.
And take a look at those 12 teams, not exactly big draws on the road are they?
If I’m Arte Moreno and I give you money that you pocket then have a half empty stadium because nobody wants to see your low rent team, yes I vote to make you spend my money on getting better players.
The only owners who won’t want that are the ones pocketing the cash. And needless to say the players will be all for it.
Raise the minimum wage, allow a few million to be used on minors and scouting, but have that money to to players rather than owners.
@halosheaven
So the Yankees and Dodgers pay into the revenue sharing, and you’re plan it to force other teams to spend every cent on payroll, helping to bid up the price on DJL, Kluber, and Wilson, so the Yankees are unable to sign them all without going over the cap, and the Dodgers are forced to give Turner 4 years to keep him, or he moves to another team. Yeah, they will really like that happening. Out bid them with their own money!
Why would those owner vote for it? You’re just driving up the price of players they’d want to sign.
That’s part of the issue. The wealthier teams are likely annoyed that their money is funding other teams’ payrolls, but they also don’t want a salary floor because they know then they will have to increase their revenue sharing payments.
HaloHeavenJJ
I think your line of thought is the best in this whole thread…… but perhaps it has just a bit too much utopian aspirations than are achievable today sadly
I am a big proponent of a salary floor as well….To ever get there, its probably going to take some sort of Marshall Law and for the sport to be running around with its hair on fire….
I dont think we are there,…….YET…..but do see a day when this all gets even uglier and wholesale changes will have to be made in hope of a mini revival ……
Until then, like someone said above, the poor, rich, and everybody else in-between will stick to to standard procedure of getting their greedy little hands on as many dollars as they can without much thought on how it effects the future of the game and thusly the future of their revenues . There never seems to be much long game thought in MLB; just hands out when the fruit is ripe
As an Utopian dreamer myself, it makes me sad
Right, that’s why teams such as the Angels, which are consistently in the top ten payrolls, are in playoffs and have won the WS in the last decade as opposed to low budget teams such as the Pirates who never make the playoffs. Wait, the Angels aren’t and haven’t whereas the Pirates have made the playoffs. In fact, in the last decade, the Pirates have made the playoffs more than the big budget Angels. Both have the same number of winning seasons in the last decade. Umm, seems like spending big bucks is no guarantee of quality or winning.
I’d rather see teams spend on player development than overpriced free agents whose return on investment is quite low.
You are missing the whole point. I would rather see both: teams with quality development who spend money on high quality players as well. The pirates and Rays don’t have franchise players because they don’t pay them. That hurts the game when your favorite player will end up on another team.
This. The Angels have spent money foolishly for years. But they’ve spent money trying to win, however misguided that might be.
Meanwhile a 12 year old kid in Pittsburgh has no incentive to buy into baseball right now. He’ll need a new favorite player every other year because Nutting will continue to pocket the revenue sharing money rather than extend his young talent.
Rays don’t have franchise players. Okay then.
You want to name someone? When kiermier is the best thing you’ll come up with, you’ll see my point. And Longoria took a massive pay cut to stay in Tampa, and eventually he was shipped out too.
So your metrics for a franchise player are what? I mean you’ve basically moved the goalposts to prevent actual franchise players from being mentioned. Also, feel free to share the enormous list of players who have remained with one team since free agency, especially if that’s your qualifier.
Well I’ll speak for the Angels since they were mentioned. Tim Salmon, garret Anderson, vlad, trout, weaver…you know any player that stayed with the team for a salary over near the league minimum
So your qualifier is anyone who stays with a team while being paid a salary over near the league minimum? Are you serious with this comment? Also…I didn’t know Mike Trout came so cheap, someone should tell him about his $400mm deal…
My definition is any player that wants to stay with the team and the team wants them to stay and doesn’t feel the need to get rid of them for only financial purposes
So based on your criteria, no one really has a franchise player except Anaheim and maybe LA, yet you bag on the Rays.
That’s not true at all.
Giants – Posey
Mariners – Felix
Padres – Tatis
Dodgers – Kershaw
Mets – wright
Yankees – jeter, Rivera, etc
Red Sox – Ortiz, varitek
Nationals – Strasburg
Phillies – Harper
Cardinals – Molina
Tigers – Cabrera
Etc etc…more than three teams
As for the rays, the only player that stayed that was worthwhile remembering was Longoria…aside from him most people leave for their payday. Archer, price, etc. Look, I’m not trashing the Rays, but I’m fed up with people defending the owners pocketing the revenue sharing money. If they get X million in revenue sharing, then that money should be reinvested into players (not the owners pockets).
Unless you are a twelve year old in Pittsburgh, how do you know what they are thinking? Baseball across the country has an old fan base period.
You miss the point. In the last decade, the Prates were more competitive than the Angels despite spending about 60% of what the Angels spent and despite the Angels having one of the best players in baseball. Spending money is not the only way of trying to win..
The Pirates had the misfortune of peaking when the NL Central was arguably the best division in the MLB.
Hey, we have a Rays fan here. Can you bring the other three of you?
Just kidding. Mostly. I think.
Nice post Doritos –
I’ll also add- This new generation is sooooo much more about fairness and equality than us {young} folks in our 30’s 40’s and 50’s right now
Their not going to bite this apple in 10 years when they are making suitable wages to start kick into the pool in the smaller markets – Lot more options for them as well to chose from ….if you give these new minds a reason to look away, they will take it and never look back imo ……….. Baseball and Apple Pie had a good run, but it’s time for a new shake up in MLB altogether
Felix isn’t with Seattle anymore. Tatis is 23 years old, a little too early to assume he will be a “franchise” player, don’t you think? Harper signed a huge contract with Philly, does that automatically equate to a franchise player? He could absolutely be traded in the future. Your Yankees and Red Sox examples have been out of baseball for years. I’ll give you Posey (who else is left in SF really), Kershaw (I did include LA in my comment), Molina (whose tenure was in jeopardy just this off-season) and Cabrera, though I suspect Cabrera is only there because Detroit can’t unload that contract. Yeah, you are trashing the Rays since the majority of teams don’t have “franchise players” according to your definition, yet you singled the Rays out. Funny how NYY, Boston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Toronto, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc etc also don’t have franchise players according to your definition, but you know, the Rays are low hanging fruit I guess. Boston traded their franchise player in Betts, even. Any outrage there, or is it just reserved for owners who supposedly “pocket” revenue sharing money even though their team has been more successful over the past 10 years than not?
I can’t change your opinion, and if it’s your prerogative to defend the millionaires pocketing the money that could be invested to keep a player like snell or price or archer then fine.
I don’t understand why it’s such a touchy subject for Rays fans. Your team is good on a low budget. Congrats! There’s no award for that, though.
The Rays do not have any iconic players that I can think of. Imagine having a jersey for a player that plays with your team for more than 6 years. You all should get jerseys with the owners name on the back, because he’s the only constant in this franchise. That’s all you Rays fans root for anyway, the owner and having the lowest budget. Who cares about the players when you’re winning the bottom line game.
Yes, because I demonstrated that your list didn’t align with your own criteria for “franchise players” I’m somehow “defending ownership.” There isn’t an award for having a low payroll, but it does allow for more flexibility than having albatross contracts that hamstring teams, and those teams generally have to include cash in order to offload them. Additionally, the Rays have been successful with that payroll versus perpetually garbage. It’s obvious you aren’t versed in the Rays org because multiple players have historically had tenures at or greater than 6 years (your arbitrary number). James Shields, Carl Crawford, BJ Upton, Evan Longoria, David Price, Kevin Kiermaier to start. All I’m getting is that you have some weird bias against the Rays, couching it inside an argument about “franchise players”. “Who cares about the players when you’re winning the bottom line game.” Uh yeah, that’s literally sports. Who wants to cheer for a team whose names are all household but perpetually suck? We tune in for the competition and the hopes of winning, don’t we? Also, if you look into why the players you mention were traded, you’d see that it wasn’t to dump salary. Archer netted three good to great players and stunk it up in Pittsburgh (he was trending downward in Tampa Bay). Blake Snell has issues with the third time through a lineup. Price wasn’t even a salary dump, I think he was making $10m when he was traded and netted Willy Adams’s (Tampa Bay’s target). Longo was trending in the wrong direction. It may not be your brand of baseball, but the Rays capitalize on performance, and sports overall is a meritocracy. I’m curious as to who your team is.
Yes, 6 was arbitrary but you knew what I was getting at. I will concede Crawford, as I forgot about him.
The Rays are a good team, and I’m not saying they are bad for what they are doing. I personally feel that they owe it to their fans to spend money on some players that the fans like. Are there seriously no players you wish the Rays extended but were “priced out” of? You didn’t want Crawford or price to stay? It’s easy to say in hindsight that they were going downhill. All I’m saying is that I wish the Rays spent a little money to keep a popular guy around. I think it would help the fan base. But what do I know?
“I’ll give you Posey (who else is left in SF really)”
Crawford and Belt.
MLB would be more fun to follow if more teams kept at least 3 guys for a decade.
You are correct sir. I stand corrected, I had forgotten about the Brandons.
I agree that they should spend money when it makes sense. They did on Longo, Kiermaier, Lowe, Snell…I suspect they will on Meadows too, as well as Wander Franco.
just a joke of a system. all of these teams are owned by billionaires and make well enough more then to cover costs each year. if not then they aren’t being well enough run and should be sold/moved.
Yes, exactly Darkside! No more baseball welfare. The argument one uses for money disparity can be used for talent disparity, which can also be used for coaching disparity. You will never have complete parity in sports – if you’re a fan of a team that doesn’t coach well, doesn’t spend well, and doesn’t own well, choose a different team. That’s how business works.
There should never be a guarantee that a MLB team is automatically successful, at all costs, because a billionaire was approved to buy it by other billionaires.
Why should the bigger market team have to pay “loans” or whatever colloquialism they want to assign for welfare in MLB?
Why should the talented people be limited in their ability to make money? Mookie, Trout, Tatis, Lindor, etc would never make what they have/will with a cap, so that won’t work either.
Just for the record, I hope you realize that not every team can be an above-.500 team. Double every team’s payroll, and half the teams finish below .500. Have a $100M floor, and half the teams finish below .500.
It is a common misconception, especially among writers, that every team should be competitive.
A former GM said “if you’re going to lose, you might as well lose cheap.”
A salary floor would really be whacky in a sport full of tanking.
but again tanking disengages casual fans and hurts the game’s popularity.
pdxbrewcrew
A former GM said “if you’re going to lose, you might as well lose cheap.”
===============================================================
It’s probably a much better business model, if the fans buy the concept.
If you are KC, for example, and can manage a $100M payroll over ten years., you are better off with three years of $80M, while rebuilding, then upping it to $120M when you are competitive.
It was a former KC general manager that said that.
Halo- Tanking would still be done under a floor situation, it would just be done more affective and speeding up the process for those ballclubs …
At the end of the day, isnt that all we want as fans if in those situations? This ofc, barring savvy FO, which are ever changing so the illusion of hope always exist
Trade market would be fascinating as well. It would be like the NBA where tanking teams could absorb bad contracts to hopefully kick start better days. Only the strong can travel that road today . There would be a helluva lot more action as well in here as all 30 teams would hold stock
The thing is they don’t do it like that, Tampa for example is in a good position to compete , but they decide not to invest, they could have signed cruz, oddorisi and Walker for 35M and have a very good team , better than last year, ozuna, Kluber and oddorisi ?
A salary floor could just as easily slow down a rebuild. The only free agents a team that is rebuilding should sign would be ones that are willing to sign one-year deals, and can be traded at the deadline. No point in signing a multi-year deal if you are rebuilding. Basically, pillow deals. And looking through the free agents that signed one-year deals this offseason, most signed with contending teams. Paxton. Quintana, depending on how you feel about the Angels, but they didn’t sign him just to trade him at the deadline. After that, it’s down to the $5 MM a year guys like Adam Duvall. And those types of players ain’t gonna get a decent prospect at the deadline.
@Darkside
Doesn’t matter who owns them, businesses aren’t trying to take losses. They want to break even or make money. Payroll is a percentage of sales. That’s a basic of business. The team with lower income will have a lower payroll. You assume a Billionaire owner will operate the team like a toy, and not a business. That’s just not reality.
being billionaires means they know how to run a business properly. if you cant run even a small market baseball team with a mid-tier payroll andbe generally good then one wonders how you managed to get all that money.
Lot of these billionaires come from Daddy’s Daddy side of the family from yesteryear
Not all are billionaires, and I wouldn’t necessarily equate money to running a successful MLB franchise or brainpower for that matter either
Like Joe said above, if everybody should be able to be generally good how does the W/L support that theory come end year every year across the 30 team sample size?
I wasn’t even aware that this was what “revenue sharing” was. So you’re telling me that the Rays can be a WS contender, carry a minuscule payroll, and get handed free money? Not fair imo.
What I’ve been saying on here for a long time and getting it thrown back at me…. it’s inexcusable.
Why is it unfair? Your position is that, since TB is smarter than everyone else, they should get penalized,
The Rays should be penalized on some level, but not for being smart and for taking money that’s given to them. They should be penalized because they are part of a select group of 30 teams that comprise MLB. All these teams are responsible for expanding the sport. The Rays model does nothing to grow the sport in their market, or cultivate young fans, which is the lifeblood of the game long term. Young fans quickly learn that any good player will be gone. See you in San Diego, Blake,. Thanks for the Cy Young two years ago. Wander Franco has yet to play a single game for the Rays, but he’s already a goner. They’ll be no lifetime contract. Spreadsheet financial baseball is not appealing to young fans. Baseball is a passion. There’s no passion in Tampa Bay. They’re taking the money and they’re not growing the market.
”The Rays model does nothing to grow the sport in their market, or cultivate young fans.” Care to explain?
Its not fair that TB was given a small market to sell to while NY, LA, and Bos have much bigger markets. That TB has been a contender with no payroll shows why their employees are constantly raided by other teams to run their front offices.
And a market with competitors’ footprints already there when it was established.
The Marlins got $70M in 2019. A few years after the public subsidized their stadium. Any serious question as to why franchise values are as high as they are, even for teams in difficult markets? And, why some teams choose not to compete? Yes, the industry had a hard 2020. But there’s plenty of value there.
MLB continues to operate poorly as a major sports entertainment biz and why NFL will continue to leave then in the dust. MLB continues to think that they are better served when a select few teams succeeding and now we have youth in many markets who could care less about the sport! Change of the entire structure is needed to create a competitive league for all markets to enjoy!
the NFL does better because people like football better
Really? And here I thought it was due to a hard cap, non-guaranteed contracts, and sharing of ALL tv revenue.
The NFL does a much better job than any American sport for producing a quality affordable product for its viewers. For 1 competitive balance across all markets. We don’t see a market not trying to win cause they all have a fair chance each year. Also it uses a college sports for its training grounds that helps is so many ways. As a matter fact one can argue college football is 3 most popular sport in America. But most all fans win win win when it comes to a properly run sport
The NFL has significantly better accessibility to the product. NFL games are broadcast regionally if there is a team in your market, and nationally. People get to experience multiple teams via broadcast on Sunday versus MLB’s archaic accessibility rules due to their deals with RSNs. Let’s not even get into the postseason broadcast debacle of individual games within series being broadcast on separate networks.
Wait, so NFL has more parity? Lololol. Uh, can you really look back and say that without laughing at yourself?
Non-guaranteed contracts work, cap won’t. Baseball is different than football. The two are incomparable. NFL has been declining in revenue, while MLB was at an all-time high (pre-COVID).
Good luck with your “parity”
I’ll continue to stay with “dust” as you call it. You keep watching football until they can’t tackle anymore….
After they sign their (imminent) next round of TV deals, the NFL will likely generate 3 times the revenue that MLB does. Probably more.
Amazon is now paying a billion dollars for that awful Thursday night game alone.
That one TV deal (their least lucrative) alone is more than 10% of MLB’s total revenue.
Just FYI.
They have more players and coaches to feed. And their ratings are higher still which means added revenue. Your point doesn’t mean MLB should adopt the same rules as the NFL. Fairly certain players do not want to be cut in baseball.
And what exactly does that have to do with the discussion here? The NFL is a national game, heavily subsidized by gambling. MLB is a regional sport, with teams driving more revenue off of their local TV deals. The NFL’s model is different and can’t be replicated in MLB because they are different sports and entertainment values.
BTW The NFL has many of the same issues as MLB, such as the increasing age of its fans and audiences that have many other viewing choices. Most fans never even attend an NFL game. There are fans of the game who have never stepped foot in an NFL stadium and never will. Baseball is a sport that does depend on concessions, ticket sales, and local TV ratings. Stop trying to compare the two or think the NFL model can be replicated easily in MLB. MLB remains lucrative, generating significant income and skyrocketing franchise valuations.
It can be improved, it should be improved, but it’s not the doom-and-gloom many here want to present. The NFL being more popular in some ways than MLB is not an issue.
NFL does some things better, particularly revenue sharing.
NFL does some things worse, particularly the huge amount of criminals in the league.
No. MLB is a very successful major sports entertainment business. The NFL being an even more successful major sports entertainment business is not a negative to MLB, but it is a positive to the NFL. Both can be true. Both can be successful.
Marlins get revenue sharing despite having a recently new stadium. Yet mlb takes away the Oakland a’s revenue sharing since 2019 and their competitive balance draft pick, meanwhile the tigers and cardinals keep theirs. Yes the A’s owner is a billionaire cheapskate, but also the assumption was A’s would get a stadium at some point. But still tons of hurdles and the pandemic has pushed that timeline probably to 2025 or so, but ive been waiting 20 plus years for a new stadium, not just endless artist renderings that go nowhere
The Cubs and RS have stadiums that have been in existence longer than your team has been in existence. And they still sell out regularly.
Exactly my point about the Trop. If you’re a fan of a team, you’ll go see them regardless of the venue. Those who are more into esthetics probably wouldn’t become long-term attendees versus those who are engaged with the product.
So you’re admitting that the Rays don’t have a fan base. Acceptance is the first step toward recovery.
Revenue sharing seems to work pretty darn well for the NFL. And NBA. And NHL. But, whatever…
Just move 15 teams to NY and the other 15 to LA. Free market solution. Problem solved.
Expansion. Two teams. Nashville is committed to make it happen. Find a second location with a buyer. They should have made this decision 10 months ago. Injection of new money to 30 teams plus a balanced schedule of 4 divisions of 8 teams, including new and renewed rivalries prior to 1998.
Something new rather than something borrowed.
Vegas
Yep. Vegas would work.
How “revenue sharing” works.
48% of all local team revenues, including local TV and radio fees and ticket sales (concessions and parking is fuzzy; sometimes yes, sometimes no) from all 30 teams goes into a pool. That pool is then divided equally back to the 30 teams.
So teams with high local revenues, especially high TV fees, pay more into the revenue sharing pool than they receive back, and vice versa for teams that have lower local revenue.
Exactly. Per BB-Ref in 2018 each team pulled $118 million from that pool and still had 52% of their local revenue to themselves.
Pretty hard to justify some teams rolling out $75 million payrolls when they got $118 million in funds.
That $118 MM doesn’t include the national deals. The same report from Bb-Ref has that amount at $91 MM per team. So each team gets basically, $209 MM plus half their local revenue.
Although I wonder about that estimate. The Braves are 8th in MLB in local TV revenue. Take the average ticket price in 2018 times the attendance for that season, half again for concession/parking and the amount the got in local TV, and 48% of that total would have the Braves receiving more than they paid into revenue sharing if they got $118 MM.
I acknowledge my number is likely flawed, but it’s probably within shouting range. I doubt many fans would consider the Braves to be a franchise that is “poor” enough to get back more than they put in.
The simplest solution is the free market. No draft, no revenue sharing, no ceiling and no floor. If teams cannot cut it, then they can move or go out of business.
It’s only a free market until Rich Guy has to face Richer Guy, then there are regulations.
Really? Good, we can keep eliminating “weak” via a “free” market until we have only the Yankees left in the AL and the Dodgers left in the NL. Except for inter league games, there would be no one else to play. Weak is a relative term as wealth and power are concentrated.
I mean the pirates broke the draft by signing josh bell
I’d love for an investigation on how these funds are used
And you’ll never see it. All these teams are doing fine.
Just dreaming of a day a family of 4 could go to hand full of games and enjoy a similar quality product and root for their home team as a winner (management aside) every so often for same or similar price across all markets. Wow this sport would care about its product and deliver it to the largest possible market that it could. Genius right? NFL does
NFL games are affordable for a family of four?
And why has their parity been worse than MLB with their revenue sharing?
Do you mean if I can same ticket in Tampa as in NY (10 game pass) 4 field box 3b tickets $670 with free parking? Also get the same quality product in both? No mlb economics are so whack and it’s always David vs Goliath
The Jacksonville Jaguars beg to differ
Interesting. So basically MLB’s version of “I will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today”
This is the beginning of the end for modern MLB. It will be contracting and many small market teams will be gone in 10 years. MLB’s popularity is cratering. Ot was a nice run but the youth just don’t care about it.
first thing that needs to be to done is to force owners of the pirates rays a’s out of league then all tv money generated at each game be split evenly between those two teams playing not perfect but a lot better and force each team to have a minimum salary based of those revenues generated per game no more nuttings wallet, A’s or Rays situations. no more Nuttings using baseball revenues to cover 7 springs