Why are Billionaire owners whining?

[Rollin' on the River]

I’m always amused by those who are so cavalier about other people’s money…

There’s a recent umpteen page thread on this same subject. Nothing will be solved here. Got people that can’t pay their rent, telling billionaires how to spend money.

Hey it’s all on them. If they don’t want to spend let them continue to loose $ and cut payroll again and again until the franchise also starts to loose $. No new taxpayer $ for stadium upgrades. Then in 20 years see where it’s at. It’s their choice. Spend for attendance or let the sport die.

It won’t die. I like the thought of seeing in 20 years. A guaranteed 20 year life contract. I’ll take it.

Maybe the MLB will resemble AAA and then there will be 10 real MLB teams in a champions bracket like soccer. Either way there won’t be a salary cap until those top 10 marbles allow full revenue sharing so the cap and floor can be calculate correctly

How would you suggest that a floor works? A suggestion of a floor is quite silly. That’s what the minimum wage is for. How can a team be forced to spend a minimum if the available players aren’t worth it or they don’t want to sign with you?

Currently every team is getting approx $130m annually from the general fund. Several owners are pocketing it as their profit instead of spending on payroll. For the top markets to pay more revenue sharing they want a guarantee it is spent on players. If you cutting the top of market then the growth for the MLBPA has to come from the small markets spending more. The owners have no power to force a cap. Growth is at all time high and a labor stoppage would stop that. A lockout to force a cap won’t happen. 60-% of players are millionaires and the ones in charge of the MLBPA are the richest.

I’m misreading what you are saying or you are wrong.
Luxury tax total was $402 million. So, no. Teams aren’t getting $130 each.
Half of the luxury tax goes to fund player benefits (pension, health care).
Where are you coming up with you’re $130 million?

That half of $402 plus national TV contract and MLBtv streaming plus shared gate and metrchandise all goes into general fund and distributed 30 ways. It was reported $130m last year. This may help

Key Components of MLB Payments & Funds:
Revenue Sharing: Provides significant annual income, estimated at over $100M per team from national sources plus local shares.
Deferred Compensation: Clubs pay players over time, often using league-facilitated financing, with significant deferrals a key part of large contracts (e.g., Ohtani).
League Loans: MLB has provided loans to teams, especially during tough economic times (like 2020-2021), with repayment terms debated but generally expected from larger market clubs.
Player Benefits: Funds also go towards pension plans and special benefits for former players who didn't fully vest.

Last year this payment alone was $130m

That adds clarity. Even more reason to not worry about the owners going broke. But since not knowing any teams true revenue once you deduct all salaries and minor leagues, who knows. I don’t care. I just wanna watch a game.

Salaries and minor leagues?

You think that’s all they pay for?

Substitute all salaries with expenses. Better now?

You’re more on track, but to blow them off like they’re no big deal is laughable.

[renostl]

Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

[Cardinals1964]

Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

[TheJackBurton]

Not this again.

I’m always amused by those who are so cavalier about other people’s money…

There’s a recent umpteen page thread on this same subject. Nothing will be solved here. Got people that can’t pay their rent, telling billionaires how to spend money.

Hey it’s all on them. If they don’t want to spend let them continue to loose $ and cut payroll again and again until the franchise also starts to loose $. No new taxpayer $ for stadium upgrades. Then in 20 years see where it’s at. It’s their choice. Spend for attendance or let the sport die.

It won’t die. I like the thought of seeing in 20 years. A guaranteed 20 year life contract. I’ll take it.

Maybe the MLB will resemble AAA and then there will be 10 real MLB teams in a champions bracket like soccer. Either way there won’t be a salary cap until those top 10 marbles allow full revenue sharing so the cap and floor can be calculate correctly

How would you suggest that a floor works? A suggestion of a floor is quite silly. That’s what the minimum wage is for. How can a team be forced to spend a minimum if the available players aren’t worth it or they don’t want to sign with you?

3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.

3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.

No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.

Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.

I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.


Thats the reality.

No I'm not guessing. Mid-tier guys tend to have a longer shelf life because they can be signed easily, don't request much in the form of salary, and generally play close to their contract value. When the buyout season in the NHL comes, it's never the 3rd or 4th line guys who guys get cut, it's the superstars whose contracts have far exceeded their value on the ice. A lower end contract is always easier to trade and should they get waived they end up getting re-signed as the contract demands again are minimal.

They sign very quickly in UFA as they know there only a finite amount of money and contracts available. Superstars can wait months before signing if they want, as MLB has proven over the past decade.

It's the 12-15 year veteran who gets squeezed out now because it's a young mans game and they can no longer keep up and no longer are valued contract wise.

A "just spend as much or as little as you want" league is no longer viable in the sports world and MLB is absolutely proving it.

[renostl]

Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

Apologies for stepping away while you replied later.

If it were 48%/52% and left at that, I am rather sure there'd be less complaining. The fact there's not
suggest there are issues. With the additional luxury addition there really should be a near even playing field.
Again, there is not. It becomes why because when I first read that teams on keep 52% of there regional revenue I actuall thought that to be too small. Really what's the issue? On a side note Luxury tax violations need another penalty beyond money when teams blow by a limitation with little thought it says something, less draft picks? The Guggenheim group is just too flush with funding.

The article continues further to
"Revenue sharing loopholes that benefit big-market teams"

Putting all these numbers in this forum without absolutes and with numbers that change
each season is tedious and very long. This link was short and sweet and is enough to at least
shed light on why disparity continues after what sounds leveling maybe too much so at first read.
It also might explain why the Cards wanted a piece of Ballys and how losing that impacts even
more when we understand without that "investment" now they must donate 48% into the kitty.
I believe they netted $160+M after revenue disbursement.

[Cardinals1964]

Not this again.

I’m always amused by those who are so cavalier about other people’s money…

There’s a recent umpteen page thread on this same subject. Nothing will be solved here. Got people that can’t pay their rent, telling billionaires how to spend money.

Hey it’s all on them. If they don’t want to spend let them continue to loose $ and cut payroll again and again until the franchise also starts to loose $. No new taxpayer $ for stadium upgrades. Then in 20 years see where it’s at. It’s their choice. Spend for attendance or let the sport die.

It won’t die. I like the thought of seeing in 20 years. A guaranteed 20 year life contract. I’ll take it.

Maybe the MLB will resemble AAA and then there will be 10 real MLB teams in a champions bracket like soccer. Either way there won’t be a salary cap until those top 10 marbles allow full revenue sharing so the cap and floor can be calculate correctly

How would you suggest that a floor works? A suggestion of a floor is quite silly. That’s what the minimum wage is for. How can a team be forced to spend a minimum if the available players aren’t worth it or they don’t want to sign with you?

3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.

3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.

No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.

Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.

I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.


Thats the reality.

No I'm not guessing. Mid-tier guys tend to have a longer shelf life because they can be signed easily, don't request much in the form of salary, and generally play close to their contract value. When the buyout season in the NHL comes, it's never the 3rd or 4th line guys who guys get cut, it's the superstars whose contracts have far exceeded their value on the ice. A lower end contract is always easier to trade and should they get waived they end up getting re-signed as the contract demands again are minimal.

They sign very quickly in UFA as they know there only a finite amount of money and contracts available. Superstars can wait months before signing if they want, as MLB has proven over the past decade.

It's the 12-15 year veteran who gets squeezed out now because it's a young mans game and they can no longer keep up and no longer are valued contract wise.

A "just spend as much or as little as you want" league is no longer viable in the sports world and MLB is absolutely proving it.

I disagree. 100%.

[Cardinals1964]

Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

Apologies for stepping away while you replied later.

If it were 48%/52% and left at that, I am rather sure there'd be less complaining. The fact there's not
suggest there are issues. With the additional luxury addition there really should be a near even playing field.
Again, there is not. It becomes why because when I first read that teams on keep 52% of there regional revenue I actuall thought that to be too small. Really what's the issue? On a side note Luxury tax violations need another penalty beyond money when teams blow by a limitation with little thought it says something, less draft picks? The Guggenheim group is just too flush with funding.

The article continues further to
"Revenue sharing loopholes that benefit big-market teams"

Putting all these numbers in this forum without absolutes and with numbers that change
each season is tedious and very long. This link was short and sweet and is enough to at least
shed light on why disparity continues after what sounds leveling maybe too much so at first read.
It also might explain why the Cards wanted a piece of Ballys and how losing that impacts even
more when we understand without that "investment" now they must donate 48% into the kitty.
I believe they netted $160+M after revenue disbursement.

My whole argument, all along is on the 48% local revenue sharing is that some teams put in more, some teams put in less, it’s not a wash.

[renostl]

Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

Apologies for stepping away while you replied later.

If it were 48%/52% and left at that, I am rather sure there'd be less complaining. The fact there's not
suggest there are issues. With the additional luxury addition there really should be a near even playing field.
Again, there is not. It becomes why because when I first read that teams on keep 52% of there regional revenue I actuall thought that to be too small. Really what's the issue? On a side note Luxury tax violations need another penalty beyond money when teams blow by a limitation with little thought it says something, less draft picks? The Guggenheim group is just too flush with funding.

The article continues further to
"Revenue sharing loopholes that benefit big-market teams"

Putting all these numbers in this forum without absolutes and with numbers that change
each season is tedious and very long. This link was short and sweet and is enough to at least
shed light on why disparity continues after what sounds leveling maybe too much so at first read.
It also might explain why the Cards wanted a piece of Ballys and how losing that impacts even
more when we understand without that "investment" now they must donate 48% into the kitty.
I believe they netted $160+M after revenue disbursement.

My whole argument, all along is on the 48% local revenue sharing is that some teams put in more, some teams put in less, it’s not a wash.

We are good here. The wash term probably was missed used by me. It was meant more as
not a full gain on the higher revenue teams and act closer to a subsidy keeping teams from failure
and not providing growth.

IF teams put in 48% I'd agree, it would be great. They do not do that.
There are exceptions to provide keep much more than 52% which is a big deal.
And profits from their TV ownership deals that aren't part of revenue sharing if they
own part of the broadcast ownership. It's then a business investment. A investment while
in the largest TV areas in the country far outweighs the St Louis metro.
The article points the LAD, Boston, NYY, Cubs others as diverting the parts
of the 48% along with being in advantageous positions to start with. They have caps
allowing for keeping well beyond 52%

[Cardinals1964]

Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

Apologies for stepping away while you replied later.

If it were 48%/52% and left at that, I am rather sure there'd be less complaining. The fact there's not
suggest there are issues. With the additional luxury addition there really should be a near even playing field.
Again, there is not. It becomes why because when I first read that teams on keep 52% of there regional revenue I actuall thought that to be too small. Really what's the issue? On a side note Luxury tax violations need another penalty beyond money when teams blow by a limitation with little thought it says something, less draft picks? The Guggenheim group is just too flush with funding.

The article continues further to
"Revenue sharing loopholes that benefit big-market teams"

Putting all these numbers in this forum without absolutes and with numbers that change
each season is tedious and very long. This link was short and sweet and is enough to at least
shed light on why disparity continues after what sounds leveling maybe too much so at first read.
It also might explain why the Cards wanted a piece of Ballys and how losing that impacts even
more when we understand without that "investment" now they must donate 48% into the kitty.
I believe they netted $160+M after revenue disbursement.

My whole argument, all along is on the 48% local revenue sharing is that some teams put in more, some teams put in less, it’s not a wash.

We are good here. The wash term probably was missed used by me. It was meant more as
not a full gain on the higher revenue teams and act closer to a subsidy keeping teams from failure
and not providing growth.

IF teams put in 48% I'd agree, it would be great. They do not do that.
There are exceptions to provide keep much more than 52% which is a big deal.
And profits from their TV ownership deals that aren't part of revenue sharing if they
own part of the broadcast ownership. It's then a business investment. A investment while
in the largest TV areas in the country far outweighs the St Louis metro.
The article points the LAD, Boston, NYY, Cubs others as diverting the parts
of the 48% along with being in advantageous positions to start with. They have caps
allowing for keeping well beyond 52%

To change the subject. I don’t know why some people blame the players for the owners overspending. The owners are dishing out this money and then they want the players to accept a salary cap to keep themselves from spending too much. It’s ridiculous. Then fans rush in to feel sorry for owners that are spending too much. As if these owners don’t know how to handle their finances.

[Cranny]

Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

Apologies for stepping away while you replied later.

If it were 48%/52% and left at that, I am rather sure there'd be less complaining. The fact there's not
suggest there are issues. With the additional luxury addition there really should be a near even playing field.
Again, there is not. It becomes why because when I first read that teams on keep 52% of there regional revenue I actuall thought that to be too small. Really what's the issue? On a side note Luxury tax violations need another penalty beyond money when teams blow by a limitation with little thought it says something, less draft picks? The Guggenheim group is just too flush with funding.

The article continues further to
"Revenue sharing loopholes that benefit big-market teams"

Putting all these numbers in this forum without absolutes and with numbers that change
each season is tedious and very long. This link was short and sweet and is enough to at least
shed light on why disparity continues after what sounds leveling maybe too much so at first read.
It also might explain why the Cards wanted a piece of Ballys and how losing that impacts even
more when we understand without that "investment" now they must donate 48% into the kitty.
I believe they netted $160+M after revenue disbursement.

My whole argument, all along is on the 48% local revenue sharing is that some teams put in more, some teams put in less, it’s not a wash.

We are good here. The wash term probably was missed used by me. It was meant more as
not a full gain on the higher revenue teams and act closer to a subsidy keeping teams from failure
and not providing growth.

IF teams put in 48% I'd agree, it would be great. They do not do that.
There are exceptions to provide keep much more than 52% which is a big deal.
And profits from their TV ownership deals that aren't part of revenue sharing if they
own part of the broadcast ownership. It's then a business investment. A investment while
in the largest TV areas in the country far outweighs the St Louis metro.
The article points the LAD, Boston, NYY, Cubs others as diverting the parts
of the 48% along with being in advantageous positions to start with. They have caps
allowing for keeping well beyond 52%

To change the subject. I don’t know why some people blame the players for the owners overspending. The owners are dishing out this money and then they want the players to accept a salary cap to keep themselves from spending too much. It’s ridiculous. Then fans rush in to feel sorry for owners that are spending too much. As if these owners don’t know how to handle their finances.

There is some blame on the players side because they're complicit in being totally against a salary cap. Look at what
Harper did in the Phillies locker room.

[renostl]

To change the subject. I don’t know why some people blame the players for the owners overspending. The owners are dishing out this money and then they want the players to accept a salary cap to keep themselves from spending too much. It’s ridiculous. Then fans rush in to feel sorry for owners that are spending too much. As if these owners don’t know how to handle their finances.

Pretty rare for top businessmen to pay employees more
than they can afford or significantly more than they need to.
So Tucker had $50M+ somewhere they gave $60 to stop the bidding.
Even so they get most of KT's prime seasons under those
who predicted him for $300M, $400+M crazy predictions.

Best controlled with a free market, if at all possible, IMO.

The playing field to pay such needs leveled better.
I have doubts of accomplishing since I'm a skeptic of working together.

Players and fans would benefit, jmo.
If a player plays for 5 teams he doesn't care what 25 teams do.
The players on those teams should.
The tax needs more penalties than money since
pockets are insanely deep in some markets.

[Cardinals1964]

Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

Apologies for stepping away while you replied later.

If it were 48%/52% and left at that, I am rather sure there'd be less complaining. The fact there's not
suggest there are issues. With the additional luxury addition there really should be a near even playing field.
Again, there is not. It becomes why because when I first read that teams on keep 52% of there regional revenue I actuall thought that to be too small. Really what's the issue? On a side note Luxury tax violations need another penalty beyond money when teams blow by a limitation with little thought it says something, less draft picks? The Guggenheim group is just too flush with funding.

The article continues further to
"Revenue sharing loopholes that benefit big-market teams"

Putting all these numbers in this forum without absolutes and with numbers that change
each season is tedious and very long. This link was short and sweet and is enough to at least
shed light on why disparity continues after what sounds leveling maybe too much so at first read.
It also might explain why the Cards wanted a piece of Ballys and how losing that impacts even
more when we understand without that "investment" now they must donate 48% into the kitty.
I believe they netted $160+M after revenue disbursement.

My whole argument, all along is on the 48% local revenue sharing is that some teams put in more, some teams put in less, it’s not a wash.

We are good here. The wash term probably was missed used by me. It was meant more as
not a full gain on the higher revenue teams and act closer to a subsidy keeping teams from failure
and not providing growth.

IF teams put in 48% I'd agree, it would be great. They do not do that.
There are exceptions to provide keep much more than 52% which is a big deal.
And profits from their TV ownership deals that aren't part of revenue sharing if they
own part of the broadcast ownership. It's then a business investment. A investment while
in the largest TV areas in the country far outweighs the St Louis metro.
The article points the LAD, Boston, NYY, Cubs others as diverting the parts
of the 48% along with being in advantageous positions to start with. They have caps
allowing for keeping well beyond 52%

To change the subject. I don’t know why some people blame the players for the owners overspending. The owners are dishing out this money and then they want the players to accept a salary cap to keep themselves from spending too much. It’s ridiculous. Then fans rush in to feel sorry for owners that are spending too much. As if these owners don’t know how to handle their finances.

There is some blame on the players side because they're complicit in being totally against a salary cap. Look at what
Harper did in the Phillies locker room.

As a player, I would be totally against a salary cap too. Again, you’re blaming the player for the owner over spending.

[Cardinals1964]

To change the subject. I don’t know why some people blame the players for the owners overspending. The owners are dishing out this money and then they want the players to accept a salary cap to keep themselves from spending too much. It’s ridiculous. Then fans rush in to feel sorry for owners that are spending too much. As if these owners don’t know how to handle their finances.

Pretty rare for top businessmen to pay employees more
than they can afford or significantly more than they need to.
So Tucker had $50M+ somewhere they gave $60 to stop the bidding.
Even so they get most of KT's prime seasons under those
who predicted him for $300M, $400+M crazy predictions.

Best controlled with a free market, if at all possible, IMO.

The playing field to pay such needs leveled better.
I have doubts of accomplishing since I'm a skeptic of working together.

Players and fans would benefit, jmo.
If a player plays for 5 teams he doesn't care what 25 teams do.
The players on those teams should.
The tax needs more penalties than money since
pockets are insanely deep in some markets.

I would like everybody that has a job to go to work tomorrow and ask for a reduction in their pay, so whatever product you’re company is selling will be cheaper for me as a consumer.

When these horrible business men that own, these teams all go bankrupt, then they can work on a solution.

[Cranny]

There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.

However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.

What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

Apologies for stepping away while you replied later.

If it were 48%/52% and left at that, I am rather sure there'd be less complaining. The fact there's not
suggest there are issues. With the additional luxury addition there really should be a near even playing field.
Again, there is not. It becomes why because when I first read that teams on keep 52% of there regional revenue I actuall thought that to be too small. Really what's the issue? On a side note Luxury tax violations need another penalty beyond money when teams blow by a limitation with little thought it says something, less draft picks? The Guggenheim group is just too flush with funding.

The article continues further to
"Revenue sharing loopholes that benefit big-market teams"

Putting all these numbers in this forum without absolutes and with numbers that change
each season is tedious and very long. This link was short and sweet and is enough to at least
shed light on why disparity continues after what sounds leveling maybe too much so at first read.
It also might explain why the Cards wanted a piece of Ballys and how losing that impacts even
more when we understand without that "investment" now they must donate 48% into the kitty.
I believe they netted $160+M after revenue disbursement.

My whole argument, all along is on the 48% local revenue sharing is that some teams put in more, some teams put in less, it’s not a wash.

We are good here. The wash term probably was missed used by me. It was meant more as
not a full gain on the higher revenue teams and act closer to a subsidy keeping teams from failure
and not providing growth.

IF teams put in 48% I'd agree, it would be great. They do not do that.
There are exceptions to provide keep much more than 52% which is a big deal.
And profits from their TV ownership deals that aren't part of revenue sharing if they
own part of the broadcast ownership. It's then a business investment. A investment while
in the largest TV areas in the country far outweighs the St Louis metro.
The article points the LAD, Boston, NYY, Cubs others as diverting the parts
of the 48% along with being in advantageous positions to start with. They have caps
allowing for keeping well beyond 52%

To change the subject. I don’t know why some people blame the players for the owners overspending. The owners are dishing out this money and then they want the players to accept a salary cap to keep themselves from spending too much. It’s ridiculous. Then fans rush in to feel sorry for owners that are spending too much. As if these owners don’t know how to handle their finances.

There is some blame on the players side because they're complicit in being totally against a salary cap. Look at what
Harper did in the Phillies locker room.

As a player, I would be totally against a salary cap too. Again, you’re blaming the player for the owner over spending.

I blame the players for actually thinking they’re worth the money the owners are paying them.

[Voldemort]

These owners are businessmen, and they are diversifying in many ways. For example, Ball Park Village is a big hit for DeWallet. Teams are looking to buy parking lots, real estate around these parks, ... in order to make money that technically is not tied to the team's finances. Yet, they really are. To be sure, DeWallet made it clear that if attendance dropped, team spending would drop. He didn't hide that. It is a business to him, and he doesn't care about winning a World Series. He cares about his bottom line and whether his investment is making him money.

[Cardinals1964]

Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.

What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.

If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.

I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?

You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.

You didn't read the link.

The 52% and 48% are not absolute. There are exceptions. IF it were much different. It is not and favors large populations in general. Or if teams own all or part of their broadcast like the Yankees or Cubs..

I left luxury tax totally out of it to demonstrate the revenue side only. The Cardinals are recipient nowhere near $540M
Luxury tax is a penalty not a sharing of revenue although it goes into the kitty
I showed you the affect on the 2 teams in the example.
There's far more in the kitty from other revenues and penalties. Kept it simple for demonstrations.

Read the link instead of assumptions that either of us have it completely right or wrong.

From your link.
The 48% Rule

Once local revenue is calculated, each team contributes a fixed portion.

48% of local revenue is sent to MLB’s revenue-sharing system
The remaining 52% stays with the team
All contributions are placed into one central pool
This rule applies to every team, regardless of market size or payroll.

3. How the Money Is Distributed

After the pool is created, the money is paid back out evenly.

Distribution Source How It’s Used
Revenue-sharing pool Split equally among all 30 teams
National TV revenue Shared evenly on top of local distributions
Luxury tax penalties Added to help lower-spending teams
Each team receives the same base distribution, even if it contributed more or less. This is why some teams are net payers while others are net receivers under MLB revenue sharing.

Maybe I misunderstanding your point. My point is some teams put more into the pot than others, but everybody takes the same payment. So a team that made more and contribute more comes out as a loser. The team that put in less and gets a higher dollar share comes out ahead.

Apologies for stepping away while you replied later.

If it were 48%/52% and left at that, I am rather sure there'd be less complaining. The fact there's not
suggest there are issues. With the additional luxury addition there really should be a near even playing field.
Again, there is not. It becomes why because when I first read that teams on keep 52% of there regional revenue I actuall thought that to be too small. Really what's the issue? On a side note Luxury tax violations need another penalty beyond money when teams blow by a limitation with little thought it says something, less draft picks? The Guggenheim group is just too flush with funding.

The article continues further to
"Revenue sharing loopholes that benefit big-market teams"

Putting all these numbers in this forum without absolutes and with numbers that change
each season is tedious and very long. This link was short and sweet and is enough to at least
shed light on why disparity continues after what sounds leveling maybe too much so at first read.
It also might explain why the Cards wanted a piece of Ballys and how losing that impacts even
more when we understand without that "investment" now they must donate 48% into the kitty.
I believe they netted $160+M after revenue disbursement.

My whole argument, all along is on the 48% local revenue sharing is that some teams put in more, some teams put in less, it’s not a wash.

We are good here. The wash term probably was missed used by me. It was meant more as
not a full gain on the higher revenue teams and act closer to a subsidy keeping teams from failure
and not providing growth.

IF teams put in 48% I'd agree, it would be great. They do not do that.
There are exceptions to provide keep much more than 52% which is a big deal.
And profits from their TV ownership deals that aren't part of revenue sharing if they
own part of the broadcast ownership. It's then a business investment. A investment while
in the largest TV areas in the country far outweighs the St Louis metro.
The article points the LAD, Boston, NYY, Cubs others as diverting the parts
of the 48% along with being in advantageous positions to start with. They have caps
allowing for keeping well beyond 52%

To change the subject. I don’t know why some people blame the players for the owners overspending. The owners are dishing out this money and then they want the players to accept a salary cap to keep themselves from spending too much. It’s ridiculous. Then fans rush in to feel sorry for owners that are spending too much. As if these owners don’t know how to handle their finances.

There is some blame on the players side because they're complicit in being totally against a salary cap. Look at what
Harper did in the Phillies locker room.

As a player, I would be totally against a salary cap too. Again, you’re blaming the player for the owner over spending.

I blame the players for actually thinking they’re worth the money the owners are paying them.

They are worth the money. How do you put a value on anything? It’s how much somebody is willing to buy or sell it for.
Whatever job you have and whatever they are paying you, that’s what they feel you are worth. I could argue that you should be able to do it for less. I blame you for making too much money, not for the owner paying you too much money.