Revenue Sharing and a Floor

[alw80]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

[mattmitchl44]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

[alw80]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

Sure, Matt.

[mattmitchl44]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

Sure, Matt.

It could hardly be otherwise.

I'm not guaranteeing that the result would be the Pirates having a better record than the Dodgers, but they would have a much better chance to bring together the talent to do so.

[45s]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

[alw80]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

Sure, Matt.

It could hardly be otherwise.

I'm not guaranteeing that the result would be the Pirates having a better record than the Dodgers, but they would have a much better chance to bring together the talent to do so.

Bad owners are bad owners, a cap doesn't change that as the other capped sports show.

[mattmitchl44]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

Because the Dodgers should have less talent and Pittsburgh may still have money left over to buy more talent.

It's not a 1:1 correlation, but spending more should correlate to more talent. So a gap of $125 million vs. a gap of $265 million between Pittsburgh and LA should correspond to less of a talent gap.

[45s]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

Because the Dodgers should have less talent and Pittsburgh may still have money left over to buy more talent.

Given their history…..

how are you going to ensure they pursue the proper talent that will make them more competitive…

and it’s likely that desirable talent, who will have multiple opportunities will prefer to sign elsewhere……

so….to meet the floor, the club will either have to massively overpay for a free agent, or just pay the poor roster they have more…

Unless you are going to force players to sign with Pitt….at a salary mlb sets

[mattmitchl44]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

Because the Dodgers should have less talent and Pittsburgh may still have money left over to buy more talent.

Given their history…..

how are you going to ensure they pursue the proper talent that will make them more competitive…

and it’s likely that desirable talent, who will have multiple opportunities will prefer to sign elsewhere……

so….to meet the floor, the club will either have to massively overpay for a free agent, or just pay the poor roster they have more…

Unless you are going to force players to sign with Pitt….at a salary mlb sets

When valuable players can't find they next paychecks from the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. because they are cap limited, that will force them to look elsewhere - including Pittsburgh.

[45s]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

Because the Dodgers should have less talent and Pittsburgh may still have money left over to buy more talent.

Given their history…..

how are you going to ensure they pursue the proper talent that will make them more competitive…

and it’s likely that desirable talent, who will have multiple opportunities will prefer to sign elsewhere……

so….to meet the floor, the club will either have to massively overpay for a free agent, or just pay the poor roster they have more…

Unless you are going to force players to sign with Pitt….at a salary mlb sets

When valuable players can't find they next paychecks from the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. because they are cap limited, that will force them to look elsewhere - including Pittsburgh.

I don’t prefer it…but I can live with a cap….

But helll no on a floor imposed by the leagues…

[mattmitchl44]

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

Because the Dodgers should have less talent and Pittsburgh may still have money left over to buy more talent.

Given their history…..

how are you going to ensure they pursue the proper talent that will make them more competitive…

and it’s likely that desirable talent, who will have multiple opportunities will prefer to sign elsewhere……

so….to meet the floor, the club will either have to massively overpay for a free agent, or just pay the poor roster they have more…

Unless you are going to force players to sign with Pitt….at a salary mlb sets

When valuable players can't find they next paychecks from the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. because they are cap limited, that will force them to look elsewhere - including Pittsburgh.

I don’t prefer it…but I can live with a cap….

But helll no on a floor imposed by the leagues…

Why?

[45s]

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

Because the Dodgers should have less talent and Pittsburgh may still have money left over to buy more talent.

Given their history…..

how are you going to ensure they pursue the proper talent that will make them more competitive…

and it’s likely that desirable talent, who will have multiple opportunities will prefer to sign elsewhere……

so….to meet the floor, the club will either have to massively overpay for a free agent, or just pay the poor roster they have more…

Unless you are going to force players to sign with Pitt….at a salary mlb sets

When valuable players can't find they next paychecks from the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. because they are cap limited, that will force them to look elsewhere - including Pittsburgh.

I don’t prefer it…but I can live with a cap….

But helll no on a floor imposed by the leagues…

Why?

Because the consumer can/should control that…

[renostl]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

Apologies for the length.

There isn't a fix for all counter points that can be made on either side of this subject. I'd prefer zero caps
on both the top and the floor and use strategic costs and capitalism to control how teams spend. Entertainment
isn't like other industries.

Most of us would not go to a hospital staffed by all minimum wage employees. Yet that's what gets pushed
on fans when teams promote the next great prospects on us before they are ready. It decreases the product
as much if not more than paying a non-star a couple million.

Making teams that benefit from revenue spend at least a certain factor of that dollar on the roster
doesn't necessitate it be spent on poor players. Poor by MLB standards. It might just mean that teams
like Pittsburgh keeps Skenes, TB keeps Caminero, StL keeps Whetherholt. ID the players you want to keep
and do so. Keep Skenes don't over pay for Hays. Currently teams are supposed to spend 1.5 times what is
received on their team. It's poorly enforced and not necessarily spent on the roster. Currently fans of such
teams are reasonably sure that such players go elsewhere. That imo, isn't good.

Teams should be able to make money when they do smart things, All that they count. They do in the NFL
by providing a better team and still share TV revenue. Better NFL teams do generate far more of a part
of that revenue than the poorer teams. There's the kings of revenue generators are cyclical.

Preferably let MLB teams spend whatever they desire. Currently the 48/52 rule is manipulated by caps
in what is shared along with loopholes in what is considered revenue. The largest being around TV.
Capitalism says teams won't operate at a loss for long. More bite in going over a luxury tax system
that has strategic cost may help. They can buy all they want but there's a strategic cost like
draft picks or something.

Actually sharing all TV revenue, actually having to spend a factor of what is received on the on field
product seems like a place to start a solution. If Bill makes a billion off products like BPV more
power to him. Thinking that Bill will ever compete with TV subscriptions in large markets
is naive. They don't blink at $100 subscriptions and since there is more of them it widens gaps.

[45s]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

I think it is a major contributor to popularity since it established competitive balance.

Tell that to fans of the Browns, Jets, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers, Falcons, Commanders, Raiders, Dolphins, Titans, and even Bears. These teams are more often bad than good.

They are some of the worst ran organizations in professional sports. Some have spent foolishly such as Browns. Some refuse to spend such as Cincy. Everyone you have mentioned has a history of either poor ownership or management or both. Caps and floors can’t fix stupid.

So then a salary cap really doesn't create competitive balance.

It gives smartly run teams the chance to be competitive

So does just being a smartly run team. A cap isn't helping Pitt or Cincy, or the Angels.

If nothing changes about how "smart" they are, Pittsburgh spending $125 million to reach a salary floor will be more competitive against the Dodgers limited by a $250 million cap than the Pirates currently spending $85 million in 2025 against the Dodgers spending $350 million.

if pitts has the same type players....just forced to pay them more.....how does that make them more competitive

Apologies for the length.

There isn't a fix for all counter points that can be made on either side of this subject. I'd prefer zero caps
on both the top and the floor and use strategic costs and capitalism to control how teams spend. Entertainment
isn't like other industries.

Most of us would not go to a hospital staffed by all minimum wage employees. Yet that's what gets pushed
on fans when teams promote the next great prospects on us before they are ready. It decreases the product
as much if not more than paying a non-star a couple million.

Making teams that benefit from revenue spend at least a certain factor of that dollar on the roster
doesn't necessitate it be spent on poor players. Poor by MLB standards. It might just mean that teams
like Pittsburgh keeps Skenes, TB keeps Caminero, StL keeps Whetherholt. ID the players you want to keep
and do so. Keep Skenes don't over pay for Hays. Currently teams are supposed to spend 1.5 times what is
received on their team. It's poorly enforced and not necessarily spent on the roster. Currently fans of such
teams are reasonably sure that such players go elsewhere. That imo, isn't good.

Teams should be able to make money when they do smart things, All that they count. They do in the NFL
by providing a better team and still share TV revenue. Better NFL teams do generate far more of a part
of that revenue than the poorer teams. There's the kings of revenue generators are cyclical.

Preferably let MLB teams spend whatever they desire. Currently the 48/52 rule is manipulated by caps
in what is shared along with loopholes in what is considered revenue. The largest being around TV.
Capitalism says teams won't operate at a loss for long. More bite in going over a luxury tax system
that has strategic cost may help. They can buy all they want but there's a strategic cost like
draft picks or something.

Actually sharing all TV revenue, actually having to spend a factor of what is received on the on field
product seems like a place to start a solution. If Bill makes a billion off products like BPV more
power to him. Thinking that Bill will ever compete with TV subscriptions in large markets
is naive. They don't blink at $100 subscriptions and since there is more of them it widens gaps.

Is that sharing weighted relative to the contribution?

[Cardinals1964]

Is the NFL popular because of their cap system and revenue sharing?

No.

[Cardinals1964]

I understand a floor. But what if good players don’t want to assign with your team? You end up paying guys with less skill, more money.

Without giving this hardly any thought whatsoever because it’s a waste of my time, if they designate a floor. Say $125 million I think anything under $125 million should go to the players association and they can divide it up, however they see fit. Based on time, games played, service time whatever. But don’t force me to pay Siani $20 million so I can make my floor.