renostl wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 14:21 pm
45s wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 11:11 am
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:58 am
alw80 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:43 am
Jatalk wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:39 am
alw80 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:36 am
Jatalk wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 10:24 am
alw80 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:28 am
Jatalk wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 08:15 am
alw80 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2026 07:05 am
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.