Revenue Sharing

[finmann]

Based on what you guys are saying.....the owners of smaller market teams are saying ...you are making more money than us and we should get some even although we don't have to work for it. This is so unfair this is not revenue sharing, this is lazy man disease. I don't think this is what the league had in mind when they talked about Revenue sharing.

 

[Muck]

PFT actually has a nice writeup on this.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

 

[finmann]

PFT actually has a nice writeup on this.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Thanks Muck: Good read

 

[rafael]

But why??? Why should the Phins share there LOCAL revenue with other teams. I can understand TV contracts and merchandise etc. But our luxury boxes and local contracts???

Well I'm not in favor of revenue sharing of local contracts but the argument is that the contracts are only available as a by product of the league. Also that, in the long run, the league is better off having a level playing field. Although there is a salary cap, big market teams are free to use the excess revenue to give out bigger signing bonuses which will give them a competitive advantage.

With luxury boxes you have a different argument. Many of these newer stadiums were partially funded by league monies. So the argument is that the league should get a share of the revenues.

IMO local contracts should definately be kept out b/c they are a product of the individual teams work. Luxury boxes is a different can of worms. Is it that different from ticket sales, which are shared? Some teams paid for their own. Some teams used league funds. My guess is that the final compromise will include luxury boxes but exclude local contracts.