"But if there's going to be contraction, then revenue sharing will be the driving force. At some point the owners of money-making teams (who will consistently be feeding into the revenue-sharing system) will tire of supporting teams that will never turn a profit on their own. The more revenue sharing, the greater the call will be for contraction -- or at the very least "
This also says that in the bigger markets (without meddling and given free market conditions), players could be earning substantially more.
So the CBA, in essence is equalizing the owners playing fields by limiting the earning potential of the players using the weakest market in the union as their earning ceiling.
You can see why the PA has a problem with this.
As for revenue sharing and bigger clubs growing tired. I honestly don't see much of a choice for them, if the commissioner wields a real hammer of the 30 clubs. What is best for all teams is more important than what is best for a few. Houston working out a deal with Yao's Chinese team was as important for the Lakers as it was for the Rockets. Their brand was opened to a new market where consequently the demand for Kobe's jersey was 2nd to Yao's.
The reason this league earns the revenue it does, is because it is considered the BEST in the world. This is why a lot of foreign fans demand this product. Any wilful steps to take away from this image by allowing supporting clubs to errode will do as much damage to the Lakers brand as it will to the market in question.
So regardless of how unfair the owners of the Laker's and Knicks may find revenue sharing, the health of the other clubs is crucial to the marketability of their own product. A perception of weakness due to uncertainty or inferiority in their competition only fouls up their own image by comparing their refined product to an inferior yardstick (who cares if the Knicks or Lakers have the best players in the world, if they play against clubs whose players are a bunch of hacks).
We are really talking 2 of 30 clubs that will be extremely pissed but if the primary objective is what is best for the "majority", than this is a very efficient option for striking equality with the least ruffled feathers. (Scientists would ignore the 2 dots for the favour of 28 if it was a plot on a graph.)
I don't know what the writer is alluding to that "one day" clubs like the LA and NY will grow tired, and do what? Leave the league? Ask for a contraction from owners that hold independent deeds? Whose position in the union also happens to be fundamentally equal? (This makes no sense to me, unless the league is being run by the big clubs due to their revenue intakes, but than if such an imbalance exists, than it is even more paramount for the remaining owners to equalize the playing field.)
In fact, by allowing 2 teams to reap an inordinate share of the leagues revenues it is reminiscent of a bent spoke in the wheel, it will always thwart any attempt at proper equalization and causes future difficulties by adding to the propensity to warp rules over time.
In a free market system, some of these teams need to fold. An economy is healthy when we allow for businesses to both succeed and fail. Failure is very important, by not allowing it, we in essence weaken the competitiveness of the herd. All these rules and caps and protectionism, even for its weakest about to die member can be very detrimental to the league itself.
Funny that in a business where the spotlight is on the fittest and most competitive, the league is trying to adapt a policy that rewards the weakest and the most mismanaged.
Anyway, I think the league needs a better revenue sharing model, but at the same time, there needs to be incentives for those members that are more efficient at running their franchises. IMO revenue sharing should be on a case by case basis. Only handed out to clubs that lack the fundamental conditions for revenue streams. The Clippers should not be getting cheques from the league considering where they are located and how badly they have been run. Donald Sterling should not get the same subsidies as Glen Taylor.
Comment