Change in NFL revenue sharing? Leagues and Governing Bodies. The days of wealthy NFL clubs subsidizing their lower- revenue brethren are likely nearing an end. That is because clubs bringing in the most revenue are no longer contributing to a long- running fund that was designed to assist teams in need of money to help maintain competitive balance. The pool of money making up the league’s supplemental revenue sharing fund recently passed $1. The revenue transfer is no longer needed because teams are taking a larger share of total league revenue after the 2. The league at the time privately expressed hope that the supplemental revenue sharing program would no longer be necessary at some point during the 1. The prospect of eliminating the program, though not immediately on the horizon, ironically could revive the old debate between high- and low- revenue teams despite the well- documented financial health of the league.“My guess is it will be extinguished,” Joe Ellis, the Denver Broncos’ team president, said leaving the NFL owners meeting last week in Washington, D. C., where the issue was debated. But not all clubs are in favor of such a move and believe the fund should remain. Jim Irsay, owner of the Indianapolis Colts, said there should be a rainy day fund because he is worried about a revenue disparity of nearly double between the top- revenue club and the lowest- revenue club among the league’s 3. He did not name specific franchises.“It is concerning to me when someone is doubling the lowest- revenue team,” he said. That has not always been enough, though, to ensure competitive balance, so the league started the SRS program in the 1. The NFL made $7.24 billion in national revenue last season, according to ESPN's Darren Rovell, meaning each team will take in $226.4 million as part of the league’s revenue sharing program. The financial details reveal the.After the fund was established, it wouldn’t be out of the norm to have a number of high- revenue clubs shifting dollars to the lower quartile of clubs in the league, which would cause friction and even public rebuke from some owners who criticized the business acumen of their league partners. In this time, more than $2. Meanwhile, leading up to the 2. CBA talks, the NFLPA often contended that the real problem in the league was not between owners and players, but was between the rich and poor in the NFL. Changes in the CBA narrowed the financial gap between the clubs. Last year, the second season of the CBA, only three teams qualified for funds from SRS based on a complicated league formula, and this year only one team will qualify and receive between $5 million and $1. With so few teams needing assistance, the SRS pool has exceeded the $1. There is a second funding mechanism, however, for the SRS fund. Club- seat premiums — the fee above the price of a ticket for the club areas — are assessed (unless the team received a league waiver to use the premiums for stadium construction), so the fund will continue to rise. However, that is the issue owners started to discuss at their meeting last week. Why, some asked, keep the fund growing if it is not needed? While the revenue disparity referred to by Irsay still exists, that issue bedeviled the NFL before the 2. CBA only because it threatened the ability of some teams to field competitive teams. That no longer appears to be the case with the changes in labor costs and teams’ ability to spend to the salary cap. Irsay may simply be sending a message not to get too comfortable or to forget the issues of the past, but certainly some owners may question why the league is funding a nine- figure fund that is no longer necessary, with the NFL forecasting a flat to minimally rising salary cap for several more years and lucrative new TV contracts starting next year. MLB's revenue-sharing program prevents large-market teams, like the Yankees and Red Sox, from dominating the league every year. Here's how the program affects. MLB's Revenue-Sharing Formula. Comment; Share; Tweet. In order to combat the growing revenue disparity among major league teams, MLB first instituted a revenue sharing program back in 1996. The plan was slowly phased in over a couple of years, and then was simplified and improved. The NFL's revenue-sharing model is universally lauded as the reason pro football continues to thrive in tiny markets like Green Bay, Wisconsin. The bulk of the league's revenue - approximately $4 billion in 2011 - comes from. Before revenue sharing, the NHL's top 10 revenue generating teams are believed to averaged close to $150-million in revenue the 2010-11 season. The bottom 10 teams are likely closer to $70-million each. Unless the NHL changes its revenue sharing plan in a new CBA, labor peace between the owners and the players will not be resolved in the long run. The Globe and Mail's team brings the. How much revenue sharing should the NHL have?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |