PDA

View Full Version : 280 million per year?



mike wants wins
11-25-2012, 10:02 PM
I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

Do you think this is a threat to the game?

darin617
11-25-2012, 10:23 PM
I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

Do you think this is a threat to the game?

Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.

glunn
11-25-2012, 10:39 PM
I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

Do you think this is a threat to the game?

Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.

Money may not buy championships, but with the coming disparity in TV revenues, the Twins may be outbid in the free agent market even more than before.

minn55441
11-25-2012, 10:41 PM
I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

Do you think this is a threat to the game?

Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.

I agree, you can only play one player at each position. I usually argue on the side of the importance of the team chemistry, the coaches, etc. However, this is just one revenue stream for them. This will ultimately have to be dealt with. The current system is not set up to handle payroll extremes that the current environment can create. Hopefully they can deal with this issue without causing another work stoppage. I would hate to see us miss another season of baseball.

acrozelle
11-25-2012, 11:58 PM
I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

Do you think this is a threat to the game?

Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.

True, but it without a doubt gives them a huge advantage over other teams in the league.

Top Gun
11-26-2012, 12:13 AM
Good players win, poor players lose, so money will win out over all.

beckmt
11-26-2012, 12:35 AM
It still will take good signings or the ability of super big market clubs to pay the luxury tax without worring about the money. It could happen, but hopefully not.

old nurse
11-26-2012, 06:41 AM
The clubs with the large TV contracts would appear to be making the most regular appearances in the playoffs. Many insist the playoffs are a crapshoot. There stands just a great a chance of the big contract teams winning, Yankees, Philies, Rangers, Angeles as the Giants or Rays

Jim Crikket
11-26-2012, 01:23 PM
I believe that in Bud Selig's eutopian world, this is exactly what he wants to have happen. In order to maximixe MLB national revenue, he needs to assure that at least one team from one of the mega-markets (NYC, LA, Chicago) is in the World Series every year.To that end, he would prefer that there be Yankees-like franchises in each of those cities. The Dodgers were not going to reach that potential as long as they had an owner who was using team revenues on personal extravagences.

The problem, of course, is not just the competitive imbalance that results. When you've got more teams willing/able to pay obscene amounts for top players, it eventually drives the market prices (not only free agent prices, but arbitration-awarded salaries) up across the league, forcing everyone to pay inflated salaries. The result will be higher expenses for all teams, which are passed on to fans. It's certainly not difficult to imagine teams like the Twins being soon back in their old situation where they can't even afford to keep their own stars, much less enter the market for other teams' free agents. As has been the case, it just makes it more critical that they have an outstanding development program.

darin617
11-26-2012, 01:44 PM
I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

Do you think this is a threat to the game?

Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.

True, but it without a doubt gives them a huge advantage over other teams in the league.

Don't worry people, New York, Boston and the other larger markets will make sure this is dealt with so they can keep their advantages.

Boom Boom
11-26-2012, 01:49 PM
The Twins could have had more TV revenue but they wouldn't play ball with the cable providers when they launched Victory Sports.

Jim H
11-26-2012, 02:06 PM
I don't know what Bud Selig might want but it would be difficult to impose much of revenue sharing when it comes to local revenues such as the local or regional tv revenues. Clearly, large market teams aren't going to want to share, and it is probably in the best interests of the players for salary caps not to be imposed. Penalities such as luxury taxes really don't address the extreme differences in revenue between the big market teams and small market teams.

Unfortunately, it can be said that baseball does seem to generate more national interest when large market teams such as the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers advance deep in the playoffs. Larger ratings in the playoffs and the World Series help generate larger national TV contracts which benefit all teams. I doubt if we will any big push to change the system, unless things change to the point where small and mediun size market teams almost never make the playoffs.

Teflon
11-26-2012, 02:31 PM
I believe the numbers quoted for the Dodgers TV contract is an average over the 25 years of the proposed contract with Fox. These start at a much lower level, however and escalate over time so the Dodgers wouldn't be starting with $280 million the first year. This is assuming a $7 billion dollar deal which would mean Fox just capitulates to the Dodgers demand. Hopefully, there will be some negotiation involved. Also, any MLB payrolls over $180 million (or thereabouts) get hit with the luxury tax which extracts 40% to 50% of the over-spend and redistributes to the rest of the league.

Still, the Dodgers will have a Yankee-like payroll if they want one, thanks to Fox hoping to become another ESPN. (PS - Fox bought half of YES from the Yankees)

birdwatcher
11-26-2012, 02:33 PM
Gee, with that kind of TV income, I'll bet they reduce ticket prices by 80%, so someone in the median income bracket can afford to go to a few games each year.

YourHouseIsMyHouse
11-26-2012, 02:33 PM
I don't want what Bud Selig wants. This will create further imbalance in the MLB. While I don't necessarily think a salary cap is needed, I think they at least need to keep it within some sort of percentile. California has 5 baseball teams already and now a developing superpower? People on the coasts get everything!

Danchat
11-26-2012, 03:24 PM
If only we could have the nice salary caps and team-friendly contracts like in the NFL....

Rosterman
11-26-2012, 04:07 PM
Salary caps. Shared revenue. What it ultimately means is more money in the ownership pocket. Unless the Dodgers are only spending 50% of that added income on player salaries. It also means being able to pay more for draft picks, and absorb the penalities.

mike wants wins
11-26-2012, 04:37 PM
Shared revenue does not need to mean less money for players....caps do.

For me the issue is an even playing field. And for me, this revenue disparity in local tv deals is going to hurt big time.

TheLeviathan
11-26-2012, 04:55 PM
I've never understood why any league doesn't pool and divide revenue. It takes so much pressure off the individual franchises to support themselves in inferior markets and the reality is that big markets NEED small markets or else there is no league. The NFL's salary cap could be debated, but I've yet to hear a good case for why all media revenues shouldn't be split equally.

Kobs
11-26-2012, 10:30 PM
I think I just read the Dodgers annual tv revenue will grow from $40MM per year, to $280MM per year. There is no way the Twins, or most of baseball, can compete with that revenue imbalance.

Do you think this is a threat to the game?

Money doesn't buy championships. Just look how many the Yankees have won lately.

I know, they have only won 5 of the last 16, not even 1/3!

Kobs
11-26-2012, 10:40 PM
I've never understood why any league doesn't pool and divide revenue. It takes so much pressure off the individual franchises to support themselves in inferior markets and the reality is that big markets NEED small markets or else there is no league. The NFL's salary cap could be debated, but I've yet to hear a good case for why all media revenues shouldn't be split equally.

It wouldn't matter without a national TV deal, which doesn't make sense in the context of the sport. The Yankees can "sign" a TV deal for relatively nothing, they already are well below market price.