|
Post by Commish_Ron on May 17, 2020 15:11:09 GMT -5
Dug into this one a bit more. National media is already shared evenly. The discrepancies come from local media which appear to be tied to market size, fan loyalty and fan interest. Yankees are the huge outlier on this. The only idea I have would be to manually adjust the media revenue to evenly distribute the media revenues. I have two problems with this. First like I have mentioned several times I am fundamentally adverse to manually altering finances. Second, this would really be the anti Yankee rule. Is it "fair" that one organization has access to a revenue stream no one else does? Maybe not but that it is the way it has always been in PBL and obviously many other teams have been able to overcome this obstacle. Not closing this thread yet as I am willing to listen to other opinions by I am leaning towards not pursuing any changes related to media revenue.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on May 18, 2020 10:15:10 GMT -5
Ben has a really good way of framing issues like this. 1. Is the problem realistic? 2. How much does it make the league less fun? 3. If 1) is true, is the the gain in fun worth the loss in realism? In this case the problem is absolutely realistic. Different markets having different amounts of funding has been the norm since 1900. There's a reason that the Yankees have been a dynasty on and off since forever, and why the Expos/Royals/Brewers have historically struggled. There's a reason why the Yankees, even when struggling, have always had one of the highest budgets. And there's a reason that even when a small-market team is dominant for 10+ years, they only barely crack the top ten budgets. So this is plenty realistic. Is it less fun? Well if revenue disparity is so extreme that people on the bottom have no chance (not saying this is true, just a thought experiment), then yeah, it's less fun. The hard part is that I think that changing media budgets is a fairly tangential approach to the problem. The problem (such as it is) is a product of revenue disparity. Media stream (not to be obvious) is a source of revenue. If we think that revenue disparity is a problem then modifying revenue sharing is a pretty easy way to do it. And more to the point, it's entirely realistic (inasmuch as the MLB has all manner of systems, some more succesful than others, to try and keep revenue disparity from being too problematic). So if we wanted to crank up revenue sharing to achieve this end, that addresses the disparity within realistic confines. But trying to basically edit out media revenue as a competitive advantage (in some form or another) is unrealistic, and only an indirect solution to the fact that the concern is overall revenue, not this subset thereof. If we think revenue disparity is a problem, we should increase revenue sharing. Removing market size as an advantage is definitely more fair. It is also completely contrary to the reality of the sport we're pretending to emulate. My two cents
|
|