After reading the annual Forbes article about the value of major league baseball teams, one little factoid stuck in my head. The most profitable team in the majors last year was the San Diego Padres. They had a payroll of $38 million. It was the lowest in baseball. They made a profit of $37 million. They received revenue sharing of $30 million. Additionally, the team that practically invented the method for low-budget team development and another mentioned revenue sharing recipient, the Oakland A's, made a hefty $23 million.
The article also mentions that several other revenue sharing recipients (Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals) made nice profits, but they are also genuinely small-market teams.
My problem isn't with teams making money. My problem isn't with teams pulling a profit at the expense of not paying players. Someone stupid is going to come along and do it, whether they deserve it or not. It is a business. Don't get me wrong. It would be nice if those teams spent the money on players, but it's not like any MLB quality player is going hungry because the Pirates are trying to bank an extra million. I just question why are the Oakland A's, San Diego Padres and even the Florida (soon to be Miami) Marlins recipients of revenue sharing money.
Revenue sharing should be balancing for teams in their ability to generate revenue. To expect Milwaukee and its 39th ranked metropolitan statistical area, or MSA for short (by population), to compete revenue-wise with New York, a market that's approximately 13 times larger, is a ridiculous proposition. However, the Miami MSA is the 7th largest in America. I've heard the stadium issue ad nauseum, and Miami is finally solving it, but is that issue really the big revenue teams' issue? So, is revenue sharing supposedly helping "small market" teams, as that's the term that's been thrown around, or are they helping out teams are are not efficient in capitalizing on their market size? By the same token, Oakland is in the 13th largest market (and if you add the San Jose/Santa Clara MSA which is on their doorstep, it'd be 5th). San Diego is 17th.
It's one thing to help teams that can't legitimately compete due to inequalities in markets, but it's not the big market guys' fault that that the Marlins' owner Jeff Loria can't generate a competitive revenue stream in a market of 5.5 million people.
In the bigger markets' case, the revenue-sharing makes up for fan apathy -- which, of course, can be largely due to franchise mismanagement over a long stretch of time, or other reasons (both Florida franchises should be studies in who does and doesn't go to games and why).
ReplyDeleteNow, I definitely don't think that should be why the revenues are shared w/ certain teams in medium-sized or so markets that just can't draw, but revenue-sharing has never been completely fair, just necessary (to a degree).
In any case, I'm in agreement with you. It just took me until the 3rd paragraph to say it.
When revenue sharing started, the (then named) Anaheim Angels were a recipient, listed as a "small market" team. LA/OC is the 2nd largest market in America. Think their "small market" designation might have more to do with the fact that they were trying to market a retreaded Kelly Gruber and Von Hayes as their "stars". Oh, and Gary Gaetti. Can't forget Gary Gaetti. He was one of the first crippling "bad" free agent contracts. He was getting $3 million per year over three years. Crippled 'em. Damn near crippled 'em.
ReplyDeleteGary Gaetti got some KC Royals money, too, although he was one of their better hitters when he was there, if memory serves.
ReplyDelete