PDA

View Full Version : Why do owners need 50-50 split to ensure profits?



beasted86
10-22-2011, 05:01 PM
The NHL is a $3 Billion dollar league and gives players a 57% share, the MLB is a $7.2 Billion dollar league and gives players a 51% share. So what is it about the NBA outside of the players' pay that makes the economics of a 50/50 deal the only reasonable solution?

Does anyone know how much the average coach makes in the those leagues in comparison to the NBA? I honestly don't know, maybe it plays a factor. Do fans buy more at concession stands at baseball and hockey games than basketball games? Cheerleader salaries? :shrug:

Might sound like I'm joking, but I just wonder what the difference is and why reporters aren't asking these questions.

Wade>You
10-22-2011, 05:31 PM
Don't the owners also take like $300mil or $600mil off the top before splitting the BRI?

Anyway, I'd have to say that part of the reason is there are quite a few hardline owners that are going to sell their franchises once this lockout is over.

heyman321
10-22-2011, 05:37 PM
Dey turk our jerbs!

Lord Leoshes
10-22-2011, 05:50 PM
Some of these franchises should sell their teams back to the NBA, & have them disband, & have a lotto to pick up the quality players left without a team.

Start of with all the teams who's owners care more about money then their NBA Franchise. :facepalm:

Tony_Starks
10-22-2011, 06:26 PM
they don't.

IndyRealist
10-22-2011, 06:46 PM
They don't. 50/50 is an easy sell to the public, is all. "Hey we're willing to give you HALF and make you equal partners, why are you asking for more?"

mrblisterdundee
10-22-2011, 06:57 PM
I see you failed to mention the NFL, the representative of America's national sport and its biggest money-maker. Various owners need the even split more than others. Read the article on NFL Lockout 2011 (http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/18/2000707/nfl-lockout-cba-2011-revenue-sharing). Owners take all the risk and hold all the cards. Players are nothing more than tools to be used and thrown out when too worn.
Don't expect it to be any different. The owners will come out on top, because players can't recreate the NBA before their playing careers are over.

beasted86
10-22-2011, 07:29 PM
I see you failed to mention the NFL, the representative of America's national sport and its biggest money-maker. Various owners need the even split more than others. Read the article on NFL Lockout 2011 (http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/18/2000707/nfl-lockout-cba-2011-revenue-sharing). Owners take all the risk and hold all the cards. Players are nothing more than tools to be used and thrown out when too worn.
Don't expect it to be any different. The owners will come out on top, because players can't recreate the NBA before their playing careers are over.

NFL has been giving 54-59% to players over the past how many decades with no teams complaining about losing money. They recently agreed to receive a bracket 46.5-48% of $9 billion total revenue, but even still when players were making 54-59% nobody was losing money... so what's your point?

I excluded the NFL because we've never heard of teams losing money there. In the MLB and NHL over time there have been a couple teams complaining about losing money and owners having to sell the team and cut losses... but even with that history, both of those leagues pay more to their players than the NBA is currently willing to pay to it's players.

And I don't expect the players to win anything. From the start all they have offered is to take less money. But this is not asking about what each side "wants" ... I'm asking more out of "need". The NBA seems to be making a hard line stance that they think 50% is the highest they can go to survive the next 10 years, as though they "need" 50/50 or else the NBA will continue to have teams lose money. Why is it seemingly that operating expenses are so much higher in the NBA than other leagues?

justinnum1
10-22-2011, 08:55 PM
The owners of small market teams/bad teams need it.

Bramaca
10-22-2011, 08:59 PM
I excluded the NFL because we've never heard of teams losing money there. In the MLB and NHL over time there have been a couple teams complaining about losing money and owners having to sell the team and cut losses... but even with that history, both of those leagues pay more to their players than the NBA is currently willing to pay to it's players.

And I don't expect the players to win anything. From the start all they have offered is to take less money. But this is not asking about what each side "wants" ... I'm asking more out of "need". The NBA seems to be making a hard line stance that they think 50% is the highest they can go to survive the next 10 years, as though they "need" 50/50 or else the NBA will continue to have teams lose money. Why is it seemingly that operating expenses are so much higher in the NBA than other leagues?

Operating costs in the NBA aren't really any higher then other leagues. If you go by Forbes numbers (its the best we have) the average NBA team spent 47 million in operating costs while the average MLB team spent 78 million, about 66% more. Now when you consider expenses such as travel, scouting, coaching, and arena cost would only be marginally higher between the two leagues (necesary costs) I would guess the difference in operating expenses would be made up mostly of marketing cost and extra pampering of players. These costs are easier to cut if necesary. A league that makes 80-90% more revenue for basically doing the same thing has a lot more flexability in their expenses.

The NHL on the other hand still has over half their teams losing money which is why they relocated a team this summer and may have to move more in the near future. Their deal is very similar to the one the NBA was operating under. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL's owners looked at dropping the % even more in future deals. The reason they probably agreed to the 57% during the last lockout is because it was a hell of a lot better the then the 70+ % they were paying previously to players.

BigCityofDreams
10-22-2011, 11:11 PM
Operating costs in the NBA aren't really any higher then other leagues. If you go by Forbes numbers (its the best we have) the average NBA team spent 47 million in operating costs while the average MLB team spent 78 million, about 66% more. Now when you consider expenses such as travel, scouting, coaching, and arena cost would only be marginally higher between the two leagues (necesary costs) I would guess the difference in operating expenses would be made up mostly of marketing cost and extra pampering of players. These costs are easier to cut if necesary. A league that makes 80-90% more revenue for basically doing the same thing has a lot more flexability in their expenses.

The NHL on the other hand still has over half their teams losing money which is why they relocated a team this summer and may have to move more in the near future. Their deal is very similar to the one the NBA was operating under. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL's owners looked at dropping the % even more in future deals. The reason they probably agreed to the 57% during the last lockout is because it was a hell of a lot better the then the 70+ % they were paying previously to players.

But I thought the NHL deal saved the NHL and the NBA needed to adopt that model? At least that's what everyone says.

beasted86
10-22-2011, 11:49 PM
Operating costs in the NBA aren't really any higher then other leagues. If you go by Forbes numbers (its the best we have) the average NBA team spent 47 million in operating costs while the average MLB team spent 78 million, about 66% more. Now when you consider expenses such as travel, scouting, coaching, and arena cost would only be marginally higher between the two leagues (necesary costs) I would guess the difference in operating expenses would be made up mostly of marketing cost and extra pampering of players. These costs are easier to cut if necesary. A league that makes 80-90% more revenue for basically doing the same thing has a lot more flexability in their expenses.

The NHL on the other hand still has over half their teams losing money which is why they relocated a team this summer and may have to move more in the near future. Their deal is very similar to the one the NBA was operating under. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL's owners looked at dropping the % even more in future deals. The reason they probably agreed to the 57% during the last lockout is because it was a hell of a lot better the then the 70+ % they were paying previously to players.

Operating costs in the MLB will always be highest because major league teams fund minor league teams, and whatever revenue the minor league teams generate stay in the minors to pay salaries (yeah, backwards). I think they said the average MLB team spends $100M a year on minor league teams.

As for the NHL, I honestly know the least about hockey and what is going on in their league other than salary structure. But, yeah... see the post above this one. Looks like the NBA needs to think hard about what they actually do need, because as a fan I don't want to see another lockout in my lifetime. Come to an agreement on a deal that's fair for both sides so neither one is just itching for the first chance to opt out and complain. I've seen 2 lockouts already... and independent of the economics, I've seen the league make rule changes to water down this sport. This sport seems to be headed for a slow painful decline.

Bramaca
10-22-2011, 11:51 PM
But I thought the NHL deal saved the NHL and the NBA needed to adopt that model? At least that's what everyone says.

It did save the NHL to a certain extent. The hard cap has brought a certain amount of parity to the league and they brought down players salaries enough that most teams can operate relatively close to break even. That doesn't mean that there aren't still problems though. There are some loopholes that I'm sure the league will try to work out in a future CBA and I'm sure the owners would have liked to get the hard cap lower to somewhere between 45-50% but I think they were glad to get it down to 57 from 70+.

Bramaca
10-23-2011, 12:02 AM
Operating costs in the MLB will always be highest because major league teams fund minor league teams, and whatever revenue the minor league teams generate stay in the minors to pay salaries (yeah, backwards). I think they said the average MLB team spends $100M a year on minor league teams.

Operating costs are higher in the MLB sure but I think the 100 million a year is quite high. But when a team has 240 million in revenue and pays 51% for players they can afford a lot more in terms of expenses then a team making 130 million a year and paying 57% for players. Even if you bring the nba's salary down to 50% expenses will still have to be watched more closely then an MLB team that makes close to 100 million more.

Bramaca
10-23-2011, 12:18 AM
Most minor league teams are owned and operated by independant owners so the expenses mlb teams are responsible for are player salaries and player developement which on average is about 20 million a season (according to what I found on a couple sites).

Kevj77
10-23-2011, 01:04 AM
I see you failed to mention the NFL, the representative of America's national sport and its biggest money-maker. Various owners need the even split more than others. Read the article on NFL Lockout 2011 (http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/18/2000707/nfl-lockout-cba-2011-revenue-sharing). Owners take all the risk and hold all the cards. Players are nothing more than tools to be used and thrown out when too worn.
Don't expect it to be any different. The owners will come out on top, because players can't recreate the NBA before their playing careers are over.Player can't just be thrown out that is 100% false. You can't replace them that easily. I remember scab football in 1987 it was ugly and fans stayed away ratings sucked. You can't rebuild fan goodwill after a work stoppage without the players like it or not they are the product not the owners.


There are sparse crowds and heavy picketing. Average attendance for the 13 games is 16,987, off significantly from the 90 percent of capacity of last season and the first two games this year. Fewer than 5,000 fans attend games in Philadelphia and in the Silverdome in Pontiac, Mich. In Philadelphia, a convoy of horn-honking trucks, driven by teamsters, circles Veterans Stadium in sympathy with the strikers.That is from an article on ESPN classic NFL teams using scab players averaged around 17,000 in attendance some as low as 5,000 fans. The season before and the first two games of the season stadiums were at 90% capacity. Fans also came back when the real players did.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/news/story?page=moment011004_nfl_strike_scabs

Kevj77
10-23-2011, 01:09 AM
Also every team in the NFL was profitable from what I heard just some teams thought they should be more profitable. The NFL wasn't considering total changes to the system only the revenue split. That is why neither side was willing to lose any paychecks. The players gave up some money and we got a full season.