Originally Posted by IslandRed
Revenue sharing, not the salary cap, is why the NFL has had competitive balance all along. Revenue sharing is why the Green Bay Packers still exist.
That's half right----but the salary cap is the other half of the equation.
The L.A. Times had an interesting article regarding the players' relations with various leagues. The thesis, advanced by a number of 'experts' (labor consultants, sports marketing professors and sports business analysts) is that where players form a 'partnership' with owners not only do the players and owners prosper but so does the game.
From the L. A. Times, 2/5/05:
"....sports business analysts say the landscape has shifted.
From a sustainable business model, there's a key partnership that has to be forged....There's a feeling that ownership would like to have some cost certainity and would be willing to reward players for building the business.
The example....(they)....point to is the NFL.
The league has a so-called 'hard' cap that prohibits teams from spending more than approximately 64% of defined gross revenues, or money from radio, television or gate.
Players agreed to that upper limit because they received a 'floor' that forces teams to spend at least 56% of revenues on payroll. This guarantees the players a slice of ever-expanding broadcast dollars."
Baseball, so far, has not formed that partnership though the NHL is the poster child for lack of agreement at this time.