Scott Boras set off a firestorm – like only Scott Boras – when he issued a doctrine about team spending and use of revenue sharing funding. It’s not a new debate, but more pertinent given the timing, at the start of a free agent period when teams may start to reign in payroll, thus cutting into Mr. Boras’ commission checks.
That aside, Jayson Stark wrote an interesting editorial outlining the facts and calling for a salary basement as a resolution, pointing the problem at the lower spending teams, similar to Boras. They both are right, but understanding the problem is one thing, solving it a completely separate story.
The Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs are not the problem here. They play in big markets, maximize revenue to the best of their ability, then reinvest in the product on the field. They also play by the rules, paying a substantial tax on their earnings, similar to the US government taxing the rich more than they tax the poor (or at least that is how its supposed to work). Most people agree it’s the Pirates, Royals, Marlins, et al, who cash the “stimulus” checks, but stash the money in savings that hurt the baseball economy.
Ending revenue sharing is not the answer. Smaller market teams need some of the big market revenue to stay in the game. Its not feasible to think a team in Pittsburgh will earn the same local media revenue, sell as much merchandise, or get the same level of sponsorship as any team in a market with a substantially larger population and healthier economy. It’s just not possible. So some sharing is necessary.
As an aside, the fact the Florida is considered small market is a joke. Look at Miami-Dade County in terms of size, spending power, per capita income, television market, and almost any other statistic relative to Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and others, and explain how Miami is small market. The Marlins problem is management, and the fact that the city will not support a baseball team, and that responsibility falls to MLB to fix or change.
Back on topic. The deeper problem is not that team salaries are low relative to the amount collected from revenue sharing, its that these teams are among the most profitable in baseball. MLB VP of Labor Relations Rob Manfred is correct that player development and team operations is a major expense that the public does not consider when looking at the face value numbers, but those expenses should still go into the P&L, so how do these teams end with a profit?
Salary minimum’s are tough since teams do not to rebuild, may flush money into player development (i.e. future investments), or it could force teams to make poor spending decisions because they are forced to spend. An alternative method is a profit minimum. First, teams need to submit to more transparency with the league office (not necessarily the public). Use projected revenue numbers for the season, including MLB central fund contributions, and do not allocate any revenue sharing money until a small market team exceeds that forecasted number – whether its on player development, team payroll, or organization spending. At that time, teams eligible for revenue sharing can only collect when they have incur an expense. For example, Pittsburgh needs to sign a free agent, then it will receive the revenue sharing money to cover that players salary. Each team can continue to draw from this revolving credit line up to the amount they would receive under the current system.
Anything above that amount, the owners need to fund, similar to today. If they don’t exhaust the funds, then the money goes back into the central fund for redistribution to all teams – NOT into the owners pocket. Sports ownership is not a profitable business annually, owners know that coming in, the big profit comes when you sell a team whose value appreciates.
It’s not perfect, but another idea to put on the table. In the end, the only way to truly satisfy the public and the ancillary stakeholders is with full transparency, which I would not hold my breath waiting for. In this scenario, at least it takes the profit out of the hands of the owners and forces some transparency.