CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

World Series time! Enjoy Premium-level access to most features through the end of the Series!

Articles Tagged Revenue 

Search BP Articles

All Blogs (including podcasts)

Active Columns

Authors

Article Types

Archives

07-13

comment icon

1

The BP Wayback Machine: A Good Deal... but Not a Great One
by
Keith Law

03-05

comment icon

7

Bizball: Baseball Cashes in with Expanded Playoffs
by
Maury Brown

02-07

comment icon

11

The Payoff Pitch: Whose Money Is It, Anyway?
by
Neil deMause

11-16

comment icon

3

Prospectus Q&A: J.C. Bradbury, Part I
by
David Laurila

08-26

comment icon

35

Prospectus Perspective: Acting Like Thieves or Rational Agents?
by
Matt Swartz

08-12

comment icon

3

Squawking Baseball: Do New Owners Spend More?
by
Shawn Hoffman

08-20

comment icon

57

The Biz Beat: A New Way to Rank the GMs
by
Shawn Hoffman

08-12

comment icon

30

The Biz Beat: A Revenue-Sharing Re-Think
by
Shawn Hoffman

06-04

comment icon

14

The Biz Beat: 21st Century Labor Issues
by
Shawn Hoffman

05-21

comment icon

11

The Biz Beat: Conceiving a New Contract
by
Shawn Hoffman

01-22

comment icon

7

Cut Out
by
Shawn Hoffman

06-27

comment icon

0

The Big Picture: Competitive Sharing
by
David Pinto

05-17

comment icon

0

Schrodinger's Bat: Organized Common Sense
by
Dan Fox

04-30

comment icon

0

The Ledger Domain: Q&A with Vince Gennaro
by
Maury Brown

04-25

comment icon

0

The Ledger Domain: A Look Inside Forbes' MLB Franchise Valuations
by
Maury Brown

11-06

comment icon

0

The Ledger Domain: A Look at the New Collective Bargaining Agreement: Luxury Tax, and Minimum Payroll
by
Maury Brown

11-03

comment icon

0

On the Margins
by
Neil deMause

10-30

comment icon

0

The Ledger Domain: The New Collective Bargaining Agreement - Revenue Sharing
by
Maury Brown

07-07

comment icon

0

Schrodinger's Bat: Thinking and Rethinking: Part 2
by
Dan Fox

02-16

comment icon

0

Bronx Bummer
by
Neil deMause

01-31

comment icon

0

Amazin' Mail
by
Neil deMause

08-01

comment icon

0

The Evil Empire Strikes Back
by
Neil deMause

05-05

comment icon

0

The Return of Swamp Thing
by
Neil deMause

08-16

comment icon

0

Bridging the Gap
by
Doug Pappas

08-15

comment icon

0

The Zumsteg Plan
by
Derek Zumsteg

08-07

comment icon

0

The Daily Prospectus: Optimism
by
Joe Sheehan

04-18

comment icon

0

Prospectus Feature: Sensible Revenue Sharing: One Man's Plan
by
Keith Woolner

04-18

comment icon

0

Sensible Revenue Sharing
by
Keith Woolner

04-03

comment icon

0

Prospectus Feature: The Numbers (Part Eight): MLB vs. Forbes
by
Doug Pappas

03-28

comment icon

0

The Daily Prospectus: Truth
by
Joe Sheehan

03-28

comment icon

0

The Daily Prospectus: Truth
by
Joe Sheehan

03-20

comment icon

0

March Madness
by
Doug Pappas

03-20

comment icon

0

March Madness
by
Doug Pappas

03-06

comment icon

0

The Daily Prospectus: The Daily Prospectus: MLB v. NFL
by
Joe Sheehan

03-06

comment icon

0

The Daily Prospectus: MLB v. NFL
by
Joe Sheehan

02-19

comment icon

0

The Daily Prospectus: Salary Cap
by
Joe Sheehan

02-04

comment icon

0

The Numbers (Part Six)
by
Doug Pappas

01-30

comment icon

0

The Daily Prospectus: Revenue Sharing
by
Joe Sheehan

12-20

comment icon

0

The Numbers (Part Three)
by
Doug Pappas

<< Previous Tag Entries Next Tag Entries >>

Dan reviews J.C. Bradbury's new book.

"[Economics] is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique of thinking which helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions."
--John Maynard Keynes, as quoted in the introduction to J.C. Bradbury's The Baseball Economist: The Real Game Exposed


Read the full article...

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

April 30, 2007 12:00 am

The Ledger Domain: Q&A with Vince Gennaro

0

Maury Brown

Maury chats with Vince Gennaro, a former consultant to MLB clubs and author of Diamond Dollars.

When Michael Lewis wrote Moneyball, a larger audience became aware of Doug Pappas and his groundbreaking metric, Marginal Payroll/Marginal Wins, published here at Baseball Prospectus. The metric placed an economic value on how much a club was spending to earn wins, and how much a club was spending in the overall in terms of marginal payroll. It placed the value of a win into perspective, and was seen as a way for clubs to better valuate how they spent, not how much they spent.

The rest of this article is restricted to Baseball Prospectus Subscribers.

Not a subscriber?

Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get access to the best baseball content on the web.


Cancel anytime.


That's a 33% savings over the monthly price!


That's a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

Who do you believe--Forbes Magazine, or the teams that invariably state the numbers are pure fiction? Maury has the details on the finances of major league clubs.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

How is the luxury tax changing in the new CBA, and what will clubs be able to do with money received? Maury's latest article on what the CBA means for baseball.

Today, I'll look at two more pieces of the CBA puzzle that are designed in place to bolster better competitive balance. As I previously noted, this look at the CBA comes without a ratified CBA in hand. You can guarantee that BP will be going over the finalized agreement with a fine-tooth comb, once it is made public.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

November 3, 2006 12:00 am

On the Margins

0

Neil deMause

Now that some of the details of the new CBA are coming to light, Neil's able to look at a few of the finer points of how teams will now receive and spend money.

For anyone trying to analyze the new deal, though, the way it was announced was less revolutionary. All that MLB and the MLBPA signed last week was a "memorandum of understanding" sketching out the broad strokes of the deal--and what was released to the press was even less than that, effectively a summary of a summary. As a result, most of the reporting thus far has necessarily been a mix of incomplete facts, rumor, and guesswork. Maury Brown began to untangle the CBA's new revenue-sharing rules on Monday. My job today is to take a deeper look at some of the implications of the new system for how teams will actually be receiving--and spending--money.

First off, a quick recap of the rule changes, as we understand them so far. Under the old system, as Maury explained, revenue sharing consisted of two separate pieces: A "straight pool" that skimmed off 34% of every team's revenues and divided equally among all 30 teams, and a "split pool" that was levied only on the top-revenue teams and redistributed to the lowest-revenue ones. (This two-headed system was a compromise put into place during the last labor talks in 2002, when the owners wanted a straight-pool plan, and the players a split one.) The overall effect was that several hundred million dollars a year was shuffled around, mostly from the rich teams to the less-rich, but with the odd effect that teams at the top of the economic ladder actually got to keep a bit more of each dollar of new revenue (giving up 39%) than those at the bottom (who gave up 47%).

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

Maury begins a savage journey to the heart of the new CBA by tackling how revenue sharing will look from 2007 on.

The CBA hasn't been ratified yet, and what has been released about it doesn't show the details that the final version will. Still, researching and interviewing several sources that have seen the details has painted a pretty clear picture.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

July 7, 2006 12:00 am

Schrodinger's Bat: Thinking and Rethinking: Part 2

0

Dan Fox

Dan concludes his recap of the SABR convention, and corrects some issues from last week's column.

In Part 1 of this two-part column we looked at three interesting research presentations given at the 36th annual SABR convention. In review, those included a study evaluating managers by Chris Jaffe, a look at the performance of players in the "walk year" of their contract by Phil Birnbaum, and Sean Forman's quantitative look at a catcher's ability to stop wild pitches and passed balls.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

February 16, 2006 12:00 am

Bronx Bummer

0

Neil deMause

Neil deMause responds to Andrew Zimbalist and the Yankee Stadium financing debate.

Now that Zimbalist has issued his rebuttal, though, I'm glad for the opportunity to get to the bottom of the question of just who'd be paying the $1.8 billion tab to replace Yankee and Shea Stadiums. As I've been stressing for months now, it's not as straightforward a question as it sounds, what with the current craze for financing agreements that are more complex than the save rule.

As Zimbalist correctly observed on BP Radio, I'm a journalist, not an economist--though I do consult with economists and other sports business experts on a regular basis, to check both my reasoning and my Excel skills. That said, he's an economist, not a journalist, and may not have all the information on the nuances of the New York stadium deals. So I've spent the last couple of weeks digging through the public record, and the not-so-public record, to clear up the facts of the matter. The result is going to take a bit to explain and will delve in places into economic minutiae, but try to keep your eyes from glazing over for just the next few minutes--this is worth getting right, not just for the sake of New York taxpayers, but because it's an excellent lesson in the difficulties of ferreting out the true costs of modern stadium deals.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

January 31, 2006 12:00 am

Amazin' Mail

0

Neil deMause

Neil deMause responds to some reader mail generated by his column on the proposed Mets stadium.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

If there's one thing George Steinbrenner has always been good at, it's hiding his money. Whether it's starting his own cable network to keep his broadcast revenue out of the reach of his fellow owners, as he did in 2002, or paying himself a "consulting fee" to negotiate his own cable contract, as he did in the 1980s, The Boss has always been at the cutting edge of creative accounting, helping him evade attempts by fellow owners to force him to share the bounty that comes from operating the most lucrative franchise in baseball. With his recently revealed plan to build a new $750 million stadium in the Bronx, though, Steinbrenner may have hit upon the biggest scam of his life.

With his recently revealed plan to build a new $750 million stadium in the Bronx, though, Steinbrenner may have hit upon the biggest scam of his life. If the early reports of the plan to tear down the House That Reggie Remodeled and replace it with a new one across the street are accurate, Steinbrenner looks to have figured out a way to build a new playpen for the Yankees, replete with extra luxury suites and food courts and all the other gewgaws that he's been slavering after for decades...and force baseball's other 29 teams to pay nearly half the cost.

(We now pause for Larry Lucchino's head to explode.)

Read the full article...

This is a BP Premium article. To read it, sign up for Premium today!

May 5, 2004 12:00 am

The Return of Swamp Thing

0

Neil deMause

Leaving aside whether anyone should take seriously statements made by the guy who said he was moving the White Sox to Tampa, on the face of it the idea is a no-brainer. In terms of market size, the New York metro area is mind-bogglingly huge, dwarfing every other market in American baseball. Even splitting the market in half (OK, more like 65/35) the Yankees and Mets each have enough TV-rights firepower to blow away the rest of the league at free-agent time. You could put a team in Jersey and three more in Brooklyn, and each of the six area franchises would still have a larger populace to draw on than the likes of Milwaukee or Cincinnati.

"It's gone from something I didn't think was possible to something that actually could happen," Zoffinger told the Newark Star-Ledger. "Jerry Reinsdorf told me that baseball is interested in the Meadowlands because we are building a family entertainment center and bringing mass transit to the site."

Leaving aside whether anyone should take seriously statements made by the guy who said he was moving the White Sox to Tampa, on the face of it the idea is a no-brainer. In terms of market size, the New York metro area is mind-bogglingly huge, dwarfing every other market in American baseball. Even splitting the market in half (OK, more like 65/35) the Yankees and Mets each have enough TV-rights firepower to blow away the rest of the league at free-agent time. You could put a team in Jersey and three more in Brooklyn, and each of the six area franchises would still have a larger populace to draw on than the likes of Milwaukee or Cincinnati.

The remainder of this post cannot be viewed at this subscription level. Please click here to subscribe.

August 16, 2002 12:00 am

Bridging the Gap

0

Doug Pappas

The owners' current offer calls for all clubs to share 50% of their local revenues, and for high-payroll clubs to pay an additional "luxury tax" of 50% on the portion of payrolls over $98 million. The players oppose the luxury tax and have proposed revenue sharing at a level of 22.5%, with a higher percentage of the shared money going to the lower-revenue clubs.

If, as the owners insist, the combination of revenue sharing and a luxury tax is necessary to improve competitive balance, then a key question to ask is whether their proposal will actually improve competitive balance. It won't. A fundamental flaw in the owners' revenue sharing formula almost guarantees that if adopted, it would increase the number of teams that "can't compete."

Read the full article...

<< Previous Tag Entries Next Tag Entries >>