This Is What's Wrong With The CBACuban, never one to pull punches, pulled out a quote that should've blown the roof off the building: "Cuban, for instance, matter-of-factly told us that a win is only worth about a half million dollars to a team's bottom line, so that rebuilding teams with low salary structures are often the most profitable." This, my friends, is the problem with profit-sharing and salary caps in professional sports. To be more specific, this is the problem with having the "haves" paying into a pool that is then dispersed among the "have-nots" with absolutely no oversight into how the "have-nots" spend that money. Or, to be more accurate, with no insight into how much of that loot greedy owners place directly into their pockets. In the comments, John has had a particular bone to pick with teams owned by publicly traded companies, and their aversion to spending money. I'm not sure they're the true villians in the sport, but let's just take a look at the math. If a team winds up under the luxury tax threshold, they receive 1/30th of the amount paid into the kitty by the teams over the threshold. So passing the threshold not only costs you one dollar in penalty for every dollar over the tax you spend, but you also lose out on that 1/30th share. By my math, last year that 1/30th share was worth $3.08 million. Let's take the Sixers for example this summer. Say they sign Andre Miller and wind up right at the luxury tax threshold. Let's also assume the total amount paid over the threshold league-wide remains constant. Under those circumstances it would cost the Sixers roughly $14M to sign a player to the full mid-level exception. ($5.8M for the contract, $5.8M in luxury tax dollars, plus the $3.08M in lost profit sharing revenue). What are the odds that a player who could be had for the MLE will add 28 wins? According to Cuban's math, that's what he'd have to do in order for the team to break even on the deal. Odds are, the Sixers won't be right up against the cap after re-signing Miller, but I think it's pretty clear at this point that they won't be able to bring him back and sign a full MLE guy as well without heading into LT territory, so here we sit. Our beloved Sixers most-likely unable to add another meaningful piece due to fiscal concerns in a dying economy, when that is precisely what they're going to need to do. At least we have another lockout to look forward to.
Latest Posts• The Truth About Sam • Dei Is Out, Donyell In • 10 Games at a Time • Sixers Preseason Stats • Depressed Fan Field Trip • Sixers Hosed By N.J. • Does This Sound Familiar? • Putting A Bow on the Preseason • Rough Day For Christmas • Anyone In New York? • Sixers Pick Up Three Options • And Then There Were 13SearchBlogs in The NetworkSixers BlogsPassion and Pride Sixers 4 Guidos Liberty Ballers Recliner GM PhillyArena Heard In The Cheap SeatsSilver Dollar Slots | ||||||||||||||
Well - this has been a problem for a while now - the clippers even when they were atrociously bad always in the lottery trading guys away were one of the most, if not the most, profitable team in the league.
The problem (for me) has always been that I always have thought that sports teams should just be like 'toys' for REALLY rich people - and you always want your toy to be better than the other toys - i.e. winning titles - i admire the fact that a guy like Daniel Snyder will spend money (i don't admire that he's a moron who doesn't realize he doesn't know anything) - to me that's how you own a sports team - if you can afford to spend the money - you shouldn't buy (and note I think the NFL prohibits corporate ownership of teams)...
There's no perfectly solutions - personally all salary caps do is protect owners and GMs from their own stupidity - they are the complete OPPOSITE Of competition but in a sports league each team needs the other to survive for the league to survive so there's some propping up.
The problem I think stems from owners who care more about profits and loss than winning titles - and my personal opinion is you shouldn't own a sports team if your number one priority in owning that team isn't winning a title.
Oh and hollinger loves per (and does acknowledge its limitations, ever been to the APBR board?) but he came up with it - ESPN hypes it - and him - so he has to still support it - i'm sure if he could come up with something better - or you did - he'd acknowledge it...L:)
The league should really contract, but they never will.
Do you have any stats on teams owned by corps.?
It's purely anecdotal from my own observations honestly - i never did indepth research. Only teams I ever noticed were the disney owned teams, which were sold quite shortly after they succeeded.
I know comcast owns the flyers - but since they haven't won a title since the 70s:)
FOX and the Dodgers for instance
I think corporate ownership has reduced some recently due to the 'non profitability'. I don't know the corporate owners now compared to 10 years ago.
As for contraction - that's not always a leagues decision - unions get REALLY testy when you put their members out of work.
I don't think contraction is the solution in the NBA not really - bad teams will still be bad teams - smart teams will still win - bad teams need to stop being run by idiots :)