Spending Restrictions To Be Addressed In The Next CBA

It would only be relevant to Liberty is if there are contractual limits to spending. We do not know if that is the case unless I've missed something.
 
thethe said:
It would only be relevant to Liberty is if there are contractual limits to spending. We do not know if that is the case unless I've missed something.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. It's still early in the process, but there's been rumblings for some time now that a spending floor be put in place before you can effectively put a cap in place. Assuming the momentum for a worldwide draft continues, it would also help make things for all teams more equitable by tying floors and ceilings to overall revenues as much as possible. Teams that ultimately benefit from the profits gained from the bigger markets could be required to spend at least a large percentage of profits gained from revenue sharing and the national TV/internet/etc. deals directly on player salaries to help make them more competitive.

The Braves' rumored $110 million payroll ceiling isn't in place by chance. The team received $110 million from its share of MLB Advanced Media revenues in 2013, meaning that all other revenues were available to Liberty for other concerns - including profit. If the next CBA required that each team invest its MLBAM share PLUS 25% of their own media rights in player payroll as a floor, that number would suddenly jump to $136 million since the Braves 2013 media rights were ~$103 million. Doing so would still have left the organization well in the black with an operating income of $15.4 million.

http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-23/mlb-team-values.html

http://www.forbes.com/teams/atlanta-braves/
 
clvclv said:
Not necessarily true. It's still early in the process, but there's been rumblings for some time now that a spending floor be put in place before you can effectively put a cap in place. Assuming the momentum for a worldwide draft continues, it would also help make things for all teams more equitable by tying floors and ceilings to overall revenues as much as possible. Teams that ultimately benefit from the profits gained from the bigger markets could be required to spend at least a large percentage of profits gained from revenue sharing and the national TV/internet/etc. deals directly on player salaries to help make them more competitive.

The Braves' rumored $110 million payroll ceiling isn't in place by chance. The team received $110 million from its share of MLB Advanced Media revenues in 2013, meaning that all other revenues were available to Liberty for other concerns - including profit. If the next CBA required that each team invest its MLBAM share PLUS 25% of their own media rights in player payroll as a floor, that number would suddenly jump to $136 million since the Braves 2013 media rights were ~$103 million. Doing so would still have left the organization well in the black with an operating income of $15.4 million.

http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-23/mlb-team-values.html

http://www.forbes.com/teams/atlanta-braves/
Click to expand...

Thanks, mate. Well presented and helpful.
 
The Union has long been opposed to a strict salary floor, seeing it as the flip side of the salary cap coin. Hard to see them moving on that.
 
MadduxFanII said:
The Union has long been opposed to a strict salary floor, seeing it as the flip side of the salary cap coin. Hard to see them moving on that.
Click to expand...

True. However, that's beginning to change (and change quickly) given the recent Cuban signings and change in that entire situation. Not only are fans (and management teams) of everyone other than the big-market clubs screaming about the current situation where only the richest of the rich are going to get a shot at a Moncada, the players are beginning to grumble pretty loudly too. I've seen more than my fair share of quotes from players (Jackie Bradley Jr. among them as a matter of fact) talking about how the current system slights players who are subjected to the draft - that they feel they should be given the opportunity to negotiate with all 30 teams to establish - and get - their true market value before signing if the international players are going to continue to get that opportunity.

I agree that the "floor" isn't likely to be a hard number like $90 million, but could see it becoming a percentage of revenues as I mentioned above. Putting a specific number on that floor could completely cripple smaller market teams, but the big market clubs are absolutely right to demand certain benefits for insuring those teams' profits year in and year out through revenue sharing. We'll never see a true level playing field UNTIL the smaller markets that have been sucking profits from the Yankees/Red Sox/Dodgers are required to invest a percentage of that money in the product they put on the field rather than having the owners stuff it in their pockets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top