But NBA teams do not split local most local revenue, which could give a significant financial edge to teams in big markets. Some players -- such as Indiana's Danny Granger -- have cited that disparity as the reason teams like the Pacers haven't been able to compete at the highest levels.
The owners may not buy that argument, for a variety of reasons.
First off, you'd have a hard time drawing a direct correlation between market size, income and on-court success. No team makes (and spends) more money than the Knicks, and they've been awful for the better part of the last decade. Los Angeles is an enormous market, and the Clippers are arguably the least-successful team in American sports history. Meanwhile, the San Antonio Spurs are the league's model franchise, and the Oklahoma City Thunder are thriving.
Well, they're thriving on the court at least. As Tom Ziller of SBNation points out, the biggest determining factor of a team's financial success seems to be market size; where pure profit is concerned, it's better to be an inept team in Los Angeles than a successful team in San Antonio.
And you wondered why Donald Sterling stays in the business.
Also worth noting: the league does have a form of revenue sharing already in place: the dreaded luxury tax. Of course, the players would almost certainly prefer a more direct form of wealth redistribution -- like the 60-40 home-away split of ticket sales used by the NFL -- over a system designed to punish teams for exceeding certain salary levels.
Thanks for sharing this detailed information with us. It feels like it's a lockdown right now during the virus affecting us. Have a great rest of your day and keep up the posts.
ReplyDeleteGreg Prosmushkin