I thought about putting this in the salary cap thread, but it's really a separate issue (although I'll defer to a mod's opinion on that - maybe some of those posts belong here, and maybe this belongs there).
How well does revenue sharing work in the NHL? I'll start with an peer-reviewed article just published examining how well revenue sharing works in Major League Baseball:
It's a fascinating read, and my guess is that a lot of the numbers types in here will like it (and that's not a slam - I'm a "numbers type" ) Many of the principles here apply to the NHL, but how? And to what degree?
(Realizing that it's unlikely), I'd like to keep this thread evidence-based if possible.
__________________
http://hockeygoalies.org - promoting goaltender history since 1994. DISCLAIMER: The opinions of Doctor No do not necessarily represent the opinions of goaltenders, actuaries, or mathematicians. Facts cited by Doctor No are not necessarily facts.
Not as well as each team making a profit. But that seems anathema to Buttman. Why else would he fight for years to keep teams out of solid markets Canada in favour of teams in questionable markets in the USA? Ignoring Europe, Russia etc.
I thought about putting this in the salary cap thread, but it's really a separate issue (although I'll defer to a mod's opinion on that - maybe some of those posts belong here, and maybe this belongs there).
How well does revenue sharing work in the NHL? I'll start with an peer-reviewed article just published examining how well revenue sharing works in Major League Baseball:
It's a fascinating read, and my guess is that a lot of the numbers types in here will like it (and that's not a slam - I'm a "numbers type" ) Many of the principles here apply to the NHL, but how? And to what degree?
(Realizing that it's unlikely), I'd like to keep this thread evidence-based if possible.
I thought about putting this in the salary cap thread, but it's really a separate issue (although I'll defer to a mod's opinion on that - maybe some of those posts belong here, and maybe this belongs there).
How well does revenue sharing work in the NHL? I'll start with an peer-reviewed article just published examining how well revenue sharing works in Major League Baseball:
It's a fascinating read, and my guess is that a lot of the numbers types in here will like it (and that's not a slam - I'm a "numbers type" ) Many of the principles here apply to the NHL, but how? And to what degree?
(Realizing that it's unlikely), I'd like to keep this thread evidence-based if possible.
A worthy effort at empirical, fact-based discussion, Doc. Mod: deleted.
While I only scanned over the article, it seems to me that the NHL's revenue sharing mechanism has been positioned to more directly provide varying rewards that motivate the right sort of economic behaviours - specifically, the maximization of self-generated revenues by recipients.
To me, the idea of creating a system that motivates the recipients to spend more on payroll is nothing less than misguided. One of the critical causes of a need for revenue sharing is the escalation of salaries. If you create a system that forces parties to aggressively compete in the player salary market, that exascerbates the very reason why you need revenue sharing in the first place, which then requires additional revenue sharing, which the teams are forced to spend on salaries, etc.
That is a system designed by players, since they would be the primary (sole?) beneficiaries.
Last edited by Fugu: 11-07-2009 at 12:12 PM.
Reason: tisk, tisk
Revenue sharing in the NHL model is something that works. Its laced with incentives to increase attendance and revenue overall which is something that appears to be lacking in baseball. Not to mention, the owners can't just pocket the money as they need to make a payroll floor. In effect though, if spending past the midpoint makes you ineligible it looks like it makes the cap the midpoint for the low revenue teams but its unlikely they'd be spending past that point anyways.
From first glance, looking at what a disaster baseball is despite lots of local revenue sharing, it looks like revenue sharing needs to be part of a salary cap/floor system.
My only thing with revenue sharing is that it really isn't revenue sharing. It's revenue subsidization. If the NHL wanted true revenue sharing, the easiest thing that could be done is that every franchise in the NHL pool all it's resources together - ticket sales, tv revenue, advertising revenue, merchandise revenue, corporate revenue, etc....and once it's been pooled, divide the portion that's to go to the players and then with the rest of the money, divide it amongst the owners. Now, because tax rates are higher in Canada, that should also mean that all owners share in the tax expenses from the revenue. Once that's paid out, everyone SHOULD make some kind of money.
I think the big thing that needs to be stressed is that the NHL doesn't use a revenue sharing system. It uses a revenue subsidy system because large market teams are footing the bill for small market teams that meet certain criteria. Big difference between the two.
My only thing with revenue sharing is that it really isn't revenue sharing. It's revenue subsidization. If the NHL wanted true revenue sharing, the easiest thing that could be done is that every franchise in the NHL pool all it's resources together - ticket sales, tv revenue, advertising revenue, merchandise revenue, corporate revenue, etc....and once it's been pooled, divide the portion that's to go to the players and then with the rest of the money, divide it amongst the owners. Now, because tax rates are higher in Canada, that should also mean that all owners share in the tax expenses from the revenue. Once that's paid out, everyone SHOULD make some kind of money.
I think the big thing that needs to be stressed is that the NHL doesn't use a revenue sharing system. It uses a revenue subsidy system because large market teams are footing the bill for small market teams that meet certain criteria. Big difference between the two.
Call it the NHL welfare clause it is corporate welfare .
How well does revenue sharing work in the NHL? I'll start with an peer-reviewed article just published examining how well revenue sharing works in Major League Baseball:
Part of the difficulty with trying to answer this question is that we don't know how much $ the majority of revenue sharing recipients receive. The most interesting cases are probably teams like Buffalo and San Jose that are receiving less than the maximum allowed revenue sharing allotments.
Whereas the MLB numbers are public info I believe.
Isn't that the article by an undergraduate student which was dismantled by kdb et alia some time ago?
I believe to remember that the author made some severe flaws in the interpretation of the revenue sharing stipulations, but I might be mistaken.
Isn't that the article by an undergraduate student which was dismantled by kdb et alia some time ago?
I believe to remember that the author made some severe flaws in the interpretation of the revenue sharing stipulations, but I might be mistaken.
Perhaps some people attempted to dismantle it, but that doesn't mean their conclusion was peer reviewed, or even accepted here. No disrespect meant. Let's put all the info out there and continue with the analysis now that we've had a couple more years to study.
Edit: in fact, your link has one post that claims there are errors, but nothing that details them fully.
Perhaps some people attempted to dismantle it, but that doesn't mean their conclusion was peer reviewed, or even accepted here. No disrespect meant. Let's put all the info out there and continue with the analysis now that we've had a couple more years to study.
I am not an expert on the editing process of undergrad journals, so what makes you sure that the article provided by you was "peer reviewed"?
I am not an expert on the editing process of undergrad journals, so what makes you sure that the article provided by you was "peer reviewed"?
Nothing. In fact, it probably wasn't.
That said, wouldn't it be better to break down the elements of the revenue subsidy program of the NHL? Doc No asks if revenue sharing works, citing an MLB review.
Maybe we should establish if this indeed is sharing of revenue, transfer/subsidy, etc., and how it differs from the MLB program. Since there's a dearth of NHL-specific papers, this is one that I know exists. (I'm not married to it, but maybe the reference section has some shortcuts.)
I'm more interested in discussing anything and everything relevant to the topic than just proclaiming yes or no and leaving it at that.... ymmv.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessebelanger
Or, perhaps, the larger markets recognizing that their success is to some degree derived by the smaller markets participation in the league.
Perhaps, but there should be measure of it if we're talking degrees...
I'm more interested in discussing anything and everything relevant to the topic than just proclaiming yes or no and leaving it at that.... ymmv.
It doesn't, in fact, so why don't we start our discussion of anything and everything relevant to the topic with the article posted in the OP? It might not be about the NHL, but it provides empirical evidence which on top of that is somewhat contradictional to the common opinion when it comes to revenue sharing.
Or, perhaps, the larger markets recognizing that their success is to some degree derived by the smaller markets participation in the league.
we would need to see some solid money related proof , it seems to me the big markets do not draw well on weaker small market teams so im not sure thats a great indicator in fact it may show why contraction is a good idea as some say .
) Many of the principles here apply to the NHL, but how? And to what degree?
