![Image](http://i.imgur.com/1QjW7Dz.png)
I wish i could superimpose these to create even more of a shock
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
How are ticket sales split though? In the NFL for example, the teams may look to get an equal revebue distribution from the league, but the ticket sales are a function of the team...so whole team revenue would probably look a lot like F1SectorOne wrote:Here´s a graph with the distribution of cash between PL and F1.
http://i.imgur.com/1QjW7Dz.png
I wish i could superimpose these to create even more of a shock
Aren't some of the major NA leagues a little different because the clubs are essentially owned by the league?bhall II wrote:I don't know anything about the Premier League. But, I do know that the four major North American leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) are all non-profit and use various revenue-sharing models to disburse monies to their constituent teams. Though the systems are different, the gist of each tends to result in an even distribution of league-wide revenues, like national broadcast fees, licensing deals, sponsorships, etc., and a proportional distribution of local revenues, like ticket sales, regional broadcast fees, sponsorships, etc.
The arrangements seem to work pretty well.
As far as I'm aware ticket sales are a club matter only and thus that revenue is a function of the stadium size and club popularity.sgth0mas wrote:
How are ticket sales split though? In the NFL for example, the teams may look to get an equal revebue distribution from the league, but the ticket sales are a function of the team...so whole team revenue would probably look a lot like F1
That makes sense. So some teams will get much more revenue than others jusy like F1.Cold Fussion wrote:Aren't some of the major NA leagues a little different because the clubs are essentially owned by the league?bhall II wrote:I don't know anything about the Premier League. But, I do know that the four major North American leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) are all non-profit and use various revenue-sharing models to disburse monies to their constituent teams. Though the systems are different, the gist of each tends to result in an even distribution of league-wide revenues, like national broadcast fees, licensing deals, sponsorships, etc., and a proportional distribution of local revenues, like ticket sales, regional broadcast fees, sponsorships, etc.
The arrangements seem to work pretty well.
As far as I'm aware ticket sales are a club matter only and thus that revenue is a function of the stadium size and club popularity.sgth0mas wrote:
How are ticket sales split though? In the NFL for example, the teams may look to get an equal revebue distribution from the league, but the ticket sales are a function of the team...so whole team revenue would probably look a lot like F1
Like seemingly everything else we do over here, it's a bit complicated. But, no, in practical terms, each league is owned by its teams.Cold Fussion wrote:Aren't some of the major NA leagues a little different because the clubs are essentially owned by the league?
But that is money earned outside the Premier League payments, just like merchandise or sponsors.sgth0mas wrote:That makes sense. So some teams will get much more revenue than others jusy like F1.
Unless that deal is based on the number of fans a team brings in...SectorOne wrote:But that is money earned outside the Premier League payments, just like merchandise or sponsors.sgth0mas wrote:That makes sense. So some teams will get much more revenue than others jusy like F1.
Big difference to what happens in F1 where teams are given millions simply because they struck a deal with the promoter.
Well let´s hope that´s the case as it would further show how deranged the distribution of money is in the sport.sgth0mas wrote:Unless that deal is based on the number of fans a team brings in...SectorOne wrote:But that is money earned outside the Premier League payments, just like merchandise or sponsors.sgth0mas wrote:That makes sense. So some teams will get much more revenue than others jusy like F1.
Big difference to what happens in F1 where teams are given millions simply because they struck a deal with the promoter.
Citation needed.sgth0mas wrote:Unless that deal is based on the number of fans a team brings in...SectorOne wrote:But that is money earned outside the Premier League payments, just like merchandise or sponsors.sgth0mas wrote:That makes sense. So some teams will get much more revenue than others jusy like F1.
Big difference to what happens in F1 where teams are given millions simply because they struck a deal with the promoter.
Once again. You can´t compare NFL to Formula 1. It´s a completely different structure.sgth0mas wrote:Hang on...youve got this backwards...I dont need to cite anything. Youre the one making the accusations regarding the revenue split. Everyone knows ferrari has the largest fanbase. You need to cite how you know what the distribution is based on, youre the one claiming its wrong.
Im the one that said there is possible rationale behind it, and detailed that even in the NFL the top teams makes more than 10X what the bottom team was. The NFL remains competitive due to the salary cap and draft order...it has nothing to do with money.
If there were home and away races like their are games in other sports...i think we all know ferrari would bring in much more than manor or sauber. This is no different than the cowboys bringing in more than the falcons
What's shady about a transaction that reflects what the market will bear? It happens every day in all walks of life, including the world of sports.SectorOne wrote:we can quickly see that if Ferrari would not be given a bonus or ferrari payment but instead a share of a ticket percentage pay it would be far more realistic and meritocratic in the sense that they´ve actually earned that through the legacy of their brand that they themselves have created.
You can´t even deny such a payment because it´s run by the people who watch F1, not some shady business decision made with CVC and Bernie.
In context, it would be very difficult to make a case that such a label can be applied to any team, because only in an oblique sense do they realize economic gains from each other.Investopedia wrote:Rent-seeking is the use of a company, organization or individual's resources to obtain economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.
The big difference is Messi´s salary is 100% based on current performance.bhall II wrote:What's shady about a transaction that reflects what the market will bear? It happens every day in all walks of life, including the world of sports.
Lionel Messi earns £256,000 per week for FC Barcelona. His teammates earn anywhere from £2,500 to £200,000 per week. In all cases, the salaries reflect what someone was willing to pay, and I don't know that I've ever seen anyone argue that the results are unjust.
Like everyone in the entertainment industry, Messi's salary is a reflection of his drawing power, of which performance is but one aspect. His skills have no value until someone pays to see them.SectorOne wrote:The big difference is Messi´s salary is 100% based on current performance.