 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Which sports league functions the best?
sycophantman
Which of the major, or perhaps not so major sports, is the best run business?
I was pondering this morning how badly unbalanced the NBA seems to be, with the players having far too much power. In comparison to the NFL, which seems to have just the opposite problem, the owners hold all the cards and regularly crush the players union. Which sport do you think has the best balance between the two sides, and why? I'd also love to hear thoughts on economic system strengths and weaknesses...
[Edited on 1/30/2009 by sycophantman]
Which sports league functions the best?
January 30, 2009 at 12:50PM View BBCode
How about we get a new topic going, and the topic is this.Which of the major, or perhaps not so major sports, is the best run business?
I was pondering this morning how badly unbalanced the NBA seems to be, with the players having far too much power. In comparison to the NFL, which seems to have just the opposite problem, the owners hold all the cards and regularly crush the players union. Which sport do you think has the best balance between the two sides, and why? I'd also love to hear thoughts on economic system strengths and weaknesses...
[Edited on 1/30/2009 by sycophantman]
happy
January 30, 2009 at 05:54PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
did you guys hear Justice and Doc K were juiced?
Jughead
MLS seems to be doing OK. I think when a league gets too big that one side invariably is going to have too much power.
January 30, 2009 at 05:56PM View BBCode
I would have said the arena league, but I guess not now.MLS seems to be doing OK. I think when a league gets too big that one side invariably is going to have too much power.
whiskybear
January 30, 2009 at 05:56PM View BBCode
The NFL has the best brand. I could care less about imbalances between the player's union and owners.
Cubsfan13
A lot of the players in MLS get paid less than $40K, and a lot of contracts aren't guaranteed. Their current CBA is awful, from the players perspective. It runs out after next season, so hopefully they significantly increase the salary cap and minimum salaries.
January 30, 2009 at 06:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Jughead
I would have said the arena league, but I guess not now.
MLS seems to be doing OK. I think when a league gets too big that one side invariably is going to have too much power.
A lot of the players in MLS get paid less than $40K, and a lot of contracts aren't guaranteed. Their current CBA is awful, from the players perspective. It runs out after next season, so hopefully they significantly increase the salary cap and minimum salaries.
Jughead
January 30, 2009 at 06:47PM View BBCode
How are they going to pay for it? I don't think MLS franchise owners are making money hand over fist. I was looking for the league with the best balance.
Cubsfan13
edit: I guess it was balanced before, when everyone was getting fucked. But now that teams have started making money, but the CBA from before hasn't expired, the average players (non designated players) are sort of getting screwed.
[Edited on 1-30-2009 by Cubsfan13]
January 30, 2009 at 06:58PM View BBCode
Teams have just started making money, and the owners of the new teams now have to pay a pretty big fee to enter the league (something like $40M). Even with an increased salary cap, you're talking about something like $1M-$2M more a year, if that. So they're making sure the owners are committed...and basically paving the way for increased salaries. As it is now, a lot of the second tier players go to play in places like Denmark, where the leagues aren't necessarily great, but players that would be making $40-50K a year here make $250-300K.edit: I guess it was balanced before, when everyone was getting fucked. But now that teams have started making money, but the CBA from before hasn't expired, the average players (non designated players) are sort of getting screwed.
[Edited on 1-30-2009 by Cubsfan13]
Hamilton2
First of all, you have league shared revenue. This serves to maintain a semblance of competitive balance at all times. Additionally, it isn't 100% shared, so the better teams still do better while poorly run franchises suffer (as it should be).
Also, the competitive balance is close enough to keep fans in all 32 cities interested (hello, Phoenix!) and yet the league definitely has certain "brands" that are more nationally recognized/successful (Cowboys, Steelers, Dolphins, Packers to name a few). This combination of local and national appeal ensures fan support for decades to come.
Players have a strong voice, just as owners do. Remember that the NFL ties player salaries to league revenue, giving both owners and players an incentive to better the NFL, not just look out for themselves (not that they all do that ...).
Furthermore, the NFL has overwhelmed the TV and internet markets, which is the future of broadcast media. Other sports are far behind when it comes to establishing long-term, healthy business relationships, which is a huge key to corporate success.
In short, the NFL stands head and shoulders above every other professional sports league, and I don't really understand how anyone can argue otherwise.
January 30, 2009 at 07:27PM View BBCode
The NFL is far and away the best run business of any major sport. It isn't even close really.First of all, you have league shared revenue. This serves to maintain a semblance of competitive balance at all times. Additionally, it isn't 100% shared, so the better teams still do better while poorly run franchises suffer (as it should be).
Also, the competitive balance is close enough to keep fans in all 32 cities interested (hello, Phoenix!) and yet the league definitely has certain "brands" that are more nationally recognized/successful (Cowboys, Steelers, Dolphins, Packers to name a few). This combination of local and national appeal ensures fan support for decades to come.
Players have a strong voice, just as owners do. Remember that the NFL ties player salaries to league revenue, giving both owners and players an incentive to better the NFL, not just look out for themselves (not that they all do that ...).
Furthermore, the NFL has overwhelmed the TV and internet markets, which is the future of broadcast media. Other sports are far behind when it comes to establishing long-term, healthy business relationships, which is a huge key to corporate success.
In short, the NFL stands head and shoulders above every other professional sports league, and I don't really understand how anyone can argue otherwise.
FuriousGiorge
January 30, 2009 at 07:48PM View BBCode
The deal that the NFLPA has with the league sucks, and they know it. That deal expires after the 2010 season (and 2010 would be uncapped if nothing is done between now and then). In addition, retirees are treated like censored by everyone involved, and their voice is getting louder and more adamant. Does any of this stuff matter to us? Well, it will if armageddon hits and the players end up getting locked out. Right now, they're not anywhere close to coming up with a new agreement. And no matter whether you care about all this stuff or not, the way the NFL treats former players is criminal, and they've been able to get away with it because everyone loves the NFL, they make a censored -ton of money, and no one is willing to rock the boat.
happy
January 30, 2009 at 08:30PM View BBCode
Most people drafted with the top picks end up getting paid more than the top players at their position. 2nd round picks end up being worth more than 1st rounders oftentimes. They should just get rid of the draft and let teams sign players as free agents.
FuriousGiorge
Awesome.
January 30, 2009 at 08:34PM View BBCode
Most people drafted with the top picks end up getting paid more than the top players at their position.
They should just get rid of the draft and let teams sign players as free agents.
Awesome.
whiskybear
January 30, 2009 at 08:40PM View BBCode
(You were right, though -- it doesn't matter, and it didn't.)
FuriousGiorge
January 30, 2009 at 08:43PM View BBCode
Well, the first point is I think a reasonable one, and one that the owners and players are going to have to wrestle with in their next CBA. But then when he comes up with a "solution" that makes the problem worse, well, that's just classic Happy really.
ME
The NFL still has the horrific blackout rule.
The NFL Network isn't doing very well (cable/satellite companies aren't going to add it into a regular package anytime soon and I believe Time Warner does not offer it at all) because it all it really has is its 8 exclusive, out of market games and some pre-draft/combine coverage along with a whole lot of worthless programming.
January 30, 2009 at 09:18PM View BBCode
As for the NFL and TV:The NFL still has the horrific blackout rule.
The NFL Network isn't doing very well (cable/satellite companies aren't going to add it into a regular package anytime soon and I believe Time Warner does not offer it at all) because it all it really has is its 8 exclusive, out of market games and some pre-draft/combine coverage along with a whole lot of worthless programming.
sycophantman
Craig is right, the NFL treats its retirees almost as bad as their current players, which is awful. I don't know if you can justify that just because they make tons and tons of money.
January 30, 2009 at 11:25PM View BBCode
Supposing that the NHL decides to expand into Russia and Europe in the future like they should, they could really be heralded as a comeback kid. That league seems to be getting itself back together. Now if only they'd drop these southern US teams, that is just a debacle, really.Craig is right, the NFL treats its retirees almost as bad as their current players, which is awful. I don't know if you can justify that just because they make tons and tons of money.
FuriousGiorge
January 31, 2009 at 12:03AM View BBCode
Can you imagine the travel costs to expand overseas? No, that's not going to happen any time soon.
dirtdevil
if and when it happens it will be done in the same way as the original expansion was back in '67- all the european teams will be in their own conference. each team will get like a once a year trip through europe and vice versa.
January 31, 2009 at 02:34PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Can you imagine the travel costs to expand overseas? No, that's not going to happen any time soon.
if and when it happens it will be done in the same way as the original expansion was back in '67- all the european teams will be in their own conference. each team will get like a once a year trip through europe and vice versa.
Cubsfan13
January 31, 2009 at 04:57PM View BBCode
But then you'd end up with a crapload of teams, wouldn't you? Unless they plan on dropping a bunch.
dirtdevil
January 31, 2009 at 05:00PM View BBCode
you would, yes. you'd probably need to add at least 8-12 to make it viable, possibly more. you'd also be most likely killing off the higher european leagues. in fact it would probably be more of a merger than an expansion.
Hamilton2
January 31, 2009 at 05:40PM View BBCode
Craig, your point regarding the NFLPA and retirees is entirely valid. It is the huge negative to the league. However, the NFL is still way better than any of the other major sports leagues. I don't think that a compelling argument can really be made against in and in favor of others. Still, you are entirely correct re:treatment of veteran and retired players.
ME
January 31, 2009 at 06:08PM View BBCode
Just because the NFL is the most popular and makes the most money doesn't make it the best-run.