Image credit: © Matt Kartozian-Imagn Images
Whether or not a larger-scale revenue-sharing model is introduced to MLB is unknown at this point, but it certainly seems to be the plan. The bigger question is whether or not the owners try to attach it to a salary cap, as some among the 30 certainly want to do, or if it’s a way to avoid the cap discussion for another cycle, one that comes after what the league hopes is the largest broadcasting deal in its history.
If the hyperlinking wasn’t a dead giveaway, we already talk about those angles a lot. Fear not, this is a different way to approach the subject of what pooling even more local and broadcast revenues together to a-rising-tide-lifts-all-boats the lower-revenue teams into spending more and whining less could do for MLB. And it came out of a brief interview I had with Baseball Prospectus alum and current Field of Schemes’ writer, Neil deMause.
deMause had some questions for me earlier this month about revenue-sharing and a salary cap, specifically what might and might not be considered “baseball revenue” for the purposes of a cap. This came as a followup to an earlier piece of mine from February in this space—with more and more stadiums turning into taxpayer-funded malls that further enrich owners, it’s a relevant question for a beat that normally doesn’t bother going in on the subject of roster construction limits. deMause asked a great question at the end that I’ve been thinking about for a couple of weeks now:
