The amount of money that moved from haves such as the Yankees and Red Sox to have-nots such as the Athletics and Padres in Major League Baseball totaled $404 million for 2010, according to league sources. The amount was a decline of 6.7 percent from last year when the total was $433 million.

The amount of money per club that was transferred from those that pulled in high revenues to those that needed assistance was not divulged.

Total gross revenues increased from $6.6 billion in 2009 to $7 billion for 2010. While revenues increased, some of the payors saw net local revenues increase at less a rate than some of the payees, hence the decline in revenue-sharing dollars..

Revenue-sharing, as it pertains to money that moves from high-revenue makers to low-revenue one is comprised of a percentage of net local revenues each year.

Maury Brown is the Founder and President of the Business of Sports Network, which includes The Biz of Baseball, The Biz of Football, The Biz of Basketball and The Biz of Hockey, as well as a contributor to FanGraphs and Forbes SportsMoney. He is available for hire or freelance. Brown's full bio is here. He looks forward to your comments via email and can be contacted through the Business of Sports Network.

Follow Maury Brown on Twitter

Follow The Biz of Baseball on Twitter

Follow the Business of Sports Network on Facebook

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Revenue sharing...
written by Mike Caruso, December 22, 2010

This could be eliminated with a salary cap as in the NFL last year. Let's Go Mets!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Why MLB doesn't need a salary cap
written by Investor Boot Camp Online, December 22, 2010

Huge payouts from revenue sharing is why MLB doesn't need a salary cap. Some fans complain they do. But who goes to 82 baseball games a year? You pick the good teams and you buy seats for those games. You know who they are and they're writing a check to the owners of your team.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

4-A Teams: Good for their owners. Bad for their fans.
written by Chris, EAV, Atlanta, December 23, 2010

It's difficult to go into great detail about this without seeing values received per team. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's like every other year where the lowest payroll teams are the primary recipients.

This gives the owners of terrible teams absolutely zero incentive to improve the quality of the product they're putting on the field. If you could have your payroll subsidized by Major League Baseball, why wouldn't you? I mean, unless you actually cared about winning that is.

Wasn't there a report leaked last season that the Marlins were the most profitable team in baseball? There's a reason owners don't like their finances aired out. They can't cry poor broke small market victim.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment