Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Contraction talk starts again

I think this is a little far-fetched that it would happen, but ESPN has a sports analyst that claims it will be better for MLB financially.


At 8:09 PM, Blogger tmk67 said...

I don't see how the contraction math in the articles makes sense. Contraction of one team generates $50 million of revenue for the remaining 29 teams every year? Contraction = nearly $1.5 billion annually?

Yeah, right.

Based on 2001 MLB disclosures, the Expos get roughly $30 million per year in revenue sharing...and they stand to get less if the team in DC would have done well.

At 12:18 PM, Blogger John said...

Does this include shared revenue from licensing and TV rights? That *is* worth over a billion total, so I read it as, produces $50M split between the other 29 teams. If the team sells for a one-time price of $400M, each team would get about 13M, meaning that, by the end of a decade, contraction of a single team would be better for the other 29 teams. But, since contraction is more likely to come in 2s, it might even pay off faster.


Post a Comment

<< Home