Revenue Sharing

So we read and hear the CFL will be sharing revenue going forward.
Does anyone really know what this means?

1 Like

everyone puts their paychecks into the pot and then it is distributed to each equally.

1 Like

My understanding is the league created is the league created a revenue arm called CFL Ventures.

Each team owns a 10% stake with Genius Sports owning the other 10%.

How the 'horizontal accountability' works is unknown. But to my knowledge all leagues with revenue sharing has some sort of goals for lower end teams need to reach to receive their full share.

An interesting thought, is the current schedule a direct result of revenue sharing. Hamilton s Toronto, Calgary vs Edmonton for Sooo many games. Reduce costs and play your rival.
If so, maybe we should except the 2022 schedule as is.

1 Like

I have not read a breakdown of any details as to how it might work. I don’t think it has been decided yet.

I have a problem with the entire concept. Winnipeg, for example, was near death years ago and the league or other teams did not bail them out. Now a community owned team must pay money to private owners in Toronto who don’t know how to run their team and/or don’t care? While ignoring the salary cap?

As far as I am aware, the Manitoba government pays nothing to assist the Bombers with their yearly operations, but the Bombers do receive various tax breaks, as most sports teams do. The Bombers are also profitable in large part because the MB government has essentially written off the “loan” for the construction of the stadium the Bombers were supposed to repay. I don’t know what, if anything, the Saskatchewan government pays to support the Riders, either directly or indirectly, but suspect there is some kind of support, given the new stadium there.

So now the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and perhaps other provinces, must support the Argos private ownership and likely other private owners as well? Do you think the Leafs will be supporting other NHL teams by revenue sharing?

The more I think about this the more
ludicrous I think the concept is. I don’t know if the CFL brain trust has thought this through and vetted the concept with the various provincial governments. I can easily see any one or all of the provincial governments negatively affected trying to block this or removing tax or other breaks for the teams in their provinces.

There is no doubt that some teams need help but there are other ways to help them or maybe they need to be moved or just left to die. Or maybe teams all pay an equal percentage into a league managed fund that is distributed to the poor. Still socialism for the rich but perhaps more palatable.

Bottom line is I am not so sure that whatever the CFL decides will be practically capable of implementation, with provincial governments essentially subsidizing private businesses in other provinces.

4 Likes

To answer your question if the Leafs pay revenue sharing? Yes they do. Top 10 teams pay the bottom half earners.

MLSE pays in to other teams including the Winnipeg Jets who are co-owned by the richest person in Canada. This isn't meant to be a knock on the Jets, it's just the model is based on revenues teams bring in as opposed to the net worth of ownership

They of course also pay in for heavily subsized teams which is almost all teams on some level

I do agree it can't be free money either the lower end teams need to meet certain marks to earn their full share.

4 Likes

Regardless of what the CFL calls it now, revenue sharing has been going on and off for years, any time a team had their owners Walk away. All teams paid to keep them alive.

Now they just want to be in front of that. Bleed a little every year, or bleed out every 4 years.

5 Likes

I am surprised to learn about revenue sharing in the NHL. Is there somewhere you can point me to where I could learn more about this? While teams are subsidized everywhere in every league, the NHL doesn’t have any community owned teams. The NFL has the Packers, but as far as I am aware there is no revenue sharing in the NFL. Neither is there any in baseball, which could use it the most. The luxury tax is not revenue sharing like we are discussing.

I am also mildly surprised that the Jets would be outside the top 10 in revenues. Until this year they sold out every game for 10 years, with the second highest average ticket price in North American sports. But they have the smallest capacity in the league and won’t get the local TV rights money some American teams get. But they also for years were #1 or #2 in the league in merchandise sales, although I believe that has dropped slightly. Just turn on the tube right now and check out their bitching 3rd uniform, arguably the second best uniform in the league next to Chicago.

I guess the lesson is that if you are rich enough to own a team that others will fill your coffers for you from then on if you aren’t profitable. A pretty good deal.

I am aware of what you speak, which also occurs in other sports. See Coyotes, Phoenix.

I think it is preferable to not subsidize on an ongoing basis and decide whether a team us worth saving when they are dead in the water. There is no incentive for owners of these poor cousins, such as the Argos owners, to improve their lot if they know they can count on a chunk of free cash coming in from the other teams. Essentially others are protecting their investment for them.

1 Like

Though it's not the full article but this one....during the Flames arena showing how the top teams share.

Teams receive revenue sharing if they qualify for it under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. One NHL executive said that, generally speaking, the way NHL revenue sharing works is that the teams that finish in the top 10 in revenues share some of those revenues with the teams that finish from 11 through 31. This isn’t always the case, but it appears to be a general rule. He said the Flames will not have finished in the top 10 in 2016-17 and are not in the bottom 10 either. That means they will receive somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 million-$2 million at the upper end and

MLB has revenue sharing too where the Yankees and Dodgers of the world share with the Rays and the Pirates of the world.

Now some can argue maybe the NHL shouldn't give to teams like the Coyotes. However there are places to move them. Quebec would be another revenue recipient. If Houston is top ten, another team gets moves down.

There is nowhere to relocate a CFL team

2 Likes

Thanks for the info. Even that article knows little about the details as they seem not to be available. For example, what constitutes revenue? In addition to gate are TV monies and merchandising included? Concessions? Parking? Just how does this building maintenance expense thing work? I recall that this type of system existed in the days of Jets 1.0 and that back then the receiving teams had to meet some minimum standards to qualify as well, although back then these standards were very flexible.

I’m still not aware of baseball having revenue sharing, but maybe they do. They have a luxury tax which is unique in the 4 major sports and has little resemblance to revenue sharing. It seems that only teams exceeding a salary cap that doesn’t exist pay a tax. Most often that is the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and recently the Angels. Usually only one to three teams seem to pay this tax every year. I am not sure where the monies go but it has nothing to do with revenues but rather only payroll.

1 Like

i still think the largest expense for players is their rent
so why dont the teams buy apt bldgs and house players there teams - 2 per condo unit - could even buy busses to take players to practice/workout]- - that way the player salary has much more impact upon the players [$90k in toronto is then much closer to $90k in winnipeg if rent is eliminated] and teams get a tangible asset which cannot be sold unless to upgrade to a better bldg to house players - would prefer if bldg could be close to stadium and it would make it easy to get prov and federal money [yes, i understand there is an issue w/ married players w/ family in tow but hey i'm a retired computer consultant, so what do i know about real estate? ... lol]
players could choose live off campus but the rent subsidy in contract never comes close to living 'on base'

3 Likes

I think your idea is a good one, especially as you say for cities such as TO and Vancouver, where rent I am sure is crazy compared to Winnipeg or Regina. I have heard and always thought that there is rental help provided by teams for some players but am not aware of any team currently owning a building to house players as you suggest. There was recently a gentleman on the radio in Winnipeg who was the “landlord” for Kyrie Wilson and who attended the GC game. Although he didn’t specifically say so, I was left with the impression that Wilson was being charged very little if anything to stay there, almost like billeting in junior hockey. Perhaps this is occurring more frequently across the league?

1 Like

Housing allowance is usually announced separately amongst the details in conjunction with the announcement of the contract. Probably sms exempt and not the same for all players. Another useful tool to get around the cap

Someone on this forum told me that the Ottawa team houses their players at the local university dorms.

1 Like

it is my understanding that players get $ in their for rental however owning is an asset and i thinl a much easier way to get $ from city and fed n prov gov't plus having the bldg and much easier to collexct players for games n practices - i think its called 'teambuilding'

as for tour eg probably argos pay him directly and the extra required is made up by the player

as a fan i am interested in wins n exciting play
def is starting to ome around but off. play calling is bad

i've read where each team retains 35% of ticket revenue when they play on the road.

I wonder exactly what revenues CFL Ventures will be dealing with. Merchandise? Ticket sales? Overseas broadcast deals? Shares of betting monies?

I think it's smart to put all merchandizing under one roof where the "best practices" of the more successful clubs can be put into effect for the entire league.

I also look forward to more details about how the horizontal accountability will work. Not sure we'll ever get many details, but hopefully some will be forthcoming.

2 Likes

Erased my comment ...

Players typically receive about $17,000 in shelter allowance in their contract. This counts on SMS. Spend less and keep balance is players choice.

Comical that "teams should buy an apartment building. Any idea what such a buildind would cost???