Team Revenue Sharing

Others have discussed this and I think it is very important to league health. I think there are novel ways to protect teams in a poor performance years that will not cost very much to the CFL clubs.

What I think might work is to have all teams purchase 300 season seats from each club. Would give each club approx 2400 season seats that are purchased by the other clubs. Those seats could be then sold/discounted/given away to local sports teams, schools, etc. If the team can sell all the tickets through regular means then it wouldn't be necessary to offer these tickets to these groups and a revenue sharing model is created. Could be expanded to corporate boxes etc.

Gary Lawless has his own thoughts on this subject and would love to know what he thinks. He has mentioned this a few times. Does anyone have an idea on how this could work and whether it could help stabilize the league/team revenue?

I think it would work but I don't think the SRR are going to share. If we think, and many of us do, the SRR cook the books now, imagine what they would do if they had to share.

If someone was smart, they'd buy all 9 teams and be farther ahead.

Is there a link with the Lawless article? I would love to read his thoughts.

From what I recall C & S we're looking at a type of revenue sharing model when they needed help. Not necessarily other teams buying tickets. The league said no and reverted to one guy owning 2 teams for 6 years and the league took a massive step backwards.

With better broadcast deals , new stadiums and hopefully more corporate sponsors, I don't see any reason why there can't be some level of sharing between clubs which both keep clubs healthier and aslo attracts new owners which could lead to new markets.

Hey the SSKs of the world can us the transfrr payments to cook their books with a lot different flavour.

They're paying for a new stadium so that would throw a monkey wrench into the deal.

Again, I don't think it will ever happen because if a team can have $45M in revenue and still claim to lose money, it's a hopeless cause.

It might also hurt the support for Western teams if they knew the money was flowing East.

There is that old joke...

How do you become a millionaire? Start off as a billionaire and buy a CFL team. It's no longer true but...

On this board there is a small window that you can search if you type in Revenue sharing. Gary's name comes up and he states it is important to the league

The short sightevness of the western clubs is more of a crux.

If they want to claim a loss with 45 million revenue. They can have revenue sharing expenenses instead of overpaying coaches or creating new positions.

There was a saying by the late Browns/Ravens owner Art Model and paraphrasing.

We as NFL owners operate like 30 separate capitalists but think like 1 socialist.

Another reason why the NFL got by before the big TV contracts started coming along.

remember SRR will also get the same revenue from the other teams so they can't loose. NFL has revenue sharing for the same reason we need it. Small revenue or market teams being aided by larger revenue market teams.


In the NFL, the larger markets support the smaller one. In the CFL, the SRR, EE and western teams would support the Argos, Lions and Als. Again, it is not going to happen.

Here is an article just to give everyone an idea of what 'revenue sharing' means in other leagues. Intersting how there are special rules for the Cowboys in the NFL.

[url=] ... vu875oeaq6[/url]

In a sense the CFL does already revenue share in one sense - from the national TSN TV deal.

The most the Riders could be expected to "share" with the other teams is about $1 million per season. Divided by 8 teams that equals $125,000 per team...which covers about 1/160th of an average team's expenses. Big deal. It's not realistic for Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton or B.C. to be subsidizing anyone but themselves. So this is basically a non-starter. Other leagues may have team and player revenue sharing but as we saw during the CBA negotiations, that's just not feasible for the CFL. Teams have to make it or break it on their own.

Appreciate the link.

The national TV and other central revenues will generally divided among the clubs.

Revenue sharings that I'm thinking along is where the local revenues are shared. In baseball, 34% is retained (unless a club owns a stake in the broadcaster) and the rest go into a pool to go to the lower revenue clubs. Hence clubs with low attendance like the Rays, A's, Indians etc...can be profitable.

Just noto sure if it's feasible yet for the CFL with total league revenues about 200 million annually, is there enough to go around to make a difference?

QFT :thup:

All team NOT names Argos made money in 2016 so it's not a big deal. After all, no one is buying a CFL team to get rich. I truly believe the Argos will get to break even, even without Grey Cup money, by 2025 so revenue sharing becomes moot.

Besides, SRR fans are not going to want to give their hard earned money to Tannen-Bell.

I guess when SSK was the small market team that needed a telethon to survive, they would have snubbed at Revenue Sharing too if it was an option?

Bell pays for a lot of the expenses. Did you forget that already? They have the TV money and most likely will have a nice increase for the league next go around. They also do most of the promotion of the league through TSN. Revenue sharing is insurance. I would want it if I were an owner. There is a formula that will work, just needs to be found. The tickets were just 1 method that benefits the league in so many ways and helps teams build their brand in the community!

If you have a league with revenue sharing and a lucrative national TV contract with national and local sponsors, radio and a proven business model throughout the league with all teams making money, doesn't that help in securing a 10th team? I think it would.

They still play in the smallest market so I don't know what you're really implying by that statement. I don't think people really understand how little money would be shared by revenue sharing. The Riders aren't making handfuls of cash every year. They may have the highest revenue, but they also have the highest expenses.

I guess with SSK, I should have used the terms low revenue as opposed to small market as at one time they we're not a top earner.

While I agree there's not enough league wide to share to bear any meaning, I just find it hypocritical if they would say no to a system where they would have benifted at one time.

You have to remember there was no salary cap in place when the Riders struggled financially. The SMS is not perfect but it brings most teams back to a relatively level footing with each other. Back when you had Doug Flutie earning upwards of a million a season, there was no such financial parity in place.

If we wanted to completely scrap the SMS, I think the amount of money generated through revenue sharing would be greater, but there's no way that will happen. MLB has no salary cap (it does have a luxury tax) and some of the smaller teams deliberately don't spend money because they know they're guaranteed to make money with revenue sharing by itself.

It's an interesting topic of discussion, but I don't think it would have nearly as much of an impact as people expect.

This is true. Western teams tend to get higher ratings than eastern teams. If it’s also true that Bell would only buy the Argos if the TV contract would be extended with little or increase in the annual valuation to 2022 - never seen any legit news source for this myself - plus the already confirmed to Grey Cups in 5 or 10 years, then that is a massive subsidy from other teams in and of itself.

Let’s not also forget the $1 million given to the Ticats and Argos from the league office (and thus taken from the pockets of other teams) a few years ago for “marketing purposes.” :roll: It quite amusing seeing some of the posters thinking western teams - particularly Saskatchewan - should be giving further subsidies, when they have already given quite a bit. A very high degree of entitlement.

The Last Word