sum kid wrote:
Pittsburgh is a great example. The Pirates get more money from revenue sharing than they spend on player salaries. So you want to give them more money? Guess where that will end up? In the owner's pockets. They talk about paying down debt and building baseball academies and all that other stuff, but in the end they don't use the money they get to put a better product on the field so why give them more? Some ownerships care about putting a good team on the field and understand that they'll eventually make money that way. Other ownerships see free money and just stick it in their pockets.
You have the figures on hand, do you? What is the breakdown.
The Pirates are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Even if they took every penny they get from revenue sharing and all the money they have to spend on player salaries, they're still can't compete with the Yankees and Red Sox of the world in terms of talent. Plus the teams that lose money, don't last
They need to turn a profit first and win second. So do NFL teams but they hav ea far more level playing field with money.
Put the Pirates in the same situation as NFL teams, with salary caps and the like and they might actually have a shot.
Please, don't try to presume you know more about making money in this business than the people whose bottom lines are actually affected by what they spend. It's easy to throw out criticism from the cheap seats.