1) utah had the 7th highest payroll last year as one of the smallest markets in the league...how did they expect to make a profit?
By increasing the owners' share to rise in line with that of other major sports teams.
Based on the article I cited, the increased player share just to the players' current offer would've put Utah into the plus column. Moving the share to 50-50, plus some more generous revenue sharing (which the Lakers and others have reportedly expressed an openness to), would take care of probably all but a couple of teams.
Glad that you are becoming less itinerant in this regard <<sigh>>.
there is no system possible in which the jazz can maintain that kind of payroll relative to other teams and still be profitable. Any move to a more punitive cap will only make it harder for a team like utah to compete.
Not clear. Depends on whether the reduced ability for teams to overpay for players can compensate for the tendency for players to go to teams in larger and/or more attractive markets. But there are only so many such attractive teams, so I am optimistic that a harder cap would be a slight benefit to teams like Utah. There are only so many "superstars" to go around, so while it will continue to be tough for small-market teams to attract two or three franchise players at a time, they might have a better chance at one or two when money is less of a factor (and when the highly attractive teams are "filled up"). The rest of the talent gap between the elites and the other superstars can be partially compensated for by good-quality coaching and player development--such as a play-for-performance policy that includes minimum minutes for young players on a regular basis.
I'm also in support, though, of the owners offering a softer cap as a concession to get a deal done sooner. In these economic times, even the most wealthy teams are less likely to overpay IMHO, especially if they agree to more liberal revenue sharing for the have-not teams.
2) that graph has operating income at pretty much the same level, in absolute terms, as it has ever been. Not sure how that entitles the owners to a greater share of revenue
Like with the rest of the country, the problem is the income disparity. While 5 or 10 teams are in good shape, many others are struggling. Unlike our corrupt government representatives, most of whom seem to have little regard for anyone but the wealthy (especially their donors), the less-fortunate owners are pushing for a bigger share of the pie, even if it involves revenue sharing, and it appears that at least some of the "haves" recognize that they it least mildly depend on the other teams for their success. (It won't be surprising if a team or two folds/moves anyway.)
3) if the issue is truly that the cost of doing business is growing faster than revenues, the fair solution is to calculate each years player salary pool based off of the previous years salary pool + rate of revenue growth - rate inflation.
That is not being offered, because this is about bullying labor.
No; that's not being offered because it's more complicated, and because a revenue share in line with other major teams accomplishes the same goal. Also, your more complicated formula makes no accounting for increased legitimate non-salary operating costs. With a more balanced (e.g., 50-50) operating share, the owners still retain (nearly) all of the risk, and the calculations are less complicated.
I still continue to be amazed how you passionately defend these millionaire athletes who are among the highest paid in professional sports. You'd make a great commentator on Fox News
-- or simply a troll in sheep's clothing.
