the yankees are now paying as much on taxes and re

[GarySJ]

I dont think the yanks could be making 250 million in revenue not including tv and then an additional 250 million with TV. I say there is no way they are taking in that much coin and if so not having to share with other owners. I think there is no way that could be happening.

Read the CNNSI article linked above. It explains the creative accounting practices used to achieve this sort of result. Basically, most baseball team owners also own the groups that broadcast their games. They transfer the profits to the TV group and claim losses with the baseball team, so they don't have to pay as much in luxury tax.

[smazza]

garysj

great research

[KnightsRule]

Very intersting stuff. Baseball is the king of all that is messed up in pro sports. I guess having an owner as commissioner will do that type of thing.

[smazza]

i don't think players  think it is messed up

why should yankees share their money with expos?

[KnightsRule]

They should share with small markets to keep parity. The NFL is thriving and the players make money but if they start to suck bang cut the guy and he is gone along with his contract. Baseball contracts are locked in so you pay a bum like Greg Vaugn to hit .180 and hit 5 hrs or you pay a guy like wilson alveraz for three years and he pitches 10 games and gets paid full contract. The one thing I will say is that no baseball player should ever be allowed to hold out for more money as you signed the deal now you play or you should not be allowed to ever play the game again. I dont see the players unon let teams reduce players signed contracts nor can you waive a guy when he sucks and NOT pay him.  As far as football goes I dont have a problem with guys holding out as I say get the dough while you can cuz as soon as you suck a little you are going to get waived anyway.

[KnightsRule]

From Boston Globe

  According to an Associated Press report last week, the New York Yankees [stats, schedule] paid an estimated net of $48.8 million in revenue sharing this year. That number was based on gross revenues of $270 million, obviously the highest figure in baseball.

    The Red Sox?

    According to baseball sources, the Sox paid an estimated net of $40 million in revenue sharing. Using the same formula, that places the Sox revenues for 2003 in the range of $220 million, approximately 40 percent of which comes from ticket sales.

    The bottom line?

    Thanks to revenue sharing, the Red Sox will lose $40 million in 2003, a huge chunk of money. Meanwhile, the payroll is going up for 2004, as evidenced by the signings of Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke [stats, news].

[smazza]

some revenues aren't subject to sharing and i suspect it is tv money

also the money distributed comes from payroll amount.

it is called aluxury tax

[KnightsRule]

Steve

Luxury tax is based on payroll. Revenue sharing is for every team on supposed total revenue generated but as we see from Garys research there are ways to hide some of the money. To think Sox and Yanks are bringing in over 200 million in revenues and still hiding more.  

[smazza]

where does the luxury tax money go?

[KnightsRule]

I have tried finding how the luxury tax collected is distributed but have not found the real answer. I can find all sorts of proposals that went on but dont know how it actually went down. I would think the money is split evenly but if thats the case would the yanks share in the money that they paid?