Understanding Revenue Sharing

crowhop · 03-29-2020, 01:59 AM

I am trying to understand what I am seeing here.
By default the game gives you this setup for Revenue Sharing:

Based on the "Luxury tax" portion of the OOTP Manual, if I am understanding it correctly, 170 is the % over the League Average Payroll. Is this true?

If yes, based on the numbers from the league Financial Report, the average projected payroll in 2020 is $131,145,268. 170% of that would be $222,946,956. So does that mean teams will only pay the Luxury Tax if their payroll is over the $222,946,956?

Also, again looking at the league Revenue Report, it shows some strange numbers for 2019.
Here are the teams reporting data in the Revenue Sharing field for 2019:
Arizona (-3,911,600)
Chi White Sox (-6,008,972)
Cincinnati (-3,857,900)
Cleveland (-6,732,425)
Kansas City (-2,332,025)
LA Angels (-1,848,122)
LA Dodgers (-1,897,975)
Miami (-3,880,875)
Minnesota (-4,889,047)
NY Mets (-2,254,017)
Philadelphia (-2,741,752)
Pittsburgh (-13,617,775)
San Diego (-2,462,725)
San Fran (-5,323,367)
Tampa (-6,788,425)
Toronto (-785,550)

Some of these make sense, others none at all. Are these numbers based in reality? The teams in bold received Revenue Sharing money? And the A's didn't get a dime?

Of note, in game it displays Revenue Sharing dollars with the negative sign, which is also confusing.

crowhop · 03-30-2020, 02:13 PM

Bump

Matt Arnold · 03-30-2020, 02:32 PM

The revenue sharing numbers for 2019 I believe are more or less random just to get the current financial figures to balance.

Going forward, as you said, it should work as you expect - based on average player (and staff) salary, any amount over the threshold is taxed and distributed back to teams.

jfb8300 · 04-03-2020, 09:02 AM

I couldn't get Luxury Tax to function as described in the manual either, no matter what settings were used. Ended up moving to a Set Percentage of Income, which worked exactly as described.

03-29-2020, 01:59 AM	#1
crowhop Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 208	Understanding Revenue Sharing I am trying to understand what I am seeing here. By default the game gives you this setup for Revenue Sharing: Based on the "Luxury tax" portion of the OOTP Manual, if I am understanding it correctly, 170 is the % over the League Average Payroll. Is this true? If yes, based on the numbers from the league Financial Report, the average projected payroll in 2020 is $131,145,268. 170% of that would be $222,946,956. So does that mean teams will only pay the Luxury Tax if their payroll is over the $222,946,956? Also, again looking at the league Revenue Report, it shows some strange numbers for 2019. Here are the teams reporting data in the Revenue Sharing field for 2019: Arizona (-3,911,600) Chi White Sox (-6,008,972) Cincinnati (-3,857,900) Cleveland (-6,732,425) Kansas City (-2,332,025) LA Angels (-1,848,122) LA Dodgers (-1,897,975) Miami (-3,880,875) Minnesota (-4,889,047) NY Mets (-2,254,017) Philadelphia (-2,741,752) Pittsburgh (-13,617,775) San Diego (-2,462,725) San Fran (-5,323,367) Tampa (-6,788,425) Toronto (-785,550) Some of these make sense, others none at all. Are these numbers based in reality? The teams in bold received Revenue Sharing money? And the A's didn't get a dime? Of note, in game it displays Revenue Sharing dollars with the negative sign, which is also confusing.

03-30-2020, 02:13 PM	#2
crowhop Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 208	Bump

03-30-2020, 02:32 PM	#3
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 14,143	The revenue sharing numbers for 2019 I believe are more or less random just to get the current financial figures to balance. Going forward, as you said, it should work as you expect - based on average player (and staff) salary, any amount over the threshold is taxed and distributed back to teams.

04-03-2020, 09:02 AM	#4
jfb8300 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 134	I couldn't get Luxury Tax to function as described in the manual either, no matter what settings were used. Ended up moving to a Set Percentage of Income, which worked exactly as described.