Does Anyone Have a MLB Revenue Sharing Chart 1992 - today?

The Game · 05-22-2016, 11:19 PM

Trying to figure out how much to set revenue sharing at in 1992 thru today. Does anyone have a chart. I cant find one on Google.

Le Grande Orange · 05-22-2016, 11:58 PM

It's not quite that simple. Prior to 1996, revenue sharing was limited to gate receipts and (from 1982 onward) some cable TV revenue. From 1996 onward, that was replaced with the sharing of all locally-generated revenue, with a few different systems being used from then through to the present. Are you talking about the base percentage rate of revenue sharing, as outlined in the various CBAs?

Le Grande Orange · 05-23-2016, 06:14 PM

I'll try to give you a synopsis of the revenue sharing since the early 1990s. Be prepared for at least some mind-bending detail.

Prior to 1996, there were two ways revenue was shared: gate receipts and cable TV (not over-the-air TV) fees. In the AL, the gate sharing figure was 20%. In the NL, a fixed dollar amount was specified, which worked out in percentage terms to roughly 4% by the early 1990s. Cable TV fee sharing was 10%-15%, but often of net revenue. (Since it was net revenue, accounting shenanigans could be used to reduce the amount shared. The particulars varied by league and are rarely mentioned in available references.)

From 1996 onward, the prior forms of revenue sharing were replaced with the sharing of all locally generated revenue. The specifics follow.

1996 through 2002

Revenue sharing had three plans: straight pool, split pool, and hybrid. The straight pool plan had teams contributing 39% of their local revenue into a pool, which was then divided equally between all clubs. The split pool plan had each club contributing 20% of its local revenue into a pool; 75% of that pool was divided equally between all clubs and 25% was divided up among the clubs below the league average revenue, in proportion to how far below the average the club was. The hybrid plan used whichever of the straight pool and split pool plan results that was more favourable to each individual club (in terms of either paying or receiving). Any shortfall in the hybrid plan between the total amount from paying clubs and receiving clubs was made up out of other MLB revenue.

In 1996 and 1997 the hybrid plan was implemented at 60% of its full value. For 1998, the split pool plan was implemented at 80% of its full value. For 1999, the split pool plan was implemented at 85% of its full value. For 2000 and 2001 the split pool plan was implemented at 100% of its full value.

During these years there was also a supplemental revenue sharing plan, which saw some additional monies shared with lower revenue clubs, the details of which are rather complicated. (I've read the relevant CBA paragraphs several times and I still can't quite understand it.)

2003 through 2006

There were two parts: a base plan and the central fund component. The base plan had each club contribute 34% of its local revenue into a pool, which was then divided equally among all clubs. The central fund component called for 41% of the total amount transferred from paying clubs to receiving under the base plan to be additionally moved from the paying clubs to receiving clubs. The amount applicable to each club, in terms of the additional payment or receipt, was based on a three-year average of each club's local revenue and MLB local revenue. (I've read the relevant CBA paragraphs several times and I still can't quite understand it.)

From 2003-06 the base plan was fully implemented. The central fund component in 2003 was implemented at a 60% level; in 2004, at an 80% level; and for 2005-06 at a 100% level.

2007 through 2011

As before, there was a base plan and central fund component. The base plan had each club contributing 31% of its local revenue into a pool, which was then divided equally between all clubs. The central fund component called for additional transfer of funds, the total amount of which was equal to the difference of the amount paid by paying clubs under the base plan and the amount that would have been paid had the base plan operated at a 48% contribution figure. The additional amount paid or received by a given club under the central fund component was determined by a fixed percentage value set out for each club in an attachment in the CBA, and which applied for the term of the agreement. (With the proviso that a club's set percentage could be adjusted once as a result of it opening a new stadium or its local revenue lagging or exceeding too much the growth rate of MLB local revenue as a whole.)

2012 through 2016

Largely similar to the previous regime, except that the central fund component was renamed the supplemental plan. The base plan had each club contributing 34% of its local revenue into a pool, which was then divided equally between all clubs. The supplemental plan called for additional transfers, the total of which was the difference between the amount paid by paying clubs under the base plan and the amount that would have been paid by paying clubs had the base plan required a 48% contribution figure. The amount paid or received by an individual club under the supplemental plan was based on a fixed percentage value set out in an attachment to the CBA. (A club's fixed percentage value could be adjusted once during the agreement if the club entered into a new local broadcasting agreement.)

An important change made in revenue sharing was that the top 15 markets, as defined and fixed by MLB in an attachment to the CBA, were ineligible to receive revenue sharing funds even if they were due such under the revenue sharing system. This ineligibility was phased in: for 2013, top-15 market clubs would only receive 75% of the revenue sharing funds they otherwise would have qualified for; in 2014, top-15 market clubs would only receive 50% of the revenue sharing funds they otherwise would have qualified for; in 2015, only 25%; and in 2016, top-15 market clubs would receive no revenue sharing funds.

These unused revenue share monies are refunded to paying clubs, in proportion to how much that club paid individually as compared to the total amount paid by paying clubs under the revenue sharing system. (With the proviso that a club could forfeit some or all of this refund if it paid any luxury tax penalties.)

Note that Oakland, considered the #7 market, tied with San Francisco, was exempt from this revenue sharing receipt ineligibility until such time as it opened a new stadium.

05-22-2016, 11:19 PM	#1
The Game Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Inside The Game Posts: 30,937	Does Anyone Have a MLB Revenue Sharing Chart 1992 - today? Trying to figure out how much to set revenue sharing at in 1992 thru today. Does anyone have a chart. I cant find one on Google. __________________ Go today don't wait for tomorrow It isn't promised, all the time you get borrowed Don't live your life for other people Don't bottle your emotions till they crack and fill a couple just sorrows Take your mind and refocus go get a paper write your goals out Throw your middle fingers to all your haters "Stay Strong"

05-23-2016, 06:14 PM	#3
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,642	I'll try to give you a synopsis of the revenue sharing since the early 1990s. Be prepared for at least some mind-bending detail. Prior to 1996, there were two ways revenue was shared: gate receipts and cable TV (not over-the-air TV) fees. In the AL, the gate sharing figure was 20%. In the NL, a fixed dollar amount was specified, which worked out in percentage terms to roughly 4% by the early 1990s. Cable TV fee sharing was 10%-15%, but often of net revenue. (Since it was net revenue, accounting shenanigans could be used to reduce the amount shared. The particulars varied by league and are rarely mentioned in available references.) From 1996 onward, the prior forms of revenue sharing were replaced with the sharing of all locally generated revenue. The specifics follow. 1996 through 2002 Revenue sharing had three plans: straight pool, split pool, and hybrid. The straight pool plan had teams contributing 39% of their local revenue into a pool, which was then divided equally between all clubs. The split pool plan had each club contributing 20% of its local revenue into a pool; 75% of that pool was divided equally between all clubs and 25% was divided up among the clubs below the league average revenue, in proportion to how far below the average the club was. The hybrid plan used whichever of the straight pool and split pool plan results that was more favourable to each individual club (in terms of either paying or receiving). Any shortfall in the hybrid plan between the total amount from paying clubs and receiving clubs was made up out of other MLB revenue. In 1996 and 1997 the hybrid plan was implemented at 60% of its full value. For 1998, the split pool plan was implemented at 80% of its full value. For 1999, the split pool plan was implemented at 85% of its full value. For 2000 and 2001 the split pool plan was implemented at 100% of its full value. During these years there was also a supplemental revenue sharing plan, which saw some additional monies shared with lower revenue clubs, the details of which are rather complicated. (I've read the relevant CBA paragraphs several times and I still can't quite understand it.) 2003 through 2006 There were two parts: a base plan and the central fund component. The base plan had each club contribute 34% of its local revenue into a pool, which was then divided equally among all clubs. The central fund component called for 41% of the total amount transferred from paying clubs to receiving under the base plan to be additionally moved from the paying clubs to receiving clubs. The amount applicable to each club, in terms of the additional payment or receipt, was based on a three-year average of each club's local revenue and MLB local revenue. (I've read the relevant CBA paragraphs several times and I still can't quite understand it.) From 2003-06 the base plan was fully implemented. The central fund component in 2003 was implemented at a 60% level; in 2004, at an 80% level; and for 2005-06 at a 100% level. 2007 through 2011 As before, there was a base plan and central fund component. The base plan had each club contributing 31% of its local revenue into a pool, which was then divided equally between all clubs. The central fund component called for additional transfer of funds, the total amount of which was equal to the difference of the amount paid by paying clubs under the base plan and the amount that would have been paid had the base plan operated at a 48% contribution figure. The additional amount paid or received by a given club under the central fund component was determined by a fixed percentage value set out for each club in an attachment in the CBA, and which applied for the term of the agreement. (With the proviso that a club's set percentage could be adjusted once as a result of it opening a new stadium or its local revenue lagging or exceeding too much the growth rate of MLB local revenue as a whole.) 2012 through 2016 Largely similar to the previous regime, except that the central fund component was renamed the supplemental plan. The base plan had each club contributing 34% of its local revenue into a pool, which was then divided equally between all clubs. The supplemental plan called for additional transfers, the total of which was the difference between the amount paid by paying clubs under the base plan and the amount that would have been paid by paying clubs had the base plan required a 48% contribution figure. The amount paid or received by an individual club under the supplemental plan was based on a fixed percentage value set out in an attachment to the CBA. (A club's fixed percentage value could be adjusted once during the agreement if the club entered into a new local broadcasting agreement.) An important change made in revenue sharing was that the top 15 markets, as defined and fixed by MLB in an attachment to the CBA, were ineligible to receive revenue sharing funds even if they were due such under the revenue sharing system. This ineligibility was phased in: for 2013, top-15 market clubs would only receive 75% of the revenue sharing funds they otherwise would have qualified for; in 2014, top-15 market clubs would only receive 50% of the revenue sharing funds they otherwise would have qualified for; in 2015, only 25%; and in 2016, top-15 market clubs would receive no revenue sharing funds. These unused revenue share monies are refunded to paying clubs, in proportion to how much that club paid individually as compared to the total amount paid by paying clubs under the revenue sharing system. (With the proviso that a club could forfeit some or all of this refund if it paid any luxury tax penalties.) Note that Oakland, considered the #7 market, tied with San Francisco, was exempt from this revenue sharing receipt ineligibility until such time as it opened a new stadium. Last edited by Le Grande Orange; 05-23-2016 at 06:16 PM.

05-22-2016, 11:58 PM	#2
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,642	It's not quite that simple. Prior to 1996, revenue sharing was limited to gate receipts and (from 1982 onward) some cable TV revenue. From 1996 onward, that was replaced with the sharing of all locally-generated revenue, with a few different systems being used from then through to the present. Are you talking about the base percentage rate of revenue sharing, as outlined in the various CBAs?