Did you count the $50 mil Boston spent for Dice K's posting fee or the $9 mil they are paying Julio Lugo to play for the Cards? Probably not.

Did you consider all the luxury tax that the Yankees have paid over the years?

Oops.

Probably not.

I don't think there is any other major professional team sport around the world in which such unbalanced spending exists. Not to this degree. I know it will be a stru*gle to get the players union to ever accept payroll caps, but they have to try.

As for Boston's 50 million posting fee on Matsuzaka and the Julio Lugo money, even if it's not included and you added it in, it wouldn't change the equation much. The Yankees would still have a HUGE $$$ advantage over any other team. And I'm sure if Maury Brown counted all the money the Yankees paid other teams to get rid of unwanted players -- or the money they paid the Kei Igawas and Carl Pavanos NOT to play -- then he counted the money the Red Sox paid guys like Lugo.

Do you think he counted the 26 million the yanks paid Kei Igawa to pitch at AAA.

@ Casey.

It isn't just the players who are opposed to a cap, increasingly owners are opposed to it also. There are different ways to do the calculations but the capless league (MLB) is paying out a smaller and smaller % of league revenues to players. The model for cap leauges (NFL) has a growing number of owners who want to ditch the cap, they think they are paying the players too much with a cap. In both instances, the problems is as much the floor as the cap.

And philosophically, parity is boring. Great teams drive interest. And while I am on a rant, rev sharing and the CBT reduce the incentive to win, which makes for a less entertaining product.

Pete, AFAIK, no MLB owner has ever come out on record opposing a payroll cap. If you have info to the contrary, be specific -- which owner and when did they say it. You can't use another sport as the model or an example for MLB as the finances and revenues are different. They need to try something so even if it's not a payroll cap, they should raise luxury taxes much higher.

Philosophically to me and I'm sure most fans around the country, there's nothing as boring as a few teams -- and especially one -- using a big financial edge to dominate the standings year in and year out. Great teams may drive interest except when that greatness is driven almost solely by a huge payroll advantage. Then I would say that great team is more likely to drive disdain and disinterest on the part of fans who root for small market teams that can't compete due to significantly smaller revenues. I disagree that revenue sharing reduces the incentinve to win. Without it, it would be a more boring product as there would be even more disparity. And what is CBT? Do you mean the LT? If so, how does the LT reduce the incentive to win?

Can I ask what team you root for Pete? I think I already know.

Large payroll teams (Red Sox, Yanks) are opposed to salary caps for obvious reasons but some small payroll teams are opposed as well because a cap comes with a floor. A floor would require that the Pirates and Marlins would have to up payroll drastically. De facto there is a salary cap in MLB, it is called the Competitive Balance Tax (aka luxury tax). One team has paid 90% plus of the "penalties" since its introduction.

Parity is not of benefit to the leagues. The Sports Economists have concluded this over and over, that there are other, more important, factors that determine the popularity of leagues. It is not restricted to North America, (I'm not a soccer fan, but don't a small handful of clubs dominate the EPL year in and year out? Isn't the EPL booming?)

Revenue sharing is a disincentive to win. Winning equals increased revenue. There is less incentive to generate that increased revenue if you can't keep it all. For the same reason, rev sharing depresses salaries. Also (and Maury wrote about this recently), the increased amounts of rev sharing in MLB are a disincentive to win. Traditionally making money in baseball meant putting butts in seats. Today a lot of money comes from cable deals and shared central revenues (national TV rights, merchandising, BAM, MLBN) Putting butts in seats isn't as important to the bottom line as it was as recently as twenty years ago. Putting butts in seats = winning but there is less economic benefit to winning when there is more sharing. The CBT/LT reduces the incentive to win. In pro sports, more often than not, spending = winning. The Yanks would spend more on big league payroll if they weren't paying a 40% tax. How is that not a disincentive to win?

I'm a Jays fan since inception.

Oh, ok sure ... the Yanks are opposed to a payroll cap, of course. After all, they are the only team to have voted against the Luxury Tax. But when did the Red Sox say they are opposed to a cap? I donm't think they are. Also, which small teams are on record as being opposed to a cap in principal? Be specific. I don't think any are.

Moreover, a cap would not necessarily have to have a floor -- or a high floor. There are many ways to structure a cap. I bet if you polled the owners now on the need for a cap OR tougher luxury taxes almost every team, big or small, with the exception of the Yankees will say YES.

Sorry, but I disagree with your opinion that parity is not a benefit. With viewership of MLB down the last few decades, one could easily see where it would rise if more teams had a chance to compete in the postseason every year. Give a link to a valid study that is directly relevant to MLB (and not a study covering international sports which operate on a different model).

Your statement that reveneue sharing is a disincentive to win is not well supported by your following points or by reality. For example -- Yes, winning equals increased revenue, but that goes for all teams and without revenue sharing, the ability of the smaller market teams to win would be dminshed, and hence their revenue. So it's easy to see where lack of revenue sharing would decrease reveneus even further.

What I find most humorous about your circular argument is using the Yankees as a supposed example of how revenue sharing decreases incentive to win. On the contrary, as revenue sharing and LT taxes have increaased the past decade, the Yankees have demonstrated more and more desire to do anything at all costs to win. No decline in desire evidenced here.

And of course the Yankees would spend even more on payroll if not for the LT. But that doesn't mean the LT is a disincentive to win. That is not a logical conclusion. It is a bit of a non-sequitur. And it flies in the face of how the Yankees have actually acted this past decade.

You can talk about your own theories all you want. But when they are not backed up by anything -- especially by reality -- then they are pretty worthless.

"Several clubs receive substantial revenue sharing dollars each year, but do not reinvest them, at least not in terms of the spirit of the provision within the CBA"

Maury, which teams are they? Do you have any source material that backs that up conclusively -- not just charges made by someone?

Maury, as for the low chances of a cap pa*sing, I agree. The MLBPA would go on strike over it most likely. But at the very least they need to look into raising the LT to around 80% for repeat offenders. At least that's what they should ask for. What doesn't make sense is the reason you give for the union opposing a cap. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the union opposes it because in a capped league a higher percentage of revenues would go to player salaries. Well if the MLBPA and owners believed that, the sides would reverse their positions on the matter. They don't believe it. Nor do I. That argument is faulty because if presupposes a certain structure that would lead to a rise in the costs of player salaries. But any structure is yet to be determined and could be set up so as not to fuel player salaries -- or even to lower them. It is the Yankees' unbridled spending of the last decade which has fueled salaries the most. Which is why the union will be foreever against a cap.

Hello Maury,

First off, I don't have Sirius/XM or I would definitely try to catch your interview. I generally like Duquette and heard him just yesterday on WFAN. I also respect the work you've done in this article.

Now about operating income and Forbes figures. It's a fact that Forbes does not have access to actual financial figures for each club. Their numbers are estimates and guesstimates at best. Further, from what I gather, those numbers do not include finances from regional sports networks. THAT'S THE BIGGEST WEAKNESS with the Forbes numbers. We all know for that big market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets, these RSNs are a huge huge source of income. RSNs seem to me to be one of the main reasons -- if not the main one -- for the revenue disparity between big and small market teams that grew so huge over the last decade or so. Therefore, how can Forbes even begin to paint an accurate picture of profitability for all ML teams without RSN numbers?

I laugh when many fans point to the Forbes site and say "see the Yankees spend all of their revenue on payroll and make no money." Many don't understand that YES reveneues are not included in the Forbes numbers. So the Yankees may in fact be the most profitable ML club of all. We just don't know.

Moreover, I can hardly take Weiner's word as gospel for how the small market clubs use their resources. It's his job to take the one-sided stand he does so he's hardly objective. Most important, he certainly has no access to the financial figures of any club either. So he's not acting on fact. Just opinion and what may be gross misconceptions about team profitability.

From what I understand, it's up to Selig's office to ensure that teams that recieve revenue sharing monies use it wisely. So there is some oversight -- though it may not be the most objective -- to ensure they are being spent within the spirit of the CBA.

Moreover, I take issue with this position -- "The idea that some clubs are paying down stadium debt, such as the Pirates have admitted to, seems in violation of the agreement." If not explicitly banned in the CBA, then how does using revenue sharing to pay down debt violate it? One way or the other, they are going to pay that debt. So if it doesn't come directly from revenue sharing, it might come from revenues originally tabbed for payroll anyway.

In addition, there are many other ways to use revenue sharing to improve a club without increasing payroll. Such as amateur draft bonuses, signing international free agents, running overseas traning facilities and programs, plus hiring better scouts, trainers and farm system personnel. The payroll for the 40-man roster should not be the only way one a*sesses proper usage of revenue sharing monies. But of course, since Weiner only represents ML players, he will only watch out for their interests.

Not really. The a*sumption that because some teams don't spend the Revenue Sharing on payroll means they start out with a profit is incorrect. There are ball parks to pay for, park staff to pay for, coaches, managers, backoffice staff, licensing fees, marketing fees. The maintenance for these alone may exceed the revenue of some of the smaller market teams in some down years especially in a year when major park renovations are required.

I am not saying that these small market teams aren't using money intended for other purposes in the wrong way but the a*sertion that they are making a profit instantly is wrong.

So the Yankees, in that time span, have spent ONE BILLION DOLLARS more than 17 other teams? Holy freaking moly.