GatewayRedbirds.com

Players are getting less than 40% of the revenue now which is pretty significantly down. Player salaries have increased over the last 10 years but not at the same rate that MLB revenues have. I'm not sure how else to interpret it.

Are we really supposed to feel sorry for people getting 140 million dollar contracts?

JoeMcKim wrote:Are we really supposed to feel sorry for people getting 140 million dollar contracts?

Some would go to guys who are making six figures.

Regardless, I would rather players have more than owners.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Players are getting less than 40% of the revenue now which is pretty significantly down. Player salaries have increased over the last 10 years but not at the same rate that MLB revenues have. I'm not sure how else to interpret it.

Understanding of course that the players are why we tune in, but what has changed over the past 10 years that have made revenues rise that much? Are the players that much better or exciting than they were 10 years ago? Is it that the owners/league have marketed and distributed the game better? Setting aside of course the matter of owners begging for public money to build private stadiums.

Basically what I'm saying is this. If the owners/league has put in the legwork to increase revenues, shouldn't they be the ones reaping more of the rewards from that? We like watching the players of course, but as Seinfeld put it, we're really rooting for laundry. Players come and go. The owners and league increase the value of the laundry.

I think the owners are reaping too much. They deserve credit for the expansion of media rights, but the players deserve the credit for what have been some exciting postseasons in recent years.

I haven't gotten the chance to read it in full, but Ben Lindbergh is a smart guy and appears to be making a case that the players share of revenue hasn't seen a huge change: https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/ ... ob-manfred

Some (imo minor) caveats from Craig Edwards here:

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:I haven't gotten the chance to read it in full, but Ben Lindbergh is a smart guy and appears to be making a case that the players share of revenue hasn't seen a huge change: https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/ ... ob-manfred

Some (imo minor) caveats from Craig Edwards here:

I did skim it and will have to give it a closer read, but is the argument that player benefits aren't being factored in to it?

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:I haven't gotten the chance to read it in full, but Ben Lindbergh is a smart guy and appears to be making a case that the players share of revenue hasn't seen a huge change: https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/ ... ob-manfred

Some (imo minor) caveats from Craig Edwards here:

I just saw this article linked on Reddit. It's pretty interesting.

I wonder what the MLBPA will be saying this spring.

I had to look up acronyms:
RSN = Regional Sports Network
MLBAM = MLB Advanced Media
MLBN = MLB Network

...I just want to know how this affects the Forbes evaluations