Quote:
Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2
If you think that is how revenue sharing is supposed to work...
|
Why have revenue sharing at all if it has no effect on the spending of small market teams vs. large market teams? You might as well disable the feature because it does nothing to change the game. We don't get to see what the owner does with the phantom money.
During the recent CBA negotiations, the players argued that the small market teams should not be allowed to "pocket the money" and instead should be required to invest the revenue sharing proceeds into payroll. This would obviously benefit the players via increasing salaries, but it would also increase competition. The NFL does something like this via their salary cap floor.
I am not a developer so I don't know why they chose to have revenue sharing apply to the first game year. Maybe they think it was broken before and this was intended to fix it or perhaps it is a programming error. Matt said he would review the feature, so presumably he will come back to one of these threads and either explain why it is working as intended or tell us that he is planning a revision to satisfy your concern.
P.S. I took a pic of the Mets opening accounting screen in the standard MLB game. The revenue is $325M and the expenses are $335M with bare minimum scouting and player development. Do you really think that any owner would allow further payroll spending in that situation? They are already paying $20M in luxury tax on top of the $335M.
