Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Revenue Sharing


Recommended Posts

Ok,,, we all know most of the teams that make money (Habs, TO, Chi, NY, ruins, etc.). We also know most of the teams that don't make money (Dogs, Flo, Car, Nash, etc.). The money-makers give some of their bucks to the welfare cases.

So, let's say for the sake of argument, that TO makes a billion gross and they pay their overhead and expenses, leaving, say, 100 mil. net. Loser "A" team, makes 500 mil. and after they pay their overhead, they are left with minus 100 mil. How much would TO have to pay into revenue sharing, assuming that other teams kick in their share? Would it be a percentage of the gross, or net? Would it be a fixed rate? Would it depend on what the other money-makers make (because it might fluctuate)? Would it depend on how much the losers lost?

Is there a site I can go and see what each team kicks in to revenue sharing?

Just askin, is all. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of info available out there. Some of the sites are not approved for this board but the material on them is pretty informative.

Here's an example...

NHL Revenue Sharing Explained


Subject to a few conditions, the NHL will take its league-wide Hockey Related Revenue figure (HRR) and multiply it by 0.06055 to determine the Redistribution Commitment for that season. Using the 2011-2012 HRR of $3.3 billion as an example, that would yield $200 million going into the revenue sharing plan.

Under the new setup, there are three funding stages which fill up the revenue sharing pot. First, a maximum of 50% of the Redistribution Commitment is drawn from the Top 10 highest-grossing teams based on pre-season and regular season revenue. Each team's contribution is based on how much they earn over and above the 11th-ranked team, so the teams in the 8-10 spots don't pay in nearly as much as the top three, for example.

Next, those teams participating in the Stanley Cup playoffs (regardless of their earning power during the regular season) chip in 35% of gate receipts from home playoff games. So the next time you hear someone spout that playoff home games are pure gravy to teams, slap them upside the head - that wasn't even the case under the 2005 CBA, but you still hear it from time to time.

If, after those two phases, the Redistribution Commitment hasn't been raised, the league can chip in with centrally generated revenues, such as sales of Gary Bettman Fatheads and leftover player escrow funds.

Revenue Sharing Recipients

In broad strokes, the basic idea is that the Redistribution Commitment is divided up among recipient teams to help bring them up to a Targeted Team Player Compensation level, which is a calculated value somewhere between the salary floor and the mid-point based on a number of factors. The distribution amounts for specific teams can be adjusted by a special Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee, which includes representatives from both the NHL and NHLPA, but the overall level of distribution must remain the same (in other words, if they bump one team's distribution up, those funds have to come out of someone else's distribution).

What makes this latest version of revenue sharing interesting is that some of the barriers which prevented teams from receiving funds have been removed. For example, under the old deal, teams in large media markets (such as the New York Islanders and Anaheim Ducks) were banned outright from receiving funds. Now, teams in media markets of more than 3 million households can receive 50% of what the calculations would otherwise dictate. In addition, various performance parameters (paid attendance averaging at least 14,000, growing business at an above-average rate, etc.) have been removed. In the past, failing to meet those criteria could cause a team to lose 25-50% of their distribution. In place of those punitive measures, this CBA sets up an Industry Growth Fund, in which lagging teams submit business plans for how to improve and can receive loans or grants to help in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs1952

As I mentioned recently in another thread, the top teams should find ways to reduce their revenue so the poor teams can't get a handout and either make it themselves or fold. In my humble opinion the poor teams folding would (A)allow the remaining teams to put a better product on the ice, (B)allow the remaining teams to make more money ©probably increase the cap with teams making more money and (D) hopefully shut Bettman up when he talks about expansion in the southern states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 1 month later...


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...