[simple simon]

i think i have found some similarities lately with NASCAR and Major League Baseball

1. no salary cap .... teams are allowed to spend as much or as little as they like on the product they put on the field/track

2. there are clear cut haves and have-nots .... both sports have teams that while they may win a couple races/games ... there is no reasonable shot they will win the championship

3. both have top teams that while having large fan bases ... just as many or maybe more people hate them .... HMS/Yankees

[Measure]

The Driver salary compares more closely to Golf or Tennis than the MLB, as the drivers earn what they win, or at least, a portion of that.

I know, things are more complicated with sponsors, since as far as I know, NASCAR is the ONLY sport in which each team needs a sponsor to survive.

I've been thinking about making a post about the economy of NASCAR to try to figure that out better, but every time I draft it up it becomes a novel-length post, and I end up not hitting submit.

[bob101]

The biggest differences are related to money of course.

In baseball if a team spends more than XXX on salary that excess is "taxed" as a luxury deal like 30% and it is divided among the bottom teams.

The TV deal is evenly spread among the teams, even tho say the Yankees have their own network and get monies from it - the major network money is again divided and the bottom teams get some as well.

Baseball teams as well need sponsors if you haven't noticed. Sure technically you could be the lowest spending team without one, but so could a race car drive around painted white if it's owner so chose to spend his own money.

Go to a ballgame and the stadium will be sponsored such as Minute Maid Park or whatver, every square inch inside is sponsored. The ones behind home plate that appear on TV every pitch rotate each half inning they are so valuable. The 7th inning stretch will be sponsored by someone and usually an activity that goes along with it. Certain days are sponsored and you get a free handout that day.

Sponsorship is so pervasive today people don't even realise how much stuff is sponsored.

[Measure]

Baseball teams don't need sponsors the same way NASCAR teams do. Several very successful teams have unsponsored stadiums. Yankee Stadium, anyone?

There will never be a day in NASCAR where a Jeff Gordon or Tony Stewart could get by without having a sponsor. This is indeed different than other sports.

Sponsorship money is needed in NASCAR because it costs more to stay competitive than you can make off winning races. But that's only the case because all the other teams have sponsors.

If there were no sponsors, all teams would spend less competing. In fact, the top money winners would probably be able to spend more competing, and then you'd have a situation more like baseball.

In NASCAR, sponsorship has lead to a ton of parity. Not all the teams are even, but most of the big teams are pretty equal.

[johnsonfan_48]

Originally Posted by Measure

Baseball teams don't need sponsors the same way NASCAR teams do. Several very successful teams have unsponsored stadiums. Yankee Stadium, anyone?

There will never be a day in NASCAR where a Jeff Gordon or Tony Stewart could get by without having a sponsor. This is indeed different than other sports.

Sponsorship money is needed in NASCAR because it costs more to stay competitive than you can make off winning races. But that's only the case because all the other teams have sponsors.

If there were no sponsors, all teams would spend less competing. In fact, the top money winners would probably be able to spend more competing, and then you'd have a situation more like baseball.

In NASCAR, sponsorship has lead to a ton of parity. Not all the teams are even, but most of the big teams are pretty equal.

You are correct, but also keep this in mind in baseball each team gets the TV revenue for thier market. Imagine if TV money was divided by each team in each market and only a small fraction of the money went to nascar.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by johnsonfan_48

You are correct, but also keep this in mind in baseball each team gets the TV revenue for thier market. Imagine if TV money was divided by each team in each market and only a small fraction of the money went to nascar.

Please correct me if I'm wrong because the amount I know about the administration of S&B sports would sink a cruise ship.

In MLB (I think) don't the gates receipt profits from teams who consistently have high attendance numbers get reallocated in some way to the teams who have problems getting people in the park?

It seems I once heard that there is some sort or redistribution of wealth in the MLB, beyond that of the TV profits.

But I'm probably wrong and this post will seems downright silly.

[simple simon]

youre basically right on Bob

i believe my #'s are close enough here ...... the Florida Marlins recieve about $60 million in revenue sharing ... yet their payroll is only just over $20 million

even so there are of course teams with payrolls over $100 million

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by simple simon

youre basically right on Bob

i believe my #'s are close enough here ...... the Florida Marlins recieve about $60 million in revenue sharing ... yet their payroll is only just over $20 million

even so there are of course teams with payrolls over $100 million

Hmmm...?

From Das Kapital: "From each, according to their means, to each, according to their needs."

This could easily evolve into a really serious discussion I feel strongly about. I think I will defer.

Of course, the reason they do this in MLB is because, if they didn't, they would have maybe...? six teams in MLB?
Is this the way the Wood Brothers, Petty's and Morgan-McClure's, might be saved? I hope not.

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Is this the way the Wood Brothers, Petty's and Morgan-McClure's, might be saved? I hope not.

That is an interesting concept, although it may get a blank stare from the top contenders, and no doubt from the Series Owners. Profit sharing…. crazy talk.
Nope, the only way of saving the "oldies" is by asset amalgamation with others in similar situation and going under a brand umbrella. Petty is a "brand" I would think, maybe even Wood Bros.
I’m thinking ahead, but the 10 team-4 car concept with no top 35 rule is what will make it work for everyone and is the future...or not.

[EmpireWF]

Originally Posted by simple simon

2. there are clear cut haves and have-nots .... both sports have teams that while they may win a couple races/games ... there is no reasonable shot they will win the championship

While there are clear haves and have nots in MLB, there have been surprises as far as winning teams over the past several years.

2002, the Angels over the mighty Yankees
2003, the Marlins over those same mighty Yankees
2005, ChiSox over the Houston Astros
2006, Cardinals over the Tigers
2007, the Rockies made it all the way to the World Series.

It is difficult but it's possible to get to the World Series, or win it if you are a team without the payroll of the Yanks, Boston, Mets, Dodgers, etc.

[bob101]

A Rod makes more per year than the opening day roster of the Flordia Marlins including their disabled list...yet if they play there's always a chance the Marlins could sweep the Yankees or even make the playoffs and not the Yankees......

Just something to think about.

[johnsonfan_48]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Hmmm...?

From Das Kapital: "From each, according to their means, to each, according to their needs."

This could easily evolve into a really serious discussion I feel strongly about. I think I will defer.

Of course, the reason they do this in MLB is because, if they didn't, they would have maybe...? six teams in MLB?
Is this the way the Wood Brothers, Petty's and Morgan-McClure's, might be saved? I hope not.

Here is a thought, what about profit sharing directly from NASCAR to teams that meet a certain criteria. The top owners will never give up any profits they may be seeing. But is it in NASCARS Best intrest to support those 26-50 level teams to make the racing more competitive.

hmmmmm

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by johnsonfan_48

Here is a thought, what about profit sharing directly from NASCAR to teams that meet a certain criteria. The top owners will never give up any profits they may be seeing. But is it in NASCARS Best intrest to support those 26-50 level teams to make the racing more competitive.

Quote from Bob Tanner: "From Das Kapital: "From each, according to their means, to each, according to their needs."

hmmmmm

I'll pass, if you don't mind. It's just another version of redistribution of wealth. I didn't agree with Karl Marx when I read his above quote in Das Kapital and I've seen nothing anywhere to change my mind.

IRT the smaller teams which are in danger... The traditionalist in me makes me want something to be done but the pragmatic part of me realizes that the vast majority of the "old teams" have fallen by the wayside in the name of "progress." While I have a lot of problems with Charles Darwin, that same pragmatic side of me says his Law of Natural Selection is hard to argue against.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

That is an interesting concept, although it may get a blank stare from the top contenders, and no doubt from the Series Owners. Profit sharing…. crazy talk.
Nope, the only way of saving the "oldies" is by asset amalgamation with others in similar situation and going under a brand umbrella. Petty is a "brand" I would think, maybe even Wood Bros.
I’m thinking ahead, but the 10 team-4 car concept with no top 35 rule is what will make it work for everyone and is the future...or not.

You're OK with franchising then? The concept has some thing going for it but... I still just can't come to grips with it.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

You're OK with franchising then? The concept has some thing going for it but... I still just can't come to grips with it.

The big problem I see with franchising is a franchise has an image, a very carefully managed image. Imagine Micky D's having a salmonella epidemic with their grilled chicken sandwiches, or the Burger King getting caught frolicking with wenches at an S&M party, or cute little Wendy going to the clink for insider trading.

Then there's the other side of a franchise's image: when Dale Jr ran the Budweiser #8, or the other Dale in the UPS #44, they were perfect images for a franchise. Now that Jr's in the Amp / Mountain Dew / National Guard / whoever-else-is-on-the-bandwagon #88 car, what's the image? colors? message? Will DR race the truck? Will he get his famous dad into his commercials? Again, where's the image?

Problem is there's more associate sponsors than primary and more cars/teams than primary sponsors. So, ya guessed it! NO IMAGE!