AFL Going To USA To Investigate Equalisation Ideas

[Tas]

Why can't they just Google like every other Australian.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

32 teams in 30 markets vs 18 teams in 6 markets.

there'd be practically no footy broadcast into Melbourne if you got your wish.

That;s for the Vic clubs to argue about. But this is fundamental plank in the NFL revenue generation model and therefore their equilisation policies. If you are substantially different to the NFL model then you can't just cut and paste the NFL equlisation revenue sharing policies. Ignore this fundamental and you will * up any model you are trying to copy.

 

[mcgarnacle]

That;s for the Vic clubs to argue about. But this is fundamental plank in the NFL revenue generation model and therefore their equilisation policies. If you are substantially different to the NFL model then you can't just cut and paste the NFL equlisation revenue sharing policies. Ignore this fundamental and you will **** up any model you are trying to copy.

What the blackout does is encourage more people to attend matches, otherwise they might not see it at all.

15-20 years ago, 25-30% of games were blacked out. These days, about 6% of matches are blacked out in a local market.

the main crux of the NFL's equalisation is the sharing of National Media and Sponsorship revenues and these revenues are significant.

there has also been sharing of revenue between clubs where an individual club would keep a percentage of their own generated revenues from tickets, merchandise, concessions, etc, and the remaining percentage would be pooled for distribution league-wide. This was once as high as a 60/40 split. However, this type of revenue sharing is something the owners/NFL understandably have been trying to limit. With the new CBA being hailed financially as a win for the owners as they get to keep more money and the players get less (with the compromise of a lack of HGH testing of players in the sport) of the $9b pie, the owners/clubs get to keep even more of the revenues so the reliance for the pooling & sharing of club revenues to prop up smaller teams has dropped markedly.

 

[Frank Grimes]

I think the equalisation thing is blown out too much. The poorer clubs are crying foul, but poorer clubs have only fairly recently fell down to the bottom of the ladder. The Saints has made consecutive Grand finals in the past five years and the Bulldogs made consecutive Preliminary finals. The Kangaroos made the finals last year and has always been a competitive team. They could just as easily been 6-2 if the close games went their way. Port won the Premiership 8 years ago and after spending a bit of time on the bottom of the ladder they are 5-2 going into this round.

As of the other clubs: While Collingwood is coming off a successful era they are on the wane this year going into this round 4-3. Essendon has only made the finals twice since 2005. Carlton missed the finals last year and could again this year. There was a long period between 2002-2008 where they didn't make the finals. Richmond is somewhere between a medium sized club and big club and hasn't made the finals since 2001.

To me this seems to be more a case of good/poor management of clubs and the natural cycle resulting from the draft/salary cap rather than clubs being unequal.

This is just like back in the 2004-2007 era when everybody was complaining about all the non-Victorian teams dominating the competition and we need to do something about it. It just turned out that it was more a coincidence and people were jumping at shadows.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

They'll come back and boot Fremantle, Carlton, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs and Melbourne out of the league. While relocating Hawthorn to Launceston, North Melbourne to Hobart, Greater Western Sydney to Canberra, Port Adelaide to Darwin and Richmond to Cairns.

Afterall, it helps NFL clubs to be 1 team towns (with the exception of New York, so Melbourne can be our New York)

Actually, despite the name, the NY giants actually play out of New Jersey, whilst the jets play in NYC

 

[Iason]

Actually, despite the name, the NY giants actually play out of New Jersey, whilst the jets play in NYC

Giants and Jets both play in the same stadium.

 

[Fat Tony!]

Bulldogs President Peter Gordon is on the money with his calls for greater equalisation measures in the AFL. Indeed I don’t believe he has gone far enough. The AFL and the AFL Players Association (AFL PA) both only need to have a good hard look in the mirror for answers on the lopsided nature of the ladder. Systemic faults in the game are sending poor clubs to the wall and I fear leading to a competition that is permanently uneven. This is a travesty. Australia’s ‘fair go’ culture won’t stand for the AFL evolving into an EPL situation, and long-time fans of bottom clubs will soon lose interest. The EPL only maintains any relevancy due to relegation system and the reward of European Cup/Champions League qualification and this is not a realistic option for our competition given its history.

I believe the AFL PA needs to be called out for its incredible hypocrisy. On one had the AFL PA wants to see all players given equal chance of success, no matter where they are drafted. On the other it is always pushing for higher salaries (and maximisation of the TV rights), greater flexibility for players in moving between clubs and the allowance of third party deals. It is a ‘cake and eat it too’ stance and the AFL PA are badly letting down its members at the poorer clubs and will ultimately cost jobs.

While the AFL fixture is friendly to the lower clubs from a ‘winning’ point of view, it is horrendous for poor clubs from a commercial standpoint. None of the Demons, Bulldogs or Port plays any games on Friday night this year. The lack of free to air TV exposure reduces their ability to attract sponsors and members and will see the supporter bases of these clubs dwindle over time. The AFL and the AFL PA is obviously looking to maximise its TV rights deal, however short-term profits will see the rich clubs grow at the expense of poorer clubs and this will ultimately see the total size of the pie decline as fans drop off. I also believe the draw shouldn’t be used as an equalistion mechanism, as it leads to questions of integrity.

The introduction of expansion teams has clearly hurt the poorest clubs at the bottom of the ladder badly. The cream of the draft has been taken by GCS and GWS. And they have also clearly targeted the weaker clubs for their uncontracted mature recruits.

The introduction of free agency has also obviously hurt the bottom clubs. Key players have left clubs such as Melbourne and St Kilda for greener pastures, while other players have moved to successful clubs despite being offered more money by elsewhere.

The AFL also needs to look at players successfully manipulating the draft by nominating their contractual terms to get to their preferred destination. The ability of players like Luke Ball and Kurt Tippett to get through to top sides highlights this issue.

Players are also weakening the poorer clubs in the trade period. The Brian Lake trade from the Bulldogs to Hawthorn for less money and Chris Dawes’s trade to Melbourne for double money at Collingwood are two examples that highlight this issue.

The AFL also needs to stamp out third party deals like the Judd/Visy contract, which obviously subverts the intentions of the salary cap.

One idea I think needs to be considered is change to the salary cap system whereby the salary cap reduces for the clubs that finish higher on the ladder the year before. Obviously the AFL would also have to ensure that the cap is fully paid by all clubs. This would help reduce the incentive for players to leave the bottom clubs for the top clubs. An example of the sliding salary cap is shown below.

Premier in 2013 - Salary Cap in 2014: $10,000,000
2nd - $10,100,000
3rd - $10,200,000
.
.
.
17th - $11,600,000
18th - $11,700,000

As an aside, I feel the AFL should also look to promote club loyalty and should consider a lower weighting be applied to the salaries one-club players. (i.e. loyal players are weighted as 0.9 in the cap.)

This option is superior to a cap on football department spending, which I believe should also be considered, as the benefits of such spending are extremely intangible. The current situation has become an arms race, which has sucked money from the players’ pockets into those of shysters the likes of Steven Dank.

While you might say that it doesn’t matter if some clubs die, it must be remembered that there will always be poorer clubs than others and there will always be clubs at the bottom of the ladder. Who will be next once Melbourne, the Bulldogs, Port and St Kilda go? Where does it end? Do we really want Coles and Woolworths playing off in the Grand Final each year?

 

[Mr Magic]

In what has to be another farce by the AFL, they are sending a group over to the USA on a fact-finding mission in regards to equalising the competition :



I don't like the idea of engineering a level playing field for clubs who can't be bothered doing the right thing or trying to, instead they just wait for the handouts and don't have to work for it.

The Hawthorn chap summed up my thoughts pretty well in this article :






Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bid-for-level-playing-field-20130517-2js4f.html#ixzz2TYdLzWGE

The biggest problem for bias is the draw fixture IMO, does football in the US have anything like us on that level?

 

[mcgarnacle]

The biggest problem for bias is the draw fixture IMO, does football in the US have anything like us on that level?

hello NFL.

the big difference is that over an 8 year period, every club will have played every other at least once, home & away.

but the individual regular season is very much biased. transparent, but financially biased. they have their own version of Carlton vs Collingwood vs Essendon vs Richmond. It's Dallas Cowboys vs New York Giants vs Philadelphia Eagles vs Washington Redskins. Also known as the NFC East. These are the bankable big moolah fixtures twice every year.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Is this the same Carlton which borrowed $10m off the AFL to stay afloat recently?

Spare me.

We did what now?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yet the majority of NFL titles these days are won by Green Bay, NYG, Dallas, New England, Baltimore and so on.

Teams may have more opportunity to be okay finance wise, but there are still going to be teams behind the eight ball. It's just the way sport works.

What??

 

[finders]

Demetriou will go the USA and be pig arrogant like he is today and ignore a fundamental plank of the NFL TV deals/coverage - ie no live against the gate in the primary and secondary TV markets for any NFL teams home game, unless that game is a sell out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_on_television

.........
The NFL have got it right so I hope AD and the clubs take note.

I have said all along that the live against will eventually kill the crowds that the AFL enjoy now.There is already a worrying trend this year of poor crowds for some less interesting games

Why make the effort when you can sit at home on the couch and watch and if you dont like it turn off.

Less crowds = less income for clubs and a lopsided comp makes it even worse.

The public want a contest not thrashings.

Cricket got sucked in by CH 9 and have a look at the way their crowds have dropped

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

.....

the main crux of the NFL's equalisation is the sharing of National Media and Sponsorship revenues and these revenues are significant.

there has also been sharing of revenue between clubs where an individual club would keep a percentage of their own generated revenues from tickets, merchandise, concessions, etc, and the remaining percentage would be pooled for distribution league-wide. This was once as high as a 60/40 split. However, this type of revenue sharing is something the owners/NFL understandably have been trying to limit. With the new CBA being hailed financially as a win for the owners as they get to keep more money and the players get less (with the compromise of a lack of HGH testing of players in the sport) of the $9b pie, the owners/clubs get to keep even more of the revenues so the reliance for the pooling & sharing of club revenues to prop up smaller teams has dropped markedly.

The main crux of the AFL's equalisation is like the NFL's ie the sharing of National Media and Sponsorship revenues and these revenues are significant. It's all relative the NFL get the majority of there income from these two sources as does the AFL. The big difference is the share that goes to the players. 22-23% of AFL industry revenue goes to the AFL players, 45% to 48% of All Revenues - Non All Revenues as defined by the 2011-2020 NFL CBA.

The other stuff can't be cut and paste if protection of live against the gate is ignored by the AFL. I assume the 60/40 split of match revenue, which I think has changed but can't find what the new figure is, includes all season ticket revenue. It is going to be hard to get the AFL clubs to share that.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

What was shared before the 2011-2020 CBA. Haven't found a good succinct article on what is now shared.

Haha I wonder how the AFL will counter the SANFL scanner issue?

http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-...North-Americas-Major-Pro-Sports-Leagues_2.htm

The NFL's revenue-sharing model is universally lauded as the reason pro football continues to thrive in tiny markets like Green Bay, Wisconsin.


The bulk of the league's revenue - approximately $4 billion in 2011 - comes from broadcast deals with NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV. That income is shared equally among all teams. Income from licensing deals - everything from jerseys to posters to team-logo beer coolers - is also shared evenly.

Ticket revenue is split using a slightly different formula: the home team keeps 60 percent of "the gate" for each game, while the visiting team gets 40 percent.

Other sources of revenue - things like the sale of luxury boxes, stadium concessions and the like - are not shared, which does give teams in bigger markets or with state-of-the-art arenas a significant edge in profitability. The new CBA attempts to remedy that in two ways. First, the league will set aside a percentage of revenue in a stadium fund, which will be used to match teams' investments in their facilities. Second, there will be an additional "luxury tax" levied on high-revenue teams, with the receipts set to be distributed to the lower-revenue clubs.
http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-...North-Americas-Major-Pro-Sports-Leagues_2.htm

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

But looks like the first year of operation the smaller teams got less under the new deal. I wonder if this will end up happening in the AFL?

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-revenue.aspx
Revenue sharing among NFL clubs plummets
ByDaniel Kaplan, Staff Writer
Published October 22, 2012, Page 1

Wealthy NFL teams shared significantly less money in 2011 with financially challenged clubs than in previous years, the league told owners at their fall meeting in Chicago last week.

Previously, upward of $100 million was transferred annually to solve a financial disparity issue that the NFL wrestled with for well over a decade. In 2011, that figure plummeted to between $10 million and $15 million, multiple sources said.

The amount is a fraction of the billions of pooled national revenue that underpin the league’s success, but the reduction signifies that the angry debate between “high-revenue” and “low-revenue” teams may be over and, further, that the league got what it wanted from the newly enacted collective-bargaining agreement.

The steep financial concessions the league won from the players in labor negotiations last year has served in part to significantly diminish the need for robust revenue sharing among the clubs outside the money that is traditionally pooled, like national media and sponsorship dollars. By keeping a greater percentage of overall revenue beginning in 2011, the NFL was able to pad the bottom lines of teams that previously needed extra assistance, enabling owners of higher-revenue clubs to keep more of the money they brought in from their own sales successes.

Several NFL sources confirmed the lower figures but did not wish to be identified. The NFL declined to comment.

“This seems to be indicative that, at this early stage, this CBA is working as the owners intended it to work,” said Scott Rosner, a sports business professor at Wharton School.

The shift puts the NFL in stark contrast to other major U.S. sports leagues, especially the NBA and NHL, which recently have moved to increase revenue sharing among clubs to help struggling teams.

When the NFL signed the new CBA 14 months ago, the league had hoped toward the end of the 10-year deal that it might be able to phase out this form of sharing, which it terms “supplemental revenue sharing.” It might reach that goal far quicker if the 2011 figure is any indication, especially given the increased media money set to start flowing into the league from the latest round of TV deals, which take effect in 2014.

By the end of the old CBA, players were getting a low 50 percent share of all revenue. That ratio, in the current deal, is now in the mid 40 percent range.

In addition to the owners keeping that larger share of revenue, one team source pointed to another critical change in the new CBA as a factor in reducing the need for supplemental revenue sharing. While the players end up getting a mid 40 percent amount, how the NFL derives this money has changed, with percentages now being different based on source. The players, for example, get 55 percent of national TV money. By contrast, revenue deemed locally generated (coming largely from within its marketing radius) is shared with the players at a 40 percent rate........

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-revenue.aspx

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Oh and if you want to know how the NFL defines different revenue streams and what falls under the definition of All Revenue and Non All Revenue to see what is exempt from the players share and what may or may not go into the equalisation pool, you can read pages 61 to page 89 of the

NFL 2011-2020 CBA


Last night/earlythis moring I found a that paper shows how the different leagues share their revenue as at 2010 ( ie before latest NFL CBA). I thought I downloaded it but can't find. If I find it I will post it here.

 

[mcgarnacle]

It's all relative the NFL get the majority of there income from these two sources as does the AFL. The big difference is the share that goes to the players. 22-23% of AFL industry revenue goes to the AFL players, 45% to 48% of All Revenues - Non All Revenues as defined by the 2011-2020 NFL CBA.

The other stuff can't be cut and paste if protection of live against the gate is ignored by the AFL. I assume the 60/40 split of match revenue, which I think has changed but can't find what the new figure is, includes all season ticket revenue. It is going to be hard to get the AFL clubs to share that.

i could see what you're getting at. you just didn't really explain it properly.

Blackouts encourage folks to attend games rather than making it easy for them to stay at home and watch television. with more folks at games, clubs generate more revenue and have less dependence on the league bailing them out every year.

but unlike the NFL where 32 teams come from 30 markets, (Greater NY & San Francisco Bay Area have two teams each), the AFL is much more concentrated in it's teams and markets. Perth & Adelaide could avoid the blackout for the most part, but the rest of the country would not have any television coverage of football at all for a while if the policy was as strict as the NFL's. Remember, a blackout isn't a delayed telecast. It is no telecast.

as you've corrected, live telecasts of all matches is the problem the AFL has created for individual club game day revenues. i wouldn't put it past the AFL preferring such a redistribution of industry revenue anyway. more into their coffers, less into clubs means more dependence and hence, more control.

 

[mcgarnacle]

But looks like the first year of operation the smaller teams got less under the new deal. I wonder if this will end up happening in the AFL?

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-revenue.aspx
Revenue sharing among NFL clubs plummets
ByDaniel Kaplan, Staff Writer
Published October 22, 2012, Page 1

Wealthy NFL teams shared significantly less money in 2011 with financially challenged clubs than in previous years, the league told owners at their fall meeting in Chicago last week.

Previously, upward of $100 million was transferred annually to solve a financial disparity issue that the NFL wrestled with for well over a decade. In 2011, that figure plummeted to between $10 million and $15 million, multiple sources said.

The amount is a fraction of the billions of pooled national revenue that underpin the league’s success, but the reduction signifies that the angry debate between “high-revenue” and “low-revenue” teams may be over and, further, that the league got what it wanted from the newly enacted collective-bargaining agreement.

The steep financial concessions the league won from the players in labor negotiations last year has served in part to significantly diminish the need for robust revenue sharing among the clubs outside the money that is traditionally pooled, like national media and sponsorship dollars. By keeping a greater percentage of overall revenue beginning in 2011, the NFL was able to pad the bottom lines of teams that previously needed extra assistance, enabling owners of higher-revenue clubs to keep more of the money they brought in from their own sales successes.

Several NFL sources confirmed the lower figures but did not wish to be identified. The NFL declined to comment.

“This seems to be indicative that, at this early stage, this CBA is working as the owners intended it to work,” said Scott Rosner, a sports business professor at Wharton School.

The shift puts the NFL in stark contrast to other major U.S. sports leagues, especially the NBA and NHL, which recently have moved to increase revenue sharing among clubs to help struggling teams.

When the NFL signed the new CBA 14 months ago, the league had hoped toward the end of the 10-year deal that it might be able to phase out this form of sharing, which it terms “supplemental revenue sharing.” It might reach that goal far quicker if the 2011 figure is any indication, especially given the increased media money set to start flowing into the league from the latest round of TV deals, which take effect in 2014.

By the end of the old CBA, players were getting a low 50 percent share of all revenue. That ratio, in the current deal, is now in the mid 40 percent range.

In addition to the owners keeping that larger share of revenue, one team source pointed to another critical change in the new CBA as a factor in reducing the need for supplemental revenue sharing. While the players end up getting a mid 40 percent amount, how the NFL derives this money has changed, with percentages now being different based on source. The players, for example, get 55 percent of national TV money. By contrast, revenue deemed locally generated (coming largely from within its marketing radius) is shared with the players at a 40 percent rate........

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-revenue.aspx

as i said, it was as high as 60/40. the majority of owners need to agree on such an arrangement, and the owners know fully well that a stronger collective will benefit them all. but it was never a model the NFL wanted to exist in perpetuity.

due to the recent CBA where player salaries have decreased proportionate to revenue (5% may seem small but on $9b, it's fairly decent chunk), and the source of salary payment (a higher percentage from TV money rather club generated money) this club revenue sharing requirement has dropped substantially. From over $100m to between $10-15m.

and as i said, the NFL and owners would prefer that clubs keep what revenue they can generate rather than have it split, pooled, and shared. the arrangement was in place to serve a purpose at the time. the big cost was the player wages in proportion to industry and club revenue under the old CBA.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

........

as you've corrected, live telecasts of all matches is the problem the AFL has created for individual club game day revenues. i wouldn't put it past the AFL preferring such a redistribution of industry revenue anyway. more into their coffers, less into clubs means more dependence and hence, more control.

Bingo! Under Demetriou's reign and his control freak nature, backed up by the AFL Commission by giving him bonuses based on control, he has made more than half the clubs dependent on AFL handouts so he can control the clubs and do what he wants pretty much. The old shut up and don't rock the boat or we will cut your hand out, or make your time slots even more s**t, approach.

It's only Collingwood, and the Hawks under Kennett and occasionally Essendon who really challenge the AFL ie - executives and commission . Both West Coast and Adelaide should be jumping up and down at the AFL but being controlled by the WAFC and SANFL respectively, they are restrained by those state footy bodies.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Oh and if you want to know how the NFL defines different revenue streams and what falls under the definition of All Revenue and Non All Revenue to see what is exempt from the players share and what may or may not go into the equalisation pool, you can read pages 61 to page 89 of the

NFL 2011-2020 CBA


Last night/earlythis moring I found a that paper shows how the different leagues share their revenue as at 2010 ( ie before latest NFL CBA). I thought I downloaded it but can't find. If I find it I will post it here.

American sports business is extremely interesting, complex & transparent than what we have here. Industrial relations, owners interests, city economics, stadium deals, etc

Frankly, the heads of Dimwit and his cronies would spin at the depth and detail of it all. Remember, this was the organisation that had no precedent to look to in the USA for policing interchanges so its own legitimate idea to regulate it was via the use of '3M post-it' notes.

Any successful AFL initiatives are actually pilfered from American pro sports.

 

[Demonheart]

Clean up the fixture, problem solved. But we all know the AFL won't do it, no idea why they're even pretending to be worried really

 

[Zach Package]

looking forward to alphabetical drafting.

as are the crows I hear

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This academic paper was written in early 2011 prior to the NFL CBA final deal and looks at NFL, NHL and MLB revenue sharing. It lists the history of the revenue sharing deals and analyses what has happened, the relevant issues, the whys and the wherefores. The first 16 of 56 pages covers the NFL and the last 8 is the authors recommendations for a 2011 CBA/revenue sharing solution.

The link takes you to a word document.

To Share Or Not To Share: Revenue Sharing Structures In Professional Sports

......

a. Level Two: An Additional Boost Under Supplemental Revenue Sharing in the NFL​

To combat the unfavorable circumstances affiliated with an insurmountable revenue gap, the NFL created Supplemental Revenue Sharing. Specifically, this system addresses the inequities associated with a malleable salary cap and significant revenue in the hands of a select few. Outlined in the March 10, 2006, Memorandum sent to the NFLPA, the goal of this plan was to “[e]stablish a new Revenue Sharing mechanism to fund low revenue clubs...”, with an overall value of $895 million over the six-year period.[1]
The League designed SRS to redistribute revenue from strong, top 15 revenue clubs to weak, small market clubs. To illustrate this concern, the Dallas Cowboys generated $420 million in revenues and the Detroit Lions generated $210 million in 2009.[2] Since these numbers reflect revenues and not profits, some owners assert that low revenue clubs may be more profitable than high revenue clubs given a lack of debt service and facility operational expenses. For this reason, the longevity of SRS is challenged quite frequently by ownership.


....

Table 1: Designation of revenues for revenue sharing and the salary cap

​

Category............... Cap Calculation.. Revenue Sharing.. Allocation​

Gate Receipts......................... Yes............. Yes............. 40% Visitors​

Broadcasts............................. Yes............. Yes.............. Evenly​

Concessions ( ie catering)......... Yes............... No................ -​

Local Advertising..................... Yes............... No................ -​

Signage................................. Yes............... No................ -​

Local Sponsors........................ Yes............... No................ -​

Parking.................................. Yes............... No................ -​

Local Advertising..................... Yes............... No................ -​

Novelties................................ Yes............... No................ -​

NFL Entities............................ Yes............. Yes............... Evenly​

Barter Income........................ Yes............... No................ --​

3rd Party Stadium Usage.......... Yes.......... Yes/No............... Situational​

Business Insurance................... Yes............... No................ -​

Promotions.............................. Yes............... No................ -​

Club/Luxury Box....................... Yes............... No................ -​

Premium Seat Revenues............. No*.............. No................ -​

Personal Seat Licenses.............. No*.............. No................. -​

...........................................................

b. Supplemental Revenue Sharing: Strengthening the Small Market Teams in the National Football League​

Supplemental Revenue Sharing strives to redistribute $895 million over a six-year period to low revenue clubs. In order to do so, the NFL’s Constitution establishes that:

“[t]he Revenue Sharing pool will be funded from three sources; (a) Amounts currently dedicated to Supplemental Revenue Sharing, (b) Direct payments from High Revenue Clubs, and (c) Distributions from new equally shared revenue streams (other than television), either from existing business categories or New Media Revenues…from shares that would otherwise go to High Revenue Clubs…”[1]

In addition to these three streams, the NFL’s supplemental sharing arrangement introduced a concept of “banking”, geared towards the retention of contributed funds to satisfy future needs under SRS.[2] Ideally, this supplemental system would share approximately $895 million over six years. However, since the redistributions increase significantly every year, from $100 million ​

....

First, any club ranked among the top 15 in terms of revenue contributes to SRS and, thus, does not receive additional revenue under SRS.[1] In addition to expressly limiting clubs from receiving revenue, the League formed a committee of eight owners to establish performance standards for eligibility under SRS.[2] In 2009, it was estimated that nine low revenue teams qualified to draw from this pool.[3]
.......

​

To Share Or Not To Share: Revenue Sharing Structures In Professional Sports

 

[The Magenius]

6 club chiefs are from North, St Kilda, Footscray, Port Adelaide, Fitzroy and Melbourne Vixens

This is just embarrassing, Australia fought a war to stop socialism and now we are continuing to encourage it in our national game.
If something isn't viable then either make it viable or get rid of it, stop propping it up at everybody else's expense.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This is just embarrassing, Australia fought a war to stop socialism and now we are continuing to encourage it in our national game.
If something isn't viable then either make it viable or get rid of it, stop propping it up at everybody else's expense.

Read the article. Your club's CEO is one of them, not the 6 quoted.

We didn't fight wars to stop socialism. We fought wars to stop imperialism and fascism. The self appointed home of capitalism, uses socialism to run its nation's biggest sport.