A new classification for the Cardinals has an immediate impact (think draft!) — plus some strategic things they could do with signings during the coming year(s). Would really welcome your view of this.

5 comments

  3. Baseball-related, I do think the Cardinals having payee status opens up all kinds of possibilities–not really in the short-term–moving forward. It’d be really nice to get to a spot where they could get those compensation picks after the 1st round for QOed players. I reckon that’s already a factor in Donovan trade discussions as we speak.

    I do wonder just how far over the line they are into payee status. The article mentions they are near the bottom of the list in terms of revenue sharing received. Would getting back to, say, 2.75 to 3 million tickets sold over the next four to five years take them back out of payee status and back into the neutral zone?

  4. My view is that it has been demonstrated by the owners of several other MLB teams, that this can become a very comfortable position to settle down in to. I know the current CBA tries to strongly incentivize not sitting down in to it — both in terms of capping how good a team’s draft picks can be and how much/how often they can sip from this well of money — but I feel like that that hasn’t really slowed down Bob Nutting (Pirates), for one.

  5. Google is a simple tool to get this information:

    My Cardinals summary:

    Cardinals now qualify for revenue sharing, meaning they get back more than they contribute with the flat percentage of revenue that all teams contribute. The Cardinals total revenue has moved to a lower tier among MLB teams, so they are in the pool of teams that receive back an additional revenue sharing, or more than they contribute. In addition, teams that are in the revenue sharing pool also receive better odds of qualifying for the top 6 picks.

    Revenue Sharing Summary:

    Teams qualify for MLB revenue sharing primarily by being considered smaller markets or by having lower “Local Revenue” than larger market teams, which is determined by a complex system outlined in the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. This system aims to level the playing field by redistributing a portion of higher-revenue clubs’ earnings, though specific eligibility is based on a combination of factors including local market size and income generation.
    Factors in qualification and distribution
    Local Revenue: Teams contribute a percentage of their “Local Revenue,” which is defined in the CBA. This is the primary source of the revenue-sharing pool.

    Market Size and Score: MLB uses a “Market Score” based on factors like local population to identify teams that are not eligible for revenue-sharing money. If a team’s Market Score is above a certain threshold (100), they are ineligible to receive funds.
    Luxury Tax: Teams that exceed the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT) threshold pay penalties that contribute to the revenue-sharing pot. The tax rates escalate for teams that are over the threshold for multiple consecutive seasons.

    CBA and Market Scores: The specific rules for revenue sharing are complex and defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which incorporates market scores and other financial metrics.
    Automatic Distribution: A portion of the revenue-sharing pool is distributed equally among all 30 teams, while other funds are distributed based on specific criteria for teams in lower-revenue brackets.
    Why teams don’t qualify
    Larger Market Teams: Teams in major metropolitan areas, such as the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers, are generally not eligible for revenue-sharing funds because they generate significantly more revenue than smaller-market teams like the Kansas City Royals or Milwaukee Brewers.

    Market Score: A team with a high market score (over 100) is not eligible to receive revenue sharing money, regardless of its actual revenue.

Leave a Reply