• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Financial Fair Play

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I shall repeat the question. Please show where anyone claimed that purse revenue is from exclusively 1 source. What you quoted does NOT come close to claiming that. Try again.

By the way for teams to get TV revenue it must go DIRECTLY to them NOT through another avenuse such as purse money as that is NOT close to equal. To be a CLAIM that teams get TV renevneu it must be EQUAL among all teams or it's not really getting money from the TV contract, they are then getting money either from the track OR the governing body.
What is your argument/complaint? I'm thoroughly confused.

It looks like you're getting wound up about teams not getting paid a direct, equal share of something that (as you acknowledge) doesn't even exist a lot of the time.

And.....?

Shouldn't we discuss why it doesn't exist, if it could exist, before we worry about what to do with it? In fact, hasn't that debate been started already?!
 
I shall repeat the question. Please show where anyone claimed that purse revenue is from exclusively 1 source. What you quoted does NOT come close to claiming that. Try again.

By the way for teams to get TV revenue it must go DIRECTLY to them NOT through another avenuse such as purse money as that is NOT close to equal. To be a CLAIM that teams get TV renevneu it must be EQUAL among all teams or it's not really getting money from the TV contract, they are then getting money either from the track OR the governing body.
Maybe your argument is supported by how NFL works. Each team gets a check for $250 million at beginning of season. I believe that is all from tv revenue.
 
At least we are slowly getting somewhere... Very slowly... I really should have predicted that goalpost shift, it was very obvious.

I get paid by grants. We apply for money, hopefully get funded and it pays my salary. That money gets paid into my bank account from the university, not the funding body. Does that mean the funding bodies don't pay me..? If you work in retail the customer pays your wages. They don't directly hand you the cash and you put it in your pocket, but no customers, no job.


As for equality, why does it have to be equal? If one NFL team gets 95% of the TV revenue paid to teams and the rest split the final 5%, is no-one getting TV revenue?

You have consistently claimed that teams in motorsport don't get any of the TV revenue. It's been proven wrong several times now. You can argue that prize money isn't equal if you want, it's a different discussion and raises different questions, but claiming teams do not get any of the TV revenue is a flat out lie.

We can even take it further back and discuss the fans paying the teams, because ultimately that's the initial source and this relates to revenue split and fairness.
We are specifically talking about TV revenue and NOT sponsor revenue, but you don't seem to understand this.

Also if you are getting paid through the university, then it is the university that is paying you through whatever source that is available. Does your paycheck have the name of the grant OR the name of the university on it? Whoever's name is on your paycheck is who is paying you. Not that hard of a concept.

NFL teams all get an EQUAL share of TV revenue. They get equal share because the NFL want as much equality as they can get in their league. If they don't get an equal share then the league is showing favoritism and basically saying to fans we don't want you because you are going to ensure your team can't win if it's not our favored team. The NFL wants to ensure that small market teams not only survive but can thrive. They have managed that. Where the monitary difference for teams comes in is from ticket and concession sales and radio contracts.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
We are specifically talking about TV revenue and NOT sponsor revenue, but you don't seem to understand this.

"Obviously, for a driver to win prize money in a race, someone has to put the money up for grabs. Of course, if you're a smart investor/sponsor, you're not going to offer several million dollars as a prize unless you're certain you can make several million more as a return on your investment. That's just how the game is played. But the actual cash payout NASCAR offers as a prize comes from several different places.

The single biggest source is from the television rights."
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Also if you are getting paid through the university, then it is the university that is paying you through whatever source that is available. Does your paycheck have the name of the grant OR the name of the university on it? Whoever's name is on your paycheck is who is paying you. Not that hard of a concept.
Where does the University get its money..? Contracts tend to state the specific funding allocated. It's really not that hard a concept...
 
What is your argument/complaint? I'm thoroughly confused.

It looks like you're getting wound up about teams not getting paid a direct, equal share of something that (as you acknowledge) doesn't even exist a lot of the time.

And.....?

Shouldn't we discuss why it doesn't exist, if it could exist, before we worry about what to do with it? In fact, hasn't that debate been started already?!
I'm not the one that originally bought up TV revenue.

What has been proven is that no one wants to change the way revenue is brought into cycling, thus ENSURING the horrible disparity of revenue for teams. It also is 100% apparent that many here do not want anything to do with the fact that cycling teams are WAY, WAY behind when it comes to merchandising which is a very large untapped revenue source. But as it's not a US based sport, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all that not only are they way behind on merchandising, that many don't seem to even understand this and how big of an income source it is when there are a lot of NON cycling items for sale. NASCAR riders can make more money from merchandise sales than from salaries and winnings combined and many do. Athletes in other sports can make a nice percentage of their high salaries through merchandise sales. Yet this is a HUGE untapped market in cycling in which only Quickstep has even thought about looking into. Don't come back and tell me but all teams sell jerseys and socks and the t-shirts the team members wear. Yeah, so, so do all the NASCAR teams and NFL teams, etc, but they also sell tons of other t-shirts, and stuffed animals, and cat/dog dishes, and sleepwear and t-shirts/sweatshirts/tank tops/sweatpants with sponsor name and drive name (or likeness) on them. A driver wins the Daytona 500, within 2 weeks you'll have Daytona 500 winner shirts available for purchase. This appears to be a revenue source that cycling doesn't want to participate in.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
NFL teams all get an EQUAL share of TV revenue. They get equal share because the NFL want as much equality as they can get in their league. If they don't get an equal share then the league is showing favoritism and basically saying to fans we don't want you because you are going to ensure your team can't win if it's not our favored team. The NFL wants to ensure that small market teams not only survive but can thrive. They have managed that. Where the monitary difference for teams comes in is from ticket and concession sales and radio contracts.
This attempt at a juke around the question wouldn't even pass in low level high school football. Equality is irrelevant to whether teams get TV revenue. You may WANT the distribution to be equal, but even if it isn't they would still get TV revenue.
 
Since when was that equal? There are riders who get appearance fees and most who don't. Is there some requirement that appearance fees are from TV revenue?
Since when? Since it was introduced by the UCI.

You haven't actually got a clue what's being discussed here, have you, and rather than using Google or asking a question, you're just going to bluster it out by continuing to make crap up, yes?

Here's a link to the PDF. Turn to page five. The Grand Tours's figure, negotiaated by the AIGCP, when last revealed was in the area of €50k. Individually, all this is small beer, I know, over the course of a season I think AG2R took in €500k+ in revenue sharing in 2011.
 
Reactions: Koronin

"Obviously, for a driver to win prize money in a race, someone has to put the money up for grabs. Of course, if you're a smart investor/sponsor, you're not going to offer several million dollars as a prize unless you're certain you can make several million more as a return on your investment. That's just how the game is played. But the actual cash payout NASCAR offers as a prize comes from several different places.

The single biggest source is from the television rights."
And how exactly does that disprove anything I just said?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
This attempt at a juke around the question wouldn't even pass in low level high school football. Equality is irrelevant to whether teams get TV revenue. You may WANT the distribution to be equal, but even if it isn't they would still get TV revenue.
In your equation it wouldn't be worth much of anything to all but 1 team. Thus would also drive away fans, who are the entire reason for the revenue source in the first place (regardless of what it comes from). So you want to destroy the sport, go with it the way you suggested. Obviously the NFL knows you need to do equal share for a good product.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
And how exactly does that disprove anything I just said?
In both NASCAR and Indy Car teams get exactly ZERO dollars from the TV contracts. The organizing body and the tracks get ALL the TV revenue. So please tell me where exactly the lie is?
So TV contracts are the biggest source of prize money, that exclusively goes to competitors, but competitors get zero dollars from TV contracts..?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
In your equation it wouldn't be worth much of anything to all but 1 team. Thus would also drive away fans, who are the entire reason for the revenue source in the first place (regardless of what it comes from). So you want to destroy the sport, go with it the way you suggested. Obviously the NFL knows you need to do equal share for a good product.
It wasn't a suggestion for dividing money, it was pointing out that your claim that is has to be equal is wrong. Again, what you posted:

I shall repeat the question. Please show where anyone claimed that purse revenue is from exclusively 1 source. What you quoted does NOT come close to claiming that. Try again.

By the way for teams to get TV revenue it must go DIRECTLY to them NOT through another avenuse such as purse money as that is NOT close to equal. To be a CLAIM that teams get TV renevneu it must be EQUAL among all teams or it's not really getting money from the TV contract, they are then getting money either from the track OR the governing body.

There is no requirement for TV money to be split evenly. Again, you may think that is the best way to do it (I haven't given an opinion on this to be very clear) but it is not a requirement.
 
So TV contracts are the biggest source of prize money, that exclusively goes to competitors, but competitors get zero dollars from TV contracts..?
Are you claiming that the teams are given EQUAL amounts of TV revenue directly? If it's part of the purse, that is then from the TRACK and NOT from TV. So please tell me which it is. It is one or the other, it CANNOT be both.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
NASCAR riders can make more money from merchandise sales than from salaries and winnings combined and many do.
And following that model in cycling would add revenue to teams how? Twice now you've indicated by your choice of cmparisons that your merchandising model sees the money go to the riders, not the teams.

And one more time for you: teams already do merchandising. Some do it better than others. You may have only recently discovered what DQS are doing, but others have been doing it just as well, for some time now.

Can teams earn more from merchandisng? God yes. Can merchandising become a major source of income? Unlikely, given the size of the sport and the number of teams. But, every little helps, from the revenue sharing arrangement as it currently exists (UCI-mandated appearance fees), through merchandising, ancillary media rights, and more. The gneral problem with the Vaughters-led debate so far is that it has obsessed itself with an imaginary pot of gold waiting at the end of the rainbow: TV revenue.
 
It wasn't a suggestion for dividing money, it was pointing out that your claim that is has to be equal is wrong. Again, what you posted:




There is no requirement for TV money to be split evenly. Again, you may think that is the best way to do it (I haven't given an opinion on this to be very clear) but it is not a requirement.
As TV revenue is useless, let's eliminate it and thus eliminate all TV broadcasts since that would make more sense.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Equality is irrelevant to whether teams get TV revenue. You may WANT the distribution to be equal, but even if it isn't they would still get TV revenue.
Two of the bigger revenue sharing deals cycling fans will be familiar with (given how often they are referenced in the revenue sharing debate) are the Premier League in England, and Formula 1's Concorde Agreement. In both of these agreements a performance measure is used to decide who gets how much: the better performing teams get more than the weaker ones. Any reasonable person looking at revenue sharing would say that this is equitable.
 
And following that model in cycling would add revenue to teams how? Twice now you've indicated by your choice of cmparisons that your merchandising model sees the money go to the riders, not the teams.

And one more time for you: teams already do merchandising. Some do it better than others. You may have only recently discovered what DQS are doing, but others have been doing it just as well, for some time now.

Can teams earn more from merchandisng? God yes. Can merchandising become a major source of income? Unlikely, given the size of the sport and the number of teams. But, every little helps, from the revenue sharing arrangement as it currently exists (UCI-mandated appearance fees), through merchandising, ancillary media rights, and more. The gneral problem with the Vaughters-led debate so far is that it has obsessed itself with an imaginary pot of gold waiting at the end of the rainbow: TV revenue.
Do you not understand this at all? The teams gets a larger % of the revenue from the merchandise than the drivers do. This really appears to be a foreign concept to many.

Again, they don't do merchandising to get real revenue. Again I've seen what the teams do and it's so Fing basic it's ridiculous and any team in NASCAR that would show up with a souvineer hauler with the minimal stuff these teams have would be laughed out of the track. No I haven't "recently" discovered what DQS does or any other team. I find ALL the teams exceptionally LACKING when it comes to merchandising including DQS.

I'm sure TV money in cycling is a lot less than what the NFL gets just for the Super Bowl.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Again, why would it have to be equal?
If it's not it will drive fans away. Why do you think the NFL and the other major US based (north American based) sports ensure that TV revenue is equal? It is to ensure the leagues are doing what they can for equality within the sport to keep the fans. If it's not equal it drives the fans away and will eventually drive the sport out of buisness, but if you think driving the sport out of business is a good idea, well that your choice. Yes national TV contract revenue is split in MLB as well. It's just that in MLB due to the number of games large market teams have a much higher revenue source than small market teams, which in some cases ARE driven out of the sport.
Lack of revenue is what has and is driving cycling teams out of business. It sure doesn't look like many here care about that or care about actually finding solutions. Thus it appears to me that this entire thread it 100% USELESS and not worth anymore time.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Two of the bigger revenue sharing deals cycling fans will be familiar with (given how often they are referenced in the revenue sharing debate) are the Premier League in England, and Formula 1's Concorde Agreement. In both of these agreements a performance measure is used to decide who gets how much: the better performing teams get more than the weaker ones. Anyone reasonable person looking at revenue sharing would say that this is equitable.
It's an interesting point of discussion (which we should probably continue to drag this out of the rabbit hole). Should performance be a measure or should contribution? Take a one off FA Cup game and pretend we're going to split the money made from that. If Manchester City play and lose to Burton Albion, in front of 55,000 fans, of which 52,000 are Manchester City fans, who should get the most money? Performance wise you might say Burton Albion, however more people paid to come and see Manchester City play.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Two of the bigger revenue sharing deals cycling fans will be familiar with (given how often they are referenced in the revenue sharing debate) are the Premier League in England, and Formula 1's Concorde Agreement. In both of these agreements a performance measure is used to decide who gets how much: the better performing teams get more than the weaker ones. Any reasonable person looking at revenue sharing would say that this is equitable.

Sorry, but that ensures the lower preforming teams CANNOT ever improve. The NFL, NBA, NHL are a much better business model by ensuring EQUAL sharing so that the poorer preforming teams have the chance to improve. The way your examples work ensure a hierarcy that will NEVER change, so why bother being a fan?
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Again, they don't do merchandising to get real revenue.
This "real revenue" is your get of reality free card, isn't it? "Ok, yes, other teams may have been doing merchandising before I realised DQS were doing merchandising, but they weren't doing merchandising to get real revenue!"

Question: how much revenue (net of costs) is being raised by DQS's merchandising? I've aldready shown you the ballpark for Sky's merchandising revenue, now you show what you've got.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS