I did not say share all revenues, only TV/broadcast revenues. The markets where teams play are significantly different and beyond the team's control unless the move to LA or NY. Places like Milwaukee, Tampa Bay, etc., can not command TV rights fees like New York and Los Angeles can because of population. WGN and TBS also factor in this in that they generate tons more revenue for the Cubs and Braves that no other teams are allowed to have anymore because the owners will no longer sell to someone who is going to put his team on another superstation. I know this because Ed Gaylord tried to buy the Texas Rangers before Bush did. He was rejected because of the communications empire he had built, and the owners did not want another TBS/WGN.

Steinbrenner did ZIP to build the TV market in New York. He just reaps the benefits of what he can demand in the form of broadcast rights fees for the Yankees. This is a decidely unfair advantage for smaller TV market teams. All I am saying is the TV revenue should be shared, nothing else. Otherwise, under your system, the only level playing fields would reduce sports places like NY, LA, Atlanta and Chicago.

>But if you look at this from a business sense as Denis pointed out, then why should I as a business owner share all my revenues and hard work with a team that has not marketed itself very well. As ugly as it sounds I have to side with the George Steinbrenners of the world. They've worked hard to get their teams to a competitive level because they understand that is what sells tickets and merchandise (and thus profit). If the other teams can't make it, so be it. It just means the market is too saturated and should be culled anyway. I've always thought the current NHL playoff system was a joke since there are so many teams that make the playoffs now with sub .500 records (baseball and football are falling into this trap as well).