Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues: For the Sake of Competitive Balance or as a Result of Monopsony Power?

F.A. Palomino, J. Sakovics

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

252 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We analyze the distribution of broadcasting revenues by sports leagues.In the context of an isolated league, we show that when the teams engage in competitive bidding to attract talent, the league's optimal choice is full revenue sharing (resulting in full competitive balance) even if the revenues are independent of the level of balancedness.This result is overturned when the league has no monopsony power in the talent market.When the teams of two different leagues bid for talent, the equilibrium level of revenue sharing is bounded away from the full sharing of revenues: leagues choose a performance-based reward scheme.Finally, we argue that our model explains the observed differences in revenue sharing rules used by the U.S. sports leagues (full revenue sharing) and European soccer leagues (performance-based reward).
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationTilburg
PublisherMicroeconomics
Number of pages19
Volume2000-110
Publication statusPublished - 2000

Publication series

NameCentER Discussion Paper
Volume2000-110

Fingerprint

Sports leagues
Revenue sharing
Professional sports
Competitive balance
Monopsony
Revenue
Reward
Balancedness
Bid
Soccer
Competitive bidding
Broadcasting
Sharing rule

Keywords

  • broadcasting industry
  • sport
  • competition
  • revenue sharing

Cite this

Palomino, F. A., & Sakovics, J. (2000). Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues: For the Sake of Competitive Balance or as a Result of Monopsony Power? (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2000-110). Tilburg: Microeconomics.
Palomino, F.A. ; Sakovics, J. / Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues : For the Sake of Competitive Balance or as a Result of Monopsony Power?. Tilburg : Microeconomics, 2000. (CentER Discussion Paper).
@techreport{2251c0894e8c43828a0be97150c9f363,
title = "Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues: For the Sake of Competitive Balance or as a Result of Monopsony Power?",
abstract = "We analyze the distribution of broadcasting revenues by sports leagues.In the context of an isolated league, we show that when the teams engage in competitive bidding to attract talent, the league's optimal choice is full revenue sharing (resulting in full competitive balance) even if the revenues are independent of the level of balancedness.This result is overturned when the league has no monopsony power in the talent market.When the teams of two different leagues bid for talent, the equilibrium level of revenue sharing is bounded away from the full sharing of revenues: leagues choose a performance-based reward scheme.Finally, we argue that our model explains the observed differences in revenue sharing rules used by the U.S. sports leagues (full revenue sharing) and European soccer leagues (performance-based reward).",
keywords = "broadcasting industry, sport, competition, revenue sharing",
author = "F.A. Palomino and J. Sakovics",
note = "Pagination: 19",
year = "2000",
language = "English",
volume = "2000-110",
series = "CentER Discussion Paper",
publisher = "Microeconomics",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Microeconomics",

}

Palomino, FA & Sakovics, J 2000 'Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues: For the Sake of Competitive Balance or as a Result of Monopsony Power?' CentER Discussion Paper, vol. 2000-110, Microeconomics, Tilburg.

Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues : For the Sake of Competitive Balance or as a Result of Monopsony Power? / Palomino, F.A.; Sakovics, J.

Tilburg : Microeconomics, 2000. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2000-110).

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

TY - UNPB

T1 - Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues

T2 - For the Sake of Competitive Balance or as a Result of Monopsony Power?

AU - Palomino, F.A.

AU - Sakovics, J.

N1 - Pagination: 19

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - We analyze the distribution of broadcasting revenues by sports leagues.In the context of an isolated league, we show that when the teams engage in competitive bidding to attract talent, the league's optimal choice is full revenue sharing (resulting in full competitive balance) even if the revenues are independent of the level of balancedness.This result is overturned when the league has no monopsony power in the talent market.When the teams of two different leagues bid for talent, the equilibrium level of revenue sharing is bounded away from the full sharing of revenues: leagues choose a performance-based reward scheme.Finally, we argue that our model explains the observed differences in revenue sharing rules used by the U.S. sports leagues (full revenue sharing) and European soccer leagues (performance-based reward).

AB - We analyze the distribution of broadcasting revenues by sports leagues.In the context of an isolated league, we show that when the teams engage in competitive bidding to attract talent, the league's optimal choice is full revenue sharing (resulting in full competitive balance) even if the revenues are independent of the level of balancedness.This result is overturned when the league has no monopsony power in the talent market.When the teams of two different leagues bid for talent, the equilibrium level of revenue sharing is bounded away from the full sharing of revenues: leagues choose a performance-based reward scheme.Finally, we argue that our model explains the observed differences in revenue sharing rules used by the U.S. sports leagues (full revenue sharing) and European soccer leagues (performance-based reward).

KW - broadcasting industry

KW - sport

KW - competition

KW - revenue sharing

M3 - Discussion paper

VL - 2000-110

T3 - CentER Discussion Paper

BT - Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues

PB - Microeconomics

CY - Tilburg

ER -

Palomino FA, Sakovics J. Revenue Sharing in Professional Sports Leagues: For the Sake of Competitive Balance or as a Result of Monopsony Power? Tilburg: Microeconomics. 2000. (CentER Discussion Paper).