Free Agent Auctions and Revenue Sharing: A Simple Approach

Rockerbie, Duane (2007): Free Agent Auctions and Revenue Sharing: A Simple Approach. Unpublished.

Abstract

This paper uses a simple approach to address the issue of how revenue sharing in professional sports leagues can affect the allocation of free agent players to teams. To affect the allocation of free agents, the imposition of revenue sharing must alter the ranking of bidding teams in terms of maximum salary offers. Two types of revenue sharing systems are considered: traditional gate revenue sharing and pooled revenue sharing. The paper suggests that team rankings for ability to pay are not affected by pooled revenue sharing, however the distribution of player salaries will be compressed. Traditional gate revenue sharing can alter the ability to pay rankings for teams, depending upon playing schedules and the closeness of revenues between closely ranked teams.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Institution: University of Lethbridge
• Language: English
• Keywords: revenue sharing; professional sports; free agents; labor surplus; auction
• Subjects: L - Industrial Organization > L8 - Industry Studies: Services > L83 - Sports; Gambling; Recreation; Tourism

References

Easton, S. and Rockerbie, D., “Revenue Sharing, Conjectures and Scarce Talent in a Sports League Model”, Journal of Sports Economics, 6(4), 2005, 359-378.

El Hodiri, M. and Quirk, J., “An Economic Model of a Professional Sports League”, Journal of Political Economy, 79(6), 1971, 1302-1319.

Fort, R. and Quirk, J., “Cross-Subsidization, Incentives and Outcomes in Professional Sports Leagues”, Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 1995, 1265-1299.

Kesenne, S., “Revenue Sharing and Competitive Balance in Professional Team Sports”, Journal of Sports Economics, 1(1), 2000, 56-65.

Marburger, D., “Gate Revenue Sharing and Luxury Taxes in Professional Sports”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 15, 1997, 114-123.

Miller, P., “Revenue Sharing in Sports Leagues: The Effects on Talent Distribution and Competitive Balance”, Journal of Sports Economics, 8(1), 2007, 62-82.