Good Article about the lack of sharing local TV revenue

[Roch Royals Fan]

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/3/31/2082529/sacramento-kings-relocation-nba

Think about that little bit of pretzel logic*. The Kings, unable to survive in a small market during down days, cash in with a deal to move to a huge market, extracting revenue from a big-market power, the Lakers. As a penalty, the Kings pay off the Lakers. Look at the teams, sharing revenue. It's almost like ... revenue sharing!
If the NBA had institutional revenue sharing, like the NFL, where smaller-market teams earned a cut of big-market teams' local TV contracts and attendance to help even the playing field court, the Kings wouldn't have been in this mess. If the NBA had a system that allowed the Lakers' massive profits to help get arenas built for those vital mid-market teams, we wouldn't be in this mess. Buss wouldn't be in this mess, facing the loss of up to $300 million in future revenue.
The NBA's business plan right now is so focused on luxury corporate seating and local TV revenue that the Kings could very well be the first sign of a coming gold rush. San Jose (within an hour of the Warriors' home base) and Chicago are next; if a New Orleans-based owner for the Hornets can't be found, Larry Ellison has already made it well known he wants to bring a team to S.J., which would make Lacob the new Buss. (Lacob just paid $450 million for the Warriors, almost completely because he has the entire lucrative Bay Area market. He wouldn't have bid that high if S.J. had a team.) If the Grizzlies fail to further develop a fan base in Memphis, becoming Chicago's second team is a no-brainer, and something sure to make Reinsdorf revolt. Heck, maybe we can fit a third team in New York City. Bronx Cobras, anyone?.
Real revenue sharing could prevent all that by making small and medium markets workable in the inevitable down seasons that happen in pro sports. But none of these big-market owners are willing to make real concessions until a gun's held to their head. The Maloofs are wielding the revolver right now, and Buss is paying for years of selfishness.
Something's broken in the NBA alright, but it ain't players' salaries. It's the owners' incredibly myopic self-interest.

 

[Trueblood]

I just don't see it. Everyone complains about "trends" before they actually become trends. It's usually just idle speculation by clueless writers.

When the Sonics moved to OKC, the new "trend" was going to see teams move to Rochester, Omaha, Tulsa and Birmingham so that the "weak" NBA wouldn't have to battle with pro sports competition.

Now, it's the complete opposite. Instead of seeing teams move to one horse towns, we're seeing a one horse town lose it's team to a market with tons of pro sports competition so now the trend police are changing their tune.

It reminds me of when we had the huge free agent class of '96. Jilted owners and executives in Orlando and Detroit, who lost Shaq and Allan Houston respectively, predicted that the league would no longer be about drafting, trading and developing players but just about stealing free agents. As it would turn out, the league would not see that type of free agent class and cap space amount for another 14 years. We even benefited in Sacramento by keeping Chris Webber as his free agent options were non existent outside of Houston.

With these last two relocations, it hasn't nothing to do with the league or "trends". It has everything to do with the owners who moved their teams. Clay Bennett wanted a team in his hometown and as Arena Skeptic has pointed out, the Maloofs want to keep their team at all costs and Samueli provides that. He just happens to own a building in a saturated market.

 

[Ryle]

I just don't see it. Everyone complains about "trends" before they actually become trends. It's usually just idle speculation by clueless writers.

When the Sonics moved to OKC, the new "trend" was going to see teams move to Rochester, Omaha, Tulsa and Birmingham so that the "weak" NBA wouldn't have to battle with pro sports competition.

Now, it's the complete opposite. Instead of seeing teams move to one horse towns, we're seeing a one horse town lose it's team to a market with tons of pro sports competition so now the trend police are changing their tune.

It reminds me of when we had the huge free agent class of '96. Jilted owners and executives in Orlando and Detroit, who lost Shaq and Allan Houston respectively, predicted that the league would no longer be about drafting, trading and developing players but just about stealing free agents. As it would turn out, the league would not see that type of free agent class and cap space amount for another 14 years. We even benefited in Sacramento by keeping Chris Webber as his free agent options were non existent outside of Houston.

With these last two relocations, it hasn't nothing to do with the league or "trends". It has everything to do with the owners who moved their teams. Clay Bennett wanted a team in his hometown and as Arena Skeptic has pointed out, the Maloofs want to keep their team at all costs and Samueli provides that. He just happens to own a building in a saturated market.

Why do people keep insinuating that Seattle "lost" the Sonics? They were bought by an owner who lives in Oklahoma City and he moved them.....did anyone not see the writing on the wall there? Comparing our situation to theirs is completely different(not that you were but I just had to poke my head in somewhere).

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Why do people keep insinuating that Seattle "lost" the Sonics? They were bought by an owner who lives in Oklahoma City and he moved them.....did anyone not see the writing on the wall there? Comparing our situation to theirs is completely different(not that you were but I just had to poke my head in somewhere).

Yeah, aside from it being the most recent move and the team stockpiling talent during a rebuild and splitting right before they could blow up, there really isn't much in common. I think the Hornets move may be a better comparison, but I don't know enough about it other than the market was strong enough that it was quickly given a new team (this won't happen in Sac, just noting that the market was considered strong) and that the owner eventually went broke which unfortunately may be the direction the Maloofs are headed.

 

[Trueblood]

Why do people keep insinuating that Seattle "lost" the Sonics? They were bought by an owner who lives in Oklahoma City and he moved them.....did anyone not see the writing on the wall there? Comparing our situation to theirs is completely different(not that you were but I just had to poke my head in somewhere).

You're right that I wasn't comparing the situations. That was actually the point of my post. People keep predicting these trends that never happen because as you noted, different owners have different agendas. Because of that, we won't be seeing half the league in the biggest 3 markets nor will we see Tulsa, Louisville and Rochester get NBA teams in the next decade.