Regardless, MLB's revenue sharing platform results in tens of millions of dollars to small market teams (in some cases up to $60 Million annually), enough to pay for several big time players. Yankees annually pay close to $100 Million from their OWN revenue (ticket sales) to other teams.
Another example: In 2007, the Florida Marlins received over $60 Million in revenue sharing, yet had an opening day roster at around $45 Million. It's hard to feel bad for small market teams in scenarios like that. Frankly, small market teams are hesitant to take on big contracts not because they can't afford to, but because their owners don't want thinner profit margins.
I was incorrect about their home grown players, I don't follow the Yankees so didn't know they'd gotten such good production out of their farm system.
I was merely using the Marlins as a comparison, but it still holds true when looking at the Pirates or the Padres. I'd be just as much in favor of a salary floor as I would a salary cap.
All I'm saying is that the Yanks, by virtue of their massive income base, have an unfair competitive advantage over most other teams. Whether the Marlins owners are skimming off the top doesn't change the fact that the Yankees spent
twice as much on payroll as any of the bottom
21 teams.
It's just such a huge disparity, and is incredibly frustrating for people who are fans of teams other than the Yankees. Baseball needs to look into ways of levelling the field, both by making sure that owners spend an appropriate minimum amount and that there is a reasonable ceiling on payroll.