I asked in a co-worker if the Minnesota Twins' current hot streak was helped by revenue sharing because George Steinbrenner made a comment how they got $20 million last year by that procedure. Steinbrenner is not a great fan of it, seeing it as an unjust form of baseball socialism of sorts, which can be pocketed by the owners instead of being used on the team. My co-workers, as seen below, has a slightly different view of things: Look, Steinbrenner is being a complete chump by bringing up revenue sharing because the current level of so-called revenue sharing has been instilled for solely cosmetic reasons. In 1994, baseball introduced revenue sharing as one of the measures to escape the baseball strike. However, said sharing is not really "sharing" at all. For instance, since homeless people go through your trash in order to find food or obtain bottles, does that equal to your "sharing" with them? No, of course it doesn't. Revenue Sharing in baseball today is not much different.
To shed some light on this, I'll give you some examples. In the NFL, home and away teams split ticket earnings 50/50. So if the Chiefs play the Giants @ The Meadowlands, the Chiefs get 50% of the gate, even though not one Chief fan showed up. And TV deals? They're also split down the middle. For this reason, no one ever says, "oh, those poor low-budget/payroll Bengals; they just can't survive against those rich Raiders." Of course they don't say this, because the NFL actually takes part in true Revenue Sharing--everyone has got about the same amount of money to play with.
MLB, on the other hand, is entirely different. Ticket sales are split 90-10. The visiting team getting the 10%. This is all the revenue sharing that occurs in baseball. Merchandise sales go entirely to the home team. Concessions go to the home team. And the real travesty being as follows: TV deals go entirely to the home team. TV deals are the biggest reason why the Yanks can spend (and have) so much money, while the Twins and Expos have nearly nothing. The Expos have no TV deal (although I believe a Canadian channel picked up a few games this year for the first time ever--for nothing worth mentioning in exchange). The Twins have a deal resulting in only paltry earnings. So Steinbrenner should shut his trap, because if (and when) MLB wises up and enters into an era of sincere revenue sharing, rather than leaving bottles on the street for the homeless, he will have a payroll of $70 million (instead of $110), and the Expos and Twins will have a payroll of $50 million (instead of $20). We'll talk about parity then. Steinbrenner wouldn't be so quick to sign his Billion dollar TV deals with MSG, now would he?
And to answer your question, is revenue sharing responsible for the Twins players? No, absolutely not. The close to $20 million that the Twins receive from the aforementioned 10% visitor allowances goes directly to the rental and upkeep of their incredibly expensive (on a daily basis) home, The MetroDome. So, all in all, Steinbrenner (as well as Murdock and Turner) assist in allowing the Twins to have a field to play on. And that's it. Enuf said. Check out his band: The Holy Ghost