What if the NFL didn't employ revenue sharing?
When the 2007 NFL season kicks off in September, virtually every team will feel it has at least an outside chance of reaching Super Bowl XLII in Arizona. The person most responsible for such widespread belief is former NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle.
Upon taking over in 1960, Rozelle persuaded NFL team owners -- most notably Carroll Rosenbloom of the Colts, and George Preston Marshall of the Redskins -- to agree to share revenues between teams. His business model was essentially a system that benefited all teams equally, from revenue sharing to the player draft.
Rozelle's vision was only strengthened by his successor, Paul Tagliabue, who instituted the strictest salary cap system of any of the major leagues, and further enhanced the revenue sharing system. Both revenue sharing and the salary cap have contributed to competitive balance, in the face of a growing imbalance between high-revenue and low-revenue teams.
Unlike in baseball, for instance, small-market teams have a strong financial foundation and are better positioned to pay the increasing player salaries. While some believe the NFL has gone too far in its quest for parity, the league clearly believes its approach is a big reason for the sport's unrivaled success.
Nevertheless, it is fair to wonder what the NFL would look like today without revenue sharing? Would a player like Brett Favre have been able to spend virtually his entire career in Green Bay, or would he have been snatched by one of the New York teams in free agency? Most importantly, would the NFL be as popular as it is today?
Re: What if the NFL didn't employ revenue sharing?
Without revenue sharing the NFL would be far worse than baseball is today, far worse.
Baseball is able to maintain the small market possibility of a rare run at the title due to the farm system.
To picture the NFL without parity is a nightmare........ make it go away.