Revenue Sharing

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRT3

So my question would be if the arguement for complete revenue sharring is accepted shouldn't all ticket prices be even accross the board.

Absolutely not! You want to charge poor people in Cincinnati the same amount you would people in Norther Virginia and Maryland who happen to have 5 of the top 15 highest-income counties by per capita income in the United States? You'll be breaking all the rules of economics and not only that but you won't have people going to games in Cincy and you won't be making as much money as you could in Virgina.

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by saden1

Absolutely not! You want to charge poor people in Cincinnati the same amount you would people in Norther Virginia and Maryland who happen to have 5 of the top 15 highest-income counties by per capita income in the United States? You'll be breaking all the rules of economics and not only that but you won't have people going to games in Cincy and you won't be making as much money as you could in Virgina.

Yo dude there are a higher amount of poor people in PG County and DC then in Cincinati. There are poor people everywhere. IF you want to have complete sharring and equal revenues for all then prices should be equal period.

If you go by your theory then the Redskins should be able to keep more money cause of there demographics. I don't think the owners will make their decesion based on demos.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRT3

Yo dude there are a higher amount of poor people in PG County and DC then in Cincinati. There are poor people everywhere. IF you want to have complete sharring and equal revenues for all then prices should be equal period.

If you go by your theory then the Redskins should be able to keep more money cause of there demographics. I don't think the owners will make their decesion based on demos.

First of, in normal day to day business underpricing goods is illegal and over pricing goods is also illegal. Price fixing, which is what you are advocating, is also illigal. Since the NFL doesn't have any competition that will complain about Anti-competitive practices teams can under price goods (tickets and etc). Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony. If your really want to learn more about microeconomics have a look here.

Oh, but owners have already made their decision based on demographics. All the owners in favor of sharing have smaller demographics (smaller market teams) and all the owners with larger demographics are dead set against revenue sharing. Revenue sharing and demographics are not mutually exclusive.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony.

The term is price gouging and you are using it out of context. The source of your definition provides a more valid example of price gouging as follows:

Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. -Wikipedia

Price gouging could not be charged against the NFL teams because (1) the goods or services they provide would not be considered essential and (2) the price increase would not be initiated in anticipation of or during a civil emergency.

As far as the NFLs pricing strategy goes with their products like hats, shirts, etc., they can set price levels as high as they want. The demand on such goods is elastic to begin with since there are enough look-alikes to offer competition in the marketplace. As an example, my wife probably would have had to pay $125 or so for an official Clinton Portis jersey, but the one she picked up at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago for $20 suits me just fine. BTW, you wanna talk REAL anti-competitive practices, do a case study of Wal-Mart!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by LongTimeSkinsFan

The term is price gouging and you are using it out of context. The source of your definition provides a more valid example of price gouging as follows:

Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. -Wikipedia

Price gouging could not be charged against the NFL teams because (1) the goods or services they provide would not be considered essential and (2) the price increase would not be initiated in anticipation of or during a civil emergency.

As far as the NFLs pricing strategy goes with their products like hats, shirts, etc., they can set price levels as high as they want. The demand on such goods is elastic to begin with since there are enough look-alikes to offer competition in the marketplace. As an example, my wife probably would have had to pay $125 or so for an official Clinton Portis jersey, but the one she picked up at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago for $20 suits me just fine. BTW, you wanna talk REAL anti-competitive practices, do a case study of Wal-Mart!

Excuse my misspelling of the word, thanks for pointing that out. I must also point out that you're are in correct in your assessment. If your read further down the article you'll notices that it states:

The term is not in widespread use in economic theory but is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly which raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment.

Since the NFL is a monopoly it [can] indeed engaged in price gouging and a determined individual can successfully sue them.

edit: added [can]

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by saden1

First of, in normal day to day business underpricing goods is illegal and over pricing goods is also illegal. Price fixing, which is what you are advocating, is also illigal. Since the NFL doesn't have any competition that will complain about Anti-competitive practices teams can under price goods (tickets and etc). Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony. If your really want to learn more about microeconomics have a look here.

Oh, but owners have already made their decision based on demographics. All the owners in favor of sharing have smaller demographics (smaller market teams) and all the owners with larger demographics are dead set against revenue sharing. Revenue sharing and demographics are not mutually exclusive.

This is why I love this board. Great info and intelligent arguements. Excellent Saden, point taken, but we will see in the comming days.