said by I AM:
Can't hate on them either for having the TV deal.
No, you're right. But...
...I think the NBA continues to shoot itself by not having a good league revenue sharing model.
"Since the early 1960s, when the NFL signed its first television contract, the league has had some form of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing was established to help create parity through the league, and is one reason that the NFL has been so wildly successful.
Any team can win on any given Sunday its one of the guiding maxims of the NFL. Parity has led to more competitive games, and is a big contributor to the success of the league, the high television ratings, and the growth of the television contracts."
This is why 120 Million people watch a Superbowl, and about 12 Million watch an NBA finals series.
"According to the NBA's financial data, ten teams combined to make a profit of approximately $150 million in 2010-11. And the other 20 teams lost their collective shirts to the tune of a $400 million. Clearly, the league has to do a better job of revenue sharing to be successful going forward."
In the last CBA, the NBA finally
introduced a revenue sharing plan (if they didn't, 20 teams would have gone bankrupt this year or next), but it still has a lot to be desired because There are limits built into the new plan to protect high-revenue teams, such as the Celtics, Chicago Bulls, Los Angeles Lakers
, New York Knicks, and Orlando Magic, with no team to contribute more than 50 percent of its total profits into the revenue-sharing pool.
50% of L.A. Laker profits are more than 22 other teams entire profits.
Thus a continuation of 4-5 Harlem Globtrotters and 25 Washington Generals.