Rumors have been swirling for months that in the agreement of the bargaining collective future (ABC) between owners and the Association of NBA players, the NBA could quickly reduce costs by several teams of contracting. Markets which have been mentioned include Atlanta, Milwaukee, Toronto and Minnesota. This article explores whether contraction would contribute to the NBA to achieve their financial goals in a robust economy.
There are many supposedly results that accompany the contraction have described fully in the academic literature as follows:
Contraction creates an increase in revenue for member clubs.Contraction improves competitive balance because the pool of talent "deepening" reduced contraction pressure on revenue producing teams held to share revenues with teams always insufficient.Obviously, each of these reasons is financial in nature.What I wonder about are intangibles, charges that the League will incur loss of fans and good volonté.Ce are not easy to measure than dollars and cents on a balance sheet.
Three mentioned markets for possible contraction (with the exception of Atlanta) have few options for professional sport, and one could easily argue that by removing the "only game in town" quality of life in the city undergoes a succès.Bien real economic impact of professional sports is debatable for some time, the fact that people consider having a team sports as a leisure pro is undeniable.
So the question stands is NBA ready to receive financial benefits in the short term contraction while risking the goodwill of fan support? we find soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment