RealGM

Small market teams such as the Charlotte Hornets, Indiana Pacers and Memphis Grizzlies collect around $20 million per season from more profitable teams due to revenue-sharing.

Even when the NBA's revenues spiked due to the start of far more profitable national television deals for the 16-17 season, 14 of the league's 30 teams lost money before factoring in revenue-sharing. Nine teams finished that season in the red even after accounting for those payments.

With the possibility of no fans attending games for the remainder of the 19-20 season, as well as the entirety of the 20-21 season, teams like the Golden State Warriors, New York Knicks and Los Angeles Lakers will have less money to distribute to other teams.

The NBA's 30 owners could change the revenue-sharing model without negotiating with the union.

Via Bobby Marks/ESPN

Revenue sharing isn't necessary. Put all local TV deals in a pot and split them equally prior to the season.

There is not a chance in hell that the big market team’s owners would agree to that. If you own a McDonalds Franchise in a busy town you are not going to share revenue with the franchise owner in the small town.

DoctorDunc wrote:There is not a chance in hell that the big market team’s owners would agree to that. If you own a McDonalds Franchise in a busy town you are not going to share revenue with the franchise owner in the small town.

You will if it makes you more money in the long term. The NBA is a quasi-monopoly and the owners have an ownership mentality. Also, high switching costs and little ability to sell now.

Boneman2 wrote:Revenue sharing isn't necessary. Put all local TV deals in a pot and split them equally prior to the season.

Why would a team, who is top 3 in the league, be okay with splitting equally with a team who's tanking? Good teams draw in more viewers than bad teams.