The Playing Field is Leveling out...except

[millbank]

The playing field is leveling out, except in the NFL

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY. It is what Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein in the parking garage in "All the President's Men," and it is what every sports fan knows is the only real truth. The money might not be the be-all and the end-all, not in every case, but it explains plenty about our games today, and everybody knows it and nobody should forget it.

 

And, so, this:

 

We have just finished a very competitive 5-year period in professional sports - much more balanced and much more competitive in baseball, basketball and hockey than the 5 years that preceded it, and less balanced in football. The reason is money. That's it.

 

More than anything, sports sell hope to fans. These last 5 years, more fans have been hopeful. When it all comes down to it, all fans want is a fair shot on Opening Day. These last 5 years, more fans have walked through more turnstiles on Opening Day with just that thought, smiling a splendid maybe.

 

Money is the reason. Balancing spending is the reason.

 

We'll begin with the aberration, the NFL, and we'll begin with a definition. What we're going to do is count the number of teams that made it to the final four in the playoffs over the most recent two 5-year periods. They are, by this definition, the teams that had a real and legitimate shot at winning it all. And while it is probably flawed and limited as a concept, it is also instructive.

 

And so, in the NFL, from 1996 to 2000 and 2001 to '05, the number of franchises that reached the final four fell 25 percent, from 16 to 12. In the first 5-year period, it was by far the most wide-open league in major North American sports. In the second 5-year period, it was the least wide-open.

 

You know the reason, especially if you spent any time reading the papers last month, when the NFL and its union did battle over a new collective bargaining/revenue-sharing agreement. The NFL was the one sport where the revenue sharing was decreasing significantly, and where rich teams - because of new-stadium revenue that was both breathtaking and unshared - had the growing potential to spike their spending in a way that hadn't really existed before.

 

The result? Less competitive balance. Fewer teams playing in conference championship games.

 

Compare that to baseball. In the earlier period, it was the least competitive of our sports with 10 final-four teams. In the more recent period, that increased by 30 percent to 13 teams.

 

Why? Because they got control of spending with a luxury-tax system and a revenue-sharing scheme that, while imperfect, has proved to be fairly effective. If you can believe what is occasionally reported, there are more profitable baseball teams now than at any recent time and there is more balanced spending. The Yankees are still wildly off the charts, but there is more of an equal distribution below them and the results are clear.

 

The NBA is the same way. It went from 11 franchises that made the final four in the earlier period, to 13 in the more recent period. The reason? The luxury tax.

 

It is a ridiculous salary-cap system, the NBA's. It is so full of exceptions and creates so many hurdles to making trades and fixing mistakes that it gives you a headache - and really can cripple a team that gets caught. But the simplest thing, a luxury tax on payrolls over a certain level, now rules everything.

 

It is a tax that every team declares from every available rooftop that it will not pay. It is a tax that has created a very effective ceiling on team payrolls. When that happens, more teams can compete. Simple.

 

Finally, hockey. In its last 10 seasons, it was very competitive in the first 5-year period (12 teams) and it was the most competitive in the next period (15 teams).

 

Why is this? Wasn't the NHL terribly broken, which forced the yearlong lockout and the remaking of the system? Well, kind of. What everybody in the league knew was that payroll growth - which had skyrocketed at one point - was shrinking in the last couple of years and, in fact, almost manageable with some tweaks. The old system was slowly self-correcting. It's just that the league didn't want tweaks and it didn't want slow - it wanted immediate, absolute, idiot-proof cost certainty, and it was willing to fight to get it.

 

Still, it was a better economic system at the point of the lockout than it had been 5 years earlier - and, so, the game was more balanced on the ice.

 

As for the NHL's future, with its new model agreement, you have to expect even more balance. Again, just follow the money. In hockey, though, it is a little bit complicated.

 

Because in hockey, unlike the other sports, money is a hot goaltender.

 

Article