The Pels are listed as a net loss team before revenue sharing, but they are profitable after revenue sharing and for once they aren't the poster child for the unprofitable small market team. Memphis is.

quote:
"National revenues drive up the cap, but local revenues are needed to keep up with player salaries," one owner explained to ESPN. "If a team can't generate enough local revenues, they lose money."

...There is broad agreement that the revenue-sharing system is, on the whole, acting as intended, as it shifts money from juggernauts that drive up the salary cap to smaller-market teams that can't approach big-city revenue but have to spend anyway. And the relationship is considered symbiotic to a large degree. According to this argument, the Lakers are a cash machine but need to play teams like the Grizzlies to keep the money rolling in, while revenue sharing helps the Grizzlies stay afloat.

LINK

It's a long article but the bottom line is the large market vs. small market fight within the league continues and there will always be a good number of unprofitable have nots because the large markets' extra revenues raise the cap higher than the small markets are able to match.

The part that is particularly relevant to the Pels, teams like the Spurs and Thunder have lost revenue sharing money by winning. Could they possibly look to tweak those rules in a way that would help a contending AD/DC lead Pels?

quote:
If a team overperforms expectations based on market size and past data, it effectively forfeits some of its revenue-sharing bounty.

That is how the Thunder, playing in one of the NBA's smallest markets, have paid into the system for six consecutive seasons, records show. The Spurs have, too. Meanwhile, the larger-market Nuggets were around the break-even mark by the league's calculations but received an eight-figure check from their partners that pushed them deep into the black. The Nuggets' total expense bill, including player salaries and administrative costs, was the lowest in the league, records show.

The Board of Governors can tweak the revenue-sharing system by a majority 16-14 vote. Between 2011, when this system was installed, and 2014, any change required a supermajority of 20 of the 30 votes, sources say.