"@ Nina
Do you realize how many new INCREMENTAL sales would be required to increase the BOTTOM LINE by $200M?
That is a huge number."
I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Why does the bottom line have to be INCREASED by $200 million, if we are talking about contracts breaking down annually?
The Warriors market themselves, and I'm not sure how much I would consider incremental. They have two of the most popular current NBA players on their team; they expect to make money off that, and they do.
Also, how did we come up with the $200 million dollar figure for the Warriors' bottom line? Did you do a spreadsheet calculation, or is this just a rough estimate?
It is easier for the Warriors to market themselves because of their star power, smoothly operating office, huge success, and quite frankly their location. I have no idea what the dollar figure is on their TV deal, but I'm going to estimate that it alone is at least $50M per year, or 1/4 of this $200M bottom line... on television deals alone --- not even including money for making it to the second round, or conference finals, or winning the championship, or raised merch sales, or ticket prices, or sponsors, or regular team promotions.
I don't know why this is even an issue here, to be quite honest. I'm more excited about tonight's game, and seeing the Warriors hopefully repeat, than to rehash microeconomics and business 101.