Thing about costs is this: Lets agree that Pete's number of 120 teams at the current price is the break-even point. Businesses are supposed to do better than break-even, but let's leave that alone for now, and assume that the MS are happy to spin the wheels (they aren't, but lets stay in utopia for a minute...) If you dropped the price 20%, but wanted the same break-even dollar amount, you would need 24 additional teams paying/playing. Where do those teams come from? Can an additional 24 teams play on the same number of fields with the same number of refs? I'm guessing they can't, and that you need another field, with a reffing crew. OK, that costs money, so now we need another 10 teams to cover that expense and bring us back to break-even again. That's more 35 teams. Where do we get those from? Team numbers are already dropping, so how can we magic-up another 35 of them? Unless we're saying that what we want is to stick with 120 teams, and then lower the price? Now we are 20% under the break-even price. How does that work? How long does that league operate at a 20% loss? If you ask me, the price needs to be higher in order for the league to be healthy and sustainable. I'd rather see a capped 80 team league paying 10-20% more, than try to work it the other way. I can use less fields, fewer refs, maybe even make the event shorter, all of which saves me money and allows me to do a stronger job and deliver more to the 80 teams playing. Teams would not be able to get in at that stage, which actually makes a spot valuable and maybe even tradable. The people that can't afford to play, well, they can't afford to play. There are a million things I can't afford to do but wished I could, and guess what - I don't do any of those things, and nor do I whine about it.