The assumption that more members means more closed deals is the one that keeps not holding up.
A six-person group with three active buyers closes more than a twelve-person group where eight members are still building their buyer lists, because the constraint is never the number of people in the room, it is the number of people who can actually write a check this week. Say a group has ten members paying dues and sharing leads. If two of them hold 80 percent of the active buyers, those two are effectively subsidizing everyone else's marketing operation while competing with members who have weaker distribution for the same incoming deals. The fee split formula does not fix that imbalance, it just prices it wrong. A group pricing splits on origination rather than on who moved the contract is going to see its strongest buyers drift toward private arrangements eventually. What changes that math is routing: first right to a buyer tier goes to the member whose list actually fits the asset, rather than whoever sourced the lead. Some groups use a claiming window, usually 24 to 48 hours, where the originator chooses the routing member, but that reintroduces favoritism unless the buyer-tier data is visible to everyone. Transparent buyer-list grading by asset type, price band and turnaround time is the piece most groups skip because it requires members to show their hand. What does your group actually know about which member closes fastest on which deal type, and is that information shared or does everyone just assume they know?
