It's laughable to me that anybody could think that the commissioner is "in charge" he's not doing anything that the owners don't tell him to do.

Yes, the teams are all part of one league, but if they are all about being partners, why do they allow there to be small market and large market teams with vastly different resources to draw from instead of sharing all revenues evenly? As you said, smaller market team have been suffering for a long time. It's because they are also competitors. Their goal is to win the World Series. The individual teams will work together when they have to for the overall league to work, but otherwise, they will do what is in their own best interest to put together the best team they can to try to win games and championships.

The sports industry is not like other industries. Coke doesn't need Pepsi to survive and Ford doesn't need Chevrolet. In fact, they would prefer less competitors not more because then they would control their markets and be able to better set prices to their benefit. Sports teams need other teams to play against so they actually have a product to sell so they form a league to have a common set of rules for them to operate under. Other than that, they are competitors.

Yes, as there has been more money made in the sport, the players have benefited from it and been paid higher salaries. Why shouldn't they be since they are the product? CEOs used to make 3 or 4 times what their average employee made, but now they make 300 times. Actors and actresses make $20 million for a movie and no one says I'm not going to see a movie because the star is paid too much. It seems like it's only in sports where the players (which are who people are paying to see) are not supposed to make any money because long ago, they didn't and were just like the fans.

Youve never heard on non compete clauses? Even the ones that limit the time it's in effect are essentially the reserve clause.

Not before the movie, but I've thought that after a couple movies.
Same with some sporting events.

Do people honestly believe there are a slew of held-down benevolent owners who yearn to charge fans less money and the big bad players are keeping them from doing so?

As a Cubs fan watching the Ricketts family exponentially whore out revenue streams out of Wrigley Field while snapping up the neighborhood properties to build even more revenue while their goal is to "break even" with the team...I have no words. They've already turned a 845m purchase into a 4+ billion valuation. The fans aren't getting a cut, the owners aren't trying to give the fans a cut. The owners are buying up Wrigleyville and building more high-end suites, not passing on additional revenue for the fan's benefit.

People out there actually carrying water for billionaire owners and blaming players for going and getting their cut...as if it wasn't for the players we'd have $10 tickets and $1 hotdogs.

These owners don't care about your $10 if someone else is out there willing to give them $100.

Yes, I've heard of non-compete clauses. I don't think they usually apply forever like the reserve clause did in baseball, and they also usually don't apply to every employee of a business. They are usually only for executives of companies.

The players making too much money is clearly a gut reaction...arguments about free market, capitalism, supply and demand, why should the owners keep all the money, etc. are not going to sway people.

If players made 1/10th of what they are making now but the game itself was exactly the same as it is now, would that make a difference? Or is it more about the pitch clock, ghost runner, bullpen games, launch angle, exit velo, analytics over gut, etc.?

I do get collecting vintage cards and not caring about the current game. Many people collect vintage comic books but have no interest in the current state of comics or graphic novels. Or collect coins but don't care about state quarters.

Oh absolutely! I agree.

:)

Heaven forbid that the players actually have to work after the age of 35 or so like the rest of us! Incidentally, the minimum MLB salary in 2024 was $740,000. So no my heart doesn't bleed for the poor oppressed players.

I fully agree! Everybody is entitled to whatever they can get! Nor should envy be part of the equation. Although of course as taxpayers we absolutely do have a say in what government employees should get.

Truthfully I don't actually care what the players or owners actually earn (although my heart doesn't bleed for any of them). What galls me is that I liked the reserve clause. I liked it better when a Tiger was a Tiger was a Tiger and a Yankee was a Yankee was a Yankee (until team management saw otherwise). Things were much better when the fans could identify with the players that way and the game is after all for the fans. That plus the fact that the elimination of the reserve clause has slowly but steadily made small market teams much less competitive. That's not good for MLB.

But that's so unfair to the players you say? "Tough!" I say. "Stop your whining. Didn't your parents tell you that life didn't have to be fair? If not, they should have." With the MLB minimum salary at $740,000 for seasonal work, they'll get no sympathy from me. Heaven forbid they have to supplement their meager earnings by working as stockbrokers or in a furniture and appliance store in the off-season.

;)