Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox
That decision was a bloody travesty! If MLB isn't a single business enterprise, why is there one big boss, i.e. the commissioner? If MLB isn't a single business enterprise, why then must new franchises be approved by the existing franchise owners who then collect very generous expansion fees? (Did Chevrolet need to pay Ford to enter the auto business? Did Pepsi need to pay Coke to enter the soft drink business?) If MLB isn't a single business enterprise, why then does the MLB Players' Association negotiate with MLB as an entity instead of with each individual team? The reason of course is that the teams are individual franchises in a single business enterprise.
And what's been the net effect? The players have gotten rich beyond the dreams of avarice. But has this enabled the fans to empathize with their player "idols" to a greater extent? No, far from it.
And has MLB competitiveness improved over all? No, the smaller market teams have really been suffering on the field for over a couple of decades. This isn't good for the game.
Has it been to the benefit of the fans? No, it has not. See the points above. Moreover do fans like musical chairs when it comes to roster signings? No they do not. And like I say, the fans are the customers.
 |
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.