Happy Opening Day! (even though MLB hates it's fans)

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

...why is there one big boss, i.e. the commissioner?...

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.

[jayshum]

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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jayshum

What other industry prevented its employees from leaving and going to work for a competitor? That's basically what the reserve clause did.

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

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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.

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

[BioCRN]

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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by steve B

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

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.

[molenick]

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by bk400

...the only thing I wish is that there is more focus on defense and small ball in the modern game.... I wouldn't mind seeing some more bench clearing brawls also.

Oh absolutely! I agree.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by KJA

That's always been my thought process, if somebody is willing to pay you that much then you are a fool to not take that money. Especially since you aren't going to play forever so you might as well get what you can while you can.

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.

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Your comparing apples to oranges IMO. Musk is a private businessman. Teachers and firefighters are paid by tax dollars - our dollars. That's much easier to complain about! And I think, overall, you're wrong. Just as many people complain about rich guys as they do teachers and firefighters - class envy has been around forever.

We never give credit to the owners who started professional baseball back in the day, but look at all the franchises that went out of business before baseball became the national pastime. In Detroit, we had the National League Wolverines who folded in 1888 after winning a championship in 1887. The Federal League that went belly up after two seasons, I think. No one laments the fate of the owners who put up the money for those defunct franchises and leagues, but it’s ok to hate the owners who managed to hang on through two world wars, a depression, and the general ups and downs of the economy.

...this class envy stuff strikes me as childish and naive. Today’s owners have to care about the fans despite what some might think. If they didn’t, they wouldn't be the greedy capitalists some claim they are, would they? And a business that doesn’t make money isn’t a business, it’s a charity.

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

As an employee, I don't believe in the existence or concept of "overpaid".

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.