[Torie]

Let me help everyone with this. The reason baseball loses money is that it is a glamour hobby business. Rich folks own the teams for the fun of it, i.e. the psychic income. Owning a winner generates even more psychic income, and thus the overpayment of player salaries. And that income is not on any balance sheet. Which only goes to show that it is nutso for public companies to own teams, unless they are viewed as a perk for the execs.

If you want to make money, as in money, own an anti glamour company, like a toxic waste dump.

[NYCVirago]

Are you saying you believe these figures? Glamour business or not, these figures are clearly bogus.

[habs4ever]

A public company could own a b-ball team to capture tax loss carryforwards.It would be a natural for very high ROE companies, namely in software, that have clean balance sheets and cash, to buy one.But, it makes more sense for it to be a broadcaster or cable network that needs product, or software,to broadcast.Many beer companies have owned teams for years, as a way to cross market, except it depends on winning to be a success, and when a team slips, like the Montreal Canadiens have done, then those wonderful synergies go too.Its hard to make a case for this as a business when 80% of revenues is allocated to payroll.And those who scream that owners wouldn't pay this money unless it wasn't worth it, have never heard of the greater fool theory.