Baseball's Paradox (George Will)

Townhall.com ^ | August 10, 2002 | George Will

[Mr. Mulliner]

WASHINGTON--Major League Baseball's labor negotiations involve two paradoxes. The players' union's primary objective is to protect the revenues of a very few very rich owners--principally, the Yankees'. The owners' primary objective is a more egalitarian distribution of wealth.

The union believes that unconstrained spending by the richest three teams pulls up all payrolls. Most owners believe that baseball's problems--competitive imbalance, the parlous financial conditions of many clubs--result from large and growing disparities of what are mistakenly treated as ``local'' revenues.

[Mr. Mulliner]

George Will lays out the facts regarding the state of major league baseball today. Very clear presentation both for those who have not been informed and (snicker at the comment about the salary cap) and those who think they have been.

This final statement should strike fear in the heart of any fan of MLB.

If a strike starts, do not expect to see baseball before next April. And do not expect to see today's levels of attendance then, or again.

[sleavelessinseattle]

ping

[Mr. Mulliner]

ping for more sobering baseball chatter

[Bogey78O]

I was a young budding baseball fan up til the first strike. I have a large box full of cards.....

never picked them up again.

[Mr. Mulliner]

index

[JPJones]

The player said: We will never accept a salary cap.

That's the spirit!

/sarcasm

[zarf]

Fear? I hope baseball implodes and dies a painful death.

She will rise eventually as a sobered, better game.

[Mr. Mulliner]

This article brings out some of the most important points that came up in a discussion a couple days ago. Someone from Townhall or National Review was trying to apply free enterprise and a market economy to baseball's problems, but was missing the very crucial point that it is a league we are talking about here, and that league needs all the teams and needs them to do fairly well in order to keep things going. If baseball were run strictly on business terms, the Yankees would have put just about everyone else out of business long ago.

[petuniasevan]

Send a message.

Until some REAL changes are made, I will not do any of the following:

1. Attend a major league baseball game.

2. Buy any MLB-licensed gear or clothing.

3. Donate any funds to any organization which promotes the current state of affairs.

4. Attend ANY function which uses an MLB stadium as its venue.

5. Buy products endorsing or endorsed by MLB.

We the fans are the ones who fund this boondoggle - we're the ones who can put a stop to the madness.

[Mr. Mulliner]

I consider myself a pretty big fan of baseball and pretty knowledgeable. I haven't been to a major league game in the past 5 years, maybe more. I haven't bought any MLB products in even longer. I am not purposely trying to bring baseball down, but long ago my values changed so that I do not consider it a good use of my money to attend major league baseball (I will gladly attend a minor league game at the drop of a hat). I stay up on the game and enjoy it almost as much as I ever did, but none of my money is getting into their pockets and I'm fine with that.

[BluesDuke]

(snicker at the comment about the salary cap)

Says Mr. Will: On a team flight recently, a superstar, a very intelligent man, discussed the labor negotiations with a team executive. The player said: We will never accept a salary cap. He was startled to learn that no salary cap has been proposed for eight years.

Say I: No salary cap has been proposed formally - but it has almost always been mentioned as all but a "must" have in due course by Selig and enough of his minions. And anyone who doesn't think the so-called "luxury tax" concept is a salary cap in the breach is precisely the first five words of this sentence: anyone who doesn't think. The real question is not how much in salaries the players are earning, the real question is how much of the revenues the owners have been taking in have they in fact ascribed or put into their baseball teams, and how much of those revenues have they in fact secreted elsewhere, in various places, in order to hype up a prospectively false image of baseball "losing" money, perhaps on behalf of attempting to "rein in" the players or "cut them down to size" a bit, in light of a very unpleasant piece of truth gleaned by the Society for American Baseball Research in the past few months (and isn't it interesting that no one from SABR was invited to serve on that so-called Blue Ribbon Committee): that in each season between 1995 and 2001 baseball took in $2.1 billion additional revenue per season, and less than half of that take net went to the players, while the remainder may not have gone to baseball-related purposes or uses, according to SABR.

And is it not interesting that one of the New York Mets' co-owners, Nelson Doubleday, who wants to sell his half of the team to partner Fred Wilpon, is now suing Bug Selig and accusing him of cooking baseball's books by falsely devaluing baseball franchises including his own? (Doubleday accuses baseball's designated appraiser of undervaluing the Mets. Granted that Doubleday is, of course, interesting in making money on selling his half of the Mets, but why is it not terribly surprising that Selig might sanction such a thing? And did you know who baseball's designated appraiser was who so undervalued the Mets? He is one Robert Starkey, who when baseball first engaged him happened to be employed by...Arthur Andersen.)

But no. It's either those greedhead players or those imperialists at Yankee Stadium who are the root of all evil.

[Tigercap]

I remember, and greatly miss the days, when:

The Royals meant George Brett, Willie Wilson, Hal McRae, Frank White

The Tigers meant Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Lance Parrish, Jack Morris,

The Red Sox meant Jim Rice, Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans,

The Pirates meant Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Manny Sanguillen, Frank Tavares

The Brewers meant Cecil Cooper, Robin Yount, Paul Moliter,

...you get the idea. Now, teams have 90% turnover in 4-5 years.

[zacharycole]

An interesting difference I've observed between this year and '94 is that most people (average fans) are not taking sides. Eight years ago, I clearly recall very heated arguments, as people staked out sides either supporting the "free market" for players interests or the "right to control salaries" in favor of the owners. This year, I see little, if any, of this. Owners and players alike should be very concerned , IMO...

[rdb3]

Whoa! Thanks for the heads up. I guess I must not have been paying attention. I never knew George Will wrote about sports.

Although I don't like it, I think that MLB should adopt a similar revenue sharing system like what the NFL has. TV revenue is split among the teams, while the individual owners are free to get as many endorsement contracts as they can.

[KDD]

The last players strike cost MLB this fans support.

If they strike again it will cost them my 25 year old sons support. He says he'd rather go watch the college team play. My grandson is 5yrs old. MLB will have to collapse of it's own weight and begin to rebuild from the base up before it gets any better. They seem to have forgotten thar their first base is their fans.

2.2 mil average salary for playing a game they supposedly love and they're talking strike? In this case...Two strikes and they're out.

[BluesDuke]

...you get the idea. Now, teams have 90% turnover in 4-5 years.

Aside from teams having quite a bit less actual turnover than that, do you know what annual team turnover was before the free agency era began in earnest in 1977?

* Of the 127 players who were elected to the Hall of Fame by 1980 - making them unaffected by free agency - 70 percent of those played for more than one team; and perhaps 14 percent of those played for as many as five teams. Even Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth played for more than one team.

* The average player movement per club per year between 1951 and 1977 was 4.7 players.

* The average from 1978 through 1992 (with limited free agency): 4.6 players per club.

* The 1993 average: 4.2.

* The annual average since: Approximately 4.5.

Why is it that player movement in an era in which baseball players had and have the right within certain parameters to choose their employer mutually is such a mortal sin - but player movement in an era where players had rights comparable to chattel slaves - owners could trade or sell them at will, at practically any time they pleased, and thanks to their misapplication of the reserve clause players had no choices other than retirement if they objected - is "the good old days"? And is it not perhaps possible to conceive that, rather than "player loyalty" having been disappeared from baseball with the free agency era, "player loyalty" in the most proper sense of the term (how come nobody ever demanded previously that the owners show players - or better yet, their fans - "loyalty") had in fact been introduced into baseball by such as George Brett, Alan Trammell, Dwight Evans, Don Mattingly, Willie Stargell, Robin Yount, Ryne Sandberg, Ron Guidry, or Kirby Puckett?

[BluesDuke]

The real revenue sharing, it seems to me, should come not just from any national broadcasting contracts (which are, by the way, where the preponderance of the monies that go to pay player salaries comes from, ladies and gentlemen), but MLB should finally impose upon itself an equitable box office split between the home and visiting teams. I have advocated long enough for a 60-40 split (sorry, to the home team should go the props). Right now, if I am not wrong, the American League has something like an 85-15 split and the National League something like an 80-20 split. I could be wrong on the exact figures, but the spread is about right - and it's ridiculous. Let baseball make those two revenue adjustments and otherwise let baseball tell the preponderance of the owners, Why don't you quit whining about all that Yankee money and start trying to do what they did on your own regional terms? Is it really the Yankees' fault that they figured out and found some alternative revenue streams and you didn't? Is it really the Yankees' fault that Steinbrenner, however he generates his revenues, puts the bulk of his baseball revenues back into his team and you assholes don't?

All of which is yet another reason why Bud Selig, who must go, ought never to have been named commissioner in the first place. The NBA sees a "dynastic" team and promotes the living hell out of its stars; MLB sees a (real or alleged) "dynastic team" and Bug Selig and company's idea of promotion is to yap over and over again that no one can beat the Yankees on their terms. Shows you how much they watch their own game, folks. Had it not been for a certain Yankee shortstop playing his position on a wide throw in from the outfield as though he'd taken lessons from Bob Cousy, it would have been the Oakland Athletics - the allegedly small market and under-revenued Oakland Athletics - playing for the pennant last year against the Seattle Mariners.

[logician2u]

Sad to say, baseball has overreached and will probably take a tumble as a result. I'm not at all confident that it will come back from the dead as some sports have.

Unfortunately, baseball is America's political sport.

Every big-city politician is either working to keep the existing franchise in town or attract a team with offers of a new, taxpayer-funded stadium, the proceeds of which will go to enrich the owners and players while the poor taxpayers are lucky to get tickets at prices a family can afford.

I find it remarkable that a conservative such as George Will allows professional baseball to deviate from his general belief in free markets.

But then after the next strike, if the fans don't return, I wonder if Mr. Will will suggest nationalization to "save the sport."

[SamAdams76]

Not only does George Will write sports articles from time to time but he has written an entire book on the game of baseball. Titled Men At Work: The Craft Of Baseball, the book details every position on the diamond. A really good read if you are a baseball fan.

The season has already been ruined for me with talk of this baseball strike (a strike date will probably be set Monday). The Red Sox have a decent team this year and a shot at making the playoffs, but I'm just not going to invest the time in watching games that are likely to be rendered meaningless by this coming strike.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Free markets don't apply to a league. It simply doesn't work. They have to function more or less as a collective (not sure if that's really the way I want to put because it sounds communist). If it were a true free market, some teams would have folded by now. The draft is definitely something that is not a free market idea so most likely on a free market system, rich teams would buy up all the talent and poorer teams wouldn't get anything but the crumbs. Also, in a free market, since New York is obviously the place to be for revenue, other teams would move there and start cutting in on George's business a bit.

I think you get the idea. The game would fall apart if they didn't make decisions for the league and that means making decisions that on the surface look anti-market.