Sen. Kerry opposed to MLB's 'Extra Innings'-DirecTV deal

If you ask me, though, buying out your competition is the anti-capitalist move of the two. I advocate competition, not an artificially limited supply market with artificially limited demand.

This, unfortunately, is the same type of short-sighted thinking that gets us things like antitrust laws that really screw up the market.

Even if, for some reason, you believe that the government ought to be involved in central planning of the market--which is what you propose, let's be clear--it wouldn't make sense to allow this because, as I've noted above, there are market efficiencies in allowing exclusive distributorships, particularly because it allows exclusive distributors to focus on interbrand competition.

For further discussion, I'd recommend a wonderful resource, "Antitrust Law and the Economics of Product Distribution."

http://www.amazon.com/Antitrust-Law-Economics-Product-Distribution/dp/1590316975/sr=8-1/qid=1170886121/ref=sr_1_1/002-7650305-4563217?ie=UTF8&s=books

MLB operates with an antitrust exemption courtesy of the federal government. In my opinion I think it's a good thing that somebody is reminding them not to abuse the freedom from the law they currently enjoy. This is not wanting the government to regulate private business any more than they regulate any other business.

I said what I said and I explained what I meant. You are now free to go back to believing whatever it is you want to believe.

No, son, let you be clear on something - I didn't propose anything. I've clearly voiced what I would like on this issue, and I have not once requested legal action against MLB or the enaction or proposal of any new laws. I only like that the antitrust exemption would be reconsidered should this deal be passed. That is not support in any way of a planned economy.

I've already explained why your exclusive distributorships examples were not entirely relevant. Interbrand competition is particularly amusing since MLB does not compete with anything. Your thought process requires that you lump all "sports" in together. That is, there are some millions of sports fan zombies with extremely short attention spans that are capable of being swayed by flashing lights and pretty colors. However, the fact remains that there is little overlap between MLB and any of the professional sports. The NBA's regular season overlaps about two weeks with MLB - playoffs follow. Football overlaps for approximately four weeks, and it should be noted that football games are played ultimately one day a week. Unless MLB competes with standard television, the only competition is between teams. That, of course, falls under MLB's "big tent" anyway, and is irrelevant.

I also remind you that exclusive distribution is not always legal. I suspect that when the institution is a monopoly to begin with - as is MLB - there are additional complications.

The only difference in the packages is as you already pointed out, the way in which they were being offered. Now there will be no difference.

Your point about 100 million subscriber base versus 15 million is not something that can easily be compared unless both customer bases will purchase MLB EI at similar election rates. It's very likely they will lose lots subscribers as you predict, but baseball doesn't care because they are getting way more up front money (assumption on my part) than they believe DirecTV can sell in advertising so they'll wait it out and see what happens the next time the contract comes up for rebid.

MLB lost a lot of customers during the strike, they believe they can survive this too.

The 'way more money' is $30 million. That's $1 million per team. Or, put another way, less than the cost of one mediocre relief pitcher.

But you still don't seem to understand that we are not saying that they don't have the right to do it. We are only saying that we think it's a dumb move and that they will regret it.

Short-term, they'll get extra money. Long-term, they won't sell as much merchandise and they won't necessarily sell as much in advertising because fewer people will be watching. In the long-term (which is what I'm focusing on) this is a bad deal. But they are too blinded by short-term dollar signs to see it.

Once again, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.