You're Not Retired

[unclemick]

Green Bay Packers? Like Bogle and Vanguard, I don't know the nitty gritty details but I like Vanguard and the Pack(with Bret of course). There doesn't seem to be a big rush to duplicate either organization.

 

[Cut-Throat]

I find it amazing how liberals can complain about "billionaire owners" while completely overlooking the fact that most of the cost that people pay to watch professional sports is attributable to player salaries, and not profit to the owners.

Ted,

You are way out of line here!

It is the Billionarie owners that make all the rules and their egos set the players salaries.  Am I supposed to complain that a  28 year old player didn't turn down a contract of 140 Million because it was too much money?
Give me a fricken break!!!

The Billionaire owners are making the rules not Liberals!

In reality, these owners are claiming they are not making any money. - And they are right, because they don't show a profit and pay little taxes. The real gains are made when they sell the team. The stadium is the real Capital Gains!

Fine and dandy - Just don't ask the taxpayers to cover the bill!

The Liberals will not complain as long as you don't ask them to pay for it. We would rather give our money to people that really need it!

 

[Jarhead*]

Ted:

Like a lot of things in life, the pendulum has swung too far in baseball.
Prior to Curt Flood, challenging and winning the right for free agency, baseball players were at the mercy of their signing club. You received in salary what they were willing to pay, period.
The only possible way to stem the tide of the current situation in baseball is to salary cap each team, as the NFL has done. The problem with that is the players union is probably the strongest union in the country. Also, owners like Steinbrenner, etc. like the status quo just fine.
While it is certainly true that even the average major league player is paid exhorbident sums of money, about 95% of players that are good enough to sign a contract with the parent club never spend any time in a major league uniform.
A fair analogy would be the Real Estate business. Most of the folks in any area I lived made a marginal living , but there were always 2 or 3 that were able to make fantastic money.
As far as I know nobody stuck a gun in the Texas ownerships face when they signed ARod to a $284,000,000.00 contract.
As long as there is no salary cap in baseball, short of a complete rebellion on the part of fans. (Which is highly unlikely), it is going to continue to be an unfortunate dampner on the folks that appreciate the athletic ability of these young talented kids.
Jarhead

 

[Ted]

My attitude towards the owners of sports teams is pretty much neutral -- like my attitude towards business owners in general.  In the first place, they aren't all "billionaires."  They certainly are very wealthy, and most approach team ownership pretty much as a "hobby," like owning a race horse.  If it were an "investment," it would be one with a pretty low rate of return.  

Like business owners in all other industries they try to enhance this return by lobbying for various types of subsidies.  Typically, this is in the form of new stadiums that their teams get to use at less than full cost.  Of course, this attempt to milk the taxpayers is cloaked in "civic pride" and "job creation."

As Jarhead says, owners formerly did "make the rules" as far as player salaries were concerned (although nobody ever put a gun to a player's head and told him that he couldn't make a living doing something else).  But they don't any more, with the advent of free agency. Owners are pretty much of a conduit for passing exhorbitant player salaries on to fans.

Personally, I'm undecided as to whether a salary cap would be the "right" thing to do, although I agree that it would be effective at holding down costs to fans.  It runs counter to my Libertarian tendencies that say that anybody should be free to sell their services to the highest bidder, as long as they play by certain rules -- such as not hypocritically scheming to tap into public funds, or lobbying for laws that allow them to limit competition. 

What I feel entirely comfortable in doing, however, is what I am doing here -- pointing out that the high prices that fans are paying are attributable mostly to the salaries of "superstar" players.  If the fans "can't afford it," they are free to spend their money on some cheaper form of entertainment, and that will eventually act to limit the salaries of superstars.  In fact, minor league baseball in major league cities is becoming one such alternative.

In addition to tax subsidies, another way that the cost of professional sports is passed on to the general public is through the perks for "corporate pooh-bahs" that I alluded to previously.  The really high priced seats are purchased mainly by corporations, which pass the costs on to the consumers of their products.

 

[wzd]

If the fans "can't afford it," they are free to spend their money on some cheaper form of entertainment, and that will eventually act to limit the salaries of superstars.

In fact, my wife, son, and I have a much better time at the local college and high school games than any of the pro (I have a real hard time using the word professional in this context) games.

Wayne