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

[Balticfox]

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.

They're not "competitors" though in the full proper sense of the word. Their teams compete on the playing field but that's it. There's a good reason why they're called "franchises" because that's precisely what they are, franchises in the single business enterprise of MLB.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

They're not 'competitors" though in the full proper sense of the word. Their teams compete on the playing field but that's it. There's a good reason why they're called "franchises" because that's precisely what they are, franchises in the single business enterprise of MLB.

So they don't compete off the field when teams are scouting and signing players? The teams may all be franchises under MLB, but that doesn't mean they aren't competitors both on and off the field.

[Balticfox]

The teams are actually partners in most ways.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

The teams are actually partners in most ways.

They're partners when it comes to marketing the league. When they've tried to be partners in signing and paying players, they've been found guilty of collusion and paid big fines to the players.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When they've tried to be partners in signing and paying players, they've been found guilty of collusion and paid big fines to the players.

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.

[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

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]

The very idea of being an employee not trying to extract everything they can from an employer is mindblowing to me.

If I'm making someone else money with my talents or labor I want as much as I can get from whoever wants to legally employ me. If I'm giving up financial compensation, I want other perks (more days off, other flexibility, etc).

I think sports salaries are crazy, but "the market" is supporting them. Every new revenue stream coming in is breaking toward the players getting a cut rather than fans getting cheaper tickets/concessions, but this is benefiting owners, too.

The Boston Celtics didn't just sell 6.1 billion dollars because player salaries are a money pit of despair for ownership.

[KJA]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

The very idea of being an employee not trying to extract everything they can from an employer is mindblowing to me.

If I'm making someone else money with my talents or labor I want as much as I can get from whoever wants to legally employ me. If I'm giving up financial compensation, I want other perks (more days off, other flexibility, etc).

I think sports salaries are crazy, but "the market" is supporting them. Every new revenue stream coming in is breaking toward the players getting a cut rather than fans getting cheaper tickets/concessions, but this is benefiting owners, too.

The Boston Celtics didn't just sell 6.1 billion dollars because player salaries are a money pit of despair for ownership.

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.