“A lot of people say athletes don't deserve to get the money they get, but the one law of economics that has never been repealed is the law of supply and demand. There is a very small supply of athletes who have the ability to play at the major league level in any sport--and the demand is great enough that they command these salaries because that's the law of economics." – Jerry Reinsdorf to the Chicago Sun - Times’ Terry Savage. July 30, 2000.

What a fraud. There is a very strong demand of people who want to kick hm in the nads' though.

It's true but sports would be a lot better off of it wasn't tied to market forces. Sport is a public good. A cultural product that gives people a sense of pride in their city, state or country and brings people from diverse backgrounds together in favor of a common interest. It's kind of like nationalism but much less chauvinistic, I enjoy conversing with any passionate sports fan even if they root for the Cubs, the Twins, the Pistons, the Lakers, their own national teams. Everyone everywhere likes sports, it's a common language. Even if you have radically different political views or economic interests, or live in different countries with governments who desire to wipe the other one off the face of the Earth, sport is an analogy for the fact that we're all just human beings and basically want the same things out of life. 

The fact that everyone in the world loves sports of course makes it a profitable enterprise, so a handful of powerful people can reap all the benefits. A baseball player is not inherently more valuable to society than a teacher or nurse is, but his skillset is unique enough and sport produces enough revenue that they can make absurd amounts of money; and it's probably "fair" in that sense that Ohtani is going to become a billionaire because he's probably entitled to a fair share of the revenue considering his individual impact on the industry, else an owner will take the revenue he creates for himself or to give his shareholders a dividend. It's a fatal flaw of the market economy, for all its historical benefits, that the super wealthy will reap all the rewards of baseball and the poor family will have to stay home and watch the game on TV while business people will take the best seats, using this 'amenity' to wine and dine their corporate clients and not even watch the game. 

There's a good book about cricket I like called "Beyond a Boundary" by Trinidadian historian CLR James, discussing the importance of the sport to him and his local community, and how people in India and the Caribbean could fall in love with a sport created by their colonizer, Britain. The sport parallels struggles for independence, race and class politics, but also a universal love for the game regardless of background or one's relation to colonialism. You might draw similar parallels with baseball, an American creation, and the fandom it's found in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Japan and Korea.

Edited December 11, 20232 yr by nrockway

4 hours ago, nrockway said:

It's true but sports would be a lot better off of it wasn't tied to market forces. Sport is a public good. A cultural product that gives people a sense of pride in their city, state or country and brings people from diverse backgrounds together in favor of a common interest. It's kind of like nationalism but much less chauvinistic, I enjoy conversing with any passionate sports fan even if they root for the Cubs, the Twins, the Pistons, the Lakers, their own national teams. Everyone everywhere likes sports, it's a common language. Even if you have radically different political views or economic interests, or live in different countries with governments who desire to wipe the other one off the face of the Earth, sport is an analogy for the fact that we're all just human beings and basically want the same things out of life. 

The fact that everyone in the world loves sports of course makes it a profitable enterprise, so a handful of powerful people can reap all the benefits. A baseball player is not inherently more valuable to society than a teacher or nurse is, but his skillset is unique enough and sport produces enough revenue that they can make absurd amounts of money; and it's probably "fair" in that sense that Ohtani is going to become a billionaire because he's probably entitled to a fair share of the revenue considering his individual impact on the industry, else an owner will take the revenue he creates for himself or to give his shareholders a dividend. It's a fatal flaw of the market economy, for all its historical benefits, that the super wealthy will reap all the rewards of baseball and the poor family will have to stay home and watch the game on TV while business people will take the best seats, using this 'amenity' to wine and dine their corporate clients and not even watch the game. 

There's a good book about cricket I like called "Beyond a Boundary" by Trinidadian historian CLR James, discussing the importance of the sport to him and his local community, and how people in India and the Caribbean could fall in love with a sport created by their colonizer, Britain. The sport parallels struggles for independence, race and class politics, but also a universal love for the game regardless of background or one's relation to colonialism. You might draw similar parallels with baseball, an American creation, and the fandom it's found in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Japan and Korea.

Having a community ownership arrangement like the Packers would be the preferred ownership structure, where profits benefit the team as a whole and the community. Just about every other team has the opposite scenario, with the MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL owners privatizing the profits and socializing their capital costs while communities have trouble upkeeping athletic facilities for the general public.

European and other non-American leagues are far superior, as they are open leagues with promotion and relegation, and do not get taxpayer subsidized stadiums. There is a great community bond as a result.