An ominous future...

[ptatc]

58 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I'm sure that these millionaires and billionaires and Fortune 500 companies that are involved can easily take on debt and do so for a very, very long time.

Reminds me of when Lamar Hunt owned the Chiefs in the early days, it was reported he lost a million dollars one year. His father H.L. Hunt, who was extremely rich from oil and gas, was asked about this and he said, (paraphrasing). 'That means he can only lose that amount of money for another hundred years...' 

And again as was documented in the book The Lords of the Realm by John Helyar it's hard to take any numbers owners produce seriously given the way they and their accountants can manipulate them. 

Only one team has to produce and open their books, the Braves, which they recently did, and those numbers showed they were making a fortune. 

I'll have more sympathy for owners when they allow their books to be examined by certified independent forensic accountants and their like. If those people say they are losing money and badly then absolutely I'll have to rethink my position. 

 

There is zero incentive for the owners to open the books until the players agree to a floor/cap when its needed for the calculations. Until then they lose a huge bargaining chip.

[caulfield12]

42 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

As good as that book is, it’s from 1994, which is a period of time that doesn’t represent the current economic model well at all. The TV bubble began to form soon after that, right around the turn of the century, leading revenues and salaries both to shoot up rapidly. The Braves we’re an early outlier prior to that time, with their unique shared ownership with TBS, an extremely lucrative situation that was a competitive advantage, particularly in the fact that it allowed them to effectively capture a drastically larger fan territory than any other team in the league (in terms of geography), which coincided nicely with their extended competitive run.

I want to make it clear that I do not think the owners deserve “sympathy,” and I would never suggest that they aren’t doing very well with their investments. I would suggest, however, that the economic balance between the players union and the teams (which is subtly but important different than “owners”) may actually in a pretty good/balanced place. The players union has done an incredibly good job of ensuring that the players are getting about as much of the pie as they can without destabilizing the teams and toppling the business model entirely.

This shouldn’t stop either side from continuing to fight aggressively, if only to keep the other in check. But in general, I don’t think fans should put much stock in any of the narratives they are subjected too, because that’s all they are: PR leverage points designed to manipulate the fans into supporting someone who isn’t really taking their own interests into consideration at all. 

Sure, both sides.

But then there's the issue of how players are treated their first three years in the big leagues as well as the minor leagues, which is still barely just a matter of surviving for non Top 2-3 round picks...especially in A ball and rookie/complex leagues.

Not the slavery of Curt Flood days...but that Top 20% of MLB players' salaries blowing up is skewing the overall picture.

Also, older/veteran players not who are not in the top tier are going the way of dinosaurs once they hit 33/34.

Analytics have wiped them out in favor of prospects/players in their 20s and even teens...not unlike AI and robotics taking away jobs.

 

Is a rising tide floating all boats?

Trickle down?

If you believe in the core mission of labor unions throughout the history of the country...and there are tons of talking points against, having been part of a public teachers' union, trust me, I've seen or heard every story, then it's still almost impossible to look at things as being equal or 50/50.

But that's just me.  Unless you work (directly/indirectly) for a billionaire, you're probably not going to be defending them.

 

Another issue is private equity firms like Crystal Lake buying up a ton of minor league teams...does this "ruthless bottom line efficiency" lead to better fan experiences?  Cheaper prices?  Closer interactions with players/autograph signed?  Not necessarily.

Edited 8 hours ago by caulfield12

[Eminor3rd]

36 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Sure, both sides.

But then there's the issue of how players are treated their first three years in the big leagues as well as the minor leagues, which is still barely just a matter of surviving for non Top 2-3 round picks...especially in A ball and rookie/complex leagues.

Not the slavery of Curt Flood days...but that Top 20% of MLB players' salaries blowing up is skewing the overall picture.

Also, older/veteran players not who are not in the top tier are going the way of dinosaurs once they hit 33/34.

Analytics have wiped them out in favor of prospects/players in their 20s and even teens.

 

Is a rising tide floating all boats?

Trickle down?

If you believe in the core mission of labor unions throughout the history of the country...and there are tons of talking points against, having been part of a public teachers' union, trust me, I've seen or heard every story, then it's still almost impossible to look at things as being equal or 50/50.

 

Another issue is private equity firms like Crystal Lake buying up a ton of minor league teams...does this "ruthless bottom line efficiency" lead to better fan experiences?  Cheaper prices?  Closer interactions with players/autograph signed?  Not necessarily.

A totally free market would be best for labor, for sure — unless having that totally free market upsets the apple cart to the point that the money goes backwards. For example, if the dodgers and Yankees could buy every player they wanted, literally, at any point in the players’ careers, like normal jobs work, would that ruin competitive balance to the point that overall interest in the game waned?

I don’t know, legitimately. But it’s an important question.

How high do salaries need to get to make the loss of choice pre-free agency worth it? Would you agree to do your job at a random place on the country for three years for $780,000 a year? Theoretically the bargaining should lead to approaching the right number.

Obviously it’s difficult to put a fair price on what an entertainer “should” make, but I feel like “practically all the revenue the entertainment produces” is probably about it. And even while that’s the case, the owners can continue to watch the valuations increase in exchange for taking the investment “risk” and running the business side. And that’s why I think the player’s and the owners need to be careful about how hard they each push — ultimately the best way to make more money is to continue to grow the product. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Eminor3rd

[caulfield12]

27 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

A totally free market would be best for labor, for sure — unless having that totally free market upsets the apple cart to the point that the money goes backwards. For example, if the dodgers and Yankees could buy every player they wanted, literally, at any point in the players’ careers, like normal jobs work, would that ruin competitive balance to the point that overall interest in the game waned?

I don’t know, legitimately. But it’s an important question.

How high do salaries need to get to make the loss of choice pre-free agency worth it? Would you agree to do your job at a random place on the country for three years for $780,000 a year? Theoretically the bargaining should lead to approaching the right number.

Obviously it’s difficult to put a fair price on what an entertainer “should” make, but I feel like “practically all the revenue the entertainment produces” is probably about it. And even while that’s the case, the owners can continue to watch the valuations increase in exchange for taking the investment “risk” and running the business side. And that’s why I think the player’s and the owners need to be careful about how hard they each push — ultimately the best way to make more money is to continue to grow the product. 

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48126931/donald-trump-plans-executive-order-solve-every-problem-raised-college-sports-panel

Not sure what the answer is that lies between open free agency like what you have with NCAA football and basketball where players are now spending their careers with 4-5 different teams.  Have gun will travel.

Heck, $1 million softball players on one side, Livvy Dunne/Caitlin Clark/Eileen Gu on the other, QB's who won't even make it in the NFL getting $5-7 million plus endorsements...

Solutions:  seems to me for mlb baseball that it's giving up at least one out of six or seven years of player control in exchange.

Disincentivizing teams from holding players in the minors for an extra year of control is another big part of this.

 

But the NCAA is now the WIld Wild West.  That's too much free market/lack of regulations.

Total turnover of teams leads to fan frustration...yes, but also to the free market "innovations" of Indiana or Texas Tech, or BYU men's basketball.  Otoh, Cinderella Sweet 16 stories in March Madness are quickly disappearing.  Having the #1-2-3 NBA draft pick in D.Peterson on Kansas has arguably hurt them as a team.

 

Is all that new unpredictability worth the turn over of 2/3rds or more of some NCAA teams?

I don't know.  I never thought women's ncaa basketball or softball (OU/Texas Tech) or volleyball (Nebraska) would eclipse men's ratings, either.

Obviously college baseball has never been the big revenue driver like the other two sports...but even SEC coaching staffs are making more than big league equivalents now in some cases.  The TN baseball coach got hired by Buster Posey, etc.

 

Finally, MLB simply loves when the Cubs Dodgers Mets Red Sox and Yankees are in the World Series or NLCS...they most assuredly don't love TB Milwaukee Cleveland or Detroit advancing far in the post season.

More revenue/ratings for everyone.

[Eminor3rd]

14 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48126931/donald-trump-plans-executive-order-solve-every-problem-raised-college-sports-panel

Not sure what the answer is that lies between open free agency like what you have with NCAA football and basketball where players are now spending their careers with 4-5 different teams.  Have gun will travel.

Heck, $1 million softball players on one side, Livvy Dunne/Caitlin Clark/Eileen Gu on the other, QB's who won't even make it in the NFL getting $5-7 million plus endorsements...

Solutions:  seems to me for mlb baseball that it's giving up at least one out of six or seven years of player control in exchange.

Disincentivizing teams from holding players in the minors for an extra year of control is another big part of this.

 

But the NCAA is now the WIld Wild West.  That's too much free market/lack of regulations.

Total turnover of teams leads to fan frustration...yes, but also to the free market "innovations" of Indiana or Texas Tech, or BYU men's basketball.  Otoh, Cinderella Sweet 16 stories in March Madness are quickly disappearing.  Having the #1-2-3 NBA draft pick in D.Peterson on Kansas has arguably hurt them as a team.

 

Is all that new unpredictability worth the turn over of 2/3rds or more of some NCAA teams?

I don't know.  I never thought women's ncaa basketball or softball (OU/Texas Tech) or volleyball (Nebraska) would eclipse men's ratings, either.

Obviously college baseball has never been the big revenue driver like the other two sports...but even SEC coaching staffs are making more than big league equivalents now in some cases.  The TN baseball coach got hired by Buster Posey, etc.

 

Finally, MLB simply loves when the Cubs Dodgers Mets Red Sox and Yankees are in the World Series or NLCS...they most assuredly don't love TB Milwaukee Cleveland or Detroit advancing far in the post season.

More revenue/ratings for everyone.

Yeah, I have also struggled to come up with the best solution from a fan experience perspective. The hardest part is that no matter what you go with, you won’t know if it sucks until you try it

[caulfield12]

8 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

Yeah, I have also struggled to come up with the best solution from a fan experience perspective. The hardest part is that no matter what you go with, you won’t know if it sucks until you try it

It has to be balanced enough that a Detroit can "reasonably" or at least feasibly extend Skubal or the Pirates Paul Skenes...

Ofc, the three teams I mentioned earlier won't even let those players get to years 6-7...they will inevitably get traded for younger/cheaper reinforcements.  They're almost ruthlessly efficient in their decision making processes.

Edited 6 hours ago by caulfield12

[Lip Man 1]

3 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

As good as that book is, it’s from 1994, which is a period of time that doesn’t represent the current economic model well at all. The TV bubble began to form soon after that, right around the turn of the century, leading revenues and salaries both to shoot up rapidly. The Braves we’re an early outlier prior to that time, with their unique shared ownership with TBS, an extremely lucrative situation that was a competitive advantage, particularly in the fact that it allowed them to effectively capture a drastically larger fan territory than any other team in the league (in terms of geography), which coincided nicely with their extended competitive run.

I want to make it clear that I do not think the owners deserve “sympathy,” and I would never suggest that they aren’t doing very well with their investments. I would suggest, however, that the economic balance between the players union and the teams (which is subtly but important different than “owners”) may actually in a pretty good/balanced place. The players union has done an incredibly good job of ensuring that the players are getting about as much of the pie as they can without destabilizing the teams and toppling the business model entirely.

This shouldn’t stop either side from continuing to fight aggressively, if only to keep the other in check. But in general, I don’t think fans should put much stock in any of the narratives they are subjected too, because that’s all they are: PR leverage points designed to manipulate the fans into supporting someone who isn’t really taking their own interests into consideration at all. 

I understand but that doesn't change the fact like Dr. House was fond of saying, "everybody lies" especially when it comes to owners and their books. That fact of life hasn't changed be it 1994 or 2026.

Edited 5 hours ago by Lip Man 1

[caulfield12]

22 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I understand but that doesn't change the fact like Dr. House was fond of saying, "everybody lies" especially when it comes to owners and their books. That fact of life hasn't changed be it 1994 or 2026.

Except there are even more tricks and tax loopholes available for "big league" accountants...especially depreciation.

[Jake]

The advent of steroids helped make the union too comfortable with the long period of wait to get to free agency. Now that players are subjected to natural aging and the teams are wiser with their money, the number one problem for the players is that it takes at least 2 or 3 years too long to reach FA. Because of this, the smart money is focused on cost-capped amateurs who turn into cost-capped minor leaguers who turn into cost-capped pre-FA players. And then those guys turn into extremely risky free agents because they are so overwhelmingly like 30 years old and out of useful productive years. The rare young free agent becomes very expensive as a result. 

Union hasn't even made an effort on this issue in several cycles and it seems to me they have no nerve at all. They jumped at a "compromise" in which they got some chump change on the fringes in those early years while the owners imposed a soft cap that increases below inflation rate and scares all but one team.

[Eminor3rd]

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I understand but that doesn't change the fact like Dr. House was fond of saying, "everybody lies" especially when it comes to owners and their books. That fact of life hasn't changed be it 1994 or 2026.

I don’t disagree with this at all. But it’s just important to point out that the players were getting like 40-50% of the revenue then and they’re getting 80-90% of the revenue now. Which, good on the players and their union. Only point I want to make is that there is not the same amount of fat to trim off anymore, and that leads to a fundamentally different set of circumstances.

But yes, revenue is not the same as wealth. The owners are doing fine. But “owner” does not equal “team” in terms of revenues/P&L/etc.

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, Eminor3rd said:

I don’t disagree with this at all. But it’s just important to point out that the players were getting like 40-50% of the revenue then and they’re getting 80-90% of the revenue now. Which, good on the players and their union. Only point I want to make is that there is not the same amount of fat to trim off anymore, and that leads to a fundamentally different set of circumstances.

But yes, revenue is not the same as wealth. The owners are doing fine. But “owner” does not equal “team” in terms of revenues/P&L/etc.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb-teams-revenue-versus-payroll/

Here you will see the Dodgers at the very top but only 10/30 teams are putting 50% or more into player salaries.

No surprise the White Sox and Marlins are at the bottom, but the Cubs and Red Sox are also in the Bottom 8.

 

9 KC 

12 Detroit

15 Twins

25 Cleveland

29 White Sox

 

Exactly half the teams in MLB are at 40-50%, with 45% being pretty close to the average.

Edited 2 hours ago by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

MLB: $10.9 Billion Revenue

MLB is tied with the NBA, both earning $10.9 billion in revenue in 2023. Unlike the NFL, where ⅔ of the NFL’s revenue came from National TV/Media deals, the MLB earned revenue from ticket sales, National TV/Media deals, and local TV/media.

• Ticket Sales: 31%
• National TV/Media: 26%
• Local TV/Media: 23%
• Team Sponsors: 10%
• Concessions/Parking: 10%

NBA: $10.9 Billion Revenue

The NBA earned $10.9 billion in revenue in 2023. While they tied the MLB in revenue, the NBA earned its money a little bit differently.

• National TV/Media: 41%
• Ticket Sales: 26%
• Local TV/Media: 13%
• Team Sponsors: 12%
• Concessions/Parking: 8%

 

Figures that will triple the annual paycheck for each NBA franchise and that are enabling the smooth absorption of the decline in 'local' TV rights, following the default in 2023 of the regional sports network operator Diamond Sports Group, which weigh about 10% of the turnover of the 30 NBA teams.

In 2024, then, sponsorships increased by about 15% - the agreement with Nike was renewed in October 2024, with an annual investment of about USD 90 million until 2037 - as did the income from non-NBA events, which mainly benefited the teams with arena ownership/availability. The concert business, for example, brought an average of $25 million into the coffers of these franchises. The owners of the Nba managed 10 of the 20 highest-grossing concert venues in the world in 2024, according to Billboard. In June 2024, the Koch family bought 15 per cent of Bse Global, parent company of the Brooklin Nets, the New York Liberty and the Barclays Center, the world's sixth highest-grossing arena, for a valuation of $6 billion.

 

So more corporate sponsors like Nike and better advertising/marketing of players AND using concerts to earn $25 million or so like the average NBA arena does would be two possible solutions. 

For NBA, exploding TV rights, sponsorships from around the world (see Dodgers/Japan or Daikin Park in Houston) and "unique global footprint," basically.

https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/nba-why-teams-are-worth-so-much-tv-rights-sponsors-and-global-AHq6DBKB?refresh_ce=1

Edited 2 hours ago by caulfield12