Is Baseball doomed?

Great Debates
1

I don’t know if this is a debate, something mundane and pointless, or a qiuet plea for sanity, but…

I am a baseball fan. While I develop an allegience to my hometown team, I love the game, no matter who’s playing. But I’m worried.
As I was watching A-Rod bat for the Mariners in the ALCS, the commentators were discussing his future. They speculated that he may become the highest paid player in history. (a title that changes hands every month or so) Bob Costas said that his (A-Rod’s) contract will likely reshape player salaries. I assumed this to mean they would expode into the stratosphere.
There seems to be no rhyme or reason to current salary levels. And very little business sense on the part of those who pay those salaries. ESPN reports that the D-backs lost 30 million this year and will raise ticket prices, even as attendence drops. Sammy Sosa wants 100 million. A-Rod, Juan Gone, and Manny Ramirez will surely command contracts in that range. And as one team overpays for a player, they set a precedent that all others seem to follow.
My question is, is the game that I love doomed? Will they fans turn away in disgust as they can no longer afford ticket prices? Will the infrastructure collapse?
Or, can baseball save itself?

2

Here’s a scenario:
Perhaps in the future, baseball teams won’t be too concerned about how many fans are actually sitting in the stadium. Teams will be owned by multi-media entertainment companies, who will offer games to the whole world on TV and the Internet. They’ll have sponsors who will get all sorts of product placement perks, like on the uniforms. The playoffs and World Series will be pay-per-view.
Sounds awful, but I don’t think we’re too far from it happening.

3

Baseball may indeed have to undergo a little train wreck to get itself in order. So be it.

4

No, baseball is not doomed. Baseball, in fact, is as healthy as it’s ever been. Let’s review:

  1. The Mariners who might be about to lose Alex Rodriguez just lost Ken Griffey Jr. Despite that, they’re three games from the World Series. Prior to the start of the year everyone said they were doomed. They won 91 games.

There is no solid evidence at all that small market teams cannot compete. The Cleveland Indians play in the third-smallest market in baseball and missed the postseason by one game after five straight division titles. The Oakland A’s have the makings of a powerhouse. Even the Royals, in THE smallest market, are beginning to show signs of building a strong base of top players.

On the other hand, there are as many large market teams failing miserably (LA, Baltimore) as there are succeeding (New York.) And the Yankees are on their last legs - I’ll be shocked if they have a winning season next year.

  1. Salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices. Yes, you read that correctly.

Ticket prices are based on demand and nothing else. They have NOT, contrary to popular belief, changed substantially. Indexed against inflation, ticket prices were as high in 1970 (before free agency) as they are now. Baseball tickets are still substantially cheaper than for any of the other Big Three sports.

Teams set ticket prices at whatever level will maximize revenue; the marginal cost of selling mroe tickets is negligible, so it’s a straight price optimization issue. The Mariners have already run simulations and done market studies to set their ticket price at average $X, and $X is the price at which they will make the most dough. If they raise $X they lose money. It doesn’t matter if Alex Rodriguez makes $25 million or $25.

  1. Baseball attendance, despite dire warnings, is very high. 2000 was one of the ten best years in baseball history for attendance per game.

  2. Anything the owners tell you is very probably a lie. In 1975 Bowie Kuhn, then the commissioner of baseball, testified in open court that if salaries doubled, half the teams in baseball would be bankrupted. Salaries doubled, and doubled again, and doubled some more, and nobody went bankrupt. In 1995 Bud Selig made a similar prediction, saying four teams would go bankrupt. Nobody went bankrupt.
    The previous year Selig claimed only three teams were making a profit; it turned out he was lying.

Franchise values continue to climb. If these guys are losing so much money, why are people willing to pay more and more for baseball teams?

  1. Players are basically paid what they’re worth. The fact that players ARE paid unGodly sums of money frankly speaks against there being a financial problem. If the Dodgers are losing money, as Bud Selig has claimed, why did they give a $14 million/year contract to an outfielder who wasn’t even a free agent? Doesn’t that strike you as being a strange decision for a cash-strapped business?
5

Here it is, the 1880s. I am a baseball fan. Baseball has been one of the most popular sports in the land ever since the Civil War. But I’m worried.

A new top-notch baseball team just formed in Cincinnati called the Red Stockings. In order to try and “lure” the best players to this team, the owner has the audacity to pay each of his players a salary! And a high one, too: twenty-five cents per game. This is sure to drive up ticket prices until the fans can no longer afford them. Is baseball doomed?

6

One can only hope so, spooje, one can only hope so.

7

RickJay:

As a Royals fan, I can only tell you how true I wish this was.

Yes, if the Royals can keep their current lineup and find a decent bullpen somewhere in their farm system, they’re only a year or two away from once again being competitive. But do they really have that time? Johnny Damon’s only one year away from free agency, and he’s got Scott Boras for an agent. If they want to keep him, they’ll have to pay him almost as much as their entire team payroll was this year. Carlos Beltran is (I’m pretty sure) only a year away from arbitration; if he repeats his 1999 form next year, he’s in for a big raise. Jermaine Dye, Joe Randa and Mike Sweeney have already put in the necessary years; if they produce like they did this year, they too will command more money than the Royals can reasonably afford once their contracts are up.

And that’s laying aside the fact that a top-notch pitcher, something the Royals will need to get their hands on to compete, commands a high price.

Twenty years ago, Ewing Kauffman assured the near-future of the Royals by signing George Brett to a lifetime contract for around $2M a year. Would any player’s agent accept such a thing these days?

I look forward to next year, assuming the Royals have the brains to trade one of their extra outfielders for some pitching and they hire a hitman to shoot Ricky Bottalico. But unless some major shocking developments occur next year, I can’t see the Royals keeping that core of top players that they’ve built.

If baseball is to survive in Kansas City and similar markets, the sport needs some serious revenue sharing.

8

Yep. How many of those guys on the A’s or Royals or anything are going to be there in a couple years? Expos fans (both of you), you know what I’m talking about. Small market teams are just farm clubs for the big money teams.

I do have no explanation for the Orioles and Dodgers though, they have lots of money but still suck.

Give me hockey over baseball any day of the week. It’s way more exciting. And at lesat when the Flyers screw up like they do every year, it’s the players’ fault (nah, it’s Bobby Clarke’s fault, the frickin moron), rather than the system doing them in.

9

Think of spending in baseball the way you would spending on a new car.

Is it possible to spend $75,000 foolishly and get a lemon? Absolutely! SO, then is it possible to spend $10,000 wisely and get a prime, luxury car?

Uh, no.

So, is it possible for the Orioles to spend $100 million foolishly and end up in last place? Definitely. Is it possible for the Expos to spend $25 million wisely and win the World Series? Not a chance.

So, what’s the “solution”? Simple- about half a dozen teams (maybe more) should go out of business, now. There’s nothing in the Bible or in the Constitution that says Montreal, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Minneapolis are entitled to major league ballclubs. Let those teams die, the sooner the better. If fans in those cities REALLY care about baseball, they can get minor league teams (which are cheaper and a HELL of a lot more fun for the average fan).

Then, the remaining rich teams in the major leagues can fight it out with quality players on a more-or-less equal footing.

Not only will this put an end to debates over fairness and revenue sharing, the quality of big league play would improve drastically- no more weak sisters in starting pitching rotations, and no more cheap home runs.

10

astorian wrote:

Exodus 20:17 (King James translation):

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s ballclub.”
U.S. Constitution, Article V, Section 1, Clause 3:

“… no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Major Leagues.”

11

Actually tracer the even you described happened in 1869. By the 1880s, professional baseball was well-established and there were already two major leagues.

I doubt baseball is on a path to destruction any more so than any other professional sport. TV money keeps flowing and people still keep showing up at the ballpark, no matter what the ticket prices are.

12

Darn it, BobT, you beat me to this correction.

However, if I may nitpick, MLB does not consider the National Association (1871-1875) to be a major league (although, granted, many baseball historians do).

Zev Steinhardt

13

Now, on one hand, baseball pessimists have been wringing their hands for decades now, saying the game is doomed. Taking these wails with a grain of salt is, of course, in order.

Is baseball doomed? Of course not. In big trouble? Hell yes! Problem is, its deep problems have been covered by taxpayers dumb enough to fork over their life savings to keep ballclubs going.

The Cleveland Indians WOULD be a dead operation, but instead, thanks to generous taxpayers, they’re thriving. Is this proof that, as Don Fehr would have you believe, the free market works? No, it just proves that ANY business can succeed if the taxpayers subsidize it enough.

As long as dumb, desperate sports fans are willing to give money away, sports franchises will never die… no matter how hard they TRY to commit suicide.

14

Another point which should be made is that, while not all teams make money on day to day operations over the course of the season, when was the last time a team was sold for less than it was purchased for by that same individual (or group), even accounting for inflation? Rarely, if ever.

Baseball may need to roll back it’s salaries at some point, and if teams truly start losing money, look for them to open their books and allow themselves to be independently audited by the player’s union (which the player’s union will insist on if the collective bargaining agreement is to be renegotiated to assist the owners).

But baseball is not doomed. There’s too much money from TV, merchandising, and plain old ticket sales for the players and owners to destroy the game.

15

zev_steinhardt wrote:

How about the original American league, also known as the beer-and-whiskey league?

16

I don’t think baseball is doomed, but I think there will be some changes in the years ahead. There may be an “adjustment” in the future to help offset the players salaries. I don’t think the money paid by fans for tickets comes close to covering the salaries, the club will increase ticket prices to what ever level the public will still accept. I agree with the viewpoint that the teams will be a multi-media event and supported by diverse and multi-national concerns.

I only wish I could be paid 100 million a year and not be held accountable if I fail to meet expectations.

17

I think you might be thinking of the American Association, which started play in 1881 or 1882 ( I can’t remember which, off the top of my head). The (only) American League started play in 1901.

Zev Steinhardt

18

Asking “Is baseball doomed” is the wrong question. As long as the sporting/spectative interest in baseball exists, baseball will exist in some form or another. That is, as long as there are people willing to pay to watch a baseball game, or TV sponsors willing to advertise a televised game, baseball will exist. Whether the current framework of Major League Baseball will continue to exist is another question. I don’t think MLB can continue if the Yankees win the World Series every year while Kansas City, Minnesota and Montreal are mathematically eliminated on opening day every year.

Fox and MLB recently signed a huge TV contract, at a much higher rate than the previous contracts. If history is a guide, that money will flow to the players, making their already astronomical salaries even more so. I suspect that there will be another strike/lockout/work stoppage after the 2001 season. I think at that point things may come to a head, and that rather than accept revenue sharing, the Yankees, Mets, Braves, Cubs, Dodgers, White Sox, Angels and one other club will try to split and form their own super league. People have been predicting the death of MLB for a long time, but I fear that this time they may be right.

19

Change the time frames from the present day to 1922-1964, and change Kansas City, Montreal and Minnesota to the St.Louis Browns, Washington Senators, and Philadelphis/KC A’s, and you have baseball as it has always existed, pure and simple. The Yankees used to always win the pennant or the Series, and teams like the Browns and Senators were never any good. That time in history is looked back upon with awe and fondness, often referred to as a “golden age.” How about the 1950s? Some of baseball’s greatest stars, with Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Musial, Williams et al. Baseball at its best, eh? From 1949-64, the Yankees won the pennant 14 times, and the Series 9 times. Baseball certainly wasn’t doomed during that time. In the quarter century since, the Yankees have been great, but not nearly so prolific.

Baseball doomed? No. The more things seem to change, the more they stay the same. There has never been parity in baseball. It hasn’t always been big market clubs either. While the Yankees and Dodgers have traditionally been powers, teams like the Cardinals, in a much smaller market, have a history of success. Other big market clubs (e.g. Cubs, White Sox, Angels) seem to never perform very well.
We’re just offended by the size of these salaries. But if the owners are willing to pay, and the market will bear it, then its going to happen.

And its happened before. In 1914-15, the Federal League tried to become the “third major league.” Salaries were out of control, contracts ignored. But once the FL folded, the owners took back control, and salaries were back in line. (the ensuing legal wrangling almost destroyed baseball as we know it, as teams in the American League took sides in an effort to cut out league president Ban Johnson. There very nearly was a split in the AL, with 2 or three teams shifting to the NL). Then came the first World War, and baseball was almost cut off as an affront to the war effort. The 1918 season was even cut short by a month. Then, of course, in the explosion of popularity the sport enjoyed after the war, came the Black Sox scandal of 1919. Baseball has endured every time.

And, somehow, baseball will endure again. Things may be different, your favorite team might be playing in a new city, or the entire system may be realigned and adjusted (just like the NL did in 1899), but baseball will endure.

20

IIRC- None of the examples that soxfan59 cites are from the free agency era.
Small money teams can no longer build contenders.

While it is true that cities have no right to a major league team, I will be pissed if the Pirates fold or become a minor leage franchise. I don’t like baseball, but my money is being spent to build the team a new stadium downtown ( despite voter’s rejection of the idea ). If MLB wants to split into an A league and a B league they had better wait until all the B league stadiums are paid for.
These stadiums were with major league expectations.