Q: Sports Budgets?

I overheard someone saying that football sets a limit as to how much any one team can spend to build a team, but baseball does not. Is this correct, and how did football evolve into this, but not baseball? - Jinx

That is correct. Football evolved into this because the owners wanted cost certainty in their labor and were able to beat down the players to get it. Baseball owners would love a salary cap, but the MLBPA is much stronger than the NFLPA and won’t agree to it.

MLBPA? NFLPA? Do you mean to say those jerks have unions? Sheesh! And, the average working man sits back and supports these bums?

The unions are why the players have free agency and actually get big money. Deservedly, I might add, considering the amount of revenue they directly bring in to the owners.

From an April 2005 article here: http://cbs.sportsline.com/general/story/8385232
It seems that the 2005 MLB luxury tax line was $120.5 million. The Yankees get so much money from their cable channel and the gate gross that they simply don’t care, and pay the tax for flouting the line. They paid $25 million in 2004 for going over the line. The tax was split among the other teams who weren’t taxed.

As for the animosity toward the players have unions, it always makes me kind of laugh, as if the “hater” wouldn’t get as big a salary on the open market as his skills could bring. What is the proposed alternative, government control of free markets: price and salary freezes for certain business types?

It’s capitalism, and realize that all that money flows downhill to somewhere. It’s not under mattresses, it’s paid to construction workers and electronics designers and interior decorators, and God knows what else, but eventually ends up paying for grocery bag boys, because all of the people in the chain eat, too.

If you don’t want to contribute to the process, by all means don’t. It’s a free country; that’s my point.