No it doesn't. World Series doesn't have those great commercials :-)
[Reply]

Right or wrong, there has always been the, "have" and, "have-nots" in MLB. It usually wasn't an issue; prior to 1994 that is. After the strike, however, the, "have's" desperate to regain attendance and popularity figures pre-strike, loosened the purse strings (or in this case opened Pandora's box) to build instant contenders or overpay their current players to keep them from hitting the open market. The chasm in baseball is sickeneing. A simple web search of payroll versus winning percentage over the past 15 years speaks volumes. So while you're in a position to say that baseball is doing great, the grass isn't so green on the other side.
[Reply]

So footballs brand of sports socialism is the answer? And your websearch fails, this was the first result I got :-):-)

Look up highest payrolls, then search the last decade of world series games, you'll be surprised what you find. There is more parity in baseball than what you think.
[Reply]

I have a good friend who spouts this exact phraseology. Not surprising, he's also a Yankees fan. Is this printed inside the front cover of the Yankees fan handbook or something?:-) The NFL by far is the most popular professional sport in America today because the league (current situation notwithstanding) works collectively to grow the sport, not have half a dozen franchises carry the sport. "A rising tide lifts all boats."
That shows for one year (2008 I believe); not fifteen. You've flunked your homework assignment young man.:-):-)
[Reply]

I know that. I simply posted that since I found it funny it was the very first thing that popped up searching exactly what you told me to lol. Google what I told you to Google, then come back to me. The results will shock you! :-)
[Reply]

The thing is, I already know what it shows. My point is that without an investment in payroll, there is no continued success. That's why I'm basing my argument on winning percentage and not how often a franchise makes the playoffs. I love baseball, but I hate the economics of it. A really strong union coupled with a weak commissioner makes for a bad all around product.
[Reply]

Millionaires vs billionaires if you don't think it is a big deal calculate how many years of working it will take you to equal 1 year of their salary. That said I love football, this just doesn't seem right considering how many people are still trying to just put food on their table. Juts my 2 cents
[Reply]

Owners and players crying over money. It makes me wanna :-)
I think of the thousands of support personnel that are going to be out of work in stadiums and surrounding businesses. I'm pretty sure that it's tough seeing the little people when you're sitting on a mile high wallet.:-)

I'll be happy just watching my Gators and the rest of the SEC.
[Reply]

Baseball = sports capitalism, football = sports socialism. You want to win, you invest in your business, you want to lose, don't. Plenty of small and mid market teams can and are competing and many that have been in the basement are starting to pull out. You can ignore what i've told you to look at, but the point is the Yankees and the other top spending teams aren't buying their way into a championship every year. It takes some money to compete, but that's life, and last time I checked life isn't fair. Why should our sports be?
[Reply]

I'm not ignoring it. See?
MY point is that the teams that do spend (or more specifically have the capability to spend), put themselves in a position year in and year out to win, as opposed to the anomalies that are but a blip on the radar, only to have the whole thing blown up because the owner can't compete with big market teams. Nobody's talking fair here. I'm stating a fact. And the fact is that the NFL made a wise business decision to ensure that on some level each and every one of their franchises can be financially competitive, and if ran properly, can put themselves in a positions to succeed, thus drawing more interest from fans, thus generating more revenue. MLB on the other hand is 30 separate businesses acting in their own best interests instead of what's best for MLB. That's why the NFL is King of the Mountain, and will continue to be, labor problems be damned.
[Reply]

Small and mid market teams that are competitive aren't anomalies, they win through smart player drafting and development. The Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins, Reds, etc didn't get good by accident. And while you may love and embrace the socialist stance the NFL takes, I much prefer the more traditional capitalist approach the MLB takes. Baseball is in many ways a microcosm of America, and that to me makes it superior. To each their own though, what you think is fair I think is BS because of where we live :-)
[Reply]

Of course you love the way it is now, so when the Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins and Reds can't afford to pay their free agents, "market value", they wind up in pinstripes.:-)

Again, I'm not perpetuating what is, "fair" or, "unfair" in how MLB chooses to handle their economics (funny though, that you keep preaching the NFL = Socialism mantra, but yet MLB has had revenue sharing for well over a decade now :-)). I'm simply putting forth an opinion as to how MLB is no longer king of the hill, and how it came to be. If the NFL was ran the same way, could you honestly tell me the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers would've been playing in the Super Bowl this year?
[Reply]

The Giants and Rangers played in the Series this year, both of what I would consider small market teams.

I agree with both of your arguments to a degree. Baseball is more of a capitalist system whereas the NFL is more of a socialist system. Small market teams are at a disadvantage IMHO, but once again, life isn't fair. It would be nice to see the Yanks at the bottom of their division just once though.:-)
[Reply]

No to argue for arguments sake, but the Giants had the 10th highest payroll in baseball last year. The Yankees (1st) & Phillies (4th) were in the LCS.
[Reply]

Sure, who says they couldn't. I would have never predicted last years WS. And revenue sharing is a little bit different than a salary cap. There's a luxury tax too in baseball, you forgot to mention that :-)
[Reply]

Well for one, it'd be the Los Angeles Packers by now. There's no way that a publicly owned NFL franchise, let alone one in by far the smallest television market, would be able to compete (let alone operate) under the operating economic guidelines of MLB.
I don't know how luxury taxes or a salary cap relate to socialism, but I digress...
[Reply]

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.
[Reply]

Exactly. The NFL is a business and it's a business run in a very unusual way here. From websters:

Outside of perhaps a few government positions I can't think of any other jobs in this country that limit what one can make. And I can't think of any single business outside of sports that has limits on what it is allowed to spend.
[Reply]

Revenue sharing is much more a Socialist idea than a salary cap in which baseball participates in, and has done so for over a decade (even longer in other forms). Honestly, I can't envision a salary cap in MLB. The MLBPA doesn't want it nor do owners of major markets. Something radical would have to change, and I simply don't see that something radical on the horizon.
It'll either be the Chargers or the Jaguars. Write it down.:-)
Which doesn't change the fact that they're by far the most popular sport in the United States (and have been so for some time now) and it's a direct result of those economic principles being put into place.

Good discussion by the way guys.:-)
[Reply]

The NFL has stated if a team comes to the LA area it will be a New Franchise not a relocated one.
The main reason being the New franchise fee for the LA area will fetch them an estimated $250 million :-)
As long as owners share the broadcast revenue there are no small markets in the NFL!
[Reply]