10 Comments
User's avatar
Tim Melin's avatar

No salary cap for the owners, am I correct? It’s the oldest strategy that the rich use. They put us against each other, while they take more of our money without us noticing.

Bill Chuck's avatar

Absolutely outstanding column today. Even small market owners are making big money. They make money every single day and every single year the value of their franchise increases. Every time we go searching for game to watch on another streaming service, understand that the owners are profiting.

Dan Kwong's avatar

Amen.

Michael L. Sküpin's avatar

Eat the 1%

Jason Botts's avatar

Amen. And agreed about the beauty of the Japanese’s NPB — but those owners have their players by the balls almost as badly as the old reserve clause.

Baseball Buddha's avatar

True on the Japanese structure, different culture for sure.

Brett Hyland's avatar

What percentage of total revenue currently goes to the players?

Baseball Buddha's avatar

I understand the argument that players receive roughly 47% to 50% of MLB revenue. That isn’t my point. My point is that players only share in the annual revenue generated by the game, while owners benefit from both that revenue and the long-term appreciation of franchise values. If a team goes from being worth $500 million to $5 billion, the owner captures that gain, not the players. So when discussing who benefits from the growth of Major League Baseball, looking only at revenue tells only part of the story.

Alex Khalifa's avatar

The Padres sold for nearly $4 billion and we are still likely to have a lockout. Madness.

Rich Cain's avatar

100% agree with 100% of this.