Originally posted by almostwise
I have no problem with owners spending money on their teams. However the "lucrative market" puts most other teams at a distinct disadvantage. When teams like the Braves can win their division 10 years in a row, or the Yankees are in the playoffs 10 years in a row, 8 as divisional winner and the other 2 as wildcard, there is no competitive balance. What team other than Boston stands a chance against the Yankees year after year? Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Baltimore might as well stay home, because they can't possibly match the spending levels of the top 2 teams. This is not because their owners are "cheap", but they can't spend more than they take in revenue. They don't, and can't have Yankee or Boston style TV contracts.
There is also revenue sharing at the stadiums, as the visiting team gets a piece of the gate.
Look up revenue sharing.... The Yankees pay more in revenue sharing to small market teams than the Twins entire payroll.
And the biggest reason IS because owners are cheap. They are not spending more than the revenue they make. They are making huge profit by having mediocre teams. It is profitable even when attendance is low. That's why they don't care. And as long as Steinbrenner is giving them 50 million a year in the luxury tax they don't care. The Yankees have their own TV contract. They started their own network. All teams have fairly good tv contracts. As with any business, it is only as good as you make it. Too many owners don't care. Look at the Orioles. They have a huge market, they have sell outs nearly every game, a beautiful downtown stadium, lucrative tv contract, but their owner is a jackass. They are 2 games out of first place and he won't up the ante by spending money on a move that could push them over the top.
Tell me this: Why will the Kansas City Royals not make it to a World Series any time soon?
Because they won't spend the money and because they don't have a good GM who builds a strong farm system. Oakland A's have done amazingly well considering their annual budget. Why? Because they make smart moves and have built an excellent farm system. There are ways for smaller market clubs to compete. They choose not to.
But notice, in the NFL, where every team has the same competitive advantage, EVERY team has "best backing". How many NFL games are NOT sellouts? Very few. In comparison, most major league baseball teams have half empty stadiums for most games. Why? Because it is discouraging for fans to support teams that never have a chance to win it all. Baseball is still the national past time, but unless you are lucky enough to be a fan a very small group of teams, it is very discouraging to watch.
MLB is reaching all time records in attendance....and they have 162 games a regular season. 81 vs 7 home games for baseball vs footballl. it is a very different comparison. As have shown, even mediocre teams can have great attendance figures when their facility is nice and the experience is fun and entertaining.
Besides, baseball has ALWAYS been dominated by the few select teams who could sign the big contracts. That has never changed. The Yankees have dominated baseball for over 80 years. Obviously it is not an issue to its success
Actually, I disagree. If you look at recent history, there is a "Power shift" every few years.
2005 finals: Spurs & Pistons -> Spurs won
2004 finals: Lakers & Pistons -> Pistons won
2003 finals: Spurs & Nets -> Spurs won
2002 finals: Lakers & Nets -> Lakers won
2001 finals: lakers & 76ers -> Lakers won
Sure a few teams in each conference can be a power for a few years, but over the last couple of decades, it keeps changing as to who they are.
all downfalls of a dominant team have been the result of their major star switching teams. a team sport dominated by individual performance. not too exciting.
And the NBA Finals are one of the only sporting events I watch and constantly think that they are fixed. And the NBA has gone much too far in their "urbanization" of the league. It has turned me off and many other people.