Since I'm seeing a lot of dollars and cents being discussed, I thought I would bring up some things unique to the MLB, compared to other major sports:
1) Teams do base operations off of their 81 home game schedule, however there are a few cavaets.
a) They give the visiting team a 20% split of the tickets - this goes back to the days when traveling the US was not well organized, and teams were routinely broke on the road, due to flat tires on buses, inefficient routing, detours, and trying to find cheaper accommodations. Since those problems have been near-fully addressed, the proceeds go to the visiting team in the form of "clubhouse dues," which they use to buy special orders of food, outside of what is normally provided, and other luxuries.
b) Ticket prices change substantially, based on the opponent. This past April, I went to Wrigley to watch the Cubs play the Phillies on the 3rd and final game of their series that month. I sat behind home plate, in the second set of chairs, for a nominal 60 bucks. The next day, I was surprised by the hotel staff where I was staying, where they took me out the following day to Wrigley to catch Game 1 of the series against the Yankees. I sat on the first base line, at the wall. Granted, this seat position costs more, regardless, but to put it in perspective, the same seat I had for the Phillies was 260 dollars, versus the Yankees. For true baseball fans, this large uptick in price confirms the old Whitey Ford (if I remember correctly, could have been Stengel too), "People don't pay to see the Yankees play, they pay to see them win."
c) There is revenue sharing right now, that entitles the worst teams to a sliding scale of money from other teams, but it must go to operations. I did mention this in the OP. Miami and Pittsburgh were entitled to $50 million this past year, and did receive it, and it goes without mentioning that they probably would be due that much next season, regardless of the fire sales they conducted. Whether 50 million is enough to keep everyone is a debate, I don't believe it would have. But it stands to reason that they could have kept three to four regular contributors, along with one of their coveted stars. I can also see the logic in letting everyone go, because why keep one stud, when you know it only guarantees a +7 or +8 WAR, over the top of the 54 wins every team SHOULD win, regardless of quality of roster. But, this revenue sharing model was not something all owners wanted, it was something "small market" teams wanted, in conjunction with the MLBPA, who wanted their players to be able to get a true check from their later years, starting around 26 or 27.
2) TV contracts in MLB can never be up for consideration.
a) The biggest TV market, by size, is the Seattle Mariners. It stretches clear across Montana, and at one time included Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Since Arizona and Colorado came into the league, that market has shrunk, but not enough to remove their size title. The biggest TV market by population is of course the Yankees, but the Cubs actually compete nearly nose to nose with them on that front, and the fact that they won the series in 2016 means that might change significantly if they can continue to win pennants for the the next five or six years.
b) One would think a natural third in the population category would be Los Angeles - but that is not true. Because Los Angeles is segmented by the Angels, the Dodgers, and the Padres, the market is altered, when compared to other major sports and how they layout. So the next biggest markets is San Francisco, follow by Boston.
c) The point in mentioning these little known points is that the way markets are defined in baseball, is much the way they are defined in the MLB draft. Technically, all of us are all eligible for the MLB draft every single year, just by virtue of being born and breathing. There is no sign-up, and there is no scouting combine, junior leagues, or any of the other mitigation that the other major sports use in evaluating talent. Because MLB defines their reach so broadly, makes it difficult to properly share TV/Media money in a way that is logical. While the Mariners own the largest sized market, it does not represent the largest market population at all. I believe they are actually below the Top 15 in that regard. Much of what they have is completely undesirable to most other teams. (Side note, the Colorado Avalanche of the NHL felt the market in Montana and Idaho was worthy enough for their broadcasts that they secured it in a way, so that if Seattle is granted an NHL franchise, they can never compete for it!)
I do strongly believe we're heading for another strike, and I do realize people feel players are overpaid, but consider the magnitude with which these franchises accrue money. Their concessions staff are on a wage scale that starts at minimum wage, and likely crests 16 bucks an hours, when they have years of experience, and their only avenue to make more is to go into management, which is likely salaried, not hourly, which means they are in that stadium for 70 hours a week during the season. Not to mention that a number of those positions are seasonal, and likely a third are meaningful enough for year round work. I do specifically feel the field staffs, concessions, and support staff deserve better compensation over the long run, and that doesn't get talked about enough.
But I also think the players deserve way better contracts than what they are getting, to include better pay. Veterans minimums for example should come with the team paying the taxes, if that's the true value that player brings. Because even on 500K, the way our IRS evaluates these contracts, which is as if they are lottery winnings, the players pay an upfront fixed tax on the value, then a percentage of anything above 400K, and then they pay a 15% fee to their agent.
I don't have the exact numbers handy, but on that 500K salary, with just those three things sucked out, the player is left with 365K. Sure, more than enough for most of us to live. But, these guys don't have the normal lives after this career choice that we do. And sure, they could decide to do something else. It is a choice after all. But when you see players post-career who are on crutches for the rest of their life because of the toll a game took on them, you have to remember, they entertained you. They were your gladiator. Gladiators fought and died for the entertainment of Romans. Those who survived enough encounters lived a retired life that didn't involve having to scrounge for work ever again. Even the those anti-altruistic Romans knew that those guys sacrificed it all for their enjoyment, so the least they could do is take care of them, knowing their bodies would give out faster than the rest of them.
Maybe the best way of doing this is all memorabilia sold with the player's name attached nets them 25% royalty, minimum. And giving players the ability to negotiate for more? The only problem is, franchise owners won't eat that, they'll make us all pay it at the hot dog stand, or the beer garden, or even the jersey sell itself. Yea, the MLB could write rules that limit how MLB owners structure their products, but we know that will never happen, especially in a free market.
Regardless, I think this cold stove we are watching is the impetus to a strike, and it's going to suck. America needs baseball more than ever, it's one of the very few things we can ever unite behind, and it's been proven that the other major sports will never have that quality, regardless of how hard the NFL tried through the 90's and the early 00's.
