Financial state of baseball: New Quotes from Brewerfan Agent39

[topper09er]

Why is it that people get angry about owners making tons of money? I have seen this before, but I don't understand. It's their business, profit is what makes business either successful or unsuccessful.

 

If owners aren't allowed to make money, who would be owning the teams?

 

Should professional sports teams be non-profit organizations?

 

I have no issues what so ever with owners getting filthy rich, I do have an issue with the un even playing field based on a number of things,

 

I know some don't agree, but a salary cap is, and always has been needed in MLB.

 

I haven't read all the responses yet, but the problem is that they have a protected monopoly, upheld by the Supreme Court even. Its not like a bunch of rugged individualists went out and invented these teams, and risked it all to make them successful. That certainly was the case back in the day, but now owning a major pro sports team is a guaranteed money making operation, like a casino. What are you going to do if ticket prices are too high, watch the other major league instead?

 

Why do these team and billionaires always get cities to pay for their stadiums? Because they have all the bargaining power because they are monopoly, either pay us or we leave. There is a reason the government isn't building Walmarts around your town. The prices for players and merchandise and events is not based on a free market, just go to MLB.com and see how much a sweatshirt costs, its not like they are somehow more difficult to manufacture than a Nike sweatshirt, but they have a monopoly so pay up is your only option.

 

The cities should own the teams, similar to the Packers model. What we really need is a fan union, major sports is the only industry where the paying customer has no say or influence. It is ridiculous that the owners and players just negotiate over how they are going to split up the money they up-charged us to get.

 

Something needs to be done to limit free agency, again because it sucks from the fan perspective. If the NFL system was the same as MLB, Aaron Rodgers would be on the Jets right now. That is dumb. All teams draft and develop, but only some can guarantee they keep those players afterwards

[Bombers]

The astro's play in the 6 largest city in north America. They are far from small market. They may only be ranked ~15 in payroll but that is a direct result of great drafting and team building. But they certainly have the money to retain all their talent. And that represents a problem. Actual small market clubs have to pick and choose and make sacrifices. And a Jeff Suppan contract can handicap them for years. Where a large market team can just DFA him and move on and purchase another arm.

[Bombers]

Topper - those are good points. Especially on the protected monopoly. But that is a problem in all sports it's just exaggerated in MLB as you get to see large markets capitalize on just being in a big market. What if we said the US could only have 30 craft breweries. And only 2 of those craft breweries could sell their product in NYC. Would that represent a competitive advantage to just those two breweries? Of course. Purely based on volume.

 

MLB, NBA, NFL remain leagues that are a protected monopoly. I agree with the Packers model, but good luck prying these teams from the owners hands. That won't happen, so it leaves you with a direction to even the playing field through salary caps and drafting rules. But then there's the players side and good luck from trying to restrict or limit their income. Like I said before, I have no idea what the solution is. These sides go through collective bargaining but neither will give up their top level position of making money as that is and always will be the most important part to players and owners.

[NievesNoNO]

Interesting discussion. I don't really agree with the comparisons to the NFL and NBA models. The value of drafting well is really reduced in the NFL when guys can leave as a FA in 3 years. (Part of Thompson's downfall imo). While parity is improved you end up with a lot of really mediocre teams still stuck with a lot of overpaid players because you were forced to pay "somebody".

 

Baseball is just a different animal because of the minor league systems and the needed progression of players. I DO think there should be an effort to improve some of the financial disparity. I'm not sure on all the details but I don't think there's a simple solution. I'd rather have the current MLB setup than the NFL setup.

[FVBrewerFan]

Why is it that people get angry about owners making tons of money? I have seen this before, but I don't understand. It's their business, profit is what makes business either successful or unsuccessful.

 

If owners aren't allowed to make money, who would be owning the teams?

 

Should professional sports teams be non-profit organizations?

 

I have no issues what so ever with owners getting filthy rich, I do have an issue with the un even playing field based on a number of things,

 

I know some don't agree, but a salary cap is, and always has been needed in MLB.

 

Why do these team and billionaires always get cities to pay for their stadiums? Because they have all the bargaining power because they are monopoly, either pay us or we leave. There is a reason the government isn't building Walmarts around your town. The prices for players and merchandise and events is not based on a free market, just go to MLB.com and see how much a sweatshirt costs, its not like they are somehow more difficult to manufacture than a Nike sweatshirt, but they have a monopoly so pay up is your only option.

 

The cities should own the teams, similar to the Packers model. What we really need is a fan union, major sports is the only industry where the paying customer has no say or influence. It is ridiculous that the owners and players just negotiate over how they are going to split up the money they up-charged us to get.

 

 

Fans don't need a union, we have wallets. If all of this was so bad, attendance would be way down. Nobody would be buying $100 sweatshirts. So, yes, the free market is alive and well.

 

Oh, and having cities own the teams? You want to destroy professional sports, go ahead and do that. Sure, it works beautifully in Green Bay. That's a very unique situation. Let's have cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. own teams. I'm sure there wouldn't be much corruption or incompetence.

[brewcrewdue80]

Maybe you change Team control 1 year less for the teams that aren't getting Revenue sharing. The teams that are getting revenue sharing-that goes in to a pool to pay those players their final year of team control. If a team signs a team controlled player to a contract then, the contract is paid out by said team. Trades would work in the same way. 6th year if traded to a revenue shared team. Reduced to 5th year if traded to a Revenue sharing team.

 

Say Nelson goes to Arb every year. Year 6 would be arb valued to 16mil. Revenue sharing pays the Brewers that, giving them "16mil" essentially to spend on a FA. Small markets would be able to hold on to their Stars that extra year, while not being impacted with that final year's cost....Taking away that idea of being a Minor League team for the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs.

 

It's an idea, more players would hit FA a year earlier where a younger age adds to their value.

 

You'd probably change how the draft compensation works. How about all-together? Maybe that opens the door to Draft day trading for the first 2 rounds?

 

I just think lessening the team control for teams like Milw, Pitts, Cincy, Minn and Kansas City hurts them so much more as they aren't going to be participating in those FA signings. Maybe one here but it's not 3-5 high paying contracts the Big markets can pay....Except in the idea above where the 6th year player is paid for. Imagine that, you're best player's contract, "comes off the books" while still having him on the team and using the cash you would owe him on a FA.

 

I dunno, maybe you limit the 6th year revenue shared to whatever the Sharing was going to be previously to teams? Maybe you still give draft picks to these teams if they have only 1 player or none paid for in a year? Just make comps start at 50? on down to 60. If we're removing compensations altogether, you're pushing back teams at 21-30 down up to 10 spots overall.

 

Just spitballing here trying to figure out a way to get money in smaller markets to spend on FA as well as to keep the needed All-Pro players to compete on the level of the Big Markets.

[owbc]

Fans don't need a union, we have wallets. If all of this was so bad, attendance would be way down. Nobody would be buying $100 sweatshirts. So, yes, the free market is alive and well.

 

Oh, and having cities own the teams? You want to destroy professional sports, go ahead and do that. Sure, it works beautifully in Green Bay. That's a very unique situation. Let's have cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. own teams. I'm sure there wouldn't be much corruption or incompetence.

 

The fans are definitely starting to speak with their wallets. Attendance is down in all major and college sports and the evidence suggests that it's going to continue dropping. MLB is down 6 million per year from its peak. Nearly half of NFL teams are not selling out. It's also clear that inflated attendance numbers (counting "tickets distributed" instead of "tickets scanned") is disguising the true nature of the decline.

 

I won't speculate on all the reasons for the decline (they are numerous) but I think the key relevant point is that more than other sports, MLB depends on local fans watching their local teams. So it's a problem if the talent gets concentrated in 4-5 super-teams like is currently the case.

[Thurston Fluff]

 

Ya, that makes no sense to me to be angry at the owners. And how much does an owner personally profit anyway? Mark isn't the only guy making money off the Brewers. After whatever profit there is is split between everybody that gets something I think we would be surprised at how little Mark actually takes home. Oh, I'm sure it's a lot compared to 99% of the population but rather small compared to what we all think.

 

And if the owners aren't keeping the money, the players will. Don't we complain enough about how much these guys make? Look forward to utility infielders getting $20M a year.

1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises.

 

2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners.

To my point above: Mark Attanasio hasn't put the team up for sale, so the value increase means nothing to the team's day-to-day finances. And when he sells the team, those proceeds go to Mark A., not the team, so again the day-to-day finances aren't affected.

 

It isn't like these owners need the revenue stream to live on. They can borrow against the added value of the team to get liquid assets necessary to make the team even more valuable. Or they can use the added value of the team for other business ventures. Mark A. didn't improve the stadium just for the fans to enjoy. He did it to improve the team's value. Winning is one, if not the best, way to increase franchise value. Traditionally teams viewed investing directly on players as the best way to win more, thus improve the team's value. Today teams are realizing there are better ways to do it than free agents. Thus less spending on free agents.

[bill hAll Star]

Fans don't need a union, we have wallets. If all of this was so bad, attendance would be way down. Nobody would be buying $100 sweatshirts. So, yes, the free market is alive and well.

 

Oh, and having cities own the teams? You want to destroy professional sports, go ahead and do that. Sure, it works beautifully in Green Bay. That's a very unique situation. Let's have cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. own teams. I'm sure there wouldn't be much corruption or incompetence.

 

The fans are definitely starting to speak with their wallets. Attendance is down in all major and college sports and the evidence suggests that it's going to continue dropping. MLB is down 6 million per year from its peak. Nearly half of NFL teams are not selling out. It's also clear that inflated attendance numbers (counting "tickets distributed" instead of "tickets scanned") is disguising the true nature of the decline.

 

I won't speculate on all the reasons for the decline (they are numerous) but I think the key relevant point is that more than other sports, MLB depends on local fans watching their local teams. So it's a problem if the talent gets concentrated in 4-5 super-teams like is currently the case.

 

Television is the major reason. There's going to be a strain on TV now, but fan interest is alive and well. Maybe less people show up at the park because they want to watch it on TV, but revenue probably isn't down because the teams have gotten smarter and bilking fans out of a few more bucks once they walk in the doors of the ballpark.

[homer]

I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of the salary structure of baseball and I don't want to. But I do think there might come a day when teams have longer control after they draft a player and less control once that time period runs out. Maybe arbitration goes away or something.

[tmwiese55]

Baseball does have a legit problem with younger people though. Sure, if I had to guess I would still expect franchise values to remain where they are or better for the foreseeable future. But it's not crazy to think with the next TV deal being much less and what seems like clearly less interest with young people there is at least a feasible path to values declining as the 45 and older people start passing. If you interact with many 25ish and younger type people, they're generally big on NBA and not on MLB. Of course that's just what I see, but I have a few different pockets of people I interact in those demographics and it's true to all, along with what I see on twitter and other social media.

[FVBrewerFan]

Baseball does have a legit problem with younger people though. Sure, if I had to guess I would still expect franchise values to remain where they are or better for the foreseeable future. But it's not crazy to think with the next TV deal being much less and what seems like clearly less interest with young people there is at least a feasible path to values declining as the 45 and older people start passing. If you interact with many 25ish and younger type people, they're generally big on NBA and not on MLB. Of course that's just what I see, but I have a few different pockets of people I interact in those demographics and it's true to all, along with what I see on twitter and other social media.

 

No, I definitely think that's true. NBA is on the rise, soccer is on the rise too. Baseball definitely isn't big for the 20 somethings. I think the next TV deal will be less.

[jerichoholicninja]

"Tanking" hasn't been brought up in awhile but if you want to get rid of tanking you need a draft lottery. A real lottery, not the NBA version. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs has an equal shot at getting the #1 pick. After a couple years of top picks not going to the worst teams the scorched earth rebuild won't be quite as common. Teams in totally dire straights will still probably do it but the middle-ish teams will make more of an effort to win since there would be zero benefit to losing. I think a lottery would be a terrible idea but it would please the "anti-tanking" crowd.

[Baldkin]

"Tanking" hasn't been brought up in awhile but if you want to get rid of tanking you need a draft lottery. A real lottery, not the NBA version. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs has an equal shot at getting the #1 pick. After a couple years of top picks not going to the worst teams the scorched earth rebuild won't be quite as common. Teams in totally dire straights will still probably do it but the middle-ish teams will make more of an effort to win since there would be zero benefit to losing. I think a lottery would be a terrible idea but it would please the "anti-tanking" crowd.

 

You really think teams are tanking for draft picks? I don't think that happens in MLB.

 

Teams simply cut payroll to the minimum because they realize the difference between 60 and 70 wins is nothing.

[reillymcshane]

"Tanking" hasn't been brought up in awhile but if you want to get rid of tanking you need a draft lottery. A real lottery, not the NBA version. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs has an equal shot at getting the #1 pick. After a couple years of top picks not going to the worst teams the scorched earth rebuild won't be quite as common. Teams in totally dire straights will still probably do it but the middle-ish teams will make more of an effort to win since there would be zero benefit to losing. I think a lottery would be a terrible idea but it would please the "anti-tanking" crowd.

 

You really think teams are tanking for draft picks? I don't think that happens in MLB.

 

Teams simply cut payroll to the minimum because they realize the difference between 60 and 70 wins is nothing.

I don't think teams ONLY tank to get a better draft pick - but I totally believe it a big part of the equation. Teams are fools to not want a shot at better guys in the draft. The difference between a 60 win team and a 70 win team could be the #1 pick in the draft and the #6 (or higher) pick.

 

Cutting payroll is a big deal as well. No question. But teams know that the higher the pick, the better chance they have landing an impact player.

[reillymcshane]

"Tanking" hasn't been brought up in awhile but if you want to get rid of tanking you need a draft lottery. A real lottery, not the NBA version. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs has an equal shot at getting the #1 pick. After a couple years of top picks not going to the worst teams the scorched earth rebuild won't be quite as common. Teams in totally dire straights will still probably do it but the middle-ish teams will make more of an effort to win since there would be zero benefit to losing. I think a lottery would be a terrible idea but it would please the "anti-tanking" crowd.

I am not sure what is the best way to prevent tanking, but I wouldn't mind this kind of thing for the draft.

[jerichoholicninja]

"Tanking" hasn't been brought up in awhile but if you want to get rid of tanking you need a draft lottery. A real lottery, not the NBA version. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs has an equal shot at getting the #1 pick. After a couple years of top picks not going to the worst teams the scorched earth rebuild won't be quite as common. Teams in totally dire straights will still probably do it but the middle-ish teams will make more of an effort to win since there would be zero benefit to losing. I think a lottery would be a terrible idea but it would please the "anti-tanking" crowd.

 

You really think teams are tanking for draft picks? I don't think that happens in MLB.

 

Teams simply cut payroll to the minimum because they realize the difference between 60 and 70 wins is nothing.

 

Well the term tanking is stupid and generally used by the uneducated baseball fan which is why I always put it in quotes. Losing teams aren't cutting payroll, they're trading guys that won't help the team in the next few years for players that will. The fact that that reduces the payroll and makes the MLB team worse and therefore gets a higher draft pick are added bonuses. In fact, I think you'll find rebuilding teams are actually adding payroll just as often as they are cutting payroll by taking on bad contracts along with a good prospect from teams that are trying to win and need the payroll space to get players to win now. The rebuilding Braves traded for and are paying Adrian Gonzalez and Matt Kemp gobs of money to not even play them in exchange for prospects.

 

I only brought up "tanking" because way back in the thread someone said it was a problem that needs to be fixed. Quite frankly, no, it doesn't. But if the powers that be determine that it does need to be fixed an equal draft lottery would be the way to do it.

[FVBrewerFan]

Except it wouldn't. You could tell the Pirates they will lose their first round draft pick if they lose 100 games, and they'll do the same thing. Forget a lottery, they wouldn't change a thing if they lost the pick entirely.

 

1st pick has absolutely nothing to do with a team's decision to rebuild.

[Eye Black]

The most recent Effectively Wild podcast is joined by Jeff Passan discussing this very subject. For those interested I would highly recommend listening:

 

Effectively Wild Episode 1165: Jeff Passan Diagnoses Baseballs Broken Market

[topper09er]

 

Fans don't need a union, we have wallets. If all of this was so bad, attendance would be way down. Nobody would be buying $100 sweatshirts. So, yes, the free market is alive and well.

 

Oh, and having cities own the teams? You want to destroy professional sports, go ahead and do that. Sure, it works beautifully in Green Bay. That's a very unique situation. Let's have cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. own teams. I'm sure there wouldn't be much corruption or incompetence.

 

A core principle of a free market is free competition. There is no competition in MLB, thus it is not a free market. I am not saying the demand for baseball is down (which would imply lower attendance) I am saying the supply is fixed. Just because someone would pay a certain amount for something does not mean that is automatically what the market price is. How much would you pay for a cell phone if there was only 1 maker out there? Likely much more than what you paid for your current one, however since there are many manufactures you can choose to pay less.

 

I agree having an actual city council or mayor or something owning a team would be horrible, but that is not the Packer model. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but things like owners being able to threaten to leave a city in order to get a stadium paid for should not be allowed, and there should be a salary cap that is much lower so the fans aren't paying for $13 beers to afford some crappy relief pitcher making $5M a year.

[topper09er]

I think the key relevant point is that more than other sports, MLB depends on local fans watching their local teams. So it's a problem if the talent gets concentrated in 4-5 super-teams like is currently the case.

 

I agree too, and I think all the free agency has really hurt this. It is so rare now to have career players or a "face of the franchise". How many casual fans in Milwaukee (the standard fan who considers there favorite teams to be in order 1. Packers 2. Packers 3. Packers 4. Brewers) can even name 5 players on the current roster? I think that hurts a little too, you don't have your guys that you follow for most of their career and help you have an extra attachment to the team.

[FVBrewerFan]

 

Fans don't need a union, we have wallets. If all of this was so bad, attendance would be way down. Nobody would be buying $100 sweatshirts. So, yes, the free market is alive and well.

 

Oh, and having cities own the teams? You want to destroy professional sports, go ahead and do that. Sure, it works beautifully in Green Bay. That's a very unique situation. Let's have cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. own teams. I'm sure there wouldn't be much corruption or incompetence.

 

A core principle of a free market is free competition. There is no competition in MLB, thus it is not a free market. I am not saying the demand for baseball is down (which would imply lower attendance) I am saying the supply is fixed. Just because someone would pay a certain amount for something does not mean that is automatically what the market price is. How much would you pay for a cell phone if there was only 1 maker out there? Likely much more than what you paid for your current one, however since there are many manufactures you can choose to pay less.

 

I agree having an actual city council or mayor or something owning a team would be horrible, but that is not the Packer model. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but things like owners being able to threaten to leave a city in order to get a stadium paid for should not be allowed, and there should be a salary cap that is much lower so the fans aren't paying for $13 beers to afford some crappy relief pitcher making $5M a year.

 

There is absolutely competition. The competition for the Brewers is any other form of entertainment. Packers, Bucks, Badgers, Poto, Summerfest, State Fair, a nice dinner out, etc. Entertainment dollars can flex, but it's still basically a finite amount.

[KeithStone53151]

 

Fans don't need a union, we have wallets. If all of this was so bad, attendance would be way down. Nobody would be buying $100 sweatshirts. So, yes, the free market is alive and well.

 

Oh, and having cities own the teams? You want to destroy professional sports, go ahead and do that. Sure, it works beautifully in Green Bay. That's a very unique situation. Let's have cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. own teams. I'm sure there wouldn't be much corruption or incompetence.

 

A core principle of a free market is free competition. There is no competition in MLB, thus it is not a free market. I am not saying the demand for baseball is down (which would imply lower attendance) I am saying the supply is fixed. Just because someone would pay a certain amount for something does not mean that is automatically what the market price is. How much would you pay for a cell phone if there was only 1 maker out there? Likely much more than what you paid for your current one, however since there are many manufactures you can choose to pay less.

 

I agree having an actual city council or mayor or something owning a team would be horrible, but that is not the Packer model. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but things like owners being able to threaten to leave a city in order to get a stadium paid for should not be allowed, and there should be a salary cap that is much lower so the fans aren't paying for $13 beers to afford some crappy relief pitcher making $5M a year.

 

There is absolutely competition. The competition for the Brewers is any other form of entertainment. Packers, Bucks, Badgers, Poto, Summerfest, State Fair, a nice dinner out, etc. Entertainment dollars can flex, but it's still basically a finite amount.

 

Spot on. I'd go to many more Packer games if getting decent tickets on the secondary market wasn't as expensive as it is. If the Brewers bumped their prices by 30 or 40%, attendance would drop significantly. I personally might drop my season tickets and watch on TV. Many people pay the high prices for drinks at the ballpark, I don't though...and you don't have to. You can have beers before the game, after the game, or bring in an alternate beverage that is allowed(soda/water)...or you can watch at home and drink beers for pick'n'save prices. Free market is working fine from a fan's perspective, and costs can be very reasonable if you want them to be.

[Brewerswillsurprise]

I know a lot of similar discussions on the below subject have gone on but since the state of baseball finance has come up again 9and not much else to talk about right now) I thought i would throw this out there just for the heck of it....

 

I have never understood why the game of baseball in modern times has not gone to a basic standard pay for all players and then paid based on performance (actually in some ways it does but then it goes awry with to many long term contracts and complications). Example first year as a rookie $500,000 second year if a player makes the 25 man he goes to 1 million then a 1 million a year raise every year after until he reaches 4 million as a base pay for MLB. This is the same for all players no more arbitration or pay hearings . Now implement a performance schedule such as something like top tier you can make a additional 20 million if you hit 50 HR's stole 30 bases and hit over .310 then work the scale down accordingly. Same for pitchers such as a 20 game win season start it at the top what ever formula you want and move it down from there based on ERA and all the other pitching sabermetrics taken into consideration. I'm sure the mathematicians of the game could work things out pretty well if they really wanted to. Baseball is also one of the easier sports to pay on individual performance and stats.

 

This now pays a player (yearly) as to what he is truly worth season to season. There would be less trades and more incentive for players to really give a 100% all the time with out distractions and contract negotiations that would be come obsolete under this system. Teams would no longer get stuck with long term contracts for older players that are regressing. Younger guys would now get paid for there true production and value. Older players would probably be given more consideration and opportunity if there was less risk and more up-side if he can still perform in the short term.

 

A few negatives that would have to be over come, under this system there would also have to be a tighter revenue share between teams and the league If more players than expected hit higher achievements it could cost a lot more money and now a small market team could theoretically have a 250 million dollar pay roll over night for a winning season but isn't' that the point? If a team had such a payroll they probably went to the WS. This is where a revenue share program to compensate unexpected performance could work. I also believe teams could get insurance of some kind from unrealistic but possible outcome of say 5 guys hitting 50 or more HR's and stealing 30 bases on the same team and each owed 20 million for the year.

 

I have no idea what finances could be actually worked out and my above examples where just that talking points only and for discussion but a system of some kind paying players based on performance could work. The only players it would hurt is the one's making ridiculous money on a long term contract that is getting paid huge money for past performance and now is playing poorly or just average and will probably have trouble getting traded as a result of these detrimental contracts (this years FA class as example that not many teams seem to want to pay for). Yah probably to radical of a idea to ever work and since the rest of the business world usually pays it's top tier Management bonuses based on performance why would we expect MLB to then do it? Long term contracts could still be given but a player under my example above that was in say his 7th year with a team and only making 5 million (still not bad) but obviously 4 million base and only 1 million over for performance tells you he did not have a very good year but a lot better and certainly more reasonable than to be paying him say 18 million under the current way players are getting paid for long term ridiculous money.

 

I do not believe the sport can keep it's financial stability if it keeps going the way it is. There is better options for both management and players that will benefit the sport and it's fans. I use Ryan Braun as the poster child for this discussion. For the last 10 years he has been the face of the franchise and loved by the fans here in Milwaukee. He should be ending his career on a high note but regardless what he has given to the team the only discussion about him is how to trade him to get his salary off the books. This just seems sad to me. I know Braun is crying all the way to the bank but I would also have to believe he loves Milwaukee as well and probably does not like to see a town he has played in as a star and lived to like hearing the call for his head on the trade platter because of money. Under the above program Braun could still make his 20 million a year (and this year 2018) earning it and helping the Brewers to a WS where all are happy!

[topper09er]

 

There is absolutely competition. The competition for the Brewers is any other form of entertainment. Packers, Bucks, Badgers, Poto, Summerfest, State Fair, a nice dinner out, etc. Entertainment dollars can flex, but it's still basically a finite amount.

 

If you like professional baseball, and have a demand for professional baseball, you have only 1 option.

 

Like someone said above, if there were only a limited number of allowed breweries, so you had to go to them only for beer, their prices would be higher than if they also had to compete with other breweries. It does not matter that there are other alternatives in the "beverage industry". Yes you could choose to buy wine instead, but if you specifically have a demand for beer, you are being up-charged more than the actual free market price that would exist if more breweries existed.