Capitalism is hurting the sports I love (not political).
I'm a big free market guy, and if we took this subject outside of sports I'd disagree with myself, But the process of capitalism, and free market principles of constant growth and expansion, is really infringing upon my enjoyment of sports. I am constantly frustrated, both in a broader marketing sense as well as in a sports sense, with great companies that cannot resist expanding their product in order to drive even greater growth and profit. What we often find however, is that same pursuit of an extra percentage of growth results in a company that no longer resembles what people first loved about it. This is where we are headed lately IME. There are many examples, but I will offer a few:
--the 96 team NCAA expansion
--The 16 team B10 expansion
--the stupid decision to expand the NFL draft to 3 days (first round Thursday night, rounds 2 and 3 Friday night, the rest Saturday)
None of these are being done for any other reason than either: 1- we can make more money, or 2- we can get higher ratings. I have seen arguments justifying these decisions on a financial basis. I have seen legitimate arguments (that I disagree with) on how these decisions would not hurt those events. But I haven't see a single good argument made that doing so would make these things BETTER. Why isn't our first question, prior to making a change: "will this make it better?"
I don't argue that this shouldn't be allowed to take place, or that something should be done, other than fans communicating with the NCAA and NFL as they see fit. But I do argue that this is rather sad.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
Without Capitalism we wouldn't have a lot of these sports in the first place.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
Wait til Obama gets involved and there's a redistribution of wealth... why should Michigan have more revenue than Western? Unfair I say!
April 21st, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
About talking about Mgopoints?
...oops.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
See also: 549 bowl games after Jan 1. And moving the early games on the 1st to later in the day. And the championship game is Jan 10 next year. $$$$$$$ FTW.
Sorry about that ... You hung a curve ball low on the outside corner of the plate. Had to swing at it.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
And I think the switch to 3 days is pretty great. I don't need it all crammed into a weekend, where I'm unlikely to pay full attention anyway.
As to your broader issue. Yeah, individual entities pursing their own self-interest doesn't always lead to an optimal result for everyone else . This is often the case (and the self-interest-seeking entity can ultimately lose out as well). Which is why its important to have benevolent leaders with the "greater interest" in mind (like a MLB/NBA/NFL commissioner) to impose some restrictions and guidelines. The hard part is finding such leaders - they have to be principled, aware, and intelligent.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
I agree about the draft. I usually don't have time to watch the draft on Saturday. I could definitely go out to a bar on a Thursday or Friday night to watch for a few hours.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
Not to pry or judge, but the fact that it's easier for you to go out drinking on a Thursday than to watch TV on a Saturday confuses me.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
I don't have cable of any sort. So, watching live events comes down to justin.tv or going out. It's easier for me to go out and get something to eat while watching the draft for a few hours on Thursday and a few hours on Friday than it is to spend the whole day Saturday watching the TV. I usually have things to do or places to be on Saturdays.
Fair enough. Confusion resolved.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^
Capitalism has left an indelible footprint on the game of baseball too. As few as 20 years ago teams had relatively similar payrolls and there weren't defacto losers before the season began.
I give some credence to the "well look at the Twins/A's/Marlins/Rays etc...if they can do it so can other teams." That being said, those teams are exceptions to the rule.
Will teams like the Royals and Pirates ever compete? Yeah, maybe ... but for short periods of time before they get their young talent gobbled up by the big market teams rolling in cash.
Moral of the story: Hows about a salary cap in baseball. If we want a league where everyone competes, LEVEL THE FIELD. I'm a fan of a big market team, but i think this needs to be done for the good/integrity of the game.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
I completely disagree. The obvious team to point the finger at in baseball is the Yankees, but despite their obviously high payroll they haven't been nearly as successful as the payroll would indicate that they should be.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
Are you honestly trying to claim that the Yankees making the playoffs 15 of the last 16 years is not successful enough?
Consider the Pirates ... hey haven't even made the playoffs once in that same span...
And I think it goes without saying that their ability to make the playoffs in the future is in a considerable backslide. Unless they hit the lottery with young players and sign just the right cheap veterans they'll never TRULY compete with the Yankees.
The Pirates are dreadfully mismanaged as a franchise which prevents them from making the playoffs. For instance, they had a shot at the playoffs last year and traded it away for prospects.
that teams who spend a lot and fail (Mets are a much better example than the Yankees) prove the system works, and I agree exactly with what you said about Twins/Rays/etc. only having a shot for a few years and only if they nail their draft and then develop that talent pretty flawlessly. That's not equal-opporunity.
Having said that, the Yankees reportedly pay out roughly $50-75M in revenue sharing every year, and the Royals receive somewhere between $20-30M. Why is that not going back into the team for all these small market clubs? Meanwhile Drayton McLane can buy a new yacht now.
My point is, a salary cap alone won't guarantee that small market teams with greedy owners won't continue to suck, and it certainly won't impact ticket prices, the cost of signing players is not related to the price of your ticket, it's related to the greed of your owner.
"My point is, a salary cap alone won't guarantee that small market teams with greedy owners won't continue to suck, and it certainly won't impact ticket prices, the cost of signing players is not related to the price of your ticket, it's related to the greed of your owner."
Exactly this. If they are going to go the salary cap route, they need to do what the NHL did and combine it with a salary floor. What some of the small market owners get away with in baseball is absolutely ridiculous, but hardly anyone ever comments on that. You should not be able to rake in millions and millions of dollars in forced revenue sharing and not be forced to spend it on your team.
As has been said, the Pirates are a terrible example. Their payroll is low and their team sucks because their ownership is cheap and can't evaluate talent; not because they don't have the money to spend.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
What?!? That does not compute. They make the playoffs at a much higher rate than any other team and win more championship than any other team. If they spend 10x the money of a small club, they aren't going to win 10x the championships, spending isn't a way to linearly increasing winning...but to say the Yankees bankroll isn't doing it's job is nuts.
you have got to be kidding me.
Salary cap is part of it, but I think a redistribution of the divisions would also be beneficial. I feel bad for teams in the AL East not named the Red Sox or Yankees...Poor Toronto hasn't made the playoffs since '93. I think a combination of a salary cap and restructuring the divisions would help the game of baseball in the long run.
...about the revenues of baseball teams and how the Yankees fit into the situation. Joe Posnanski takes a deeper look into the Forbes "Business of Baseball" numbers.
Great - and accurate - point: "...your ticket price didn't go up because Roy Halladay got a $60 million extension, but instead Roy Halladay got a $60 million extension because of the price of your Philadelphia ticket."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/04/19/baseb…
Interesting note, the Tigers lost almost $30 million in 2009. Yikes.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
or a salary cap in baseball.
But, to stay on the topic of the OP, Capitalism has always been at odds with purists of a wide variety of niches. In this case, sports fans (like yourself) dislike the expansion of the sports to bring in more fans (appealing to a broader audience). This is not unlike the perversion of musical groups that go from "great rock", or "pure country" to "top 40 sluts". I think its the same principle.
In the end, it is a compromise. I think there are both pros and cons to expansion of sports for monetary gain. For instance, we have much more access to watching sports than ever before. And the sole reason is not technology.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
...in a capitalist free market system that every entity must follow a business strategy that emphasizes rapid and significant growth. That's a choice that can be made by an actor based on the competitive landscape he finds himself in.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^
As long as economies of scale exist there is a value to getting larger. As soon as economies of scale begin to diminish there is no longer a value to getting larger.
Im a cynic so I don't buy that companies don't recognize that dynamic. I think most companies tend to get too larger because CEO pay is typically tied to total revenue the firm brings in. Also because many boards put unreasonable growth targets on CEOs so the only way they can achieve that growth is through growth and acquisitions that they know will probably destroy value.
So its not a capitalism issue, its an incentive issue.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
...with your analysis. In the case of Big 10 expansion, there is a rational explanation for the conference's behavior, and that's the advent of the BTN. It is unmatched as a revenue generator and it's clear that revenue growth can be achieved through careful expansion to the right schools that increase market penetration (in this sense, right means schools that meet objective criteria like being an AAU member, etc.).
So the point of my post is to point out that capitalism, per se is not determining the behavior of the NCAA and the Big 10 in considering the changes the OP decries. But the system clearly establishes the framework in which such business decisions are made.
It's fascinating to consider that the US is the only country where university athletics are a major segment of the sports marketplace. That football was born a college sport and its popularity enabled the establishment of a marketable professional league is quite unusual, since in most sports, the reverse is true.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
Your own post states that there is a rational reason for the B10 expansion--the BTN. That is a decision based on increasing profits for an already profitable entity. Which is exactly my OP.
Again, I'm not decrying capitalism or even the leaders of the NCAA or NFL. Simply saying the constant striving for growth results in decisions that I see as detrimental to the sports themselves IMHO.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
We may not like where it is going, but there is no turning back.
The question is balance - how does one balance the need for revenue with the "purity" of sport.
Compromise is the answer. And good compromise means that neither side is completely happy.
Let's remember that it was our own Don Canham that pioneered capitalism is college athletics.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
Capitalism also brought us the Big Ten Network, which let's face it has done a remarkable job of filling in the gaps for games that once were never televised. I'd say it's not all bad.
They also do a remarkable job mispronouncing the names of athletes.
They've also brought us Rotel, which, hey, Rotel.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
Making the (mostly meaningless) NBA Playoff first round a best of 7 instead of a best of 5. Couple that with putting a 2, sometimes 3 day break in between games and the playoffs going on for 1/4 of the season length. Yeah, I see your point.
Lengthening the first round helped the Pistons out that one time against Orlando (2003), but on the whole it's been awful. The first round takes forever now.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
Is because you're emotionally invested. If you cared as much about, say, the auto industry and GM as you do about sports, you'd have been moaning and crying every time GM started a new brand in the 90's. (Now, that didn't work out well, but that's not the point.)
Simply put, you feel like they're tarnishing "your sports". Maybe they are, but from a business front, that's not ruining. That's developing.
I know you disavowed your own example, but I worked for a company that allowed me access to the ears of very highly placed execs at GM, and too many brands/over expansion, was the major reason they got into trouble, along with (80' and 90's) poor product.
Regarding sports, from a business perspective, I AGREE with the decisions made. The people running it are responsible to grow the business of the tournament, the B10, and the Draft, and are measured by those things. So these decisions have a good chance of being successful financially. The larger question is will these things improve the experience for the fans.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^
The great thing about sports capitalism? Heck, the great thing about freedom?
If you don't like the expanded Big Ten, or the expanded NCAA tournament, or the expanded NFL Draft........
....Don't Watch.
AMERICA - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY.
Alright Ricky, calm down.
I wasn't aware the Nazis were in charge.....
April 21st, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
I don't think anyone should try to ban, say, a 96-team NCAA tournament. I just think it's a crappy idea.
Also, I think I have just a bit of insight into the idea of Big Ten Expansion. I went to the Univ. of Kansas when the Big 8 became the Big 12. It was nice to add Texas to the mix for football purposes, but mostly it just watered down the league. As a Kansas basketball fan, you end up not being able to remember whether they're playing Texas Tech or Texas A&M on a given day, because the difference seems small. Worse, and though their Final Four run may have changed this, but it's also easy to forget that Baylor exists at all.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
to see people flip out at the mere mention of regulation. No matter how "free market" or "pro-capitalist" you are, the simple fact is that regulation is needed to eliminate negative externalities that will unquestionably arise when entities pursue profits and to provide access to information and level the playing field when one party finds itself in an unequal bargaining position.
This is not a political issue until you begin to argue how much regulation is needed in a given field. You also have collective action problems and people that just won't give a shit until the negative externalities affect them in some way (not making a judgment; this is rational from an economics perspective).
April 21st, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Can you name a single economic crisis that is badly hurting this country right now that would prove your point? I mean, really...
April 21st, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
Deregulation is the only answer and we can assume that all profit-seeking entities will voluntarily sacrifice a portion of their profits to ensure the well-being of all affected by their activities!
*blank stare*
I'd watch out, man. From what I can tell, making educated arguments supported by reason is considered "political" these days.
Just a friendly head's up - I don't want you to get banned or anything.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
might I make a shit in your house?
April 21st, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
and/or drive ratings up? If so, shit away!
April 21st, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^
i am sure that some from yesterday's boubacar post will pick this up:
how can this be SAD?! what about those draftees that have to wait through the night to get picked in the second round?! capitalism has been making things worse for sports forever and i have no sympathy towards it whatsoever!
April 21st, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
As long as you want to see every Michigan game on TV each weekend, someone is going to have to make money off of it--or at least generate enough revenue to pay for it. Sorry.