316771656A70606B667143646E626A6F2D60030 wrote: "Fans" are a drop in the MLB revenue bucket.
The real money comes from the business sector. They pay for suites, group ticket sales, sponsorships and advertising, and the overwhelming majority of tickets sold. Then, you have television, radio, and internet deals. That's who does must of the paying.
As for who pays the Pirates players, [highlight]the money the team gets from revenue sharing alone > team payroll.[/highlight]
so other team's fans pay the Pirates payroll? If so we just need to convince those fans to pay more.
This is not hard businesses don't pay money by paying from their profits they get that money from selling product or services at a higher prices to individuals. You see in a capitalist society profit is a necessary for survival. The more money they pay toward MLB they just raise the price of their products or services so individuals are paying not businesses or owners. Think about it, it's like businesses don't pay taxes individuals pay taxes, businesses just get the money they pay in taxes by raising the price of their products and services.
Are you suggesting that, if corporations didn't sponsor MLB clubs, consumer prices would be lower?
I don't think that they would.
Businesses absolutely make their money from the public. Cable fees, streaming fees, the cost of products is factored into the cost of advertising fees or rights fees. It all goes back to the general public one way or another. The public is so accustomed to it that we don't think about the various factors that go into the pricing of things we pay for.
[highlight]And then there's the argument some make that the players are only making what the market will bear. But that's not true.[/highlight] The market has to keep changing to accommodate what the players make. The cost to families for attending games or buying merchandise has skyrocketed over the years compared to what it was prior to the mega-salary days because the market had to be expanded to create more revenue. MLB is now discussing watering down the post season by including more teams who would otherwise not make the grade because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Fans watching or listening to games get frustrated with the constant ads for every event in the game ("And now the ACME pitching change") because the broadcast needs to generate more revenue because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Cities are faced with the threat of giving teams new stadiums to create more revenue or else have their team relocate because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue.
And every time the market is expanded to generate more revenue to satisfy the player's salary demands, the fans get screwed.
Actually, it's always true. All prices, including wages, are based upon what the market bears at any one moment. Because markets fluctuate for many reasons, not least among them the availability of substitutes, prices and wages change often, but they're always based upon what the market will bear at that moment.
But as I said, MLB keeps changing its market to accommodate player expense. The perfect example is MLB now wanting to add more playoffs to generate more revenue in accordance with union demands in the CBA negotiations. If the market needs to be expanded to accommodate salaries, then salary demands are not in sync with the current market.
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
The next CBA and the future of MLB
674A47565140571714250 wrote: "Fans" are a drop in the MLB revenue bucket.
The real money comes from the business sector. They pay for suites, group ticket sales, sponsorships and advertising, and the overwhelming majority of tickets sold. Then, you have television, radio, and internet deals. That's who does must of the paying.
As for who pays the Pirates players, [highlight]the money the team gets from revenue sharing alone > team payroll.[/highlight]
so other team's fans pay the Pirates payroll? If so we just need to convince those fans to pay more.
This is not hard businesses don't pay money by paying from their profits they get that money from selling product or services at a higher prices to individuals. You see in a capitalist society profit is a necessary for survival. The more money they pay toward MLB they just raise the price of their products or services so individuals are paying not businesses or owners. Think about it, it's like businesses don't pay taxes individuals pay taxes, businesses just get the money they pay in taxes by raising the price of their products and services.
Are you suggesting that, if corporations didn't sponsor MLB clubs, consumer prices would be lower?
I don't think that they would.
Businesses absolutely make their money from the public. Cable fees, streaming fees, the cost of products is factored into the cost of advertising fees or rights fees. It all goes back to the general public one way or another. The public is so accustomed to it that we don't think about the various factors that go into the pricing of things we pay for.
[highlight]And then there's the argument some make that the players are only making what the market will bear. But that's not true.[/highlight] The market has to keep changing to accommodate what the players make. The cost to families for attending games or buying merchandise has skyrocketed over the years compared to what it was prior to the mega-salary days because the market had to be expanded to create more revenue. MLB is now discussing watering down the post season by including more teams who would otherwise not make the grade because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Fans watching or listening to games get frustrated with the constant ads for every event in the game ("And now the ACME pitching change") because the broadcast needs to generate more revenue because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Cities are faced with the threat of giving teams new stadiums to create more revenue or else have their team relocate because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue.
And every time the market is expanded to generate more revenue to satisfy the player's salary demands, the fans get screwed.
Actually, it's always true. All prices, including wages, are based upon what the market bears at any one moment. Because markets fluctuate for many reasons, not least among them the availability of substitutes, prices and wages change often, but they're always based upon what the market will bear at that moment.
But as I said, MLB keeps changing its market to accommodate player expense. The perfect example is MLB now wanting to add more playoffs to generate more revenue in accordance with union demands in the CBA negotiations. If the market needs to be expanded to accommodate salaries, then salary demands are not in sync with the current market.
the market is expanded to accommodate rising expenses and to maintain or increase profits. The teams want to have a competitive balance tax because it puts a damper on salary expenses. Expanding the market and getting a bigger share of the market is the goal of most companies. I don't know that MLB wants to expand the playoffs to generate more revenue because of union demands or if it just wants to increase revenue, I don't think the MLB proposal is to just stay even with player salaries by adding playoffs but to increase profits.
The real money comes from the business sector. They pay for suites, group ticket sales, sponsorships and advertising, and the overwhelming majority of tickets sold. Then, you have television, radio, and internet deals. That's who does must of the paying.
As for who pays the Pirates players, [highlight]the money the team gets from revenue sharing alone > team payroll.[/highlight]
so other team's fans pay the Pirates payroll? If so we just need to convince those fans to pay more.
This is not hard businesses don't pay money by paying from their profits they get that money from selling product or services at a higher prices to individuals. You see in a capitalist society profit is a necessary for survival. The more money they pay toward MLB they just raise the price of their products or services so individuals are paying not businesses or owners. Think about it, it's like businesses don't pay taxes individuals pay taxes, businesses just get the money they pay in taxes by raising the price of their products and services.
Are you suggesting that, if corporations didn't sponsor MLB clubs, consumer prices would be lower?
I don't think that they would.
Businesses absolutely make their money from the public. Cable fees, streaming fees, the cost of products is factored into the cost of advertising fees or rights fees. It all goes back to the general public one way or another. The public is so accustomed to it that we don't think about the various factors that go into the pricing of things we pay for.
[highlight]And then there's the argument some make that the players are only making what the market will bear. But that's not true.[/highlight] The market has to keep changing to accommodate what the players make. The cost to families for attending games or buying merchandise has skyrocketed over the years compared to what it was prior to the mega-salary days because the market had to be expanded to create more revenue. MLB is now discussing watering down the post season by including more teams who would otherwise not make the grade because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Fans watching or listening to games get frustrated with the constant ads for every event in the game ("And now the ACME pitching change") because the broadcast needs to generate more revenue because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Cities are faced with the threat of giving teams new stadiums to create more revenue or else have their team relocate because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue.
And every time the market is expanded to generate more revenue to satisfy the player's salary demands, the fans get screwed.
Actually, it's always true. All prices, including wages, are based upon what the market bears at any one moment. Because markets fluctuate for many reasons, not least among them the availability of substitutes, prices and wages change often, but they're always based upon what the market will bear at that moment.
But as I said, MLB keeps changing its market to accommodate player expense. The perfect example is MLB now wanting to add more playoffs to generate more revenue in accordance with union demands in the CBA negotiations. If the market needs to be expanded to accommodate salaries, then salary demands are not in sync with the current market.
the market is expanded to accommodate rising expenses and to maintain or increase profits. The teams want to have a competitive balance tax because it puts a damper on salary expenses. Expanding the market and getting a bigger share of the market is the goal of most companies. I don't know that MLB wants to expand the playoffs to generate more revenue because of union demands or if it just wants to increase revenue, I don't think the MLB proposal is to just stay even with player salaries by adding playoffs but to increase profits.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
The next CBA and the future of MLB
0A272A3B3C2D3A7A79480 wrote: "Fans" are a drop in the MLB revenue bucket.
The real money comes from the business sector. They pay for suites, group ticket sales, sponsorships and advertising, and the overwhelming majority of tickets sold. Then, you have television, radio, and internet deals. That's who does must of the paying.
As for who pays the Pirates players, [highlight]the money the team gets from revenue sharing alone > team payroll.[/highlight]
so other team's fans pay the Pirates payroll? If so we just need to convince those fans to pay more.
This is not hard businesses don't pay money by paying from their profits they get that money from selling product or services at a higher prices to individuals. You see in a capitalist society profit is a necessary for survival. The more money they pay toward MLB they just raise the price of their products or services so individuals are paying not businesses or owners. Think about it, it's like businesses don't pay taxes individuals pay taxes, businesses just get the money they pay in taxes by raising the price of their products and services.
Are you suggesting that, if corporations didn't sponsor MLB clubs, consumer prices would be lower?
I don't think that they would.
Businesses absolutely make their money from the public. Cable fees, streaming fees, the cost of products is factored into the cost of advertising fees or rights fees. It all goes back to the general public one way or another. The public is so accustomed to it that we don't think about the various factors that go into the pricing of things we pay for.
[highlight]And then there's the argument some make that the players are only making what the market will bear. But that's not true.[/highlight] The market has to keep changing to accommodate what the players make. The cost to families for attending games or buying merchandise has skyrocketed over the years compared to what it was prior to the mega-salary days because the market had to be expanded to create more revenue. MLB is now discussing watering down the post season by including more teams who would otherwise not make the grade because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Fans watching or listening to games get frustrated with the constant ads for every event in the game ("And now the ACME pitching change") because the broadcast needs to generate more revenue because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Cities are faced with the threat of giving teams new stadiums to create more revenue or else have their team relocate because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue.
And every time the market is expanded to generate more revenue to satisfy the player's salary demands, the fans get screwed.
Actually, it's always true. All prices, including wages, are based upon what the market bears at any one moment. Because markets fluctuate for many reasons, not least among them the availability of substitutes, prices and wages change often, but they're always based upon what the market will bear at that moment.
But as I said, MLB keeps changing its market to accommodate player expense. The perfect example is MLB now wanting to add more playoffs to generate more revenue in accordance with union demands in the CBA negotiations. If the market needs to be expanded to accommodate salaries, then salary demands are not in sync with the current market.
I'm not sure if the owners are trying to expand the market through a larger postseason or if it's just because they see an opportunity to increase revenues. I'd would think it's the latter. That's likely why they made other moves in the past into radio, television, cable television, the international market, the Internet, selling merchandise, Interleague play, etc. I think they'd have done each of those things regardless of how much of the revenues the players wanted.
When the market changes, and salary demands are then out of sync, the market will adjust to that moment in time. It always does.
The real money comes from the business sector. They pay for suites, group ticket sales, sponsorships and advertising, and the overwhelming majority of tickets sold. Then, you have television, radio, and internet deals. That's who does must of the paying.
As for who pays the Pirates players, [highlight]the money the team gets from revenue sharing alone > team payroll.[/highlight]
so other team's fans pay the Pirates payroll? If so we just need to convince those fans to pay more.
This is not hard businesses don't pay money by paying from their profits they get that money from selling product or services at a higher prices to individuals. You see in a capitalist society profit is a necessary for survival. The more money they pay toward MLB they just raise the price of their products or services so individuals are paying not businesses or owners. Think about it, it's like businesses don't pay taxes individuals pay taxes, businesses just get the money they pay in taxes by raising the price of their products and services.
Are you suggesting that, if corporations didn't sponsor MLB clubs, consumer prices would be lower?
I don't think that they would.
Businesses absolutely make their money from the public. Cable fees, streaming fees, the cost of products is factored into the cost of advertising fees or rights fees. It all goes back to the general public one way or another. The public is so accustomed to it that we don't think about the various factors that go into the pricing of things we pay for.
[highlight]And then there's the argument some make that the players are only making what the market will bear. But that's not true.[/highlight] The market has to keep changing to accommodate what the players make. The cost to families for attending games or buying merchandise has skyrocketed over the years compared to what it was prior to the mega-salary days because the market had to be expanded to create more revenue. MLB is now discussing watering down the post season by including more teams who would otherwise not make the grade because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Fans watching or listening to games get frustrated with the constant ads for every event in the game ("And now the ACME pitching change") because the broadcast needs to generate more revenue because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Cities are faced with the threat of giving teams new stadiums to create more revenue or else have their team relocate because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue.
And every time the market is expanded to generate more revenue to satisfy the player's salary demands, the fans get screwed.
Actually, it's always true. All prices, including wages, are based upon what the market bears at any one moment. Because markets fluctuate for many reasons, not least among them the availability of substitutes, prices and wages change often, but they're always based upon what the market will bear at that moment.
But as I said, MLB keeps changing its market to accommodate player expense. The perfect example is MLB now wanting to add more playoffs to generate more revenue in accordance with union demands in the CBA negotiations. If the market needs to be expanded to accommodate salaries, then salary demands are not in sync with the current market.
I'm not sure if the owners are trying to expand the market through a larger postseason or if it's just because they see an opportunity to increase revenues. I'd would think it's the latter. That's likely why they made other moves in the past into radio, television, cable television, the international market, the Internet, selling merchandise, Interleague play, etc. I think they'd have done each of those things regardless of how much of the revenues the players wanted.
When the market changes, and salary demands are then out of sync, the market will adjust to that moment in time. It always does.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
7B565B4A4D5C4B0B08390 wrote: "Fans" are a drop in the MLB revenue bucket.
The real money comes from the business sector. They pay for suites, group ticket sales, sponsorships and advertising, and the overwhelming majority of tickets sold. Then, you have television, radio, and internet deals. That's who does must of the paying.
As for who pays the Pirates players, [highlight]the money the team gets from revenue sharing alone > team payroll.[/highlight]
so other team's fans pay the Pirates payroll? If so we just need to convince those fans to pay more.
This is not hard businesses don't pay money by paying from their profits they get that money from selling product or services at a higher prices to individuals. You see in a capitalist society profit is a necessary for survival. The more money they pay toward MLB they just raise the price of their products or services so individuals are paying not businesses or owners. Think about it, it's like businesses don't pay taxes individuals pay taxes, businesses just get the money they pay in taxes by raising the price of their products and services.
Are you suggesting that, if corporations didn't sponsor MLB clubs, consumer prices would be lower?
I don't think that they would.
Businesses absolutely make their money from the public. Cable fees, streaming fees, the cost of products is factored into the cost of advertising fees or rights fees. It all goes back to the general public one way or another. The public is so accustomed to it that we don't think about the various factors that go into the pricing of things we pay for.
And then there's the argument some make that the players are only making what the market will bear. But that's not true. The market has to keep changing to accommodate what the players make. The cost to families for attending games or buying merchandise has skyrocketed over the years compared to what it was prior to the mega-salary days because the market had to be expanded to create more revenue. MLB is now discussing watering down the post season by including more teams who would otherwise not make the grade because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Fans watching or listening to games get frustrated with the constant ads for every event in the game ("And now the ACME pitching change") because the broadcast needs to generate more revenue because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Cities are faced with the threat of giving teams new stadiums to create more revenue or else have their team relocate because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue.
And every time the market is expanded to generate more revenue to satisfy the player's salary demands, the fans get screwed.
[smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif]
The real money comes from the business sector. They pay for suites, group ticket sales, sponsorships and advertising, and the overwhelming majority of tickets sold. Then, you have television, radio, and internet deals. That's who does must of the paying.
As for who pays the Pirates players, [highlight]the money the team gets from revenue sharing alone > team payroll.[/highlight]
so other team's fans pay the Pirates payroll? If so we just need to convince those fans to pay more.
This is not hard businesses don't pay money by paying from their profits they get that money from selling product or services at a higher prices to individuals. You see in a capitalist society profit is a necessary for survival. The more money they pay toward MLB they just raise the price of their products or services so individuals are paying not businesses or owners. Think about it, it's like businesses don't pay taxes individuals pay taxes, businesses just get the money they pay in taxes by raising the price of their products and services.
Are you suggesting that, if corporations didn't sponsor MLB clubs, consumer prices would be lower?
I don't think that they would.
Businesses absolutely make their money from the public. Cable fees, streaming fees, the cost of products is factored into the cost of advertising fees or rights fees. It all goes back to the general public one way or another. The public is so accustomed to it that we don't think about the various factors that go into the pricing of things we pay for.
And then there's the argument some make that the players are only making what the market will bear. But that's not true. The market has to keep changing to accommodate what the players make. The cost to families for attending games or buying merchandise has skyrocketed over the years compared to what it was prior to the mega-salary days because the market had to be expanded to create more revenue. MLB is now discussing watering down the post season by including more teams who would otherwise not make the grade because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Fans watching or listening to games get frustrated with the constant ads for every event in the game ("And now the ACME pitching change") because the broadcast needs to generate more revenue because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue. Cities are faced with the threat of giving teams new stadiums to create more revenue or else have their team relocate because the market needs to be expanded to create more revenue.
And every time the market is expanded to generate more revenue to satisfy the player's salary demands, the fans get screwed.
[smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif]
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Of course, businesses make money from the public. I've never written that they don't.
What I wrote is that consumer prices (pverall) wouldn't decrease materially if companies withdrew their sports sponsorships. There are other ways that they would go about promoting their businesses.
What I wrote is that consumer prices (pverall) wouldn't decrease materially if companies withdrew their sports sponsorships. There are other ways that they would go about promoting their businesses.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Until MLB and fans stand up to these greedy players especially the mega salaries it will continue. I would like to see the public let these players know we're fed up with this insanity and they need to back off. But as long as there are fans who sympathise with there plight (what a joke) then they feel justified. Can we not all agree that $300 million dollar contracts are ridiculous.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
The next CBA and the future of MLB
392123242433222538392F4A0 wrote: Until MLB and fans stand up to these greedy players especially the mega salaries it will continue. I would like to see the public let these players know we're fed up with this insanity and they need to back off. But as long as there are fans who sympathise with there plight (what a joke) then they feel justified. Can we not all agree that $300 million dollar contracts are ridiculous.
So you believe that baseball players should have their incomes limited? Who decides what the limit should be? Does that also apply to other workers or do you want to just discriminate against baseball players? If I believed that you made too much money in your job, could I start a movement to limit your income?
If your boss offered you a salary of $300 million, or even $5 million, would you turn it down because some might think you to be greedy? How much more would have to be offered before you told your boss that was enough?
So you believe that baseball players should have their incomes limited? Who decides what the limit should be? Does that also apply to other workers or do you want to just discriminate against baseball players? If I believed that you made too much money in your job, could I start a movement to limit your income?
If your boss offered you a salary of $300 million, or even $5 million, would you turn it down because some might think you to be greedy? How much more would have to be offered before you told your boss that was enough?
The next CBA and the future of MLB
7E666463637465627F7E680D0 wrote: Until MLB and fans stand up to these greedy players especially the mega salaries it will continue. I would like to see the public let these players know we're fed up with this insanity and they need to back off. But as long as there are fans who sympathise with there plight (what a joke) then they feel justified. Can we not all agree that $300 million dollar contracts are ridiculous.
it is pretty interesting how every time a team reduces payroll it reduces ticket prices.
it is pretty interesting how every time a team reduces payroll it reduces ticket prices.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
0D5B4D59564C5C575A4D7F58525E5653115C3F0 wrote: Until MLB and fans stand up to these greedy players especially the mega salaries it will continue. I would like to see the public let these players know we're fed up with this insanity and they need to back off. But as long as there are fans who sympathise with there plight (what a joke) then they feel justified. Can we not all agree that $300 million dollar contracts are ridiculous.
So you believe that baseball players should have their incomes limited? Who decides what the limit should be? Does that also apply to other workers or do you want to just discriminate against baseball players? If I believed that you made too much money in your job, could I start a movement to limit your income?
If your boss offered you a salary of $300 million, or even $5 million, would you turn it down because some might think you to be greedy? How much more would have to be offered before you told your boss that was enough?
Yes that exactly what I'm saying, and I believe the fans could do just that by speaking up against these absurd salaries. Maybe boycotting any game Max Scherzer pitches in might get their attention including the NY Mets ownership. Fans could make a difference, and in case you haven't noticed gas prices and food prices are through the roof, families are having a hard time so maybe these spoiled brats need to pay attention to their fans and not just their and your ego.
So you believe that baseball players should have their incomes limited? Who decides what the limit should be? Does that also apply to other workers or do you want to just discriminate against baseball players? If I believed that you made too much money in your job, could I start a movement to limit your income?
If your boss offered you a salary of $300 million, or even $5 million, would you turn it down because some might think you to be greedy? How much more would have to be offered before you told your boss that was enough?
Yes that exactly what I'm saying, and I believe the fans could do just that by speaking up against these absurd salaries. Maybe boycotting any game Max Scherzer pitches in might get their attention including the NY Mets ownership. Fans could make a difference, and in case you haven't noticed gas prices and food prices are through the roof, families are having a hard time so maybe these spoiled brats need to pay attention to their fans and not just their and your ego.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
7E666463637465627F7E680D0 wrote: Until MLB and fans stand up to these greedy players especially the mega salaries it will continue. I would like to see the public let these players know we're fed up with this insanity and they need to back off. But as long as there are fans who sympathise with there plight (what a joke) then they feel justified. Can we not all agree that $300 million dollar contracts are ridiculous.
MLB doesn't have any issues whatsoever with greedy players. They play for what an owner is willing to pay them.
MLB has problems in a handful of cities that have stingy owners who refuse to provide their fans with quality performance. Those cities have some fans who think that the entire system is broken when it isn't. It's broken for their team.
In some cases, maybe it's the wrong market.
Some teams are even willing to offer some assistance and they still can't get it right.
MLB doesn't have any issues whatsoever with greedy players. They play for what an owner is willing to pay them.
MLB has problems in a handful of cities that have stingy owners who refuse to provide their fans with quality performance. Those cities have some fans who think that the entire system is broken when it isn't. It's broken for their team.
In some cases, maybe it's the wrong market.
Some teams are even willing to offer some assistance and they still can't get it right.