That generic question requires a very complex response. One that I don’t have time for (and I am sure you don’t either). But sports in general has always had a place in society and people will always flock to it. But that doesn’t mean the price paid for it is worth it. People do get ripped off sometimes.

But we started talking about the Yankees and then expanded to baseball and now sports in general. I think the discussion is going the wrong direction.

Just to bring it back a little, I don’t think that all of baseball is screwing the fans. But I do think the Yankees are taking advantage of their particular market to the detriment of the average fan. The fact is that NYC (specifically Manhattan) has a very high concentration of wealth. The Yankees are targeting that crowd. But having gone to games in Cleveland, Chicago (both teams), Shea, Fenway, SF, Philly, St. Louis, Florida, I have been treated better as a fan there than I have in general at Yankee Stadium where it is pretty clear that the management thinks little about the fans that pay less than $75 for their ticket.

[88] Why do fans keep flocking to sports in droves, even as many opine about how they are be treating so poorly? Perhaps this paradox suggests that the benefit we derive does, in fact, support the price? I enjoy baseball so much, and spend so much of my free time following it, that I don’t think I come close to “paying” for the experience (except perhaps in the emotional toll of difficult losses). I know it isn’t a popular opinion, but maybe we are so used to get something that we really enjoy for so little, that paying a “fair” price seems so abhorrent?

Stil, I see your point. As a response to the idea that the Cubs purchase price will include legacy benefits, I would say that the new owners of the Cubs will only pay for part of the legacy benefits. The other part of the payment will be by not screwing over the fans and maintaining the legacy benefits. You screw over your fan base often enough and you can kiss your resale value goodbye.

and shiver-me-timbers, Monkepants, I agree with you on this one..see, i knew we could get past the WBC thing

With the YES Network money, can’t they keep tkt prices low and still afford the big contracts?

That benefit from the past is a huge benefit that still pays off. Imagine if Babe Ruth had been hitting his homers for the Federal League instead of the Yankees. Or when Joe D was having his contract dispute, that another league offered him more money?

Instead, MLB has a history — one that it lives off today by displaying images of Ruth, Dimaggio, Gehrig, Mays, Robinson, etc… MLB has a fanbase that exists because of lack of competition. What if the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn but just moved to another rival league? Or even if it had moved, maybe the jilted Dodger fan finds a Non-MLB team to root for? What if a Negro League were available and viable?

The point is that the history, “benefits in the past”, still is an advantage now. Baseball is synonymous with MLB. This has allowed to teams to wrangle stadium funding out of cities. For a long time, it prevented free agency and still allows teams a form of indentured service (until the player can finally become a free agent).

Even from the advertising perspective, imagine having a product equated with only one business? How much would Dell pay to be the only computer manufacturer that people think of when buying a computer? Billions? This existing mindset is what prevents other leagues from starting up now (assuming they were allowed to). This mindset prevents good players from going to a new league and fans from going to those games. This is how the clubs are still deriving an advantage now.

I disagree. According to wiki: “Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Major League Baseball was exempt from the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act.”

A Federal Baseball League was trying to get going but couldn’t because of the NL and AL. This decision was crucial because stopped a viable competitor when baseball was still in its infancy. If the 1922 ruling had gone the other way, other leagues may have started up after the Federal League folded.

The lack of competition is a tremendous advantage. The strength of the MLB and the growth of its fanbase is very much due to the fact there has been no competition. And no future competition was allowed either.

Gotta love a banter that incorporates the word sophistry. Over at Lohud, PA is talking about Hooters and drawing stick figures of Mrs. Matsui. What a dichotomy!

Baseball belongs to everyone.

[74] OK fine…it may be distasteful to you, but that’s a long way from the sweeping social implications you are trying to draw. I wonder how you would feel, however, if you were the one doing the selling though?

I am not advocating this. I am saying that there is some rationale to the idea that teams don’t maximize their profits and be more fan friendly because they enjoy a certain protection that other businesses don’t.

But assuming Congress does remove this assumption, MLB would have a huge incumbency advantage for a while. But someone ever came along with money, you could certainly see a smaller upstart league positioning itself in major markets. Minor league franchises would be hurt. But the players would probably be better off since now there are more jobs. And the fans would have more options.

Also, our “egalitarian American system” has made luxuries more universal, but not all luxury is created equal. So, while most American can afford a car, not everyone can afford a Maybach. And, while we mostly can all take nice vacations, very few of us have a tropical villa at our disposal. Similarly, while most of us can afford a seat in Yankee Stadium, we all can’t come up with the price for the best locations.

This isn’t an issue of aristocracy versus egalitarianism.

You do not. So therein is our basic philosophical difference.

There is a qualitative difference between Joe American being able to afford great seats and Joe American obtaining patronage because he happens to work for company X or live next to aristocrat Y. Or do you think that, in general, a return to something like the Roman days–with aristocrats throwing bread and money at pressing crowds of patrons, again reinforcing the steep economic AND social hierarchy–would be no big deal?