by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 9, 2001
All Rights Reserved.

o matter how bad the timing, baseball's bottom line can't hide clever gamesmanship. Showing a sign of the times, Major League Baseball floated its own bad news, announcing plans to immediately shrink the league by at least two teams. Claiming that some franchises weren't profitable, commissioner Bud Selig insisted that his bombshell had nothing to do with politics, despite the league's collective bargaining agreement expiring on the same day. "It makes no sense for major league baseball to be in markets that generate insufficient local revenues to justify the investment in the franchise," said Selig, maintaining that the move was based purely on economics. Expressing the party line, "The teams to be contracted have a long record of failing to generate enough revenues to operate a viable major league franchise." Smelling a rat, "This is the worst manner in which to begin the process of negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement," said Players' Union executive director Donald Fehr, not buying Selig's excuse that seemed to favor owners.

      Revenue sharing was supposed to compensate for the inherent weakness in less lucrative baseball markets. Franchises like the Yankees ooze profits, while teams like the Minnesota Twins consistently lose money. Among other things, the function of the commissioner's office is to further the game of baseball, not only line the pockets of owners. Revenue sharing was the way in which windfall profits from abundant attendance and lucrative TV deals leveled the playing field. But since the influence of super-agents and runaway salaries, the same old formula doesn't work. It's now time for Selig to consider salary caps and luxury taxes. Astronomical salaries cannibalize profits, especially for teams with weaker attendance. Revenue sharing alone can't save small market teams from inflated salaries. Despite the draft, teams with deep pockets dominate expensive free agents, giving big market teams an unfair advantage. While small market teams enjoy some success, well-healed franchises dominate the league.

      Expanding the league since 1899, professional baseball actually doubled its teams to 30 since 1960. Shrinking the league sends the wrong message to cities around America, whose spirit and prestige is connected to professional sports. While there's no inherent right to professional sports, stripping fans and cities of their teams has devastating psychological effects. When the Raiders bailed out of Oakland in 1981, the city sued, under eminent domain, to block Al Davis' move. Art Modell also caused grief when he decided in 1995 to move his Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, through Cleveland was promised another team. But regardless of what owners decide, relocating is a far cry from liquidating professional sports franchises. Professional sports often bring diverse communities together creating camaraderie and civic pride. Before MLB pulls the plug, they need to consider the wider impact of ending professional franchises, not just measuring success by profitability. Yes, owners have a right to protect their bottom line, but they don't have the right to upend entire communities.

      Announcing the decision to eliminate two major league baseball teams, Selig rejected Fehr's contention that it was a political move. "It is absolutely not a negotiating ploy," said Selig. "This had to do with a number of franchises that just can't produce enough revenue to be competitive," suggesting that MLB has every legal right to retrench when it becomes economically necessary. When Fehr called Selig's move "imprudent and unfortunate," he was referring to the fact that other options-including across the board salary cuts and salary caps-were not considered. "[Contraction] has been made unilaterally, without any attempt to negotiate with players, apparently without a serious consideration of other options . . ." said Fehr, disgusted at what he regards as a conspicuous attempt to dilute the free agent market. Closing down two teams and flooding the market with high priced free agents should accomplish the owners' wish of driving down prices. "We consider this action to be inconsistent with the law, our contract and perhaps, most important, the long-term welfare of the sport," remarked Fehr, perhaps overstating his case but letting the public know what's really behind MLB's recent move.

      With teams like the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos facing the chopping block, other lucrative franchises in large media markets are licking their chops. Driving down the price of free agents only helps elite teams by reducing the cost of superstars. While Montreal drew only 7,648 fans per game, that doesn't mean the team's drawing inadequate support. Clearly, baseball isn't Canada's national pastime, but it promotes tons of good will with America's northern neighbor. Selig insists that you measure a franchise by its fan support and profitability. He also claims-along with owners-that local governments should subsidize stadiums and other costs. But in Montreal, where soccer and ice hockey reign supreme, baseball exported a wonderful American tradition, creating a real impact on Canadians. While salary caps and revenue sharing cut into profits, they're a necessary evil for the good of the game. Baseball's growing influence developed because of its public accessibility, not because certain owners became billionaires.

      For the good of the game, MLB must find a way to subsidize unprofitable teams without bankrupting local governments, disturbing communities, and, at the same time, sabotaging the needs of owners and players. Despite super-agents and the runaway market, no player should earn obscene salaries at the expense of owners and the communities that support them. Fehr's right when he says that MLB acted unilaterally without considering all the options. Salary caps work for the NBA, why not MLB? While Fehr may not like it, grossly overpaid players will also have to swallow hard to preserve America's favorite pastime. Selig's also right when he says that simply moving teams from one market to another won't solve the problem. MLB, the owners, and the players must all step up to the plate and fix the current mess. Simply pulling the plug on unprofitable teams seems irresponsible when other options haven't been explored. Baseball's anti-trust exemption recognizes the uniqueness of the industry. But it also acknowledges that professional sports franchises are not ordinary businesses. Players, owners and local communities must all sacrifice to make them work.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He's director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic public relations. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.