It's also another reason why I've not been able to afford to take my family to see a Major League game since the mid-1990's.

What's the median?

If there's an aniti-christ hall of fame, then he's a charter member.

Can a sport hit a recession? I mean, can they jack ticket prices up so high that fans stop going en masse? Can we end up seeing a 6-8 horse race in both leagues for so long that competition becomes mostly null and void? If the juggernaut teams keep making huge profits, and keep signing all the top players with a nearly indefinite payroll..will there ever be a collapse?

I'd sure love to see it.

I don't know how he can afford to feed his family on such a meager salary.

Dr.Knockboots: Can a sport hit a recession? I mean, can they jack ticket prices up so high that fans stop going en masse? Can we end up seeing a 6-8 horse race in both leagues for so long that competition becomes mostly null and void? If the juggernaut teams keep making huge profits, and keep signing all the top players with a nearly indefinite payroll..will there ever be a collapse?

I'd sure love to see it.

At some point things will have to balance back out. I think there has been a change in the identity of going to a game. It has gone from something the locals would do regularly to an event, like a mini-vacation that a family would plan once a year. I believe that MLB has gotten away with that through better tv deals expanding the fanbase.

Of course, it also differs per team. I'm guessing it would be cheaper for me to get really good seats to a Rays game than to get average tickets to see the Cubs. Hell, the bleacher seats are like $30-$40, aren't they?

/I love the Cubs, but can't stand sitting in the bleachers.
//I need a back on my seat or else my back really hurts by the end of the game.

mactheknife: It's also another reason why I've not been able to afford to take my family to see a Major League game since the mid-1990's.

If you can't afford around ~$40 for a family of four, should you really be going anyway?

mactheknife: It's also another reason why I've not been able to afford to take my family to see a Major League game since the mid-1990's.

Economics 101 Fail.

The last game I went to was in 2006, only because I won tickets from a radio station. I had to sit in front of 3 drunks that insisted on doing play by play, and a woman next who spent the entire game on her cell phone. Add in the family on the other side who had to have every single vendor pass stuff down past us, and their bathroom breaks climbing past us every 10 minutes, we left after the 6th inning.

If I had to pay for it, I'd never go. HDTV and surround sound does wonders for sitting at home. The affordable family tickets that they sell are the nosebleed seats. If I wanted to watch ants play baseball, I'd buy an ant-farm and hope they took up baseball.

Once I move down there, Me and the girlfriend plan on frequenting as many Portland Sea Dogs games as we can.

/So can't wait
//Last game I was at was a Sea Dogs game in the 90s

If I wanted to watch ants play baseball, I'd buy an ant-farm and hope they took up baseball.

You just gave me the greatest idea ever! To the laboratory!

If you idiots had stayed away after the last work stoppage, like you swore up and down that you would, none of this would be an issue.

Baseball fans have only themselves to blame.

mactheknife: It's also another reason why I've not been able to afford to take my family to see a Major League game since the mid-1990's.

Dude, you can get nose-bleeders in Philly for under 20 and SRO for under 15.

Ball of Confusion: If you idiots had stayed away after the last work stoppage, like you swore up and down that you would, none of this would be an issue.

If you idiots realized that there's not a single thing wrong with this, this wouldn't be an issue.

Ticket prices haven't gone up because salaries have gone up. Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

Ticket prices have gone up because demand has gone up. People want to see baseball. They're willing to pay more to see baseball, and in cities where demand is rising and the stadiums are already sold out, ticket prices essentially have to go up.

If the ballplayers made less money, but everything else stayed the same, that money would go to the owners. Not you.

If the ballplayers made less money, and the owners lowered ticket prices to keep their profits the same, then tickets would be priced well below what people are willing to pay for them, and the money would go to ticket scalpers. Not you.

Think about how much you're willing to see a baseball game, whatever that amount is. Now imagine that the teams and players are exactly the same, but all the players are making $50,000 a year. How much would you be willing to pay to see that? The same amount, of course. What if they were all making $50,000,000 a year? How much would you be willing to pay to see that? The same amount, of course.

Ticket prices are what they are because people are willing to pay that much.

Arkanaut: What's the median?

That's the more important number, in my opinion. For every A-Rod there's probably 8-10 kids making the league minimum. The 'average' hides the disparity between the haves and have nots.

Larry Mahnken: Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

TV is a bigger cash cow than gate receipts.

Larry Mahnken: Ticket prices are what they are because people are willing to pay that much.

Larry Mahnken +10.

Now prepare yourself for the unwashed to ignore your logic and in fact attempt to impale you with it.

Larry Mahnken 2009-12-01 11:46:57 AM

Ticket prices haven't gone up because salaries have gone up. Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

The obvious answer that no one seems to understand. Awesome.

ElwoodCuse: Larry Mahnken: Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

TV is a bigger cash cow than gate receipts.

Yes, but revenues are still driven by demand, not by labor costs.

TV networks pay for MLB broadcast rights so they can sell advertising and promote other programming on their network. They'll pay more for those rights if the advertising sales and promotional value becomes worth more, not because players get paid more.

More to the point, my post was in response to people complaining about higher salaries causing ticket prices to go up.

TomServo24: Arkanaut: What's the median?

That's the more important number, in my opinion. For every A-Rod there's probably 8-10 kids making the league minimum. The 'average' hides the disparity between the haves and have nots.

That and it makes silly people who don't know statistics think every ballplayer makes $3 million a year, which is far from the truth.

The league minimum is nothing to sneeze at either, but that's coupled with very poor job security, unlike most other jobs that pay $400K a year.

Moral of the story: Support your local farm team.

Larry Mahnken: Ticket prices are what they are because people are willing to pay that much.

As ridiculous as the salaries may seem, I'd rather the revenue go to the people who create the product than the suits at the top.

Orgasmatron138: At some point things will have to balance back out. I think there has been a change in the identity of going to a game. It has gone from something the locals would do regularly to an event, like a mini-vacation that a family would plan once a year. I believe that MLB has gotten away with that through better tv deals expanding the fanbase.

It would change really quickly if the IRS decided businesses could no longer deduct the cost of season tickets as a business expense.

Burn_Atlanta: It would change really quickly if the IRS decided businesses could no longer deduct the cost of season tickets as a business expense.

I believe they can only deduct 50%.

Still, it is more than zero.

Larry Mahnken: mactheknife: It's also another reason why I've not been able to afford to take my family to see a Major League game since the mid-1990's.

Economics 101 Fail.

Well, the Economics 101 argument would be that a team will charge the highest price that the market will bear, irrespective of player salaries. Each team has a fixed output of 81 home games per season. For any particular game, if a team can (a) sell 35,000 tickets for $50 each (gross ticket revenue of $1.75 million) or (b) sell 40,000 tickets for $40 each (revenue of $1.6 million), it's going to charge the $50, and 5,000 fans will have been "priced out." Player salaries don't factor in.

But the key assumption there is fixed output, which makes demand the sole determinant. I think the model has to be softened a little bit because the output isn't just a game; it's a game that the team is trying to win. That is, what fans pay for isn't just the right to attend, but the chance to see a team that wins games, makes the playoffs, has big-time stars the fans want to watch, etc. So the output is variable, in that sense. And if output is variable, then there is a supply curve that is, in fact, moved by labor costs. I'm not sure how to quantify it but I think it's there.

Still, I think you're about 90% right. The teams will charge the most they can reasonably get from the fans, period.

TomServo24: Arkanaut: What's the median?

That's the more important number, in my opinion. For every A-Rod there's probably 8-10 kids making the league minimum. The 'average' hides the disparity between the haves and have nots.

Well, that's how the free market works.

Talent distribution in MLB isn't like talent distribution for the population as a whole. For the population as a whole, talent is distributed in a bell curve. The majority of people are around average (for a person) at baseball. There are very few people as bad as the worst players in the world, and very few peopele as good as the best players in the world.

MLB is the extreme right end of that bell curve, so there are very few people as good as the best MLB players, but lots and lot of people as good as the worst MLB players.

The best players have other teams competing to sign them, and that competition drives their salaries up towards the maximum a team is willing to invest in them (baseball salaries make a lot more sense when you view them as investments, which they are).

The worst players have other players who are just as good as them competing for very few jobs, and that drives salaries down towards the minimum that someone is willing to work for, or the minimum salary.

Last offseason Mark Teixeira was out there as a free agent. If you didn't sign Teixeira, you could sign Adam Dunn, who is as good as Teixeira with the bat, but is a terrible defensive player. There are of course players as good or better than Teixeira, like Pujols, but Pujols wasn't available. So if you did'nt get Teixeira, you were settling for a lot less. If you wanted him, you'd have to pay for him.

On the other hand, there's Cody Ransom. There are dozens of players in the minor leagues who can do everything that Cody Ransom does just as well as Cody Ransom does. Most of them are unproven, but the Cody Ransom standard isn't a very hard one to meet. So Ransom has to settle for a salary close to the minimum -- otherwise the team will find a player who'll play just as well for that much or less, and Ransom gets nothing.

So the most talented make a much higher percentage of what their labor is worth than the least talented do. That's pretty much how it is throughout our society.

Super Chronic: Still, I think you're about 90% right. The teams will charge the most they can reasonably get from the fans, period.

To clarify: what I meant to say is what they can reasonably expect to get from the fans. I'm not trying to say that the ticket prices themselves have to be "reasonable," whatever that would mean.

Larry Mahnken: TomServo24: Arkanaut: What's the median?

That's the more important number, in my opinion. For every A-Rod there's probably 8-10 kids making the league minimum. The 'average' hides the disparity between the haves and have nots.

Well, that's how the free market works.

Talent distribution in MLB isn't like talent distribution for the population as a whole. For the population as a whole, talent is distributed in a bell curve. The majority of people are around average (for a person) at baseball. There are very few people as bad as the worst players in the world, and very few peopele as good as the best players in the world.

MLB is the extreme right end of that bell curve, so there are very few people as good as the best MLB players, but lots and lot of people as good as the worst MLB players.

The best players have other teams competing to sign them, and that competition drives their salaries up towards the maximum a team is willing to invest in them (baseball salaries make a lot more sense when you view them as investments, which they are).

The worst players have other players who are just as good as them competing for very few jobs, and that drives salaries down towards the minimum that someone is willing to work for, or the minimum salary.

Last offseason Mark Teixeira was out there as a free agent. If you didn't sign Teixeira, you could sign Adam Dunn, who is as good as Teixeira with the bat, but is a terrible defensive player. There are of course players as good or better than Teixeira, like Pujols, but Pujols wasn't available. So if you did'nt get Teixeira, you were settling for a lot less. If you wanted him, you'd have to pay for him.

On the other hand, there's Cody Ransom. There are dozens of players in the minor leagues who can do everything that Cody Ransom does just as well as Cody Ransom does. Most of them are unproven, but the Cody Ransom standard isn't a very hard one to meet. So Ransom has to settle for a salary close to the minimum -- otherwise the team will find a player who'll play just as well for that much or less, and Ransom gets nothing.

So the most talented make a much higher percentage of what their labor is worth than the least talented do. That's pretty much how it is throughout our society.

The tl;dr of this is that salaries are non-linear w.r.t to talent. BP did an article on this a while back:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4535

What most people don't realize that Marvin Miller did is this:

He made baseball better.

Before Miller, players had to take whatever the team would give them -- literally, they had essentially no leverage, since they couldn't work for anyone else but the team that first signed them -- and most players had to work jobs in the offseason to support their families. In the early days of Miller's tenure, the biggest issue was the pension, because most players needed it to get by after their careers were over.

With the advent of free agency, players were able to spend more time training in the offseason, become more athletic and skilled, and the quality of baseball as a whole improved.

Now, of course down the road came steroids and the asymmetric growth of revenues in large markets has led to an uneven movement of players to those markets, but still, the quality of baseball being played now is incredible. And Marvin Miller's work had a lot to do with that.

Larry Mahnken: On the other hand, there's Cody Ransom. There are dozens of players in the minor leagues who can do everything that Cody Ransom does just as well as Cody Ransom does.

There were dozens of players in my Little League who could do everything Cody Ransom does.

Arkanaut: What's the median?

It's $1 million.

All you guys crying about taking your family to a baseball game, how much would it be to take a family of four to an NFL game, or an NBA game?

PeeWeePangolin: All you guys crying about taking your family to a baseball game, how much would it be to take a family of four to an NFL game, or an NBA game?

More. Much much more.

People just like to complain about the prices for baseball tickets because they're nostalgic for the days when they could get a red hot, a bottle of suds and box of Cracker Jack for a dime.

Yanks_RSJ: PeeWeePangolin: All you guys crying about taking your family to a baseball game, how much would it be to take a family of four to an NFL game, or an NBA game?

More. Much much more.

People just like to complain about the prices for baseball tickets because they're nostalgic for the days when they could get a red hot, a bottle of suds and box of Cracker Jack for a dime.

And Mickey Mantle would come over and personally fark your sister and/or wife after the game.

PeeWeePangolin: All you guys crying about taking your family to a baseball game, how much would it be to take a family of four to an NFL game, or an NBA game?

I bought 7 seats to the Dallas/Philly game on Christmas Day, what...2 years ago at Texas Stadium? That wasn't cheap and they were in the endzone. I highly doubt I'll ever buy seats to a Boys game at the DeathStar....I've got HD, the bathroom is closer, parking is free and the beer is cheaper.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: PeeWeePangolin: All you guys crying about taking your family to a baseball game, how much would it be to take a family of four to an NFL game, or an NBA game?

I bought 7 seats to the Dallas/Philly game on Christmas Day, what...2 years ago at Texas Stadium? That wasn't cheap and they were in the endzone. I highly doubt I'll ever buy seats to a Boys game at the DeathStar....I've got HD, the bathroom is closer, parking is free and the beer is cheaper.

Really, NFL games aren't so great in person, for all those reasons and because you become acutely aware of how much time is spent doing nothing. I'll go now and again for the ambience if a friend has a ticket or something, but it's not something I go out of my way to do anymore.

Curt Flood anyone?

Flappyhead: Curt Flood anyone?

What about him? He lost.

I mean, I have a great deal of respect for the stand he took, but Miller, Messersmith and McNally are the ones who freed the players from the reserve clause.

mactheknife: It's also another reason why I've not been able to afford to take my family to see a Major League game since the mid-1990's.

Come to Colorado. Rock pile tix = $4 a pop.

And if the players weren't making this money, the owners would just be hoarding it all.

So go players. Get paid!

ElwoodCuse: Larry Mahnken: Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

TV is a bigger cash cow than gate receipts.

Gate receipts don't go into the Revenue Sharing honey pot like the TV money does.

mactheknife: It's also another reason why I've not been able to afford to take my family to see a Major League game since the mid-1990's.

I've not paid more than $12 for an Angels ticket in, well, ever. I sit in the upper deck because I like the perspective of the whole field; I remember when those tickets were $6. So, that's $48 for a family of 4, less if your kids can get discounts. There's no law that says you MUST buy ballpark food or buy a foam finger or any of that. Of course, parents take kids and then pile them full of sugar and foam fingers and Rally Monkey's so they'll shut up and sit still, but again, it's not a given. It costs me the same to go to a ballgame as it does to go to a movie these days.

Of course, what people really mean is "I can't afford to take my family and sit 5 rows behind the dugout after parking in a reserved spot right by the entrance and then once inside, being served premium food by a scantily clad waitress without taking out a loan".

/Love baseball, can't wait for the season to start again
//I will never abandon you baseball, never
///Go Angels

Ball of Confusion: ElwoodCuse: Larry Mahnken: Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

TV is a bigger cash cow than gate receipts.

Gate receipts don't go into the Revenue Sharing honey pot like the TV money does.

Yes it does.

It was the owners' stupidity but Miller played it for all he was worth. Owners wanted no free agency and 'compromised' with limited. Unfortunately for them it artificially skews the market to the demand side. If there were more free agents, not fewer, supply would be greater than demand and the players would be competing for the same jobs and bring salaries back down.

Larry Mahnken: Ball of Confusion: ElwoodCuse: Larry Mahnken: Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

TV is a bigger cash cow than gate receipts.

Gate receipts don't go into the Revenue Sharing honey pot like the TV money does.

Yes it does.

Ok, I was wrong. What about signage?

Ball of Confusion: Larry Mahnken: Ball of Confusion: ElwoodCuse: Larry Mahnken: Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

TV is a bigger cash cow than gate receipts.

Gate receipts don't go into the Revenue Sharing honey pot like the TV money does.

Yes it does.

Ok, I was wrong. What about signage?

All revenues are included in revenue sharing, minus stadium costs.

Crewmannumber6: It was the owners' stupidity but Miller played it for all he was worth. Owners wanted no free agency and 'compromised' with limited. Unfortunately for them it artificially skews the market to the demand side. If there were more free agents, not fewer, supply would be greater than demand and the players would be competing for the same jobs and bring salaries back down.

Unless they mandated that all contracts be only one year, the market would have reached this point by now anyway.

The 3-year reserve and 3-year arbitration period is a good system, anyway. Most players' best six years are their first six years, so it partially mitigates the loss of free agents for smaller market teams.

Isn't that still lower than what the Mets are currently paying Mo Vaughn to sit at home eating chili dogs? I guess Steve Phillips has a thing for fatties of all types.

Larry Mahnken: Ball of Confusion: Larry Mahnken: Ball of Confusion: ElwoodCuse: Larry Mahnken: Salaries have gone up because ticket prices have gone up, or more accurately, because revenues have gone up.

TV is a bigger cash cow than gate receipts.

Gate receipts don't go into the Revenue Sharing honey pot like the TV money does.

Yes it does.

Ok, I was wrong. What about signage?

All revenues are included in revenue sharing, minus stadium costs.

Incidentally, that last clause is why the Yankees are only paying about 3% of the cost of New Yankee Stadium. The rest of the stadium is being paid for by the rest of Major League Baseball, as the costs are deducted from what the Yankees have to put into revenue sharing, and the Yankees get back 1/30th of what they put into revenue sharing (as well as 1/30th of what everyone else puts into revenue sharing).

Crewmannumber6: It was the owners' stupidity but Miller played it for all he was worth. Owners wanted no free agency and 'compromised' with limited. Unfortunately for them it artificially skews the market to the demand side. If there were more free agents, not fewer, supply would be greater than demand and the players would be competing for the same jobs and bring salaries back down.

Love him or hate him, Miller took the owners' greed and played them like a fiddle. You can't help be appreciate that much 0wn@g3.

zarberg: Isn't that still lower than what the Mets are currently paying Mo Vaughn to sit at home eating chili dogs? I guess Steve Phillips has a thing for fatties of all types.

Vaughn's contract ran out in 2004.