Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

[Matthias]

78 million people attended MLB games, while just 17 million attended NFL games.

The attendance potential for MLB baseball far outweighs the NFL's potential for obvious reasons.

So, can I also discount the obvious revenue and franchise value potential that the NFL has? Free minor leagues and a cojones-less player's union explains far more of the NFL "success" in those areas than any debate about spending and salary caps.

Trading spitballs about what financial measure is a better metric for the NFL vs MLB is basically a fruitless exercise. You were kvetching earlier in the thread about comparing the broadcast of a best-of-7 championship versus the broadcast of a one-and-done and now you're trying to compare metrics which are riddled with much more in the way of systematic bias.

At the end of the day, whether or not you choose to accept it, football has replaced baseball in the minds of the American public as the preeminent sport. I think the best objective evidence of this is the same-to-same comparison of WS viewership versus SB viewership but there's tons of anecdotal evidence as well. Perhaps this is due to football's parity; perhaps this is due to the nature of the game and changing viewership; I'm not sure. But saying more people went to baseball games than football games last year doesn't really move any argument along.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

Does the NFL have higher revenue potential? I doubt it based solely on the number of games played. In every other aspect the sports should have equal opportunity to generate revenue and the only area I can think of where MLB has excelled (compared to the NFL) is in the international market. And if you want to be a cynic, that wasn't even their own doing.

No, it doesn't have higher revenue potential, and MLB has now basically caught up and matches the NFL in revenue.

But, the NFL does have higher profit (and thus franchise value) potential because they broke the union and freeload on college football (which they can do because baseball's a much harder sport for player development).

[GotowarMissAgnes]

Trading spitballs about what financial measure is a better metric for the NFL vs MLB is basically a fruitless exercise. You were kvetching earlier in the thread about comparing the broadcast of a best-of-7 championship versus the broadcast of a one-and-done and now you're trying to compare metrics which are riddled with much more in the way of systematic bias.

At the end of the day, whether or not you choose to accept it, football has replaced baseball in the minds of the American public as the preeminent sport. I think the best objective evidence of this is the same-to-same comparison of WS viewership versus SB viewership but there's tons of anecdotal evidence as well. Perhaps this is due to football's parity; perhaps this is due to the nature of the game and changing viewership; I'm not sure. But saying more people went to baseball games than football games last year doesn't really move any argument along.

And neither does saying football has replaced baseball in the minds of Americans as the preeminent sport. That's based almost exclusively on one poll asking people what their favorite sport is. It does not tell how many people follow each sport, or what the intensity of that interest is, or many other things. A more complete discussion--what you seem to regard as spitballing--would recognize numerous other parts of this issue. For example, polls often represent what people like to say rather than how they actually behave. People's behavior, as measured by revenue and attendance, for example, tells another or different part of the story. TV ratings tells another part of the story. Web page hits or fantasy sport participation might tell another part of the story.

I would argue that getting deeper into these types of issuse is the ONLY thing that moves the issue along, rather than debating hypotheticals that have no basis in reality.

[Amazinz]

But, the NFL does have higher profit (and thus franchise value) potential because they broke the union...

No this is not the case. The "weak" union does not give the NFL higher profit potential. It could potentially depending on the cap but it isn't what has occurred and it only affects the top tier player. The percentage of league revenue that goes to the players is HIGHER in the NFL. Last year MLB players received 52% and the NFL cap was set somewhere around 60%.

[AussieDodger]

As a fan of one of the cheapie teams, I would say that the cheapies are worse for the sport. Does it suck to see two rivals spend $150 million plus on payroll? Yea it does as a fan of a small market team, but if I were owner and had the cash, I would definitely be putting the best team on the field that I could buy. There is nothing wrong rebuilding a franchise like the Orioles of 08, but by no means should a owner let a franchise and city suffer in the craptacular for many years just to pocket some cash.

I concur doctor.

Axing parasitic teams like Yoda said is an interesting idea
I would also like the A's to move to Las Vegas

[KCollins1304]

As a fan of one of the cheapie teams, I would say that the cheapies are worse for the sport. Does it suck to see two rivals spend $150 million plus on payroll? Yea it does as a fan of a small market team, but if I were owner and had the cash, I would definitely be putting the best team on the field that I could buy. There is nothing wrong rebuilding a franchise like the Orioles of 08, but by no means should a owner let a franchise and city suffer in the craptacular for many years just to pocket some cash.

I concur doctor.

Axing parasitic teams like Yoda said is an interesting idea
I would also like the A's to move to Las Vegas

They're already moving to Fremont

[GotowarMissAgnes]

But, the NFL does have higher profit (and thus franchise value) potential because they broke the union...

No this is not the case. The "weak" union does not give the NFL higher profit potential. It could potentially depending on the cap but it isn't what has occurred and it only affects the top tier player. The percentage of league revenue that goes to the players is HIGHER in the NFL. Last year MLB players received 52% and the NFL cap was set somewhere around 60%.

Percentage of revenue comparisons tell you nothing. The question is what would the cost structure of the NFL be if they had a stronger player's union and how that would impact profitability and franchise value. Player compensation is only one part of player expenses, and player expenses are only one thing that would change under a stronger union.

[kab21]

I can understand why there is a desire to compare the NFL and the MLB, but they are very different. Starting with gauranteed contracts vs non-gauranteed contracts. Or that the MLB has 6 yrs of cost controlled years for a player, this is a huge advantage to parity. Smart teams are able to buyout an additional 1-2 yrs of FA (except with Scott Boras). The player development system is dramatically different.

If anything I would like the MLB to move closer to the NBA with a soft salary cap enforced by a luxury tax that had more bite. I think only one team other than the Yankees has paid the luxury tax limit and it was a very small amount (I might be wrong though). I would also like there to be a non-mandatory salary floor that disqualified a team from revenue sharing. If you aren't spending the revenue sharing money you shouldn't get it. That's the whole point of revenue sharing is to enable the smaller market teams to be able to compete. Overall I don't think the system is that bad. Sure you can complain about the Royals and Pirates being bad forever, but so have the Lions. It's not because they don't have enough money, but because they have made bad decisions.

[BronXBombers51]

Is there actually a way to ensure that the small market teams put the money from revenue sharing back into the team? I'm not sure how it's possible to facilitate that.

[Amazinz]

But, the NFL does have higher profit (and thus franchise value) potential because they broke the union...

No this is not the case. The "weak" union does not give the NFL higher profit potential. It could potentially depending on the cap but it isn't what has occurred and it only affects the top tier player. The percentage of league revenue that goes to the players is HIGHER in the NFL. Last year MLB players received 52% and the NFL cap was set somewhere around 60%.

Percentage of revenue comparisons tell you nothing. The question is what would the cost structure of the NFL be if they had a stronger player's union and how that would impact profitability and franchise value. Player compensation is only one part of player expenses, and player expenses are only one thing that would change under a stronger union.

You're making the assumption that the MLB players' union creates a higher cost structure for the MLB than the NFL players' union creates for the NFL. This is something we do not know. What we do know is that in the area where the union has the largest affect on cost structure (labor costs) the cost structure is comparable.

Overall I don't think the system is that bad. Sure you can complain about the Royals and Pirates being bad forever, but so have the Lions. It's not because they don't have enough money, but because they have made bad decisions.

My problem with it is that I think baseball has some dark days looming on the horizon. The interest in baseball seems to be dwindling with each generation here in the U.S. The international market is offsetting it to some degree but not enough in my opinion. This is not entirely the fault of baseball's system. Attention spans seem to be dwindling with each generation as well. I don't think that making the Pirates or Royals good teams matters for the long term health of baseball but I do think that creating the perception of parity would go a long way toward reinvigorating the fan bases of many teams. This would be a good thing for the long term health of the game.