Tavish wrote:Bloody Sox wrote:My apologies for not having time to read through the rest of this thread before responding... but while I agree that there is a competitive disadvantage for many teams, to some extent it is of those team's own doing and/or their fanbases. Why do I say this? As someone pointed out on Page 1, think of ticket prices. The reason a team like the Red Sox has such as high payroll has a LOT more to do with the fact that their fanbase is willing to spend a LOT more than other teams. It is a myth that Boston is a "large market" - the greater metro Boston area is no bigger than a lot of major metropolises (Minnesota-St.Paul comes to mind), yet they can sustain a larger payroll because their fan base pays higher ticket prices, packs the stadium every night, watches every game on TV, etc.
Boston has the second largest single-team metropolitan area in baseball behind Philly. The metro area of Boston in 2000 was 5.8 million. The Twins metro area is 2.9 million. Even the Philly market is within 125 miles of NYC, Washington DC, and Baltimore.
According to the 2006 Census, the Boston metro area had 4.45 M people, behind Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Washington DC, Detroit, Philly, Miami, and of course, NY, LA, and Chicago. And not far ahead of San Fran and Phoenix.
I'm not arguing that there are not competitive inequities that need to be addressed by MLB. There certainly are, and they should focus on revenue drivers for teams, which are based primarily on local populations (within reasonable driving distances of stadiums as well as within reach of local TV) and how wealthy those populations are. The fact that one team can't draw as many fans or another team has "bandwagon fans" nationwide (which by the way contribute zero to the bottom line since licensing and national TV revenues do not go to bottom line of the team of interest) should not really enter the equation.