3 ms·

The difference was that in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, baseball players (for example) made between $5,000 and $100,000 a year. Even with inflation, that's nowhere cl

by xxpor 9y ago

The difference was that in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, baseball players (for example) made between $5,000 and $100,000 a year. Even with inflation, that's nowhere close to the $500,000 to $30 million they make today.

QAPereo 9y ago
Great, I’m fine with that. While we’re at it can taxpayers stop paying for stadiums?
- majormajor 9y ago
  You're gonna need more rational / less worried taxpayers for that one. ;)
majormajor 9y ago
The cause and effect is backwards here. Player salaries haven't driven up the cost of broadcasting. Being able to make money from broadcasts has driven up player salaries. And the biggest change was the move to cable subscriber fees for dedicated sports networks in addition to pure ad-revenue supported OTA broadcasts (with the NFL being a bit of an exception, as the infrequency of the games and the overlapping times makes its OTA broadcasts much more valuable than other leagues'). The bigger a subscriber fee you can charge as a cable channel -> the more you can bid on the rights for the local team -> the more the team receives -> the more the team can bid on players.
- xxpor 9y ago
  I think we agree here. Your analysis is correct in how it got to be this way, but my point is that it's basically impossible to reverse the situation. If you get rid of your team's TV contract, you'll never sign another free agent ever again. Even if every MLB team colluded to get rid of the TV contracts, the NPB and KBO would become the new MLB.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    It's not impossible. The CBAs in the capped leagues aren't going to grow the cap as much. In cases like the MLB, you'll just see a larger separation between owners willing to lose a lot of money and those not willing. Some of the MLB TV contracts (like Fox Sports Southwest for the Rangers) are for 20 years and the MLB doesn't even give them global streaming rights. It'll be the TV companies not upping their bids as high next go round. In the meantime, they will milk it for all they can, and you see more innovative and subtle ad placement (compared to traditional commercials and signage) already as a result of this. Also, just this past week, ESPN sucked up all of these regional Fox channels and are on the hook for these contracts. There is a real bubble in sports salaries right now, and it won't be supported by viewer eyeballs forever.

by xxpor 9y ago

QAPereo 9y ago

Great, I’m fine with that. While we’re at it can taxpayers stop paying for stadiums?

majormajor 9y ago
You're gonna need more rational / less worried taxpayers for that one. ;)

majormajor 9y ago

The cause and effect is backwards here. Player salaries haven't driven up the cost of broadcasting. Being able to make money from broadcasts has driven up player salaries. And the biggest change was the move to cable subscriber fees for dedicated sports networks in addition to pure ad-revenue supported OTA broadcasts (with the NFL being a bit of an exception, as the infrequency of the games and the overlapping times makes its OTA broadcasts much more valuable than other leagues'). The bigger a subscriber fee you can charge as a cable channel -> the more you can bid on the rights for the local team -> the more the team receives -> the more the team can bid on players.

xxpor 9y ago
I think we agree here. Your analysis is correct in how it got to be this way, but my point is that it's basically impossible to reverse the situation. If you get rid of your team's TV contract, you'll never sign another free agent ever again. Even if every MLB team colluded to get rid of the TV contracts, the NPB and KBO would become the new MLB.
- kodablah 9y ago
  It's not impossible. The CBAs in the capped leagues aren't going to grow the cap as much. In cases like the MLB, you'll just see a larger separation between owners willing to lose a lot of money and those not willing. Some of the MLB TV contracts (like Fox Sports Southwest for the Rangers) are for 20 years and the MLB doesn't even give them global streaming rights. It'll be the TV companies not upping their bids as high next go round. In the meantime, they will milk it for all they can, and you see more innovative and subtle ad placement (compared to traditional commercials and signage) already as a result of this. Also, just this past week, ESPN sucked up all of these regional Fox channels and are on the hook for these contracts. There is a real bubble in sports salaries right now, and it won't be supported by viewer eyeballs forever.