3 ms·

> The team sold for 8 times what he originally paid, not because of anything he had done, but just because television contracts for the entire league had become

> The team sold for 8 times what he originally paid, not because of anything he had done, but just because television contracts for the entire league had become so much more lucrative over that time. And what about your part in this play? The brand is valuable because of its fans. I assume you continued to support this brand, and by extension, this man you seem to despise. People like yourself directly contributed to his wealth — you might just as well not have.

philosopher1234 5y ago
And thus… the system isn’t flawed? We can criticize the system and the rich without needing to apologize for it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sombremesa 5y ago
  You’re right. The “system” is flawed. The poor knowingly enrich the wealthy and then whine about it. Seems to be happening more and more nowadays.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    What is the alternative? Give up on all sports teams? Give up on all goods altogether? I think the point people are making is that the system in general is so rigged and there are so many bad actors that it’s basically impossible to find something else that is more ethically managed while getting a very similar good/service/whatever. Do I support the US giving Israel billions every year that then gets used to kill and rule over Palestinians? Nope but I still have to pay my taxes! If I decided to not pay because of that, I’d go to jail. So even though I’d like to not support such a system, the effects of not supporting such a system are too much of a cost for myself. (In the same way for others with goods or services or whatever - penalty for non-participation in whatever is too high)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
delusional 5y ago
I think the point is that if the team got more valuable while he owned it, it certainly wasn't from his contribution. Maybe that money should go to the people who actually did the work that made it more valuable. They aren't saying the team shouldn't exist, or be more valuable. They're saying he shouldn't get the reward, just because he was the capitalist at the top.
nonameiguess 5y ago
First, this isn't true. The MLB operates like socialism for the owners. The value of the television contracts are overwhelmingly due to a very small number of franchises, but the revenue is split between all owners to subsidize markets with small fanbases. So you don't need to directly support a specific team for the owner of that team to get rich anyway. This is effectively why rich people bother to buy teams like the Marlins and Rays, gut the entire roster, get by paying the minimum payroll the league collective bargaining agreement allows playing to empty stadiums with no fans, and sell for a profit anyway. Second, I haven't lived in Los Angeles for a long time and have never bothered to pay for any sort of subscription service that allows me to watch the games anyway because they tend to air well past my bedtime, so no, the value of MLB and LAD television contracts is not in any way directly contributed to by me personally.
- sombremesa 5y ago
  When I said "your", I was really talking about the group "lifelong Los Angeles Dodgers fans", and you seemed to include yourself in that group. However, you raise a good point that people in the same group exhibit different behavior and values.

philosopher1234 5y ago

And thus… the system isn’t flawed? We can criticize the system and the rich without needing to apologize for it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sombremesa 5y ago
You’re right. The “system” is flawed. The poor knowingly enrich the wealthy and then whine about it. Seems to be happening more and more nowadays.
- bradlys 5y ago
  What is the alternative? Give up on all sports teams? Give up on all goods altogether? I think the point people are making is that the system in general is so rigged and there are so many bad actors that it’s basically impossible to find something else that is more ethically managed while getting a very similar good/service/whatever. Do I support the US giving Israel billions every year that then gets used to kill and rule over Palestinians? Nope but I still have to pay my taxes! If I decided to not pay because of that, I’d go to jail. So even though I’d like to not support such a system, the effects of not supporting such a system are too much of a cost for myself. (In the same way for others with goods or services or whatever - penalty for non-participation in whatever is too high)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

delusional 5y ago

I think the point is that if the team got more valuable while he owned it, it certainly wasn't from his contribution. Maybe that money should go to the people who actually did the work that made it more valuable. They aren't saying the team shouldn't exist, or be more valuable. They're saying he shouldn't get the reward, just because he was the capitalist at the top.

nonameiguess 5y ago

First, this isn't true. The MLB operates like socialism for the owners. The value of the television contracts are overwhelmingly due to a very small number of franchises, but the revenue is split between all owners to subsidize markets with small fanbases. So you don't need to directly support a specific team for the owner of that team to get rich anyway. This is effectively why rich people bother to buy teams like the Marlins and Rays, gut the entire roster, get by paying the minimum payroll the league collective bargaining agreement allows playing to empty stadiums with no fans, and sell for a profit anyway. Second, I haven't lived in Los Angeles for a long time and have never bothered to pay for any sort of subscription service that allows me to watch the games anyway because they tend to air well past my bedtime, so no, the value of MLB and LAD television contracts is not in any way directly contributed to by me personally.

sombremesa 5y ago
When I said "your", I was really talking about the group "lifelong Los Angeles Dodgers fans", and you seemed to include yourself in that group. However, you raise a good point that people in the same group exhibit different behavior and values.