PDA

View Full Version : Outrageous MLB Salaries!



camarokids
03-04-2009, 08:13 PM
Manny Ramirez gets $45 Million for 2 Years! CC Sabathia, A-Roid, etc....

One of the problems is certain wealthy owners in MLB allow themselves to be manipulated and end paying these outrageous salaries because they think they have to have a certain player to win.....

Or you have other owners from big market teams that want to outbid everyone else, simply because they can afford to do it....

At the end of the day when any of the owners whine about high salaries, they will have NO ONE to blame but themselves....

Also some players feel entitled, that they deserve to paid as much as the other guy..... which can you blame them????

If the owners would grow a set and refuse to pay these salaries????

Ticket prices and food and everything you buy at the stadiums would be priced somewhat reasonable???

If the Dodgers ownership would have refused to pay up and let MR sit, what kind of message would this send to players????

But then again the Yankee$ have set the precedent by paying out of this galaxy salaries.....

So, where will it stop? Salaries have been out of control and are only getting worse.....

The truly sad part is the game of baseball will end up paying in the long run...

What do you think????

Will baseball end up over pricing themselves????

When the average person cannot afford to go to the games what will happen????

I guess as long as the stadiums are filling up and people pay the ticket prices, it will be business as usual......

gamer35
03-04-2009, 08:57 PM
Manny just completed an 8 year, 160 million contract and this contract is pretty much in line with the last one. If anything, he was the biggest disappointment on the FA in terms of money as he was expecting at least 60M. Teixiera going to the Yanks killed his market.

I dont get people who complain about Manny's salary. Does Teixiera put people in the seats? Do people go "I want to see Mark Teixiera" or CC Sabathia? Heck no. But you can be sure Manny does. This guy is box office gold and the Dodgers know that. He generated an additional $25Mm alone for them during his two month stay with the Dodgers and the RED SOX PAID HIS SALARY!

aeneas01
03-04-2009, 10:23 PM
tom cruise, gerry clooney, leonardo dicaprio, a-list male movie stars, $25 million per film. reese witherspoon, cameron diaz, angeline jolie, a-list female movie stars, $15 million per film.

i'd rather see manny swing a bat for my entertainment buck....

...

kingjammy24
03-04-2009, 11:10 PM
david

you place blame on the players and the owners. where do you suppose they get all the money to pay these "outrageous" salaries? blame the fans. they supply all the money and then cry about how it's spent.

it has nothing to do with "growing a set". fans whine about high ticket prices, as they purchase tickets in record numbers, then they whine about the cost of ballpark food, as they scarf it down. if teams don't spend money, they whine about not having a competitive lineup. insane. why don't fans grow a pair and stop attending games that they feel are too expensive? if fans stopped going to games, what sort of message would that send? this all starts and stops with the real source of the revenue: the fans.

"I guess as long as the stadiums are filling up and people pay the ticket prices, it will be business as usual"

you answered your own question perfectly.

rudy.

suicide_squeeze
03-04-2009, 11:48 PM
david

you place blame on the players and the owners. where do you suppose they get all the money to pay these "outrageous" salaries? blame the fans. they supply all the money and then cry about how it's spent.

it has nothing to do with "growing a set". fans whine about high ticket prices, as they purchase tickets in record numbers, then they whine about the cost of ballpark food, as they scarf it down. if teams don't spend money, they whine about not having a competitive lineup. insane. why don't fans grow a pair and stop attending games that they feel are too expensive? if fans stopped going to games, what sort of message would that send? this all starts and stops with the real source of the revenue: the fans.

"I guess as long as the stadiums are filling up and people pay the ticket prices, it will be business as usual"

you answered your own question perfectly.

rudy.


I think you guys are all kind of missing the big picture.


Fans come to the game because they LOVE the game of baseball, and cherish their home team......and their superstars if they have any.

gamer35 had it right.........Manny is a drawer.....a gold mine to the Dodgers. But there's more to it.

It's not the fans who dictate the salaries paid as much as it is the BIG advertising dollars spent on commercials that fill the ad space during the games. It's BIG bucks, and big business. Why do you think the PLAYERS UNION became so powerful? Because Curt Flood was a stud? Because Andy Messersmith had a good trial lawyer??

No. Because they argued (successfully) the profits being reaped by the owners were obscene, and the players, the ones the fans were coming to see....therefore the ones generating the interest IN THE GAME, (whichin turn sparked BIG interest in the advertisers selling product) rightfully deserved their portion of the profits.

That, folks, is what is driving the professional sports world. It is big BIG advertising business, and the players union a LONG time ago got their hand in the pie.

Simple economics, folks.

Are baseball players overpaid? LOL......Of course! Why do you think some ballplayers want to make it so badly.......even to the point of injecting drugs in their body, with whatever consequenses follow?

Is it ever going to change (the salaries)? Probably not any measurable amount......unless baseball's popularity goes down the tubes.

And in all likelyhood......that just won't happen. It's America's greatest past time, a great game, and the history is just too deeply instilled in our heritage.

kingjammy24
03-05-2009, 12:01 AM
It's not the fans who dictate the salaries paid as much as it is the BIG advertising dollars spent on commercials that fill the ad space during the games...

the only reason advertisers pay big bucks is because they know a lot of fans are watching. the only reason networks pay big bucks to acquire the right to air games is because they know a ton of fans are watching. you can't sell ad space for a premium when noone's watching. it still goes down to the fans. if fans didn't watch it on tv, advertisers wouldn't pay to air commercials and networks wouldn't pay so much to air the games.

follow the dollar backwards from manny and where's it ultimately come from? the consumer.

stop buying the MLB product in all of its forms -> watch MLB revenue plummet -> watch player salaries plummet

until fans start voting with their wallets, nothing will change. its the fans who need to grow a pair. the owners are just spending what the fans have, in some way, shape, or form, given them.

rudy.

ahuff
03-05-2009, 12:20 AM
tom cruise, gerry clooney, leonardo dicaprio, a-list male movie stars, $25 million per film. reese witherspoon, cameron diaz, angeline jolie, a-list female movie stars, $15 million per film.

i'd rather see manny swing a bat for my entertainment buck....

...

I'd rather see Reese Witherspoon swing a bat!

godwulf
03-05-2009, 11:02 AM
stop buying the MLB product in all of its forms -> watch MLB revenue plummet -> watch player salaries plummet

And that would accomplish...what, again?

That would "improve" The Game...how, exactly?

Other posters have expressed it very well, I believe - certain actors get paid as much, or far more, for a single movie (two to three months' in front of a camera, being pampered and massaged between "takes") than certain star Baseball players get for playing 150+ games and bouncing around the country for six months out of the year. Why aren't people getting all up in arms about having to pay $8-10 for a seat at the movies, and complaining about actors' salaries?

I bought a package of game tickets yesterday, for the coming season, and I paid between $12 and $17 per game, for one of my favorite seats in the ballpark. As for concessions, I would pay more for a hot dog or a soda at the movie theatre or the airport...and have you seen what they want for a soda, a beer or a bag of chips at most music concerts these days?

Again, I have to ask...how would trying to cash-starve the owners improve The Game, or our enjoyment of it, one tiny bit?

kingjammy24
03-05-2009, 11:40 AM
"And that would accomplish...what, again?"

it's right there in black and white.."watch player salaries plummet".

"That would "improve" The Game...how, exactly?"

who said anything about improving the game? the OP complained about high ticket prices. the thread is about high salaries, not improving the game. i simply explained one way to ensure a reduction in ticket prices. anyway, for many fans a reduction in ticket prices would "improve" the game.

"Why aren't people getting all up in arms about having to pay $8-10 for a seat at the movies, and complaining about actors' salaries?"

because for $8-10 you can get a front row center seat at the movies. the same seat at a ballpark would cost you $80+. maybe people see a difference between paying $8 and $80?

"Again, I have to ask...how would trying to cash-starve the owners improve The Game, or our enjoyment of it, one tiny bit?"

is it really that difficult to understand? if the owners are cash-starved, they'll reduce costs, including ticket prices. common sense says that people would enjoy The Game more if it didn't cost them so much. imagine sitting behind home plate at yankee stadium for $30. that's not an improvement? that doesn't make the game more enjoyable one tiny bit?

rudy.

cjclong
03-05-2009, 11:57 AM
It will be interesting to see if and how the economy affects the game. When money is tight people have to give up luxuries for necessities. With the Texas Rangers last year the rise in gas prices (along with a losing record, of course) caused attendance to drop. This is not only affecting people at the bottom but also many of the large companies that buy the luxury boxes. I am going to continue to go to games and enjoy baseball, but the huge salaries turn me off. If you think the salaries are not a turn off think about ARod. There are a number of reason people don't like him that have nothing to do with money, but the thing that started it was the $25 million a year salary. If he had gone to the Rangers for $12 million a year do you think he would have become the magnet for anger that he is now. It all started with the $25 million. You can at least make an argument for paying successful people money. But why we pay players who don't hit .200 or pitchers who can't get anybody out millions of dollars is beyond me. One way to fortune is to be an athlete who doesn't produce or a CEO who leads his company to bankruptcy.

earlywynnfan
03-05-2009, 12:08 PM
the only reason advertisers pay big bucks is because they know a lot of fans are watching. the only reason networks pay big bucks to acquire the right to air games is because they know a ton of fans are watching. you can't sell ad space for a premium when noone's watching. it still goes down to the fans. if fans didn't watch it on tv, advertisers wouldn't pay to air commercials and networks wouldn't pay so much to air the games.

rudy.



Did someone just mention soccer??

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

kingjammy24
03-05-2009, 12:38 PM
"It will be interesting to see if and how the economy affects the game."

some teams have already instituted ticket price freezes, incl. the red sox, while others have actually reduced prices.

"If you think the salaries are not a turn off think about ARod. There are a number of reason people don't like him that have nothing to do with money, but the thing that started it was the $25 million a year salary."

i agree that the initial reaction was disgust but that's happened with every big contract for the past 20 years. when canseco became baseball's first $5mm man, people expressed the same disgust as when arod became the a $25mm man. my feeling is people would've eventually gotten over the disgust if a) he would've turned out to be a likeable guy b) he would've delivered the goods (eg: world series appearance) and not continually choked in the post season. from a business perspective, im sure arod was a good investment in terms of putting fans in the stands and drawing eyeballs to the tv. but when you spend $252mm on 1 player and still can't even appear in the world series, then people are going to feel ripped off. so i think the disgust towards arod is a combination of him just naturally being a wanker and also him failing to deliver.

"If he had gone to the Rangers for $12 million a year do you think he would have become the magnet for anger that he is now. It all started with the $25 million."

agreed on both points. boras really set him up with that contract and the "highest paid player" title. of course, it's not boras who has to go up to bat for the next 5 yrs and hit 'em out of the park. boras is laughing all the way to the bank while arod desperately tries to live up to the pressure of being a yankee and the highest paid player. if arod had simply settled for $12mm a year he wouldn't have had so much pressure. of course, arod says the reason he took steroids was because of all the pressure but he's the one who signed up for it in the first place! genius. willingly signs the biggest contract in baseball and then runs to steroids because he's crying about all the pressure he got himself into.

"But why we pay players who don't hit .200 or pitchers who can't get anybody out millions of dollars is beyond me."

supply and demand. apparently it's hard enough to find a guy who can hit .230 in the majors. anyway, a guy who can't hit .200 isn't going to be in the majors long, much less make "millions". i don't see many guys hitting .190 even staying on a major league roster. but i get your point..why pay mediocre players millions...because we pay great players tens of millions? it's all relative.

"One way to fortune is to be an athlete who doesn't produce or a CEO who leads his company to bankruptcy."

amen!

rudy.

camarokids
03-05-2009, 12:53 PM
david

you place blame on the players and the owners. where do you suppose they get all the money to pay these "outrageous" salaries? blame the fans. they supply all the money and then cry about how it's spent.

it has nothing to do with "growing a set". fans whine about high ticket prices, as they purchase tickets in record numbers, then they whine about the cost of ballpark food, as they scarf it down. if teams don't spend money, they whine about not having a competitive lineup. insane. why don't fans grow a pair and stop attending games that they feel are too expensive? if fans stopped going to games, what sort of message would that send? this all starts and stops with the real source of the revenue: the fans.

"I guess as long as the stadiums are filling up and people pay the ticket prices, it will be business as usual"

you answered your own question perfectly.

rudy.

You are right Rudy!

The fans are to blame as well. It has been said before that the fans need to go on strike.

But the problem is there are MILLIONS upon millions of fans.

If any type of strike was organized I am afraid it would be ineffective.

No fans, no TV contracts, no stadium/ticket revenue.......

But, I would have to say in some cases the owners do need to just say NO....

godwulf
03-05-2009, 02:00 PM
[quote=kingjammy24;127635who said anything about improving the game? the OP complained about high ticket prices. the thread is about high salaries, not improving the game. i simply explained one way to ensure a reduction in ticket prices. anyway, for many fans a reduction in ticket prices would "improve" the game.

is it really that difficult to understand? if the owners are cash-starved, they'll reduce costs, including ticket prices. common sense says that people would enjoy The Game more if it didn't cost them so much. imagine sitting behind home plate at yankee stadium for $30. that's not an improvement? that doesn't make the game more enjoyable one tiny bit?[/quote]

I don't know about Yankee Stadium, but here at Chase Field, all the seats behind home plate are reserved for full- and half-season ticket holders. Somebody gave me a seat there once, a couple of years ago, and I took it for about three innings, and then took the elevator upstairs. Nothing but yuppies yakking about business, making cellphone calls, wait staff and vendors standing between you and the game half the time - only maybe one person in ten even watching the game. I've enjoyed root canals more. I can only imagine that in New York, it's, if anything, even worse. You can have those seats.

ahuff
03-05-2009, 03:05 PM
During my basic economics courses, in high school, I learned about supply/demand. In addition I learned how economics is basically a system of votes each time we spend our money. I got to utilize my votes just the other day. The day Cubs single game tickets went on sale I tried my best to order tickets via their website. I finally got through and found tickets. A bit of background . . . Two years ago we went to a Cub game and sat in section 201. Face value of the tickets was $20 x 4 tickets. Though, I paid around $10-15 a ticket just a day or two before the game, from an ebay season ticket holder. (Not a bad deal I must say.)

This season, I was given the choice of sitting in Section 242 (exact same seats just in right field instead of left). When all mandated fees were included, I was somewhere around $65/ticket (though I think it was actually a bit higher). That is a 325% increase in the total amount I would have spent on just tickets (and in only 2 years)!!!!! Sure, some of that is fees that I didn't incur last time, but even the face value of the ticket went to $32 (an increase of 60% in 2 years). Can you imagine if our salaries did the same thing? I can only dream. Well, I figured I would vote for food on my family's table, rather than a Cubbie game. I have a better view watching the game on my TV, anyway.

xpress34
03-05-2009, 03:41 PM
While I agree that ultimately the fan is the 'bottom line' source of revenue, the owners and teams need to be held - at least to extent - accountable to the fans for what they pay for players and what they charge us for tickets.

Why do I have this opinion? Well, at least here in Denver, the Rockies got a sweetheart deal... part of the Expansion Deal in the late 80's / early 90's with MLB included them getting a Baseball Stadium built - not just playing at Mile High.

And yes, the Rockies got one of the most beautiful parks in the majors built - by who? The FANS (i.e. Taxpayers). It didn't cost the team ONE RED DIME... and who collects ALL the revenue the stadium produces??? The OWNERS and the team. The City of Denver collects tax revenue, sure... but the other cities that voted for small sales tax increases to help the 'Stadium Disctrict' get the Stadium built see little to nothing back.

Tax revenues are a given for any business that builds in your city - but for the Tax Payers to finance a stadium that gives them NO return on their investment??? We don't build Wal-Mart's stores for them...

Just my .02 and rant... any other cities in the same boat???

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, incumbent teams (read: BRONCOS) use scare tactics (If we don't get a new stadium, we'll have to move the team) to get votes to have the Tax Payers build their new stadium as well! And again - what did the taxpayers get back? NOTHING. Just the same Tax revenue they were already collecting from Mile High.

aeneas01
03-05-2009, 06:35 PM
does it really matter if manny makes 40 times the national average or 500 times the national average? in either case he will make more in one year playing ball than the average joe will make in his/her entire lifetime. according to the baseball almanac dimaggio pulled in $100,000 in 1941 while the rest of nation was trying to get by on $2,400 (social security wage index history). yet we're told dimaggio played during the golden years when ball players took the field for the love of the game and played for peanuts. sure, dimaggio's pay represented "only" 40 times the national average while manny's pay will represent 500 times the national average. but, honestly, what's the dif when the dust finally settles? when all is said and done both dimaggio and ramirez, like many other well paid professional athletes, will make more in 12 months than the average joe will make in 40 years. to complain that players such as ramirez are making even more than this strikes me as somewhat goofy, know what i mean? if a guy laps your entire lifetime earnings in 12 months complaining about the number of times he's lapped you seems a little pointless imo...

so have baseball tickets really gone through the roof? are ball games no longer accessible to the average joe because of the huge salaries megalomaniacs such as ramirez demand today? seems like a reach to me. in 1964 the average ticket price was $2.25 while average income was $4,600. in 2009 the average ticket price will be $25 (or so) while average income is estimated at $45,000. using these figures ticket prices have increased 14% since 1964 - 14% in 45 years. this doesn't strike me as something out of control - in fact it strikes me as roughly the same deal it was almost 50 years ago. quite a bargain.

it would seem that baseball has never been more accessible nor more affordable than today - especially when one considers the enormous amount of alternative access fans now have. in 1964 you were pretty much looking at going to the park, listening to the game on the radio or reading about it in the paper the next day. but today fans can follow any game, pitch by pitch, on the internet while listening to the radio stream of the game in another browser - or fans can pretty much tune into any game they want on the tube with the mlb package. yet fans continue to complain that they're being squeezed out, that baseball is becoming less and less accessible. because of the manny's of the world. crazy daze...

...

kingjammy24
03-05-2009, 07:39 PM
i'm always a sucker for an economics discussion.

chris: i'd rather hold fans accountable for what they agree to pay than owners for what they try to charge. a ticket only costs a certain amount once it's actually been bought and paid for. that said, i agree that the notion of taxpayers funding ballparks is unfair. but again, it goes back to the fan's cries that a team is part of the fabric of a city, part of the character of a city. it's not just a walmart. its a part of the city's history and makeup. so apparently, the government sometimes subsidizes it lest they hear it from the fans when the team moves to another city.

robert: it's true that ultimately you reach a point where it's all just monopoly money and it doesn't matter whether it's $30mm/yr or $130mm/yr; the point is it's more than you can possibly spend. sure the dimaggio's of any era never wanted for much but you wonder how the different eras compare in terms of the lesser-known players. i once saw a really great documentary about the brooklyn dodgers. a part of it discussed how many of the players lived in middle-class neighborhoods and during the off-season, many had to get regular jobs, including selling appliances or doing manual labor. the 2009 MLB min. salary is $400k. the absolute worst player in all of baseball will make at least $400k. unless you go insane with it, $400k is enough not to necessitate an off-season job selling stereos. here's an amusing photo. the top home is arod's (one of them). the bottom is mantle in front of his home, in 1956, well after he'd already "made it" in the bigs:
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/8030/mantle.jpg

i know the mantle pic may be deceptive as we can't see how far mantle's house wraps around ;)

anyway, i thought your baseball ticket figures were interesting. in real, inflation-adjusted 2002 dollars, an average ticket in 1964 was $13.01. in 1997, the average ticket in real 2002 dollars was $13.51. when correctly adjusted, ticket prices really haven't exploded. (in 1988, the price was $8.97!). what has genuinely exploded are player salaries. in 1964, the avg salary, in real, adjusted 2002 dollars, was $85,909. in the same real, adjusted 2002 dollars, in 1997 it was $1,472,150. so much for the common knee-jerk reaction that player salaries are behind ticket price increases.

in the 1949, dimaggio made $100k. in adjusted 2002 dollars, that would be about $755k. not even the major league minimum in 2009. baseball revenue has exploded, player salaries have exploded, but ticket prices, as you say, have pretty much stayed the same. the game today is no less affordable than it was in the 50s and 60s.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5537/sillyo.jpg

what i hope this does is finally dispel this common myth that a) ticket prices are exploding out of control and b) ticket prices are a result of player salaries.

in 1929, the average MLB payroll 35.3% of total team revenue. in 1990, it was 33.4%. meaning in 1990, the average MLB team spent less on player salaries than they did in 1929.

i remember in 1990 when i could get the best seat in the house for $20. the problem is i was also making a hell of a lot less back then. i think people are looking at old prices in the context of their current salaries.

rudy.

kingjammy24
03-05-2009, 10:13 PM
Somebody gave me a seat there once, a couple of years ago, and I took it for about three innings, and then took the elevator upstairs. Nothing but yuppies...I can only imagine that in New York, it's, if anything, even worse. You can have those seats.

yuppies!?! when did they start letting yuppies into ballparks?! sweet merciful jesus. what's next..minorities? homosexuals?

and you're right about NYC!! oh man..wall to wall yuppies over there. them and their 26 world championships...did i ever tell you about the time i went to some yuppie party out in the 'burbs? they served salsa and when i asked them where it was made, they said NYC!!!! what the f.?! that's not salsa!! that's when i whipped out my Pace Thick 'N Chunky and showed them what was up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxnieYctVM

i bet you tough guys over in PHX serve Pace Thick 'N Chunky! nothing but real salsa and seats in the nosebleed section!

rudy.

aeneas01
03-06-2009, 04:36 AM
robert: it's true that ultimately you reach a point where it's all just monopoly money and it doesn't matter whether it's $30mm/yr or $130mm/yr; the point is it's more than you can possibly spend. sure the dimaggio's of any era never wanted for much....

exactly what i was pointing out - but to take it a step further you would think any ball player that makes more money in 12 months than the average fan will make in his entire lifetime would be the target of the same sort of criticism that seems to be reserved for ramirez. yet every player that makes $2,000,000 per year or more qualifies - heck 1/3 of the guys on the woeful pittsburgh pirates roster (sadly, my team) make $2,000,000 or more. apparently fans are ok with players that equal the fan's lifetime salary in just one season but draw the line when a player makes 5-10 times this amount. because, of course, that's obscene. mama mia...


...but you wonder how the different eras compare in terms of the lesser-known players. i once saw a really great documentary about the brooklyn dodgers. a part of it discussed how many of the players lived in middle-class neighborhoods and during the off-season, many had to get regular jobs, including selling appliances or doing manual labor. the 2009 MLB min. salary is $400k. the absolute worst player in all of baseball will make at least $400k. unless you go insane with it, $400k is enough not to necessitate an off-season job selling stereos.

gotta love unions... i was never a fan of nolan ryan until after i saw him interviewed years ago. he mentioned the days when he was forced to pump gas during the winter to make ends meet when he played for the mets. he went on to say that his work with the mlbpa was his most important, meaningful contribution to the game. of course ryan went on to make close to 200 times the national average in 1992 - $4.2 million that year compared the $22,900 the rest of the nation was averaging...


anyway, i thought your baseball ticket figures were interesting. in real, inflation-adjusted 2002 dollars, an average ticket in 1964 was $13.01. in 1997, the average ticket in real 2002 dollars was $13.51. when correctly adjusted, ticket prices really haven't exploded. (in 1988, the price was $8.97!). what has genuinely exploded are player salaries. in 1964, the avg salary, in real, adjusted 2002 dollars, was $85,909. in the same real, adjusted 2002 dollars, in 1997 it was $1,472,150. so much for the common knee-jerk reaction that player salaries are behind ticket price increases.

exactly - very tough to argue that ticket prices have severely outpaced a fan's income during the past 50 years. as far as skyrocketing mlb growth trends are concerned, soaring club values deserve a prominent place in your graph!


in the 1949, dimaggio made $100k. in adjusted 2002 dollars, that would be about $755k. not even the major league minimum in 2009. baseball revenue has exploded, player salaries have exploded, but ticket prices, as you say, have pretty much stayed the same. the game today is no less affordable than it was in the 50s and 60s.

imo you can't use cpi driven inflation models for this debate, i.e. $12,100 worth of goods in 1949 would cost $100,000 in 2007. imo you have to use a wage or gdp index when attempting to compare incomes - for example when a gdp model is used dimaggio's annual salary works out to around $5 million in 2009 dollars. this strikes me as somewhat more accurate given that dimaggio's 1949 salary was about 15 times the 1949 median home price. a 2002 salary of $755k would to equate to only 4 times the 2002 median home price. but, to your point, still nowhere near the dollars other mlb stars are currently pulling in.


what i hope this does is finally dispel this common myth that a) ticket prices are exploding out of control and b) ticket prices are a result of player salaries.

in 1929, the average MLB payroll 35.3% of total team revenue. in 1990, it was 33.4%. meaning in 1990, the average MLB team spent less on player salaries than they did in 1929.

i agree - this should put to rest the notion that the manny's of the world are pushing ticket prices beyond what john q. public can afford. but i think your labor ratios are a little low - i thought the figure was around 50%. but ratios can be very misleading - just because ratios are up doesn't mean hard profit dollars are down.

in my past life as a numbers guy for hotels and resorts everything was tied to ratios - food cost ratios, labor ratios, cost of goods ratios, profit ratios, casino drop ratios, housekeeping ratios, etc., etc., etc. - the culture was such that management focused more on ratios than the dollars that were hitting the bank. i mean it was so bad that food and beverage directors and executive chefs would shoot down expensive dishes like beluga caviar or fresh abalone flown in because the cost ratio was above 55% and they were shooting for a 32% food cost, which their bonuses were tied to. what was lost in this ratio madness was that the hard dollars brought to bottom line was more on these 55%+ food cost items than it was on many of the 30% food cost items. go figure...

...

godwulf
03-06-2009, 10:52 AM
yuppies!?! when did they start letting yuppies into ballparks?! sweet merciful jesus. what's next..blah blah blah etc

So I'm bothered by self-important people who go to the ballpark to socialize and be seen, and dare to suggest that there just might be some of those folks in N.Y., and now I'm John Rocker. :rolleyes:

Dude, you've got problems.

kingjammy24
03-06-2009, 11:20 AM
gotta love unions... i was never a fan of nolan ryan until after i saw him interviewed years ago. he mentioned the days when he was forced to pump gas during the winter to make ends meet when he played for the mets. he went on to say that his work with the mlbpa was his most important, meaningful contribution to the game.

what i love is this idea that a workforce comprised almost entirely of multi-millionaires needs a union! the average MLB salary is $3mm. a man making $3mm needs a union to protect him from..what? oppressive working conditions? unfair and low pay? MLB players..right there in solidarity with their minimum wage union brethren. anyway, yes i remember the curt flood case where flood said that he may be highly paid but he's a highly paid slave because a team can ship him whereever they want, whenever they want, without his choice. curt had a choice; he could quit baseball. aren't we all pretty much wage slaves? the only difference is most of us aren't paid $3mm/yr. for $3mm/yr, i would be more than happy for an MLB team to ship my ass wherever, whenever and i wouldn't raise a peep. ship my ass to kansas city! as long as that $3mm/yr check cashes, i'm a happy guy. anyway, i find it deplorable and dehumanizing that poor nolan had to pump gas in the offseason. thank god the union stepped in and ended the barbaric need for off-season jobs.

rudy.

aeneas01
03-06-2009, 06:10 PM
what i love is this idea that a workforce comprised almost entirely of multi-millionaires needs a union! the average MLB salary is $3mm. a man making $3mm needs a union to protect him from..what? oppressive working conditions? unfair and low pay? MLB players..right there in solidarity with their minimum wage union brethren.

yeah, the notion of multi-millionaire athletes represented by a union is pretty goofy - but i'm fairly certain baseball players weren't the multi-millionaires they are today when the union was formed. in fact the average starting salary for a mlb player was about 15% higher than what the average joe made in 1966. no wonder ryan pumped gas in new jersey during his early days with the metropolitans! and, needless to say, the history books aren't replete with examples of unions voluntarily disbanding once their initial demands are met - they seem more agreeable to sticking around.

...

dodgersfan
03-09-2009, 12:48 PM
Check this out,how long it takes Manny Ramirez to earn your wages.



http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/salary/index?athleteId=3951623




Rudy