This week I attended my first Diamondbacks game of the season, and I had trouble spotting the crowd. At the end of the game the announcer thanked the fans for coming, and I wondered how many seats had to be empty before he would instead command us to bring our friends to the next game.
That same night Brewers owner Mark Attanasio commented on how the large salaries of the Yankees make it difficult to resign Prince Fielder, the Brewers’ star. Yankees president Randy Levine responded that, through revenue sharing, the Yankees help pay Fielder to play for the Brewers. Because the Diamondbacks are also helped, I wondered: Should successful teams really pay for stars to entertain empty stadiums?
My initial thought was the integrity of the game, but I managed to remind myself that professional baseball is entertainment. If New York fans love baseball more than we Phoenicians do, why shouldn’t all the stars play there? The more I contemplated the question, the more I came to a horrifying conclusion — the Yankees should buy every other team in baseball.
It’s the Yankees because they currently have the most money of any team. But baseball cannot optimize its profits while under such diverse management. Currently, low-market teams sign deals with the league to get revenue sharing money even if they entertain the fans less overall. A single owner could assign players to each team to create the optimal mix of parity. The benefits of competitive games could be balanced by the expenses of employing stars where fans are not interested.
The Red Sox and Yankees would and should continue to have the best players because fans are more interested in those places than in smaller markets. The owner could still build a star’s connection with a certain city, such as Joe Mauer with the Twins, to keep interest alive. Maybe the owner decides to just play minor league talent, with very low salaries, for the Diamondbacks instead of using the money from other teams to keep big stars. Without separate owners pulling for their teams over others, better decisions about entertainment value could be made.
This would also allow the appropriate number of teams to exist. Maybe Phoenix and Houston could share a team with Las Vegas. A third of the games at each site would increase average attendance as well as TV audience, with three cities rooting for the same team. This would also make it more important for that team to be successful, and could lead to interesting small-market collective versus passionate metropolis matchups.
I’m not saying these specific ideas would be sustainable or that fans would stay interested under such schemes. But revenue sharing and small market owners ensure stars and money are directed to teams like the Diamondbacks, even when they could please fans more on the Yankees. Having a single owner would allow Major League Baseball to deliver a better product to the fans at the same cost. That’s what business is all about.
Reach Ben at bjmorin@asu.edu
