How do MLB teams turn a profit?

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

NBA more popular than MLB... 
laugh.gif
 *(Only on NT)
Click to expand...
You talking America or worldwide?
Click to expand...
America.
Baseball is bigger in certain areas internationally (Latin America, Japan), while basketball is bigger in others (Europe, China).  It's really hard to gauge.
Click to expand...
How is it hard to gauge though?

Setting soccer aside (obviously), in regards to sports with world-wide appeal, basketball is wildly popular in China, Europe, Australia and Africa. All places where baseball doesn't even register a blip on the radar.

As for baseball, all you need to know is that it doesn't even have an international competition outside the Little League World Series and the World Baseball Classic, which nobody cares about and has been held twice. It was eliminated from the Olympics after only five Olympiads. Kind of kills the argument, don't ya think.
 
Originally Posted by Weaponry Expert
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Considering I asked somebody to break it down for me and stated in my post that I didn't understand I thought it was a given that I didn't know much about the subject. Y'all are ridiculous. 


You started off your question with that Baseball has a lack of interest and popularity. Thats where i just stopped reading
Like dude said...

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Probably the quickest most intelligent thread backfire I've witnessed...
laugh.gif

Baseball/MLB is turning robust profits.

NBA more popular than MLB... 
laugh.gif
 *(Only on NT)
Click to expand...
Only on NT have i seen that hate the whole sport of baseball... I've never heard anyone else outside of NT hate on baseball the way people do here.... Dudes coming with the "YES baseball season is OVER!" type responses... 

They buy players because they can afford to. Merchandising, ticket sales, TV, partnerships all that comes into play. 

There is no need for a break down of all their financial endovrs... they spend money cause they can afford to.. Just because NT , along with yourself do not take a liking to baseball.. doesnt mean its not popular... NT is def in the minority in this one. 
 
Originally Posted by Weaponry Expert

Serious question. 
With the salaries they pay their players, the low attendance, lack of popularity, etc. how do owners even make money? It doesn't make sense to me.

Votto getting 225 milion and some pitcher getting 127 million made me wonder. Baseball is the 3rd most popular sport in this country at best and MLB pays its players way more than the NFL or NBA does. Marlins home games have like 200 people in the stands. Other than the Yanks, Red Sox, Cubs, etc most other teams have terrible attendance too so they can't be making money off ticket sales. Other than the hardcore MLB fans the average person isn't that interested. Since nobody watches it they can't be making that much money on advertising. 

Somebody break it down please.
Click to expand...
Everything in this post is obviously false or an opinion based on conjecture or (NT) popular opinion. It doesn't really take a whole lot of research to find out attendance data, TV ratings and financial data to inform yourself before making such an asinine post.
 
Or common sense that a business doesn't spend money of it doesn't either have it or the assets to back it up
 
Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

You talking America or worldwide?
Click to expand...
America.
Baseball is bigger in certain areas internationally (Latin America, Japan), while basketball is bigger in others (Europe, China).  It's really hard to gauge.
Click to expand...
How is it hard to gauge though?

Setting soccer aside (obviously), in regards to sports with world-wide appeal, basketball is wildly popular in China, Europe, Australia and Africa. All places where baseball doesn't even register a blip on the radar.

As for baseball, all you need to know is that it doesn't even have an international competition outside the Little League World Series and the World Baseball Classic, which nobody cares about and has been held twice. It was eliminated from the Olympics after only five Olympiads. Kind of kills the argument, don't ya think.
Click to expand...
True, but that does not mean MLB is not generating revenues in these markets.

In China and Europe, especially, MLB merchandise is a sought after fashion item, and the league earns tremendous sums from the sale of baseball caps and t-shirts-- even if European and Asian consumers haven't the slightest clue what team they are wearing. This point was mentioned by Rob Manfred (MLB Exec) at the MIT SSAC this year. (Furthermore, as anecdotal evidence from my time in both regions, I found that MLB hats were as prevalent there as they are in North America.)
 
Wow...for once an easy question on NT.

It's television contracts. That's how they make money. Merchandise, ticket revenue, food vendors, parking, etc. is just gravy thrown on top.
 
Wait, so the Astros benefit from the big spenders luxury tax withholdings? Not sure if serious.

Other than that I agree with the consensus, tv & ad money rule.
 
The explosion of new media and TV, and new stadiums handed by taxpayers. Beyond the other factors already discussed here.

MLB team payrolls went on a slow gradual climb for about 100 years. That stopped when the agents got smart, the teams had to adjust, and new revenue streams had to be found.

What resulted was this:


1995 Top team payrolls:
$49,791,500 - Toronto
$46,657,016 - New York Yankees
$45,199,000 - Atlanta
$40,835,519 - Baltimore
$39,632,824 - Chicago White Sox

2011 Top team payrolls:
$202,689,028 - New York Yankees
$172,976,379 - Philadelphia
$161,762,475 - Boston
$138,543,166 - Los Angeles Angels
$127,789,000 - Chicago White Sox
 
Originally Posted by RyGuy45


1995 Top team payrolls:
$49,791,500 - Toronto
$46,657,016 - New York Yankees
$45,199,000 - Atlanta
$40,835,519 - Baltimore
$39,632,824 - Chicago White Sox

2011 Top team payrolls:
$202,689,028 - New York Yankees
$172,976,379 - Philadelphia
$161,762,475 - Boston
$138,543,166 - Los Angeles Angels
$127,789,000 - Chicago White Sox
Click to expand...

eek.gif




I had no idea, damn 
30t6p3b.gif





    
 
The Yankees and Angels are the only ones playing this game right.

Cable Networks = All profits.


Didn't George Steinbrenner buy the Yankees for like $6 million?
 
Here's an additional article last night from deadspin that explains another way this process works for teams.

Get ready because this is only the tip of the iceberg.

[h1]Joey Votto’s New Contract Is Like A Mortgage-Backed Security[/h1]Reds first baseman Joey Votto officially signed a big contract extension today. A big, honking deal: 10 years, $225 million, on top of the two years and $26 million the Reds already promised him for 2012 and 2013. There's an option year for 2024.
If you're a Reds fan—and, really, who isn't—this might be welcome news. Your best homegrown player in years has committed to your backwater, vowing never to spurn your folksiness for slick coastal suitors. But for all the rest of us, the Votto extension is the latest sign that MLB is heading down an unwelcome (and unsustainable) path of bludgeoning everyone with cable rights fees.

Dave Cameron explains it well at Fangraphs:
To do this deal now and absorb the extra risk of guaranteeing him 2014-2023 while Votto is still two years away from being able to negotiate a deal on the open market, the Reds are essentially saying that his fair market value is somewhere around $300 million.

A few months ago, that would have sounded absurd. However, since the off-season began, we've seen the Angels flex their financial muscle after agreeing to a television contract that promises to push significant new revenues into their organization. Just a few days ago, we saw the Dodgers get purchased at a valuation that was dramatically higher than expected, and with their own television deal coming up for renegotiation, they also look to be in a position to push a lot of cash into the industry. Put simply, we're seeing some positive shocks to the game's economy, and the result looks to be a significant uptick in willingness by teams to borrow from their own futures to finance talent acquisition in the present.


The Reds don't yet have a giant television deal, not like the Angels' 20-year, $3 billion contract. Instead, they extended Votto with a theoretically big TV payout in mind. Because TV is going to make everybody rich.

Right now, there are two kinds of regional sports networks (RSNs). Some are team-owned, like the Yankees' YES Network, and some are independent, like most Fox Sports Net and Comcast Sports Net channels. They make their money by charging a monthly per-customer fee to cable and satellite providers in the team's market, and the providers pass that fee onto their customers. All of their customers: nearly everyone with a cable subscription in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut paid an average of $33.60 to the Yankees' network and $28.56 to the Mets' network last year. And those networks get to sell advertising on top of those fees.

It's a great scam. So far, TV networks have provided their teams with tremendous cash flow—as with the Angels' deal—or equity. The Wilpons have borrowed $450 million against the value of SportsNet New York, the channel that carries Mets games.

But this rights-fees boom is premised on the assumption that cable and satellite providers will forever squeeze their customers at the whims of RSNs, and that the customers will forever tolerate it, and that the FCC will forever endorse it. All that happening seems highly unlikely.

We're now learning that that cable providers are tired of RSNs' %%+++*** and perfectly willing to yank telecasts. Non-fans—against their will—subsidize telecasts for fans. Consider the MSG-Time Warner standoff in winter (and what's going on in San Diego now). According to reports (because none of this is transparent), Madison Square Garden wanted Time Warner customers to pay a 53 percent increase on its $4.65-a-month fee. That's $7.11 a month—or $85.32 a year, from every Time Warner subscriber in New York—for the Knicks, Rangers, Islanders, and Devils. Time Warner naturally balked, and might have held out longer if not for Jeremy Lin. In San Diego, Fox Sports San Diego is reportedly seeking a 400 percent fee increase from Time Warner Cable. Time Warner wisely has said no.

MLB could also face competition from First Row Sports or some other outlaw streaming enterprise. The pirate feeds don't cut out nearly as much as they used to, and, so far, the feds haven't been able to sue them out of existence.

As for a customer revolt: One gets progressively likelier, as cable prices climb while the economy lags and the market develops viable alternatives. One doesn't need cable anymore to fall under a screen's spell. There's Netflix and Hulu, video games are better than ever, and there's all kinds of other stuff to watch on the internet. Why should someone who buys cable just for the occasional movie write the Knicks such a big check? As the bills get bigger and bigger, people will check out. As for FCC intervention—forcing à la carte cable, or some such thing—it's not likely, but it's not impossible.

The cable-riches scheme is quite fragile because of the already-big fees charged to people who don't care about sports. And the networks that carry MLB's teams are asking everyone in that system to pay more and more. The cable companies are fed up with it, and every fee increase they condone will further vex their customers, perhaps leading to revolt or desertion. Really, how many San Diegans will switch cable providers because they can't get the Padres? Most of them will just be thankful to have been spared another giant rate increase.

But the cable-riches scheme needs those unfettered giant fee increases, just like Wall Street relied on ever-increasing housing prices. Once the blips start, the whole scheme's doomed to collapse. And then this apparently good story, of the homegrown Votto getting a deserved payday from a beloved, old small-market franchise, will become the darker and more familiar one, of middle America making a financial promise it couldn't afford.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by dmbrhs

How is it hard to gauge though?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Setting soccer aside (obviously), in regards to sports with world-wide appeal, basketball is wildly popular in China, Europe, Australia and Africa. All places where baseball doesn't even register a blip on the radar.

As for baseball, all you need to know is that it doesn't even have an international competition outside the Little League World Series and the World Baseball Classic, which nobody cares about and has been held twice. It was eliminated from the Olympics after only five Olympiads. Kind of kills the argument, don't ya think.


WHAT?!?!?!
Do you understand that baseball in Asia is dubbed AAAA there is tremendous talent in Japan and all over the continent. Stop being ignorant.
 
most Niketalkers probably think the NBA is a bigger than the NFL
NTers could make a thread about a drop of sweat on the chair of Mario Chalmers and it would get 10+ pages
 
laugh.gif
wow

From USA Today this morning:

2010 - Players making $20 million
1. $33,000,000 - Alex Rodriguez
2. $24,285,714 - CC Sabathia
3. $22,600,000 - Derek Jeter
4. $20,625,000 - Mark Teixeira
5. $20,144,707 - Johan Santana
6. $20,000,000 - Miguel Cabrera

2012 - Players making $20 million
1. $30,000,000 - Alex Rodriguez
2. $24,187,500 - Vernon Wells
3. $23,145,011 - Johan Santana
4. $23,125,000 - Mark Teixeira
5. $23,000,000 - Prince Fielder
6. $23,000,000 - Joe Mauer
7. $23,000,000 - CC Sabathia
8. $21,857,142 - Adrian Gonzalez
9. $21,500,000 - Cliff Lee
10. $21,000,000 - Miguel Cabrera
11. $20,357,142 - Carl Crawford
12. $20,100,000 - Justin Verlander
13. $20,000,000 - Roy Halladay
14. $20,000,000 - Ryan Howard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom