Edit after re-reading past posts: I personally prefer 'American' football to 'proper' football. Maybe this is my lack of exposure to 'proper' football talking, but I see 'American' football as having higher order strategy than the latter. 'American' Football is a tactical game. Also, accuse me of having a short attention span if you will, but I don't know how many 0-0 ties I can take and still retain interest!
Another edit because I thought of something else to add: Pro athletes are only overpaid because people are willing to pay so much to see them!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bobthespirit,
Posts: 1783 | Location: Around Boston. | Registered: 24 February 2005
You go into the pro-shop, who do you see buying jerseys and caps? Parents of kids -- not just wealthy ones.
Coprorations pay for adspace during Monday Night Football because it gets almost the same kinds of ratings that CSI does -- 15-20 million people who watch it aren't remotely all wealthy.
You don't sell out a tens-of-thousands-of-seat stadiums every week on the wealthy alone. Heck, you think celebrities would be that interested in sports if they weren't among a crowd of millions and millions?
It's a simple matter of supply and demand. Heck, some of them are making millions and millions from endorsements in *addition* to their paychecks, because the manufacturers of those products know that their faces sell so much to the millions of middle class regular joes who buy them.
(Just in case there's any doubt, I think soccer's a great sport -- it's just not for me.)
Posts: 1783 | Location: Around Boston. | Registered: 24 February 2005
I simply meant that businesses buy up entire rows of good seats… and typically well off people inhabit the remainder of good seats.
I understand your point though, Bob. I’m sure I’ll spoil my little guy once in a while too with a game and a jersey… or two. ;-) However, the fans are only a piece of the puzzle. In Canada, tickets prices are higher than they should be because some of our sports compete with American teams… in order to keep talented players, the teams have to pay them what the wealthy US teams are paying their players. Thus, ticket prices go up to support some 19 year old who can shoot a puck in the net… or some 8’ tall behemoth who can slam dunk without jumping.
That’s why I’m an advocate of salary caps. The problem is not only with a hungry consumer base… but with a hungry player base… who will go to another team at the drop of a hat for a million more bucks a year. The NHL just instated a salary cap… oddly enough, many Canadian teams are still below that… still struggling to max out the payroll salary cap… and the ticket prices continue to soar. ;-)
Posts: 301 | Location: Canada | Registered: 23 June 2005
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: Another edit because I thought of something else to add: Pro athletes are only overpaid because people are willing to pay so much to see them!
Bob endorsing capitalism? Uh-oh...
I think football is the best sport to watch. Every play can be analyzed endlessly, it is perfect for socializing/snacking, and anyone can score at any time.
My favorite sports to play are probably tennis number one, then also ultimate frisbee and is weight-lifting a sport?
I'm no economist, but I don't think that would reduce ticket prices much. The owners are going to charge whatever ticket price brings in the most revenue. All a salary cap would do is create more profits for the owners. If you really want to bring ticket prices down you'd have to have a salary cap and a cap on profits for the owners.
-------------------------------------------------- Anatomy to me is a homesick stomach and a broken heart
Posts: 4177 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005
Originally posted by paxsoprano: Bob endorsing capitalism? Uh-oh...
Heh, heh… I was wondering when you’d swing by and point that out, Pax. ;-)
Bob, did you just have one of those “seven times in a lifetime” value changes you keep mentioning? ;-) Kidding… just kidding, Bob. ;-)
quote:
Originally posted by RavingLunatic: I'm no economist, but I don't think that would reduce ticket prices much. The owners are going to charge whatever ticket price brings in the most revenue. All a salary cap would do is create more profits for the owners. If you really want to bring ticket prices down you'd have to have a salary cap and a cap on profits for the owners.
You’re right, RL. The benefit that salary caps have in sports is to stop the richest city from buying the championship… and so that players aren’t constantly perpetuating that problem by going to the “highest” bidder… and to keep more teams functioning financially. My heart still weeps for the Winnipeg Jets. :-(
It does help keep ticket prices somewhat reasonable… but you’re right. The stadium owners want your money… the ticket vendors and merchandisers want your money… the team owners want your money… and the players / coaches and staff want your money. It’s a big business… and I guess I’m just a little dismayed that what was once an affordable “family” thing has turned into a massive marketing frenzy.
It’s not that the people “want” high ticket prices… it’s that there are just enough people (wealthy / fanatics) to buy them regardless of the cost. It’s basically a reflection of society’s capitalistic tendencies. I can’t escape it!
Shoot me. ;-)
Posts: 301 | Location: Canada | Registered: 23 June 2005
If pure libertarian capitalism is 0 and pure socialist communism is 100, I'm around a 20 or 30. When I'm debating liberals they accuse me of being a die-hard capitalist.
I'm all for free-market economics and pure supply and demand pricing when it comes to luxuries, such as pretty much everything sports related.
As a sports fan I think salary caps are the best for competition, but I don't know if they're the best for profit. Like, a salary cap in the MLB would improve the competition, but it would also hurt the two most profitable franchises the most (Yankees and Red Sox). I'd have to be an executive decision, based on what the commissioner's priorities are.
Posts: 1783 | Location: Around Boston. | Registered: 24 February 2005
Although it pains me to say it, the tight salary cap rules and "income distribution" wrt TV deals are what have made the NFL so popular today. I guess this is just because its player union is weaker than baseball's, but a team can go from nothing to championship contender within one or two years in football, while in baseball it is easier to tell who the good teams are going to be.
But isn't that a double edged sword? Dyansties and rivalries get people interested. Why do you think the Red Sox/Yankees games always get such good ratings? And why do you think the NBA lost so much popularity when Jordan retired? Not to mention the Bird/Magic rivalry of the eighties.
(I am pro-salary cap, but I don't know which one is more profitable).
Posts: 1783 | Location: Around Boston. | Registered: 24 February 2005
And it pains me as well, Pax… because I have to agree with you. ;-)
quote:
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: (I am pro-salary cap, but I don't know which one is more profitable).
The sports fan will continue to spend regardless of how much profit his or her team makes that year. Don’t let the players’ union bully the league against what has worked and been proven to work in other sports leagues. The fans will always be there.
Allowing, salaries to soar creates sports “monopolies”… enough said.
Hey wait… did you and Pax trade logins for a day? I’m on to you both!
Posts: 301 | Location: Canada | Registered: 23 June 2005
I think you have to define "profitable" as in what is best for the whole league. Sure it helps Boston and New York to have a rivalry, but how does it help Milwaukee or Arizona or Tampa Bay or St. Louis? The World Series ratings for this year were the lowest in a long time (even though you had two big markets in the championship, Houston and Chicago). The only reason for this that I can think of is that people care more about rivalries than about actually watching baseball (especially considering how good the games this year were). In this sense rivalries actually hurt the league because rivalries end up being the only things people care about.
The salary cap obviously helps the owners more than the players. My guess is that the NFL player's union is less powerful than in other leagues because of the transient nature of the sport. You don't see as many ten or twelve year all stars in football as you do in baseball or basketball. And let's be honest...if you are fast, strong, and don't mind getting hit hard, you might be able to find a job in the NFL, while shooting a basketball and hitting a baseball require far more coordination.
That would depend on the position, would it not? A quarterback needs to have all sorts of skillsets and a good quick-thinking mind, not to mention leadership ability.
Some of the other positions, not so much, but it is essential in any position (Excluding the people who kick things) that you have good chemistry with the other members of that group.
Salary caps definetley help the owners more than the players, but it's a separate question 'What helps the fans?' And not having a salary cap tends to make it so fans who are diehardly loyal to a less rich team get screwed, but fans who just root for the best team or are die-hard to one of the rich teams benefit.
And I don't have an answer to the question: Which maximizes profits throughout the entire league? You'd have to compare with to without. Did overall profits go up or go down in other sports when a salary cap rule came into effect?
Posts: 1783 | Location: Around Boston. | Registered: 24 February 2005
