Forbes--Baseball's already out of the free market, why not make it 1 store with 30 locations?

Imagine a group of wealthy businessmen walking down the street of a major American city, when they stumble upon a baseball game being played in a local park. Taken with the intensity of the players and with the passion of the spectators, an idea is hatched. Afterward, the men make their pitch. People love watching what you do, they tell the players; we're certain they'll pay for it. Why not take this all over country? We will underwrite a league and own the franchises, covering all of the costs for the best equipment, big stadiums and first class travel. We'll hire staffs to sell tickets and negotiate television, radio and Internet deals. We'll sell food and merchandise, charge for parking and sell advertising on the outfield walls. Heck, we'll even sell corporations the naming rights to the whole stadium. The revenue streams are endless; probably well into the billions. You guys are the show--just play the game and leave the rest to us. At the end of the season, we'll split the money 50-50. Of course, New York and Chicago will bring in a lot more television dough than Pittsburgh and Kansas City. So we'll have to spread the wealth around to have a competitive league. But count on some $2 billion a year, which comes to almost $3 million a man. And you get five months a year off. Deal? There was a time when the players would have jumped at such an offer. Unfortunately, the original owners weren't clever enough to go about it that way. Intent on maximizing their own cut, early owners implemented a system that bound a player for life to the team he originally signed with. Without the leverage that would have come from multiple teams bidding for their services, player salaries were artificially suppressed. Multi-year contracts were unheard of; players signed for a year at a time for an incremental pay raise--or cut--at the owner's discretion.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon