Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Miz
I don't believe in unions in pro sports with as much money as the players make nowadays. I think, for example, the New York Yankees should be owned by the borough of the Bronx and not some rich moron who doesn't know shit about baseball, the Boston Celtics by the city of Boston, the Dodgers by the city of Los Angeles etc. The money generated in revenue would go to the cities and the city can pay each player's salary. Every player in the MLB, NHL, NFL and NBA would strike (except for the players on the Packers) but with what little percent of them have college degrees nowadays what the fuck else would they do? Flip burgers? It's not the fault of the owner or player that players make way too much money for playing a game, it's the fault of the system. It was fine how it was before the 60's when free agency didn't exist and the players got paid shit, but with a guy making 25 mil a year it's time for a change.
|
not a horrible idea, but what makes you think the person in charge of the team still wouldn't be "some idiot who knows nothing about baseball". Someone still has to run the team, make decisions on who the coach, gm, trainers, trades, free agents etc...
Most pro sports teams already do generate plenty of money for the local area, taxes on gameday sales (from beer to dogs to jerseys), keeping people employed (working at the stadium, then payroll tax), real estate tax, vendors outside the stadium having business (paying licenses and taxes), players salaires which are tax'd like any other employee, hotels and hotel sales and taxes, tourism from visiting teams.
The trade off is now, if a team has a bad year a loses money it doesn't effect the city/town/state.
Also, I'm not sure how your plan changes players making 25mil/year, unless you plan on a salary cap (see: football and basketball for examples) which doesn't exactly eliminate top salaries (and see nfl signing bonuses) a nd the nba (which has more "exception rules" then I've ever been able to figure out, starting with the "larry bird" rule that you could go over the cap if re-signing your own player).
If you mean a cap on how much a player can earn, who decides that amount and shouldn't we do the same with an actor getting 20mil for a movie? and then make the movie studios under public control?
I've never had an issue with free agency or players salaries, the players will get what teams can afford and fans will pay, just like movie stars and such. I have no issue with free agency because it would be like telling a sales rep for Verizon in MA he can't take a job making more money selling for Sprint in NH.
Now, if you want to talk salary cap to level the playing field for "smaller market teams" (see: Red Sox, Yanks vs. Royals) I can see an argument there, still not sure how you tell an owner they "can't" spend their money because someone else doesn't make as much, but in the spirit of competition or more making money for the league (see: Teams like KC that only sell tickets when the Sox & Yanks visit) that's a fair argument.