Level Playing Field for Baseball

Level Playing Field for Baseball

When most people think of baseball usually the higher market teams such as the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees come to mind. People think of higher market teams because they have the biggest names in the game, they are the most marketable teams, and they have typically been the best. Even though Boston and New York hold one of the biggest rivalries in all of sports, baseball should be thought of as a competitive sport where any team can win day in and day out. Many people probably want more parity in baseball and would like a salary cap proposed. However, baseball has as much, if not more, parity than any sport including basketball and football both of which have salary caps. In football there is no chance of the Raiders winning the Super Bowl and in basketball the Knicks have no chance of winning an NBA title. The Marlins have a whole roster that costs less than some players' contracts individually, yet they played like a playoff team the last sixty games of the season. Lower market teams have many ways of competing with the higher market teams. Baseball is the easiest sport for a lower market team to compete with a higher market team; consequently, the parity from an economic prospective is unfair, but the playing of teams with small payrolls is showing an increase of equality.

Most people would agree that large-market organizations with the highest payrolls can field a World Series type team more easily. However, putting the most talent on the field doesn't always work which is noticeable since the Yankees haven't been crowned champs since 2000. Player income has been increasing since the 1970's; whereas, smaller market organizations are against "payroll disparity" (Chass). Owners proposed salary caps in "labor negotiations" in order to help payroll gaps, but the players objected because they want more money. Afterwards "strikes and walkouts ensued" (Chass). In the last World Series "Detroit's $82.6 million payroll ranks a humble 14th in the majors, while the Cardinals' $88.9 million payroll ranks 11th (Wetzel)." While the Cardinals have contended for the title the past three years, the Tigers haven't had much success. The Tigers have fallen short in the playoff race since 1987 and in 2003 they recorded 119 losses. Coming up a few games shy of the Series, the Oakland A's payroll was 21st at $62.2 million. In 2005 the Chicago White Sox and the Houston Astros were ranked a respectable 12th and 13th. "In most cases, you can't just buy a title in baseball, one reason why establishing a salary cap is not essential to the health of the sport, and so many believe it is" (Wetzel). Baseball is a sport where no salary cap is needed. There is definitely parity on the field. "The talent among all the clubs in baseball is basically even, creating parity. So in this day and age, one move, one guy having a career year, one guy having an off year, is the difference between winning and losing" (Weinberg). The talent is there every year it is just a matter of a team staying healthy and having team unity. I recognize that many baseball officials would argue that baseball needs a salary cap. However, baseball has more teams in contention for the playoffs than sports with salary caps. Baseball officials would say that having a salary cap would have bigger named players in smaller market cities because high market teams would only be able to afford a few all-stars. However, putting a salary cap in baseball would be wrong because baseball is unique because they are the only major sport without a salary cap.

There are key places where the lower market teams benefit from higher market teams. Major League Baseball splits between all the teams "its national broadcasting and licensing revenue" which helps the smaller market teams and hurts the larger market teams (Badenhausen)."The revenue-sharing plan that emerged from the 2002 labor negotiations has distributed $1.12 billion and the competitive balance tax another $105 million to nearly clubs over four years and helped alleviate some of the disparity, though no one has figured out how to make clubs equal to the Yankees and their $200 million-plus payroll" (Chass). When this agreement was put into place it was supposed to help the smaller market teams by giving them money to help better their talent on the field. However, it's not fair to teams like the Yankees or Red Sox, which have to pay money, if the other teams do not use their money effectively. A couple of occasions teams have decreased their payroll in years after receiving money from this agreement including "the Expos, Reds, and A's" (Badenhausen). In 2003,

The four-year CBA includes initiatives designed to more effectively address economic disparity among franchises. It calls for $258 million of local revenue to annually filter from the highest- to lowest-revenue franchises. The luxury tax will be assessed above payroll amount beginning at $117 million in 2006 and topping out at $136.5 million in the final year of the agreement (Singer).

The commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig, said "This agreement makes significant contributions to restoring competitive balance" (Selig qtd. in Singer). The teams that receive money from revenue sharing should be forced to use for players contracts. That will allow all the lower market teams more big bats in the line-up and good pitchers on the mound. The better players they have on the field the more fans will attend games to support their team. If it wasn't for the larger market teams then the lower market teams would not receive the millions they do from the Yankees,