Collusion

[Socnorb11]

They'll get paid.

[Popeye_Card]

Whether that's morally reprehensible or not is another question, since it's baked in that we want our team to get good deals on players, but also want our favorite players to be paid in measure for their performance.

Players making a few less million to toss a ball and swing a bat for a living is not morally reprehensible. Nor is it reprehensible that owners make a little more or a little less to own the teams that throw little balls and swing bats.

In the grand scheme of things, the only thing morally reprehensible about the whole situation is that they hold up taxpayers to pay millions (now billions) of dollars to support their private business, under the guise that they provide a public service. That's wrong. Especially when they push through projects that don't even get voted upon.

[Socnorb11]

Whether that's morally reprehensible or not is another question, since it's baked in that we want our team to get good deals on players, but also want our favorite players to be paid in measure for their performance.

Players making a few less million to toss a ball and swing a bat for a living is not morally reprehensible. Nor is it reprehensible that owners make a little more or a little less to own the teams that throw little balls and swing bats.

In the grand scheme of things, the only thing morally reprehensible about the whole situation is that they hold up taxpayers to pay millions (now billions) of dollars to support their private business, under the guise that they provide a public service. That's wrong. Especially when they push through projects that don't even get voted upon.

Yup.

And neither the owners or the players are ever going to concede anything in order to make the game a little more affordable for the fans. THAT'S what we should be [expletive] about.

[Tim]

Whether that's morally reprehensible or not is another question, since it's baked in that we want our team to get good deals on players, but also want our favorite players to be paid in measure for their performance.

Players making a few less million to toss a ball and swing a bat for a living is not morally reprehensible. Nor is it reprehensible that owners make a little more or a little less to own the teams that throw little balls and swing bats.

In the grand scheme of things, the only thing morally reprehensible about the whole situation is that they hold up taxpayers to pay millions (now billions) of dollars to support their private business, under the guise that they provide a public service. That's wrong. Especially when they push through projects that don't even get voted upon.

Yup.

And neither the owners or the players are ever going to concede anything in order to make the game a little more affordable for the fans. THAT'S what we should be [expletive] about.

What’s the incentive for either to make it more affordable to the fans? The Cards get over 3 million to show up and TV revenue is outrageous.

[Socnorb11]

There is no incentive. You're exactly right. Fans keep buying the merchandise and tickets. We clearly still love the product. Why should owners change ANYTHING?

[MrCrowesGarden]

If ownership wants to give back to me, I'm fine with it coming in the form of more wins.

[lukethedrifter]

If ownership wants to give back to me, I'm fine with it coming in the form of more wins.

Well you don’t live in St Louis where handouts to sportsball franchises -amongst other things- have edged the City closer and closer to bankruptcy.

[MrCrowesGarden]

If ownership wants to give back to me, I'm fine with it coming in the form of more wins.

Well you don’t live in St Louis where handouts to sportsball franchises -amongst other things- have edged the City closer and closer to bankruptcy.

Obviously. I'm fine if you want to argue against welfare for millionaires. I don't see how that's related to what I said.

[Famous Mortimer]

I mean, I don't want to make any sweeping statements about the city, having lived here for a grand total of 1 year (my anniversary is in 2 days) , but if anyone still uses the line about how the Cardinals bring more money to downtown, and that's why we should be falling over ourselves to give them more of our taxes, I'd like to walk round the city with them for about half an hour and find out where this money is manifesting itself.

But...I'm not sure this is a good route to pursue, because then it becomes a merely political thing and those sorts of arguments are a little more difficult. But wanting your local super-rich sports team to spend more of your money (and it's all yours, from tickets to merch sales to cable subscriptions) on the thing you pay to see, rather than pocketing an increasing amount and percentage of it and getting almost all the sports media - from newspapers to TV commentators to stats-heavy websites - to convince you that's the only possible way things can be; that's something everyone ought to be able to get behind.

[Jocephus]

John H
2:48
This sure feels like collusion. Maybe it's not like mid 80's collusion but the owners found a way to side step without this being illegal. This is the modern day collusion.

Dan Szymborski
2:49
I don't think so.
There's simply a lot more unanimity on a player's value then there ever was, which is going to suppress auctions.
2:50
A $20 bill has real value. But everyone knows what a $20 bill is worth. There is unlikely to be a crazy person who bids $100