Do Team Salaries Have an Impact on Winning?

Posted on behalf of Craig Gannon:

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/09teamsalaries.htm

For years and years the question has been asked if whether or not Major League Baseball needs a salary cap. Every off-season there are key free agents that can be acquired to help out teams. However, the same teams seem to be in the mix every year. The Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs had the highest payrolls in 2009, with the Yankees being the off-season winners. For fans of teams who are not at the top, proposes the question if MLB needs to revise their current system. However, for better or worse in the new millenium we have noticed that teams with low salaries (Marlins, Rays, Twins, A's) have had an impact in baseball and managed to be very successful teams. The Oakland A's were the best example of this. General Manager Billy Beane ( a former player himself) managed to build the A's from the ground up and drafted a solid foundation for his farm system. The A's arguably had the best three pitchers in basbeall (Hudson, Mulder, Zito) and one a number of AL West titles. Beane new that he was in a tough situation and took a different approach then most. He managed to, "acquired baseball players who had high on-base percentages (OBP) and slugging percentages (SLG), virtually ignoring their fielding statistics and speed (Lewis, 2003, p. 32). Hakes and Sauer (2006) suggest that Beane valued individual player characteristics quite differently from other owners and general managers" (Brown and Jepsin 193).

If we look at more recent history the Minnesota Twins have took Beane strategy and helped build their team into a winning franchise. Every year the Twins find someway to sneak there way into the playoffs. Who would of thought that on the last game of the season the Twins would of fought all the way back to have a tie-breaker with the Tigers (who led the division basically all year). There hasn't been one year where the Twins have acquired a major free agent, its almost as if their giving their own free-agents away. However, they managed to keep a solid farm system and acquire veteran players to help keep the team in tact. In a move that came somewhat unnoticed was the acquisation of Orlando Cabrera. The Twins were a very young team and having a sub par year. However, the veteran leadership that Cabreara brought to this team was huge.

Who is to say that the twins cannot be the AL champs if they beat the Tigers? They are the hottest team in AL. However, they have the 24th lowest salary in the majors. This goes to show that teams with the largest salary does no always mean success. The Marlins, Rays, Rockies to name a few are examples of this. Teams with young players and low salaries have found a way to win and compete amongst the best. Does this show a new wave in baseball for years to come?

Furthermore, Teams with lower salaries do not have the funds to create many opportunities to make profit. Every year professional teams are trying to build new stadiums in order to further their respective franchises. Recently, in the NBA the Nets finally found a investor to help build there stadium in Brooklyn. Prior to this announcement it looked as if the Nets moving to brooklyn was dead. In baseball it seems as if there are the same problems. The Marlins, Twins, Rays, and Rockies four of the more successful low salary teams, have played in the same stadium since their existence. How do they expect to compete with other teams in acquiring players when they have no investors to further their franchise. According to Leeds and Pistolet, "Economic studies generally conclude that teams reap large profits from new, municipally funded facilities" (Leeds and Pistolet 581). New stadiums bring in more excitement, therefor, having more fans attend games. The Marlins and Rays are at the bottom of league attendance, with no interest of investors, therefore managing to stay towards the bottom in team salary.

This proposes the question where is the line drawn? How can MLB come up with a way where every team has a fair shot and competing for free-agents. Even though recent history shows that salary necessarily doesn't have an impact on winning, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs have a much better chance every year. What do you guys think, should MLB baseball have a salary cap and if so why? Or do you think baseball is fine where it is (putting your favorite teams position aside)?

NFL not immune from struggling economy

The NFL brings in the most revenue of all of the four major sports in the U.S. However, even Roger Goodell and company have not been able to avoid the economic woes which have plagued the nation over the last few years.

One of the biggest ways that NFL teams bring in money is by selling the naming rights of the stadiums they play in to a large corporation for an absurd sum of money. But recently, even that has not been a guarantee for some teams. Los Angeles has been trying to build a stadium for the last 15 years so they could lure a team back to town, but plans have stalled now in part because no corporation will pay money to put their name on the stadium. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/agreement-gives-proposed-nfl-stadium-in-industry-a-boost.html

Jacksonville is struggling more so than any other franchise right now. The are one of lowest valued franchises in the league, they have the second lowest average ticket price, and have been unable to sell out the stadium this season. Their stadium is publicly owned, and does not have a name on it, which is a huge chunk of money that the Jaguars are lacking. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/football/03jaguars.html

This habit of naming stadiums is in fact a fairly new concept. As of 1990, there were no baseball stadiums with corporate names; as of 2001, the majority of baseball, basketball, football and hockey arenas had sold their naming rights to large corporations (Leeds and Pistolet 584).

And while some may think that naming a stadium Heinz Field (thought you'd like that Prof. Burns), or the TD Bank Sports Center, the main reason is for the money. We cannot for get that sports are a business. Of course a franchise wants to win and be successful, but just as important and if not more important is the ability for that franchise to make money (Lavoie 162).

Do you wish that we could go back to the days where the communities took the brunt of the financial burden, and we would have more "Municipal Stadiums"? Do you think that there will ever be a situation, such as a tanking economy, where we will go back to a situation like that?

Whether you like having these named stadiums or not, it's impossible to ignore the financial impact that naming rights can have for a professional franchise.

Alex Rodriguez

By Andrew Fletcher

OK, I realize that the title of the blog post should have more of a focus off the bat. Even though it only has two words, it does indeed have a focus. If I wanted to describe Alex Rodiguez and his relationship to sports scandals, the title would probably be as long as the blog post.

Now that I got that little disclaimer out of the way, here we go...

David Leonard has a section in Chapter 31 called "A Convergence of the Front and Back Pages." Anyone who lives in New York will tell you that Rodriguez graces the covers of the New York Post and New York Daily News almost daily. The Yankees blog "Replacement Level Yankees Weblog" even keeps track of Rodriguez's cover appearances here. In the past, Rodriguez's cover appearances would stretch down most of the page. Because he is still on the disabled list, he hasn't been in the public eye and that's why he only has five appearances since they started counting this season. But good news, folks: he's working out in Tampa today!

Leonard mainly focuses on Blacks and crime in his writing about the front and back pages, but Rodriguez's relevance is still there.

Leonard writes: "As with the sensationalized literature, the popular press ubiquitously offers the impression that athletes are committing crimes at disproportionate rates, although the bulk of the coverage centers on the alleged criminal activities of Black athletes (Benedict, 2003; Lapchick, 2003a, 2003b; Vlahos, 2003)" (526-27).

Rodriguez is neither Black, nor is he exactly a criminal - he's a deviant - but his disproportionate appearances in the New York covers would lead one to believe that he has in fact committed crimes. The fact that he was caught using steroids is almost irrelevant, because he has been hated by New Yorkers since he became a Yankee on Valentine's Day 2004.

Look at the above picture, for example. A picture of Rodriguez kissing himself as part of a magazine spread is above news involving President Barack Obama. Apparently Rodriguez is more newsworthy than the president of our country. How about that.

Then we have articles about Rodriguez not washing his hands in the bathroom and his comments about wishing Jose Reyes was batting leadoff for the Yankees got blown out of proportion. He is the media anti-darling.  Everything he says or does gets scrutinized. Some of this is Rodriguez's doing, but too much is just too much.

Do you think the media is to blame for its coverage of Alex Rodriguez, or is it his own doing? When is enough actually enough?

Judging Stereotypes in Sports Reporting:

Christina Gaudino
MSS 340 Blog: Sports Scandals & Controversies:

The media loves to pass judgment on athletes. This comes from our instincts to make our favorite athletes into prized perfected possessions. In chapters 30 and 31 of the Handbook, sports scandal and controversy is discussed and magnified from every angle. The handbook suggests that as fans and commenter’s we hold athletes to unrealistic standards, “awards them with special attention and privileges, which may give them a sense of entitlement and freedom from accountability.”
It is also important to consider the role that race plays in sports scandal reporting. The handbook suggests that many commenters are white males passing judgment on the actions of black athletes. Are we providing whites “with the chance to talk about athletes in a way that reinforces these stereotypes? The handbook also talks about the relationship between images of black athletes and black criminals. “Throughout history black male bodies have come to rep that which is deviant criminal and threatening.”Blacks are seen as more violent, prone to drug use and inclined toward violence against women. Clearly, this issue steams out from a much larger society problem. “I believe that at least part of the systematic coupling of athletes and crime revolves around racial stereotyping.”
The role of race is discussed further in the article from the New York Times; McNabb Says He Can Relate To Obama, by Judy Battista. Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is infamous for his 2003 quote in which he suggested he’d be treated differently if he was not black. The media ripped him apart for his remarks, but was he lying? Mc Nabb went on to relate his public scrutiny to that in which president Obama experienced while running. ''I think it was similar in his process and the things that he went through, of the criticism that he received, people going back into his past and trying to characterize him and figure out what type of person he was,'' said McNabb, who added, ''Obviously, it's on a different level with him because he's the president of the United States, but I just watched the way he handled it, standing strong up there, continuing not to get rattled.'' Mc Nabb also stated that prior to his incident he become reluctant to discuss race and sports.
I think a lot of African American athletes may look at the problem with racism and sports as unchangeable and it’s better to keep quiet and make money then to stir up controversy. The Handbook points out America’s views on black entertainers, “Americans love their black entertainers when they behave “properly,” and stay in their place.
In an older article printed in the New York Times entitled Unfair Play written by Warren Goldstein, Goldstein suggests the existing attempts of white officalsto market black athletes. Goldstein states, “white people’s denial of black business ability while they continue to profit from black athletic skill; black athletes’ training in high school, college and the pros (what he calls the “Conveyor Belt”) to think only about individual success, never about a system that distributes power unequally.”
So is the problem the way we report on athletes? Or the expectations we hold them to? Or do these men and women really feel they are above the law because of their positions in sports? Do you believe athletes are judged entirely differently based on their race?

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/

Should athletes be punished for their crimes?

Professional athletes committing crimes seems to be a growing problem, but they are not facing consequences for their actions. They are not convicted because it might possibly ruin their career, for Michael Phelps and Kobe Bryant this is almost too true. Most of their sponsors decided not to resign them and both athletes are are trying to rebuild a reputation. In an article in USA Today it stated on accusations of rape "there is enormous pressure on the victim not to press charges, that you're ruining his career" (www.usatoday.com/sports/2003-12-21-athletes-sexual-assault_x.htm ). But rape is still a serious crime, how can these athletes just walk away? In the Handbook it says "a problem exists because athletes do not face consequences legal or otherwise when accused, arrested or convicted of a crime. Athletic skills represent a get out of jail free card that provides universal immunity, thereby guaranteeing a persistent problem within sports" (Leonard 525). Of coarse for everyday people who do commit these same crimes such as rape (most widely committed among athletes) getting off scott free is just not fair. Even though they do have a special skill and make loads of money they should not be treated any different, they have committed a federal crime and should be punished accordingly. What do you think? Should athletes get special treatment to protect their careers/reputation? Should they be able to just walk away from a crime they were convicted of. Is that fair for everyday citizens who commit these serious crimes and are punished?

Farrell Henneberry

Olympic Coverage

The ratings of the Olympic Games the past few years have been dismal. Things finally took a change for the better last summer. NBC’s coverage of the Olympic Games was seen by many Americans and NBC was happy with the results. Much of the ratings success is of course due in part to Michael Phelps and his race for gold. This fact also meant that NBC had to air a lot of swimming. Almost every time I turned to NBC last August it had coverage of either swimming, diving, track or volleyball. One time I saw badminton but that was when I turned on MSNB at 4 0 clock in the morning because I was having trouble sleeping. This got me thinking is this how all the networks air the footage of the Olympics to their country? Are populations around the world subjected to the same four sports over and over again? Apparently not.

Just over the boarder Canada has an entirely different way of covering the Olympics. In this article the author states why the Canadian’s coverage is much better than the US’s coverage:

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/08/if-olympics-cov.html

The article notes not only does CBC cover a more wide range of sports, but it is also better because it gives better analysis, is more in-depth, and is less dramatic. What do you think of this year’s coverage of the Olympic Games? Do you think NBC did a good job with its coverage? Or do you think the format should be more like Canada’s? Is NBC right to put some sports on lesser channels?

The text states, “When viewers tune in to the Olympic Game, they are certainly addressed as biased observers. It is assumed that they wish to see representatives of their nation at work, but it is also believed that they wish to see a more transcendent excellence-that they want to watch the best”(Rowe 128). Do you think NBC is just showing us what we want to see? Do you wish they showed more and if so what other sports would you like to see?

Is America still in diapers when it comes to soccer?

“Every four years, the world comes together around the little black-and-white ball, a carnival scene mixing sport and revelry with a not-so-subtle undertone of nationalism.”  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/jan-june06/worldcup_06-09.html

 This statement, released prior to the 2006 World Cup kick-off, helped give an idea to the global effect the game of soccer has come to have. With the spread of globalization being consistent in many aspects of our lives, its no surprise that sports would be one of the many things that seem to connect countries around the world.

 However, with all of this said, America seems to not be as consistent as the rest of the world in identifying with the sport and their team. This was noted and became a concern to the rest of the media world when the U.S. was chosen to host the 1994 World Cup. “For the first time the tournament was scheduled to take place in the United States, where soccer (in U.S. coverage was afforded this, its ‘proper’ name, to distinguish it from American football) had very little following compared to baseball, basketball, American football, and ice hockey. Concern about the likely adverse impact of this “American exceptionalism” on the success of the tournament exercised media across the world prior to the event itself,” (Tudor 227). So why is it that America hasn’t emerged ourselves in this international sport?

 Other countries are well aware that we are content with our own sports such as football and baseball; and in Andrew Tudor’s article of “World Cup Worlds”, the term “ethnocentric” is linked to Americans, but would you agree? For a culture that seems to be so actively involved in all efforts of globalization do we realize that the world sees us as behind in this sport?

 The article that best described this comparison of international soccer and American soccer stated that, “Soccer is still in diapers in America. It is not played on the street, in every park, or in every playground around the country, like it is in almost every other country. Kids don’t grow up exposed to the game on a daily basis – it’s not in the media, in politics or in recreation”.

http://soccerlens.com/the-generation-gap-in-american-soccer/3697/

 After reading this article, would you argue this point? Do you think our interest in this global sport will ever increase, or are we too involved in our own past-times?