Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yankees say George Steinbrenner dies at 80
- Thread starter ctt1wbw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
His sporting legacy is a cruel one for small and medium-market cities. He proved that the majority of professional teams in this world exist largely to provide wins for the big teams.
Many owners don't, but I think that Steinbrenner (among others) proved that many professional sports leagues are oligarchies, not democracies. Without salary caps and other controls, big cities with money have rich owners and win championships. Small and medium sized cities don't.
You can't say that it is the owners fault when they are not breaking any rules. If you want to force the game to the smaller markets enlist harsh salary caps and also salary floors.
I think we're going to fail to ever agree on this, which is fine - but in my opinion Steinbrenner and others like him are playing foul without actually breaking any rules. He knew that the league system is not strictly fair, and that he has the means to collect championships using (admittedly shrewdly-manged) piles of money that other teams don't have access to. Even more critically, he was aware that large markets like NYC can be leveraged to give him an economic advantage over other teams even before his own money is involved.
I think big cities should be held stongly in check so that even the smallest markets have a good chance to win.
I hate dynasties.
Anyway, I'm not here to speak ill of the dead, but to many of us Steinbrenner represents the big-city, big-money hegemony in sports, and I think it's fair to examine that legacy with a critical eye.
Sure teams like the Yankees and Red Sox will out spend everyone else, but they also get the most ticket revenue because they have the biggest fan base. So why should they not spend the money. Any team can sign a free agent. Look at the Twins. They are not a huge market team and they are doing great.
We can also spin it the other way with teams like the Pirates who pocket every dime they get from revenue sharing, The Yankees are paying the owner and he is just eating the money. The same can be said of the Orioles.
Lets also not forget that when Steinbrenner bought the team they were near the bottom of the division. The Yankees were not always a powerhouse even under George. Spending money does not always equal championships.
We can also spin it the other way with teams like the Pirates who pocket every dime they get from revenue sharing, The Yankees are paying the owner and he is just eating the money. The same can be said of the Orioles.
Lets also not forget that when Steinbrenner bought the team they were near the bottom of the division. The Yankees were not always a powerhouse even under George. Spending money does not always equal championships.
The Twins are doing well, but they have three world series titles - the Yankees have nine times as many - and that's about the best a smaller market can expect. Periods of heavy spending are not sustainable in the smaller markets. Big markets will always have better players and more money to spend if necessary.
I think Steinbrenner's successful business model with the Yankees should be seen as an anti-example for the league, and they should introduce salary caps, revenue sharing and other economic controls.
I know I'm in the minority though - most sports fans like to see big teams dominate. New York may be a very large city, but the vast majority of New York fans are not local supporters.
I think Steinbrenner's successful business model with the Yankees should be seen as an anti-example for the league, and they should introduce salary caps, revenue sharing and other economic controls.
I know I'm in the minority though - most sports fans like to see big teams dominate. New York may be a very large city, but the vast majority of New York fans are not local supporters.
If you look at the fan base for the Yankees and Red Sox you will see that it is most of the Northeast. Connecticut is a 50/50 split between Yankees and Red Sox. Head up to Maine and it is all Red Sox, down through New Jersey is Yankees. That is a huge number of people. I doubt anywhere else in the country has that big a fan base for a few teams.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Well, it's OK to hate George, but hopefully it's not for doing what he's supposed to within the confines of the rules. The owners of all the teams help shape the rule book. I don't think you'll see any of them saying Steinbrenner "cheated." He owned the most income generating franchise in baseball and rightly used it to his advantage. To the victors...
Money's won more championships than it's lost.
The Cardinals might rival it, except it's just spread out more rather than concentrated in one area. For a long time, they were the only professional baseball team west of the Mississippi River, so they had a lot of fans out west and some of that has been passed down through the generations. It also extends to other areas east of the Mississippi, such as Kentucky, Indiana, Tennesee and Mississippi.
Winning has very little to do with how well pitchers pitch and batters bat. It has far, far more to do with merchandizing, building stadiums, hiring teams of marketeers and doing deals with television companies in vast, sumptuous boardrooms, expensive resaurants or exclusive country clubs. Baseball teams are rich peoples' playthings, and we are just a revenue source that needs to be appeased with spectacle. It's all highly capitalist, which is why rich capitalists like Steinbrenner own and run teams.
Steinbrenner didn't cheat, but the league is not fair. At least not as fair as the game aspires to be.
Gotta completely disagree with your statement. Winning has EVERYTHING to do with pitching and batting. That's what the money buys a guy like Steinbrenner, better athletes. Ticket sales and merchandising are a means to the end of getting the highest paid players, who typically, are the best players. They then in turn give you a better chance to win the game.
Perhaps I should be a little more specific - pitching and batting wins games, but all the other stuff I mentioned wins championships and builds dynasties.
Being a shrewd owner in a smaller market might allow you to build a great farms system and then spend what money you have on a couple marquee players and make a run for it - you might get lucky and win a pennant or even a World Series. But it's a crapshoot. And without the big brand building and so forth you won't be able to sustain it - your marquee players will be unaffordable after a season or two, your breakout farm system products will go to Boston or New York, and you'll be left in yet another rebuilding phase with very little capital.
If you want to win championships, building a championship team is the last thing you do. The first thing you do is get investors on board and start building infrastructure and brand recognition. The whole notion that "anything can happen" on the field of play is a myth in baseball. It's a statistical inevitability that (in an uncapped, lightly regulated league) big cities will win and smaller ones lose. Which is why NYC is bloated with championships while some very old teams have perhaps one or two.
I used to sort of agree with this perspective... but then there's the cubs. Oh the cubs
