In my opinion the NFL has the best system for this. Any team can be competitive at any time given proper management. Baseball is being ruined by big market teams and salary inflations. In ten years, without anything being done, the sport will be ridiculous.
Discuss?
2007-05-24 10:51:19 · 12 answers · asked by Brandon M 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
The NFL system is far superior to the MLB system. Just look at the results.
You've got the Yankees' payroll at nearly $190 million and the Red Sox at $143 million. 13 teams have less than half the Red Sox's payroll, and 3 Yankees (Giambi, A-Rod, Jeter) make almost as much as the entire Devil Rays squad!
Small market teams just can't compete with Steinbrenner's pocketbook. The owners can't pour money into a team when they're not getting much revenue back, and they're not going to get much revenue if their team isn't among the best. The only way to balance things out is with a salary cap.
One benefit of the MLB system is that it creates the empires (Yankees) and the underdogs (A's and Twins, for example). Everyone basically either loves or despises the Yankees, which draws attention to the game. A lot of people root for that underdog like the A's with a small market and less than half the Yankees' payroll but with a great system to beat the odds and pull the upset.
2007-05-24 11:39:47 · answer #1 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you seriously just use the NBA as your example? Last 10 Champions from MLB, NBA, NHL and NFL MLB: Cardinals (2) Red Sox (2) Giants (1) Yankees (1) Phillies (1) White Sox (1) Marlins (1) Angels (1) NBA: Lakers (3) Spurs (3) Mavericks (1) Celtics (1) Heat (1) Pistons (1) NHL: Red Wings (2) Bruins (1) Blackhawks (1) Penguins (1) Ducks (1) Hurricanes (1) Lightning (1) Devils (1) Avalanche (1) NFL: Patriots (2) Steelers (2) Giants (2) Buccaneers (1) Colts (1) Saints (1) Packers (1) So in the past 10 years, there have been 8 different World Series Champions, 6 different NBA Champions, 9 different Stanley Cup Champions and 7 different Super Bowl Champs. My point is the NBA has the least parity in North American sports. This is because they have a soft cap, that allows teams to go over in order to retain players. The NHL and NFL have hard caps, and as you see there is the most parity in the NHL and 3rd most in the NFL. However, the MLB does have a fairly significant amount of parity. The only teams that really require a salary cap are teams in divisions with large market teams, such as Toronto and Baltimore. That being said, Tampa was still able to create a contender with low salary while competing with the Yankees and Red Sox. I think a salary cap would help create more parity, but it's not like the Yankees and Red Sox are winning every year.
2016-05-17 06:16:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A salary cap really wouldn't do a whole lot. Owners would just pay the tax they would get charged for going over the salary cap. Besides, its really not up to the MLB or the owners, the MLB Players Association would never allow it to happen. They have the strongest union in the United States and any talk revolving a salary cap is quickly followed by the word strike. That effectively ends those negotiations.
2007-05-24 11:10:49 · answer #3 · answered by DoReidos 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually in a way they do have a salary cap. It's called the luxury tax. When teams salary goes over a certain amount that team must pay the league a tax. Last year the Yankees paid over 60million in luxury tax which gets split up among the league. Since other teams are profiting from the Yankees and Red Sucks high payroll how can it be bad for the league.
2007-05-24 11:23:34 · answer #4 · answered by KEVIN 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually there's still a lot of small-market teams in the NFL that say they can't compete as well as they'd like because big-market teams make more money than small-market ones. Ergo they have more money to spend on players. ie the Washington Redskins, most profitable team, always near the salary cap.
As far as baseball, who says you shouldn't be able to have an expensive team if you can afford it. And there's teams now in baseball that don't even spend a mediocre amount, like the Marlins, Devil Rays, Royals, Pirates, etc.
2007-05-24 11:04:08 · answer #5 · answered by Paul 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, of course not! If your team isn't paying the money a player wants, it's because the owner chooses not to. Tell your owner to open the vault. They can ALL afford it. Don't tell me they can't: You gotta be insanely rich just to buy a team. If you can buy A TEAM, you can buy ONE PLAYER. Don't whine about the Yankees or someone else buying a title, buy your own!
The salary cap has ruined the NFL. Good teams can't stay together for more than, say, four or five years, and then they fall apart. Even the good teams aren't immune: Despite some success, the Patriots, Colts, Steelers and Eagles have had heavy turnover the last few years. The salary cap has to go.
2007-05-24 10:58:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Of course, it is so terrible. Everyone knows you are talking about the Red Sox and Yankees. It is really awful how these teams can try to buy championships. Truth be told, most of the times, a team with 25% of their salaries wins the World Series.
2007-05-24 11:00:03 · answer #7 · answered by jmf 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely. The parity in the NFL and NBA is great. MLB tried, during the strike years, but eventually folded. Starting with free agency 30 yrs ago, money has ruined this great game of ours. The players are grossly overpaid, and personally I'm tired of having to spend upward of $200 to go to a game and sit in ok seats. Middle market franchises can't compete with LA & NY. In this structure, they never will.
2007-05-24 11:05:03 · answer #8 · answered by janeynbruce 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
The MLBPA will agree to a salary cap when the team owners agree to an income cap.
2007-05-24 11:17:52 · answer #9 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, Im having too much fun watching Stienbrenner trying to buy a world series.
2007-05-24 10:56:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋