Question regarding revenue sharing

I like Stark in general, but he’s long been an apologist for the current economic structure in the MLB, in my opinion. There certainly are owners out there who are more than happy to pocket the revenue sharing dollars, but anyone who says or implies that Attanasio is getting 80 million from the big market teams and not using much or any of the revenue his own team generates into payroll is either an idiot or a liar. Do the teams who aren’t making an honest effort to compete and who are pocketing the shared revenue deserve criticism? You bet they do.

But using them to argue or suggest that the competitive divide in the MLB is a product of the small market teams not wanting to compete is complete garbage. Stark likes things the way they are because he’s a baseball fan, not a fan of a baseball team, and because titanic matchups between all star rosters in New York and Boston are fun to follow and write about. That’s fine. Revenue and attendence has spiked in the MLB the last few years because of the perception that the competitive balance was narrowing, in my opinion. The 2008 offseason and the 2009 season damaged that perception, and it looks like this offseason will do the same (depending on what FA rumors you believe). And so the supposedly impartial national baseball writers like Stark are going to get asked these questions more often again, and I suspect you’ll hear more misleading crap like this.

I’d love to continue ranting, but I’ve gotta run… but from a business perspective, MLB shouldn’t be worrie about what guys like Stark think because they’ll always be around. What they should worry about is what football fans in Kansas City and places like that think. If they want to maximize revenue, those are the people they need to come to games, buy a jersey and watch the playoffs on TV. And those guys won’t do any of that or part with their money unless the MLB straightens out their economic structure (i.e., shows that they actually give a damn about casuals like myself).