Addressing the Yankees' Unfair Advantage: Which is more likely?

[DrungoHazewood]

I still don't understand the argument that moving another team will really affect the Yankees. I use the analogy of Coke (Yankees) and Pepsi (Mets). The two of those dominate the cola (NYC) market. You introduce RC (Brooklyn)cola, or any other brand name cola into the market and you will take some market share, but really how much? There is brand loyalty. I don't like Pepsi and I have no reason to ever try anything but a Coke as it is available everywhere. The Yankees have fans that have followed them for generations all over the country and they will get their children to be Yankees fans. That is why my son is an Orioles fan. I guess the argument holds that the Nationals have cut into our fan base and that hopefully the same would happen to the Yankees, but I just cannot believe that is what would actually happen. How many Yankee fans became Mets fans in the late 60's? I would guess that the Met fans were old Giants and Brooklyn fans who finally had another option finally, but were those people really supporting the Yankees? Are we esentially arguing over the bandwagon people who follow whoever is good at the moment? I agree with most who say I doubt any of the three actually happen, but it never hurts to dream!

You're not going to convert any diehard Yanks or Mets fans. But you'll bring in some people who didn't have strong ties to the existing teams, and you'll bring in all kinds of bandwagon fans when the new team gets good. When the metro area has well over 10M people you don't need a very high percentage to get to the fanbase of a mid-sized MLB franchise.

Over time you'll slowly cut into the number of people who're born Yanks and Mets fans.

I agree that one team won't do a whole lot, though. I assume the NYC area could support 6-8 teams at a market size/fanbase level of the Orioles.

[Lucky Jim]

You're not going to convert any diehard Yanks or Mets fans. But you'll bring in some people who didn't have strong ties to the existing teams, and you'll bring in all kinds of bandwagon fans when the new team gets good. When the metro area has well over 10M people you don't need a very high percentage to get to the fanbase of a mid-sized MLB franchise.

Over time you'll slowly cut into the number of people who're born Yanks and Mets fans.

I agree that one team won't do a whole lot, though. I assume the NYC area could support 6-8 teams at a market size/fanbase level of the Orioles.

I agree with CSG - I've never thought this a very practical solution. It's one thing to erode the base of a losing franchise like the O's. But fidelity to the Yanks and Mets is pretty hardcore. And clearly any program to introduce 6-8 new teams to the area would mean that there would be cannibalization among whatever small subset has no allegiances.

The thing about NYC is that the population is made up of natives - who won't budge in their allegiances - and transplants - who generally bring their allegiances with them. Unlike in other eras, being in NYC doesn't mean you can't follow your foreign team, so why would transplants switch over?

[Jagwar]

I agree with CSG - I've never thought this a very practical solution. It's one thing to erode the base of a losing franchise like the O's. But fidelity to the Yanks and Mets is pretty hardcore. And clearly any program to introduce 6-8 new teams to the area would mean that there would be cannibalization among whatever small subset has no allegiances.

The thing about NYC is that the population is made up of natives - who won't budge in their allegiances - and transplants - who generally bring their allegiances with them. Unlike in other eras, being in NYC doesn't mean you can't follow your foreign team, so why would transplants switch over?

I know exactly what you mean, but for decades you had three teams in the NYC area (Yankees, Giants, Dodgers). It may take awhile to build up a devoted fanbase, but it is not crazy to think that a third NY team could be successful.

I don't know, put a shiny new stadium in Brooklyn, or over in East Rutherford, guarantee revenues to allow them to have a $100m payroll for a period of time. Eventually, the advertising dollars and cable revenues might spread between the three clubs.

[Lucky Jim]

I know exactly what you mean, but for decades you had three teams in the NYC area (Yankees, Giants, Dodgers). It may take awhile to build up a devoted fanbase, but it is not crazy to think that a third NY team could be successful.

I don't know, put a shiny new stadium in Brooklyn, or over in East Rutherford, guarantee revenues to allow them to have a $100m payroll for a period of time. Eventually, the advertising dollars and cable revenues might spread between the three clubs.

I'm not sure I follow. You have three teams w/ 19th C. origins and a local fan base that co-existed, until two determined there were greener pastures elsewhere. How does this lead us to conclude that transplanting a new team into an already partitioned community would be sustainable?

The economics are radically different. Further, baseball is no longer as local as it was at the time, therefore you have extra-territorial competition to complicate the matter.

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree with CSG - I've never thought this a very practical solution. It's one thing to erode the base of a losing franchise like the O's. But fidelity to the Yanks and Mets is pretty hardcore. And clearly any program to introduce 6-8 new teams to the area would mean that there would be cannibalization among whatever small subset has no allegiances.

The thing about NYC is that the population is made up of natives - who won't budge in their allegiances - and transplants - who generally bring their allegiances with them. Unlike in other eras, being in NYC doesn't mean you can't follow your foreign team, so why would transplants switch over?

The same reason anyone starts following any team they're not born with: they win games and play good baseball.

And starting on day one, there will be kids born who never knew anything but a 3-team NYC and a family that roots for the Superbas or the Turnpikers or whatever. When they're 8 or 12 or 15 they'll live and die with the new team. More will come along if the Yanks/Mets have the occasional down period. Over 20 or 30 years there will be a substantial mass of these people.

This is a very long-term solution.

[Ruzious]

Since there are wild cards, they really should do something to make things fairer for the Jays, Rays, and O's, but I'd like to keep the same divisions. What they can do to partially help is just reduce the number of within division games. Have each team play each team in their league the same amount of times. If they want to make an exception for the Yankees and Red Sox to play each other more, that's fine.

[Jagwar]

I'm not sure I follow. You have three teams w/ 19th C. origins and a local fan base that co-existed, until two determined there were greener pastures elsewhere. How does this lead us to conclude that transplanting a new team into an already partitioned community would be sustainable?

The economics are radically different. Further, baseball is no longer as local as it was at the time, therefore you have extra-territorial competition to complicate the matter.

You bet they are, but I would argue that current economic realities would make it more likely that a third team could thrive in NYC. The Giants and Dodgers left in a very different time, with different revenue streams and potential. I'm thinking that a team would rather be the 3rd team in the NY market than the only team in a struggling market.

I guess the question boils down to this. Which would be a stronger situation over the long run for say, the Marlins... stay in Miami, or become the third team in NYC?

And I also wonder if the Yankees and Mets would be the only teams to oppose such a move.

[Lucky Jim]

You bet they are, but I would argue that current economic realities would make it more likely that a third team could thrive in NYC. The Giants and Dodgers left in a very different time, with different revenue streams and potential. I'm thinking that a team would rather be the 3rd team in the NY market than the only team in a struggling market.

I guess the question boils down to this. Which would be a stronger situation over the long run for say, the Marlins... stay in Miami, or become the third team in NYC?

And I also wonder if the Yankees and Mets would be the only teams to oppose such a move.

The Giants and Dodgers left even though NYC teams had a near monopoly on fans located in NYC. That's the problem.

If you have Yankee fans, Mets fans, and some undefined other, your success is based on:

1. Winning over Yankee and Mets fans. Impossible short-term, difficult long-term.

2. Winning over non-native fans of other teams, a demographic complicated by the incredible availability through the media of following a distant team (I'm in NYC and follow the O's, for instance).

3. Converting new fans.

All three require changing the status quo, at cost, and therefore all three are far more difficult than keeping entrenched fans. In other words, while there are more people in NYC, you're now competing against 29 other teams, not two. The only boon to sustainability would be overflow from the two "real" teams in the market, I guess.

[Jagwar]

The Giants and Dodgers left even though NYC teams had a near monopoly on fans located in NYC. That's the problem.

If you have Yankee fans, Mets fans, and some undefined other, your success is based on:

1. Winning over Yankee and Mets fans. Impossible short-term, difficult long-term.

2. Winning over non-native fans of other teams, a demographic complicated by the incredible availability through the media of following a distant team (I'm in NYC and follow the O's, for instance).

3. Converting new fans.

All three require changing the status quo, at cost, and therefore all three are far more difficult than keeping entrenched fans. In other words, while there are more people in NYC, you're now competing against 29 other teams, not two. The only boon to sustainability would be overflow from the two "real" teams in the market, I guess.

I think you're right. The success would heavily depend on the NY customers (from attendance, television, radio, advertisers) slowly/steadily moving from the 2 entrenched teams to the new team.

The logistics would be a mess. Even if a fanbase embraced a new team, there is no way that the Yankees and Mets would cut their payroll just to accomodate a new team's presence in a market. Maybe it would happen over time, but the revenue/payroll discrepancy would most likely stay for a while.

[Lucky Jim]

I think you're right. The success would heavily depend on the NY customers (from attendance, television, radio, advertisers) slowly/steadily moving from the 2 entrenched teams to the new team.

The logistics would be a mess. Even if a fanbase embraced a new team, there is no way that the Yankees and Mets would cut their payroll just to accomodate a new team's presence in a market. Maybe it would happen over time, but the revenue/payroll discrepancy would most likely stay for a while.

Well, I think siphoning off fans is a slow boat to China. Just not enough help. And I was just thinking that even catering to the overflow (that, say, being a true Yanks/Mets fans involves finite allocations - like seats) means catering to the class of fan who is unwilling to pay to be a Yanks/Mets fan. That would require a huge amount of slack between what those teams demand and what the true value of the fandom is. It might be there, but it seems a gamble.

[Jagwar]

Well, I think siphoning off fans is a slow boat to China. Just not enough help. And I was just thinking that even catering to the overflow (that, say, being a true Yanks/Mets fans involves finite allocations - like seats) means catering to the class of fan who is unwilling to pay to be a Yanks/Mets fan. That would require a huge amount of slack between what those teams demand and what the true value of the fandom is. It might be there, but it seems a gamble.

Yes, a huge gamble.

I think a salary cap might be a better solution, but in my opinion the players association's influence makes it extremely improbable.

[geschinger]

Well, I think siphoning off fans is a slow boat to China. Just not enough help. And I was just thinking that even catering to the overflow (that, say, being a true Yanks/Mets fans involves finite allocations - like seats) means catering to the class of fan who is unwilling to pay to be a Yanks/Mets fan. That would require a huge amount of slack between what those teams demand and what the true value of the fandom is. It might be there, but it seems a gamble.

Put a team in NY and make it affordable (which for many NYM/NYY tickets are not) and you'll get the butts in the seats. Butts in the seats over time will lead to a budding fandom. Long term a 3rd team in NY would be much more successful than some teams will be in lessor markets.

[DrungoHazewood]

The real goal of more teams in a market is to make all market sizes more-or-less the same. The goal of baseball should be for all teams to represent X fans, or X +/- some reasonable number of fans. (X really represents not just number of people, but also of purchasing power, media market size, etc).

What I want is for baseball teams to be like any other commodity, where the supply (of teams, in this case) is roughly equal to the demand. Right now there are markets where the demand is vastly higher than the supply (New York, Boston), because of baseball's monopoly. What I want is for there to be as many teams in NYC as NYC can possibly support, meaning that any one of them doesn't have any significant revenue advantages over the Royals or the Twins or the Astros.

Of course getting to that point will take generations, and all kinds of changes, and restructuring of loyalties, and revenue redistributions, and new leagues, and who knows what else. So it's unlikely to happen any time soon. But maybe, eventually, in the very far future.

You know a sure way of making this happen overnight? Blow up the existing structure and start over. Contract all 30 teams and start off with 30 (or even better 36 or 40) expansion teams. If the 4, 6, 8 teams in NYC didn't include the Yanks or the Mets and only had a handful of current Yanks and Mets players brand loyalty would be gone, and all of the teams would be equal, and fairly equally split the market. Of course that's not going to happen, but that is one way to ensure the history and fanbase of the Yanks wouldn't give them a huge advantage.

[byrdz]

The Giants and Dodgers left even though NYC teams had a near monopoly on fans located in NYC. That's the problem.

If you have Yankee fans, Mets fans, and some undefined other, your success is based on:

1. Winning over Yankee and Mets fans. Impossible short-term, difficult long-term.

2. Winning over non-native fans of other teams, a demographic complicated by the incredible availability through the media of following a distant team (I'm in NYC and follow the O's, for instance).

3. Converting new fans.

All three require changing the status quo, at cost, and therefore all three are far more difficult than keeping entrenched fans. In other words, while there are more people in NYC, you're now competing against 29 other teams, not two. The only boon to sustainability would be overflow from the two "real" teams in the market, I guess.

Many of these low budget teams would be willing to take a chance if given the opportunity to move to the NY area. It'd be a pretty good gamble long term given their current conditions. But a team like the A's, struggling for local support, would almost instantly be in a better situation that offers way more revenue because of how well they've been run. I'd like to think that any of the low budget teams have the opportunity to move wherever they wanted, that's only fair, but they can't. Some of them would most likely be better than the Mets at least.

I'm not sure #3 would be as difficult as you're thinking. Hey maybe New Yorkers just need a third choice? I'm thinking many New Yorkers would love having an additional team that could potentially lower the costs of the tickets.

[byrdz]

This is kinda old but a good read. Some of the comments was interesting as well.