Blue-ribbon nonsense

The baseball owners' hand-picked committee, working from cooked books, has an absurd plan to fix the sport's finances. Why is the media taking it seriously?

By Allen Barra

Jul 21, 2000 | Question: If your union was in contract negotiations with management and management executives presented you with a financial proposal from a panel selected by them, would you accept it? You might, if you're the kind of person who would loan your keys to someone you just met on the subway. Another question, then: Why is the press accepting the baseball owners' blue-ribbon panel proposal, or, if not actually accepting it, taking it seriously?

The "blue-ribbon panel" (and who, I wonder, awarded it that name?) was mentioned a few weeks ago in this space. This is the panel that was supposed to come up with ideas to correct baseball's competitive balance problem. Last Friday it presented its conclusions.

The New York Times, in an accompaniment to Murray Chass' July 15 report on the committee's findings, posted a sidebar with the headline "Unlevel Playing Field," with figures for "Total Revenue," "Local Revenue," "Payroll" and "Profit/Loss" for eight major league teams. The figures gave credence to the most publicized aspect of the report, that from 1995 through 1999 only three teams -- the New York Yankees ($64.5 million), the Cleveland Indians ($45.9 mil) and the Colorado Rockies ($12.4 mil) -- made any money.

And the basis for this information? If you look carefully, at the bottom of the bar there was some smaller print: "Source: Report of blue ribbon on baseball economics." Which, of course, got its financial information from the commissioner's office. And the commissioner, we should never forget, is an employee of Major League Baseball.

The Players Association's executive director, Don Fehr, gave the report the respect it deserved: "We always get some report like this before we head toward a negotiation" for the basic agreement. But for every fan who read Fehr's comments, I'll bet 50 saw the sidebar. And how many casual readers see things like this in the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times, or worse, USA Today, and think, Jeez, I guess it's true that most of the teams are losing money?

OK, that's not exactly what the Times' sidebar said, but how many readers would get that impression? How many would carefully read the article and find out that the so-called blue-ribbon panel was selected by the owners, not by a combination of the owners and the Players Association? Many? Most? Nearly all?

The Times' handling of the panel's report is typical of the way the mainstream sports press handles sports business issues. You might think there'd be some skepticism for a report that shows the Atlanta Braves -- winner of three pennants in the last five years; landlords of a spectacular new stadium that was funded by taxpayers; flagship for the owner's own national TV network -- losing nearly $7 million over the last five years. I mean, if the Atlanta Braves couldn't make any money by going to the World Series and beaming their games all over the country, what hope is there for other teams?

But no, the Times must appear objective on such matters, and so hundreds and thousands of fans walk away with the impression that the New York Mets ($40.5 million), San Francisco Giants ($97 mil) and even the Baltimore Orioles ($10 mil -- so much for the drawing power of Camden Yards) actually lost money.

Next Page: Do they think we're stupid?

• View blog reactions