Cardinals chairman Bill DeWitt Jr. offered some eyebrow-raising comments in an interview with Frank Cusumano of 590 The Fan (audio link). You’ll want to listen to the entire chat for yourself, but we’ll cover some pertinent elements here — in particular, his highly questionable claim that the baseball industry isn’t even a terribly profitable one.
DeWitt says he believes there will be a 2020 season and that the game will be fine in the long haul. Baseball has “always survived and come back stronger,” he says.
But that doesn’t mean it’ll come about through a mutually satisfactory bargaining process. Indeed, DeWitt seemed less than optimistic that the sides will end up agreeing to terms.
“At some point we do have the right to implement a season and pay full salaries and the only way it makes sense is with a shorter season,” he said. “And that’s I think the way it’ll turn out.”
DeWitt insists that the owners want to make the season as long as possible. At the same time, he rejected the idea of pushing play outside the normal bounds of late October/early November. He cited concerns of a second COVID-19 wave and called it “a little bit of a ridiculous proposal” to imagine “Christmas shopping while you’re watching the World Series on television.”
The Cards’ chairman left little doubt as to where the league sees its leverage. “We understand that if we implement a season — a shorter season — that they will get full pay but in total they’ll make less money,” he said. “So it really doesn’t make a lot of sense for them to continue to hold out.”
That’s all interesting enough, but DeWitt’s most notable comments came when he attempted an explanation of the owners’ overarching position that players should share in the downside of a limited 2020 campaign. The host posed the question why players should subsidize losses even when their salaries have declined on average while the game raked in record revenues over the past two seasons.
DeWitt rejected the idea that declining salaries were tied to more profits: “don’t think for a minute that the reduced payroll added money in the pockets of the owners because it didn’t.” Citing the growth of non-player personnel — from 240 to 400 in the past six years, he says — DeWitt claims “It’s a bit of a zero-sum game” because “a lot more is put into training, conditioning, promotional work, front office, analytics.”
One might respond that what the teams are really doing with those alternative investments — given the areas of emphasis DeWitt cited — is looking for more efficient ways to spend their roster-related funds. And to boost the profitability of the existing product.
But DeWitt insists, against all reason, that “The industry isn’t very profitable, to be quite honest.” It’s rather a remarkable quote.
Depending upon how one draws the lines around the multi-faceted business efforts tied to the game, it may be possible to narrowly support such a claim. But surely, when you pull in broader efforts — television, retail, real estate — someone is making money in the industry?
DeWitt even rejects that notion in large part. He referenced the Cardinals’ massive Ballpark Village effort — the second phase of which the team values at $260MM. It’s an opportunity to benefit St. Louis, he says, but for the Cardinals? Per DeWitt, “we don’t view as a great profit opportunity.”
DeWitt went on to suggest that it’s the players’ own historic preference for market-based salaries that is gumming up the efforts to resume play. Other sports are “aligned with the players,” says DeWitt, because “the more the revenue the more the players get based on a formula.” It’s interesting that this viewpoint arose at this particular moment, during a downturn. And it’s not entirely clear why such a sophisticated businessperson suddenly feels he and his fellow owners aren’t able to adequately consider costs and revenues when bidding on talent.
DeWitt notes that there’s “been a little bit of distrust” when it comes to the players believing ownership’s sharing of financial information. Frankly, it’s not hard to see why. Players have indeed shared in the benefits over the years, as DeWitt notes, even as franchise values have soared. Even though many of the league’s main profit-generating efforts have occurred somewhat outside the scope of the arena the players can access directly, they’ve no doubt been able to secure greater paydays as a result. But it’s inconceivable that wealthy investors would continue to tie up billions of dollars into a business that doesn’t throw off profits. Arguing otherwise won’t help rebuild that missing trust.
Afk711
Go invest in hedge funds if the billions baseball makes isn’t satisfying you.
redmatt
Ask Dewitt about equity…how much is the team worth now than when they bought it? Why are baseball owners such idiots?
Halo11Fan
And when does that Merry Go Round stop? Just how many people can spend a billion dollars and lose money every year hoping someone is going to bail them out of their loses?
kylegocougs
Nobody is losing money over anything larger than one or two seasons.
Halo11Fan
kylegocougs
How do you know this? We don’t have a lot of evidence either way, but the evidence we have shows that teams lose money. The examples that have been given are the Braves and the Disney owned Angels.
And if Disney, who won a World Series, can lose money, than I would think most teams can lose money.
pjmcnu
The Braves are owned by a corporation. It would NOT own the team if it was not (highly) profitable. Corporations don’t own things for sentimentality sake. Disney sold to realize its gains in team value. If the problem is we can’t prove they’re lying because we only know what they show us, then show us EVERYTHING. They don’t for precisely that reason.
Vickers
Turner loves the game and is able to make that decision. Why did FOX sell the Dodgers? It’s not easy to run MLB teams.
MuleorAstroMule
They can always borrow against all the equity they’ve accrued in their franchises that basically double in worth every five years if they are short on cash.
For some reason they never bring that up, though.
stevenam
The teams make money, hand over fist. Want proof? Look at the valuation of the teams; they increase annually at a rate that blows away the market. Want another piece of proof? The owners uniformly refuse to open their books to the players in their negotiations. If they were actually losing money, they’d eagerly prove it.
Dewitt is lying.
OtisSnord
Because so few people want to buy a baseball team. Oh wait, the owner can absolutely count on making a huge profit on the sale, just like every owner has for the last 80 years, without exception
Dave 32
The problem with that equity is that it’s not actually worth a lot when it’s a share and you’d have to sell it to get anything out of it.
Yes, it’s technically worth a crap ton of money. A third of a baseball team is more wealth than 99% of the country will ever see obviously. But you can’t buy anything with it. If the business itself isn’t making a profit and you have to go into debt (which most teams do anyway) in order to keep the team alive and your equity value high, then if you have to sell when you’re in debt you definitely don’t get your full value.
It’s not to say there isn’t worth there, but from a certain perspective it’s easily true that the baseball team itself is not necessarily profitable on a YOY EBITDA basis. I’d actually be shocked if any of them are, because debt is cheap and MLB allows teams to be in debt.
Are owners still taking in big paychecks and making a ton of money compared to the average person? Yep, totally. And the side hustles associated are probably where the real money is anyway. Are teams still not necessarily making a profit on paper from baseball operations? Yeah… maybe. It’s definitely possible, it just depends on how narrow you want to focus the accounting and assign the debt.
Even the Yankees figured out it was more profitable to not own their YES network and instead just sell rights to let someone else run the thing. Operating costs are real, debt is real, it’s kinda complicated.
Owners aren’t idiots, but they are hoping you don’t understand how their accounting works. And maybe sometimes they don’t either.
GareBear
More equity equals more dividends. I’m an accountant, and I will bet every dollar I own that even if owners are taking $0 in salary that they are making millions per quarter/half from their equity in CASH. maybe not this year because dividends require profits, but even minority owners would see huge profits when baseball’s revenues are in the billions. Any other business would have to declare bankruptcy but the owners feel that they are not obligated to uphold their contractual obligations on their investments. It’s honestly disgusting because with every asset comes an accompanying liability. That is the risk of equity and investments. Yet these uber wealthy owners believe their employees, which have no other competitors because of a monopoly by MLB, should take the financial brunt of their investments? Yeah, I think the players should hold out. The owners are at fault for this mess for trying to cheat the players.
whiteysox
Bingo
whiteysox
That’s Bingo to Garr Bear comments
pjmcnu
So sell. Realize your giant profit. If you’re losing money & just can’t continue, cash out. Or STFU. And with real estate projects, swag, TV deals (or whole stations), digital revenue, etc., etc., they’re profitable without team value. That’s just the gigantic cherry on top of the yummy yummy money sundae.
OtisSnord
You’re right, they’re hoping you won’t understand their accounting, and you didn’t. They shift revenues from the team to other entities and shift expenses to the team and then say, “Look how little the team makes”.
But congratulations on figuring out that nobody ever gets rich in the stock market because principal appreciation is such a terrible thing.
phamdownbytheriver
They’re not….they just think that we are.
OtisSnord
That’s exactly the point. Owners try to get you to look only at revenues and expenses, but not at total return. If you invest in a tech stock that only pays a 0.5% dividend, but for which the principal value increased 100%, you made a killing. Owners are making a huge profit on the increase in the market value of their franchises. No owner has ever lost money on a baseball franchise in the last 75 years.. They have gotten rich on those franchises.
Tim_Buck-Two
I think Mr. Dewitt purchased his team for 150 million which was claimed to have been a horrible investment at the time only to have the team now be worth 2.2 billion, but there’s no money in baseball?!?!?! Get all the way outta here, you just returned 900% on your investment in 15 years… What does doing good look like for you Mr. Dewitt? Maybe you should spend some of that worth on good players to field your tax payer funded stadium with instead of handing out bad contracts then you’d have more fans in the seats even though you sell out virtually every game, but that’s not good enough for your spoiled rich self huh Mr Dewitt? You gotta pay the likes of Matt Carpenter and Dexter Fowler 40 million a year plus, but wanna complain there’s no money in baseball? Do your team a favor and sign a real free agent then maybe you’ll get somewhere.
downsr30
If people realized that on a yearly basis, most owners make less than the top 5% of the players, they’d see things differently. Revenue IS NOT profit.
If I told you that Jason Heyward will make twice as much from the Cubs organization than Tom Ricketts this year, would that change your perspective? Owners make their money if/when they sell the team.
Short-term, the owners will save money without a season, but long-term it would hurt their investment.
Vizionaire
have you seen the books?
downsr30
I’ve seen the Atlanta Braves books. They are part of a publicly traded company.
Vizionaire
are you a certified accountant?
Ancient Pistol
downsr30 is correct. In 2019, the Braves revenue was $476 million and its operating costs were $422 million for a total profits of $54 million. However, after accounting for $71 million in depreciation and amortization and $15 million in stock compensation, the Braves showed a loss of $32 million for 2019,
This is amazing!.
kylegocougs
They’re cooking the books (legally) to show that to lower their tax burden
Padres458
So they say. They could easily be moving profits and operating expenses around.
Halo11Fan
Disney had to open their books, we know they lost money.
In total, Disney lost upwards of 100 millions dollars on the Angels. We know Autry had to sell because he couldn’t afford to maintain the team.
They almost always make money selling the team (not Disney). But I don’t think running a team makes the owners much money.
Owners shouldn’t have to sell their team to make money. Wouldn’t you agree with that? I don’t think they make nearly as much money as most fans think.
Vizionaire
those were days of 50 cents beers.
brewcrew08
Funny how you think beer sales make that much of a dent. Even if you sell 15,000 beers at $10 a home game that’s only 12.5M. Not even a drop in the bucket.
Smokin Joe Charboneau
If owning a team isn’t profitable, why are teams sold for such huge sums? Could owners possibly be attracted to the prestige and publicity of owing an MLB team? So maybe, for some owners anyway, the profits are less important that the fame? It’s convenient they then get to say owning a team isn’t “that profitable.”
Hey owners, how about this. STFU and just play ball.
brewcrew08
I love all the people who say “they make a ton of money when they sell the team”. That’s like us average joes on a lesser scale having equity in a house and saying “when I sell it, I’ll make a lot of money”. The problem is YOU HAVE TO SELL IT FIRST.
Vizionaire
baseball wasn’t such a profitable investment then.it is now.
ImAdude
DeWitt bought the team for $150M. It’s worth nearly $2B. Yes, he built Ballpark Village aka Ballpark Ripoff, but he’s richer than s..t because of baseball. His family has made millions upon millions for over 70 years. Not very profitable? You and your children and their children don’t know what manual labor is. Don’t get me wrong. Kudos to them, but don’t feed us some sob story.
brewcrew08
Valuations are great. How much has he spent over those decades though? Not to mention you know too many people willing to shell out $2B for a baseball team?
pt57
There’s a story in “The Lords of Baseball,” an interesting (but dated) read. One owner, who had a Y1 profit of $20 million and a Y2 profit of $15 million (made up numbers), claimed he had a $5 million loss in Y2.
You have to take the comments and accounting with a grain of salt.
Halo11Fan
Smokin Joe Charboneau
Because teams don’t come on the market often and owners typically don’t buy teams to make money.
tesseract
You are confusing cash with wealth. There is wealth in owning a house/business/MLB franchise. Even if you are cash poor (on paper). Wealth > Cash. There is a reason why we talk about the wealth of rich people. It’s not like they have that amount sitting in a bank account. Having $2B worth of wealth can “throw” enough cash to live a rich lifestyle and still grow a 10% interest on a yearly basis.
The owners don’t have to “sell first”, nor they have a “problem”. They are already wealthy by owning a franchise that grows 10% a year.
Halo11Fan
Vizionaire.
The house comparison is about as good as I can think of. I don’t want to sell my house to live.
An owner shouldn’t have to sell his team because he loses ten (or more) million dollars a year running his team.
Since they don’t open their books, we can only examine the Braves and the Disney owned Angels. Most owners are not in this for year to year profits. I’m not pro owner or pro player, but I think the owners shouldn’t have to lose money year in and year out.
I’m not saying they do, but I don’t think most owners are making a lot of money running their teams year in and year out.
JtS12
While I agree with you that it is kind of a ridiculous argument, I think the underlying thought process for a lot of other people is though the owner may have to sell the team to realize a large profit, he has that asset to sell. After a ballplayer is done playing, they don’t have any asset to sell.
mmstang
Let’s keep in mind that your example is a PER GAME dollar figure. Multiply that by 81 home games and it IS real money. Secondly, nobody buys just a single beer…add in all the food items, soda for the kids, etc. The Cardinals routinely draw 3 million fans even during lousy seasons, so DeWitt’s comments strike me as disingenuous. Even with increased analytics and conditioning, why do you need with an additional 160 non-player personnel in just the past 10 years? 400 off-field employees? Looks like your organization might be a little “top heavy.”
Vizionaire
comparing your house a baseball team is only true if you rent out your house. you get increased value when you sell the house but you also are making operational profit from your investment. of course, you can create bogus expenses to reduce tax burdens as baseball owners must do.
Vandals Took The Handles
The Merts have lost a tremendous amount of money over the past 2 years. Yet the fans and the activist media belittle them for not spending even more on salaries.
How come no one brings up that the Mets owners are currently culling offers to buy the team, as they can’t afford to continue to take the losses? What I’m saying to those of your with a (Leftist) college education is – the Mets losses are REAL.. If they weren’t, those owners would happily keep the team.
Vizionaire
why mets owner lost money?
Vandals Took The Handles
Vizionaire;
Are you an adult?
Renting out a house does not guarantee an “operational profit”. Ever hear the phrase “negative cash flow”?
Did you learn Economics from AOC?
baseball1010
Vandals…Bernie Madoff killed the Mets ownership not baseball. Not an MLB team worth under a Billion.
Tom
“Not to mention you know too many people willing to shell out $2B for a baseball team?”
When a pro sports team goes up for sale, how long does it take to find a buyer? (Don’t bring the Mets into this, who are obviously hard to deal with.) There are plenty of super-wealthy people who’d jump at the chance to own one of the big three sports franchises…it’s just there aren’t a lot of opportunities to do so. If the Cardinals were put up for sale tomorrow, they’d have their choice of buyers.
Vizionaire
maybe you live in a place population growth is nil. where i live and i imagine where halo11 lives are different stories.
Vandals Took The Handles
” I think the underlying thought process for a lot of other people is though the owner may have to sell the team to realize a large profit, he has that asset to sell. After a ballplayer is done playing, they don’t have any asset to sell.”
–
EEEE, Gads……
Did the ballplayers invest money in themselves? Take losses or minimal profits some years?
They don’t have assets to sell after retiring? Trevor Bauer owns countless rental properties in the Seattle areas as he works out there during the off season. You think these ballplayers are spending those absurd salaries they make each year? Maybe some are. But all have agents and most have their money invested in “assets” that they can live very well on after they retire from the sport. You see anyone holding fundraisers for players that retired over the past 30 years….other then for guys that either snorted and / or gambled their assets away?
Vizionaire
so, how did mets owner lost money?
Halo11Fan
JtS12
When does that end? Why is this asset worth so much money when it loses money? The value isn’t based on reality, that Merry-Go-Round will eventually end.
The bubble is going to burst.
Yankeepride88
Boy, I sure wish I ONLY made $20 million a year for doing literally nothing. They pay people to ensure the organization is ran properly. Why should the owners make more money than the players when the owners literally just exist?
Halo11Fan
It took years for the Disney’s Angels to find a buyer. And this is a team that won a World Series.
bkbk
Its an asset that they realize all the profit on when they sell. They are asking their labor to bail them out but not sharing upside. If they were so poor, they could offer a break on salaries in exchange for a small equity steak as a pool to the players. Stop bailing out equity owners with labor. It has happened in every major industry during crisis. Its communist.
thor would look better in red
owning a business is not to make money on a yearly basis. ask any business owner and they will tell you they started the company for the long haul. they only make enough to live and hopefully grow their business. this is what owners do. at some point they hope that their busniess will pay off and that big payday comes [I.e. World series or winning run]. Profittablr i. the short-term might be small but overall it is profitable.
Crymearuver
It is worth noting that while he paid the brewery $150M, that was for the team, stadium and parking garages. He immediately sold the parking garages for $115M so in effect he bought the team for $35M.
Although, hey, out of the goodness of his heart and with no thought of himself he built a new stadium for us out of his own pocket (kind of) and built the beautiful ballpark village for us (although we paid near $100M towards it. Nice thoughtful guy.
C. A. Hevia
The Angels were sold in April 2003, they won the WS in October of 2002. So, 6 months… Lol..
wild bill tetley
Yankeepride who says owners make more money than players through a full baseball season? And where is your proof? A team with a net loss will simply cut loose people in the office and the players will continue to get paid either by that team or another team if they are traded or sign as a free agent.
jjghost
Brewcrew08 Stan (Musial) Enos (Slaughter) Kroenke would buy the team in a second if it went up sale. Then the entire state of Missouri would end.
ChicksDigTheLongBaII
Oh look, partisan bickering on a baseball site.
ImAdude
Brewcrew,now add the hot dogs at $8, sodas at $7, pretzels at $6, nachos at $8, popcorn at $6, burgers at $7, ice cream at $4, cotton candy at $5, and all the team merchandise at those 81 games.
OtisSnord
And of course, THEY CAN BORROW AGAINST THE VAST EQUITY THEY HAVE.
Show me an owner who lives in a trailer park
Halo11Fan
Disney had to open their books, we know they lost money.
In total, Disney lost upwards of 100 millions dollars on the Angels. We know Autry had to sell because he couldn’t afford to maintain the team.
They almost always make money selling the team (not Disney). But I don’t think running a team makes the owner’s much money.
Owners shouldn’t have to sell their team to make money. Wouldn’t you agree with that? I don’t think they make nearly as much money as most fans think.
C. A. Hevia
When did Disney ever open their books? They claimed losses, they also waited to depreciate before selling.
The Angels financials for like 2007 and 08 or 2008 and 09 were leaked along with a few other teams …. And they showed a profit.
Maybe you can point to where this Disney info was actually released… Because there is no record of it anywhere, even my search at Forbes (subscriber) shows zilch.
GMAN815
you get it. Thank you!
stgpd
I pay to see Hayward not Ricketts
CursedRangers
Watching Hayward isn’t worth the price of admission. Heck it’s not even worth a $9 beer.
jekporkins
You pay to specifically see Jason Hayward play. At this point he should be paying you.
sesquiup
Heyward
hiflew
No you don’t. You pay to see the Cubs uniform. The uniform of the Cubs is owned by Ricketts. Unless you are a Jason Heyward stalker of some sort, I’d guess you would pay to see any other player in that uniform. And that is true for 99% of fans.
steelerbravenation
And you know this how ????
Baseball owners refuse to open their books. The Braves are the only team forced to and they have had record revenue & profit the last few years
WiffleBall
No, it would not change my perspective. Jason Heyward earned his millions off of a unique athletic skill that he possesses (he may not have lived up to his contract, but that’s on Ricketts and the Cubs).
By contrast, Tom Ricketts was born into a wealthy family and has no skills that any well educated person doesn’t have or couldn’t very easily get.
Between the two, i’d say Heyward, born and raised by a middle-class family in New Jersey, deserves his big payday for helping make a rich person even richer off of his hard work and skill.
Besides, Ricketts and other owners wouldn’t own these businesses if it wasn’t profitable. I’m not laying the current issue on owner’s specifically here, but to suddenly claim “baseball isn’t very profitable” is just straight bulls**t.
whynot 2
A lot of companies make concerted efforts to make it seem they are barely profitable or even operating at a loss due to the tax implications. There are too many loopholes that allow and encourage that type of behavior.
mfm420
then why did tom spend hundreds of millions to buy his kid a governorship?
spend north of 100 million dollars to get his kid a 200k a year job.
you want to talk a bad investment, look no further (besides, no one forced tom to pay heyward all that money, he chose to do it).
ImAdude
MFM, are you aware that a U.S. Congress person makes $174,000/year? Yet, Drooling Nancy has a net worth of $120M. How did that happen? Let me count the ways.
baseball1010
Downs… unless you have access to MLB’s books you have no idea what they make.
dugmet
Agreed. How much should an owner pocket if the team is worth $1 billion? $10m? $25m? $50M? I’ll go with a minimum of $25m but probably half the owners don’t clear that much each year.
Koamalu
LMFAO. The owners take salaries larger than the highest salaries on their teams on average.
No team lost money last year. Some made much more than others. The average revenue was $400 million with average expenses of $282 million including major and minor league salaries. .
Halo11Fan
And you know this how? We don’t know much, but what we do know is Disney lost so much money on the Angels they had to get them off the books and it took years to sell them.
We don’t know much. But what we do know doesn’t support your opinion.
OtisSnord
You’re missing the point by the widest possible margin. The increase in the market value of the franchise is exactly how they’re making a huge profit.
Vizionaire
why are you in it?
wild bill tetley
For the love of the game. DeWitt grew up with the game.
Vizionaire
if he really owns the team for the love of the game why is telling us baseball isn’t that profitable?
Buzz Saw
Because it is true. He can love the game but also be honest about how profitable it is or isn’t.
WiffleBall
It’s true, huh? Someone who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year may not seem very profitable to you, but it sure does to most people.
Is a multi millionaire really going to complain because he’s not a billionaire?
mfm420
Is a multi millionaire really going to complain because he’s not a billionaire?
“yes”
kanye west for years before forbes declared him a billionaire
Strike Four
He’s 100% not being honest about how profitable it is or isn’t though, that’s why that statement is particularly rotten.
wild bill tetley
Prove it.
Robertowannabe
Owners have said for years that they are in it for their own ego and prestige of being the principle owner of a major sports franchise. They are happy as long as the franchise at least breaks even each year and a bonus if they make a little profit. They make their money in other businesses/investments. As long as the franchise is not losing value or bleeding money on a yearly basis, they are happy.
The most current instance where it shows what happens to a franchise when the owners have financial problems outside of the game is the Mets with the Wilpon family.
Vizionaire
what prestige!
Ancient Pistol
To be able to put a management team together that brings a championship to the city.
Strike Four
and now we all hate billionaires, MLB team owners are giving us all really easy public targets to hate.
Can’t wait til it’s actually embarrassing to be a millionaire again, like it was in the 70’s.
Koamalu
LMFAO. You believe that?
Ironman_4life
So when I go to a game with my family and I spent $380 on tickets $240 on food and $160 on beer where exactly is that money going?
mike156
To quote the Sidney Greenstreet character in Casablanca to Rick:
“Carrying charges, my boy. Carrying charges.:
bobtillman
‘Frankly my dear, that would take a miracle…and the Germans have outlawed miracles”….
rusty2489
Exactly. you forgot parking also. I LOVE the game of baseball, but this is getting ugly and turning me off from the game. Where does all that TV money go?
Robertowannabe
Some to the owner, some to to the concession operator, and if other cities are like Pittsburgh, a large chunk to city taxes……..
brewcrew08
Unless you’re clearing out entire concession stands in 4 hours no chance you spend $400 a game on just food and beer lol
WarkMohlers
How many beers are you downing at the game? But I guess that depends on your team.
GCarbs
240 on food??? 160 on beer??? Come on man, grossly over exaggerating hurts your argument. Even 380 on tickets can be considered high. You can get tickets for 20 each at almost every park. Food for 20-40 (or you could eat before you go). And beer for 10 each. That’s like a total of 250.
BrandonGregory74
I do club level at GABP because it’s all inclusive and it worth every damn penny.
JobuKnows
only 15 beers, give or take. Those are rookie numbers
WarkMohlers
Wade Boggs is that you?
vtadave
Maybe 4 hot dogs and 6 beers each is a bit much.
whynot 2
How many beers do you drink!?
Strike Four
Well luckily for you, there won’t be any public baseball games until 2023, so you’ll save all that money.
schwender
JJ Cooper has a series of tweets stating that owning a baseball team is extremely profitable, and showing owners make hand over fist vs investing the same money in the S&P 500, DeWitt is blowing smoke.
FSogol
Dewitt is a clown. It is sad so many people lap up billionaire’s unrestrained bs. That seems to be a big problem in this country.
Vizionaire
even a fake billionaire, too!
rusty2489
What is the big problem? too many clowns u say? LMAO
davidk1979
Ten billion dollar enterprise not a big money maker lol
whynot 2
The money likely disappears offshore under a mountain of shell companies, designed to obscure ownership and skirt tax liabilities
khopper10
I get why some people don’t like either side, but fans who side with owners against the players don’t make sense to me.
stan lee the manly
It’s the same for siding with players over owners. Like what seems to be everything else these days, both sides are partially wrong and partially right and it is nowhere near a black-and-white issue. Lots of gray area but people are slowly and surely losing the ability to see gray.
Strike Four
Nah, the players deserve the lion’s’ share of the profits, without them there’s nothing. Always be pro player.
ImAdude
Strike four, without an owner, there is NO team to hire players.
Brian 2
I’ve seen the owners make more concessions than the players imo
rememberthecoop
The valuation of the teams keeps increasing year after year. I don’t know and you don’t know how that equates to profitability. I do know that owners assume much of the risk. Contracts are guaranteed, playoff revenue and production is not. Ever see a player come back after a poor year offering to give some money back?
stollcm
Bingo on the contracts! Think Pujols would retire and forego the last couple years on his contract? I think not. Why? It’s guaranteed and I don’t blame him. Owners have risk too. They all do. All have a ton of $$$ at stake too. They need to figure it out.
brewcrew08
As a brewers fan I know the crew actually lost money last year. A big part of that was their reconstruction of Maryville for spring training but that all goes into it. Who do you think pays the millions to keep every level in the system going?
Bill Skiles
I would like to see Pujols play long enough to take the record from Potatohead.
.
Vizionaire
kbo!
WarkMohlers
Business valuations are tricky. You could base it on a multiple of revenue, but that’s a very crude way of valuing a business. I’d imagine teams are valued based on assets, discounted cash flow analyses, and just the scarcity of teams available. If there are only 30 potentially available, their worth shoots up. But to claim a franchise isn’t very profitable is nonsense. Above someone said the Braves took a $32 million operating loss. However they had a $54 million operating income before depreciation and amortization. Funny how accounting can do that.
mfm420
ever see owners decide to tank 3 years in a row and lowe ticket prices?
what’s that? they’ve never done that?
but hey, keep spouting nonsense, maybe the second the owners get the hard cap you guys are always whining about, ticket prices will lower… sorry, couldn’t say that with a straight face.
mike156
This is a little too easy to mock, because none of these hard-headed businessmen would continue in a marginally or unprofitable business in the long run. If the Owners do implement a shorter season (assuming they have the authority to do so unilaterally) maybe that would be best. The players would know how much they were making, they could decide to play or not based on that information, and let the playoffs stay the same. If the owners think a 48 game season is good for the game…they ought to try it out. I don’t believe that the playoffs will have much credibility, I do believe that a number of players will opt to sit, rather than take health risks for a small fraction of their contracts. But, let the owners make their move, so as to keep their “marginally profitable” businesses going until next year,
BlueBleeder
But keep in mind, players won’t get service time if they sit out (unless they are considered high risk). If they play the 48 games, they will get a year service credit based on the March agreement.
mike156
Good point. It’s a business decision by the players. The service time consideration is less important to a veteran than to a younger player, and that’s actually appropriate given health risks.
jtvincent
baseball can’t afford to lose any more fans. They all need to shut up.. it looks terrible
hyraxwithaflamethrower
Ok, if your biggest expense goes down, your revenue goes up, and you’re still not making more profit, you need to reevaluate your management team.
brewcrew08
Biggest expense being payroll I’m assuming you mean? If there aren’t games (or far less) the owners lose all of that revenue. You do realize you can’t have one without the other correct?
hyraxwithaflamethrower
@brewcrew08 He’s not just talking about this year. He’s talking about past years. You do realize that correct?
Another point is that the extra headcount he’s talking about isn’t on the players. Yes, it’s related to the team, but he’s basically saying the players should be more willing to take a cut because owners spent the increased difference between revenue and players’ salaries on something else that the players didn’t demand. How is that the players’ problem? It’s a management problem.
Third, the owners are so focused on this year and having to somehow remain profitable in the short-term that they’re sacrificing any goodwill they may have had with the union and alienating their fans. Their shortsightedness and BS are going to cost them more in the long run than if they’d just agreed to a half-season at pro-rated salaries.
Ancient Pistol
Maybe this is why teams that put AAA talent on the field don’t bring in fans? Sure you can cut payroll but will fans want to see nobodies?
hyraxwithaflamethrower
The Cardinals can hardly be accused of putting out AAA talent, considering they’re contending for the playoffs pretty much every year. They’re a small market team, but they still have a loyal fan base. Now, if you’re talking about teams like the Orioles, who can’t even rightly claim to be rebuilding, then I agree. No idea how they’re staying afloat. But most other teams are either contending or tanking so they can hopefully be better in 5 years.
Ancient Pistol
I was talking to hyraxwithaflamethrower.
ABCD
There’s a reason his name is DeWitt. He’s such a funny guy.
(ducks)
If you have rubber chickens, you can throw them at me as if I were Svengoolie.
mattynokes
How are players going to make more under the current proposal? If the post-season gets canceled, they get ~23.5% of their salary. Sure, if everything goes without a hitch, they get 30-35%. They’ll make around 33% of their salary if Manfred enacts a 48-54 game season. Not much lost if they lose ~2%. The owners gotta close the gap. There’s probably going to be fans to some extent at some point, so they need to quit acting like they’re only going to get TV revenue.
Rayland#1
Looks more and more like the owners will implement their short season plan.
clepto
Rayland Ohio???
Vizionaire
in ’18 arte moreno said he lost money. in ’19 he said he barely broke even. he then chased cole with 300+/10 deal and signed rendon. bull crap!
Ancient Pistol
That’s only increases costs by $30+ million a year and would go down once Pujlos leaves. In other words, it’s the cost of doing business to get a winner. I actually commend him for trying.
Vizionaire
he was willing to sign both on top of other acquisitions.
brownbomber
These owners are as greedy as they come. Cardinals organization built ballpark village which put alot of small bars close to the stadium out of business. Profits will never by high enough for them
66TheNumberOfTheBest
1) The idea that MLB is not profitable is laughable.
2) Even if that non-true and laughable notion were true, it still doesn’t matter.
MLB is not a pizza shop that lives pay period to pay period. The owners make a huge return on investment when they sell the team.
Not paying the players this season is as savvy as buying a mansion and refusing to pay the gas bill in the winter, allowing the pipes to burst and the house to flood.
Literally, all MLB owners have to do is not destroy the mansion and they’ll make a fortune. But…
brewcrew08
“Owners make a huge return when they sell the team”. That’s great unless they still own the team. Not to mention they would have to find someone to buy it. I like playing the what-if game. It’s fun
Ancient Pistol
Exactly bewcrew! Owning a team is like owning a single family house. You have costs for upkeep and the property pays nothing in revenue each year. You only have it because 1). you need a place to live and 2) you hope to sell if for more than you paid at some future date..
66TheNumberOfTheBest
“….and the property pays nothing in revenue each year.”
Right.
Except for the part where the industry makes ten figure profits every year.
Except maybe this one, so, better shut off the utilities and board up the windows, I guess.
WarkMohlers
An mlb team is much more complex than a single family house. You don’t own a business that runs in the red for decades and tell yourself “I can’t wait to sell this for a huge return”. They are profitable and if they weren’t they wouldnt exist.
I mean look at the marlins. They weren’t exactly sitting on the market forever to be sold. There will always be a party interested in purchasing an mlb franchise because there are so few of them. You can build a home, you can’t build a multinational govt protected monopoly
Halo11Fan
There will not always be a party interested in buying a franchise that loses money every year.
It took Disney several years to find a buyer. They lost upwards of 100 million dollars during their ownership.
With those kinds of loses, eventually you’ll run out of investors. Why is baseball any different than a pyramid scheme?
Vizionaire
that’s a proof baseball teams don’t lose money in general.
WarkMohlers
$100 million in losses over 8 years after investing a ton in the renovation of the stadium. The angels were merely a piece of a plan Disney had, not a stand alone venture. $100 million in losses 8 years averages to less than the Braves “lost” last year. It’s not hard to lose money on your records when you consider asset depreciation and amortization.
Disney wanted to make the angels and ducks to be profitable outside of their market by tying them into their other ventures. They had a plan but it didn’t work and this was during the worst years of Disney. But to use this one example as scripture is disingenuous. If they just ran a team by itself, they could have shown profitability.
Halo11Fan
I’m not using it a scripture, I’m saying we don’t have a lot of examples. Disney had to open their books. Disney is what we know. They had to sell the team because they were taking a loss every year.
Based on how little we know, and we don’t know much, I bet most owners don’t make any money running their teams.
WarkMohlers
I didnt mean you specifically did. I just have seen a lot of people point to Disney when they are an exception not the rule, apologies for not clarifying.
But The not making money concept is just based on perception. Accounting is easily manipulated. The numbers are concrete but they can be manipulated in ways that make profits disappear when you want them to, or make losses appear less substantial or even non-existent.
If owners really wanted to cry poor, then why not provide evidence of it? If they were truly losing money then they could release documentation that proves that and it would be an incredibly strong negotiation tool in this ordeal.
Sarasotaosfan
It must be great to know with certsinty the future. Maybe you can tell us how much the Mets will sell for.
Remember, this business is subjected to the same fiat orders we are trying to shed.
Halo11Fan
forwhomjoshbelltolls
1) The idea that MLB is not profitable is laughable.
Tell that do Disney. They had to sell the team at a loss because they could not justify the yearly losses on their books.
And the Disney Angels won a World Series.
Ezpkns34
I sure hope the billionaire owners are still able to put food on the table …. in each of their houses
Vizionaire
for their mistresses!
Smokin Joe Charboneau
I guess you didn’t see the memo that the word “mistress” has been outlawed.
Delete your account.
Vizionaire
why? are you scared of me? or you are a neonazzi and think shutting someone makes you superior?
Ancient Pistol
He probably means that your comment was stupid.
Vizionaire
it’s clear you are over your head!
RunDMC
DeWitt and company bought STL in 1995 for $150M.
Forbes valued STL at $2.1B in 2019. So in the 24 years of ownership their now valued at 14x their purchase price.
Not many places you’ll get a return on that kind of investment.
vtadave
About 11% annually. Good but not exactly exponetial growth.
Free Clay Zavada
regardless there’s very few places you can get that return on investment, even if the % isn’t as high as it would seem
Vizionaire
but very safe.
Scott Kliesen
Up until Curt Flood and Marvin Miller created Free Agency, MLB was great for Owners and fans. Afterwards, MLB became great for Owners and players.
If MLB & MLBPA were smart, they would both start thinking about their fans first. Both would benefit more in the long run.
NFL & NBA figured that out long ago.
steelerbravenation
NFL & NBA didn’t figure anything out. NBA has huge tv contracts because half the country is inside watching tv in the cold months of the year and they have limited salaries of 15 players and a salary cap forces the owners to pay the players.
Football same thing a salary cap forces the teams to open their books.
Vizionaire
it’s not salary cap that forces leagues to open books. it’s revenue sharing between owners and players.
Scott Kliesen
They figured out if they conduct themselves as partners in a business enterprise, rather than adversaries, fans will spend more time and money on the business.
MLB has gone from America’s past time to America’s afterthought in a couple generations of labor unrest. Are players or Owners at fault? Yes they are!
Smokin Joe Charboneau
I agree MLB and MLPBPA need to consider the fans more than they have, But to say NFL and NBA figured it out is hard to believe. Neither sport if very entertaining any longer, and the NBA’s connection to China is worrisome.
Scott Kliesen
MLB used to be way more popular than NFL when Marvin Miller came on the scene in the 1970’s. The NBA used to have to show their Championship games on tape delay because no network would show it live. Now both sports have far surpassed MLB by any statistical measure.
Furthermore, MLB is committing suicide on the layaway plan by embracing SABRmetrics. Wasn’t that long ago we would see Starting Pitching duels go 8, 9, or more innings between Superstar pitchers ( Morris vs Smoltz in a World Series game 7). Now we’re lucky if a SP makes it longer than 6 innings before we’re subjected to a never ending parade of no name relievers.
Only sport where the team’s best players are relegated to the bench during the most important part of the game. Makes no sense from a fans perspective.
Seems both Owners and players are more interested in fighting each other than winning over fans to me.
bobtillman
I felt so bad for DeWitt and his fellow owners, I sent them my stimulus check.
Bart Doherty
This is what to expect when either an owner or ownership group comments about profitability.
A lot of ballparks have been publicly funded. Imagine if the owners had too show a complete and true financial statement to the public. Their would never be a publicly funded ballpark again.
I have first hand knowledge that the owers never lose any money. Consider, the national television contract, local television contract, sponsorships, playoff television profits, merchandise sales, digital footprint contracts and luxury box or deluxe suite ticket holdings, that before a ticket is sold to the public a small profit has been turned.
Owners crying poor means that the club is only making a minor profit. The owners believe that the player’s should lower their already prorated salaries so that the profit margin could increase slightly. The owners are savy businessman and woman and would never sacrifice profits for an egocentric approach to owning a team.
Yes the player’s make a decent amount of money for the most part. More money than 95% of the population each year. Some are way over compensated but it’s the owners that made those decisions.
Neither side is perfect. I say just play 74 games wich is 4/9 of a regular season and pay the players making under $1,000,000 their full prorated salary and pay the other players 80% of their prorated salary and defer 20 % to when normal is back.
Smokin Joe Charboneau
Bart, I think you should divulge your so-called “first-hand knowledge.”
HubcapDiamondStarHalo
“I have first hand knowledge that the owers never lose any money.”
Can’t just make that statement without explaining how it is you come by the first hand knowledge if you want to be believed…
66TheNumberOfTheBest
“Consider, the national television contract, local television contract, sponsorships, playoff television profits, merchandise sales, digital footprint contracts and luxury box or deluxe suite ticket holdings, that before a ticket is sold to the public a small profit has been turned.”
The people in the nose bleeds who insist on crying poor for the owners need to read this part over and over again.
They can pay the players their full, pro-rated salaries and more or less break even. Instead, they are using this as a chance to break the union while using Covid as cover.
digimike
Oh, that’s rich.
mstrchef13
He conveniently does not mention media contracts which is the biggest cause of disparity between franchises. The NFL and NBA have national contracts, so each team shares equally in that money. MLB shows very few regular season games to a national audience, so most of the revenue from regular season games comes from the local broadcast stations, and most teams own (or have an ownership interest in) their broadcast partners. The owners don’t care about the regular season as long as they get to have a postseason, which is where the big national media dollars come from.
ScottCFA
Owning a baseball team is like owning a tech stock that reinvests all its revenue for growth such that it shows zero economic profit and pays no dividend. In baseball, the players receive most of the cash flow after ordinary business expenses.
Some investors want interest or dividends (the players), some want capital appreciation (the owners). Both can get what they want even though some may get more than others. Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
Simple Simon
MLBTR writers continue to distrust remarks by team management & spokesmen.
This article is trash: fan remarks make more sense than the author of this.
Examples from the article take verbatim:
Bill DeWitt Jr. offered some eyebrow-raising comments
his highly questionable claim that the baseball industry isn’t even a terribly profitable one
he attempted an explanation of the owners’ overarching position
It’s interesting that this viewpoint arose at this particular moment, during a downturn. And it’s not entirely clear why such a sophisticated businessperson suddenly feels he and his fellow owners aren’t able to adequately consider costs and revenues
DeWitt insists, against all reason
It’s rather a remarkable quote.
it may be possible to narrowly support such a claim.
It’s interesting that this viewpoint arose at this particular moment, during a downturn.
Frankly, it’s not hard to see why
it’s inconceivable that wealthy investors would continue
Arguing otherwise won’t help rebuild that missing trust
mike156
I suspect you would have preferred something unreservedly pro-owner?
Vizionaire
how much do you get for defending cheap billionaires?
wild bill tetley
How much do you get defending me-first, entitled players?
WarkMohlers
Me-first? Who should they look out for? You and I that want to watch baseball or their families? The average career is like 4 years. That’s 25% of most players entire earning years potentially being thrown down the drain. They want to play more games and ownership has a BS excuse to not have more games. A longer season means baseball cuts into other sports. Others sports conflicting means lower viewership. Owners aren’t as concerned with the second covid wave as they say and I assume players aren’t either. If I had 4 years to make most of my income before changing paths, I’d maximize it.
DarkSide830
…and other funny jokes you can tell your friends
Tdog12
As the writer of this article, you should probably mention the profit that actually occurs instead of just revenue. Do you understand the difference? Also, he quite literally is the owner of a team, so why would you immediately question his point of view? Is he not the one who would know the profitability of a project. For those of you questioning his cheapness, etc, please reread the article. He made a clear point that advances they perform in the surrounding community aren’t made for profitability, it’s a great thing for the community. I will not claim him as some saint, but I don’t understand why people are so quick to demonize most owners. Finally, I’ve seen/heard from reading and watching media several owners mention that owning sports teams isn’t always profitable. Is this new news to some people? This article was written with clear bias and in my opinion was flat out lazy. I have a lot of respect for this app, but this kind of writing is lazy. Period.
Tdog12
There are fan comments in here that have put in far more critical and intelligent thought than the author, and it really is disappointing.
Linkster
No owner has ever done anything for the “Community” without getting something out of it. Don’t naive!
Tdog12
It isn’t naivity, there are a multitude of benefits to pursuing community projects and enticing fans to join the community. I stated pretty clearly that he is no saint, but he isn’t as bad a person as many would say from his comments. The naivity can go both ways sir.
wild bill tetley
You forgot “be”, Linky.
No player has ever done anything for the community without making a deal and getting something out of it. Don’t be naive.
Tdog12
The Dewitt’s own one of the most prestigious franchises in the sport, one that commits to competing essentially every year the past decade. They don’t carry the heavist payroll but they certainly don’t hold out on the community. As a fan you can see their investment in the community just by walking near the stadium. What’s the point of view here? He’s wrong for saying it’s not profitable? Why? Shouldn’t you be happy there are a few wealthy individuals who commit to keeping a team competitive despite that fact? I absolutely stand by the players trying to earn every dollar they can. But to turn around and say the owners are evil for not handing over every dollar they demand is childish. You don’t become that wealthy by failing to negotiate. I hope both sides reach an agreement, but both should stick their ground and fight for every dollar until they are satisfied with an agreement.
Tdog12
Jeff Todd is a great writer and I appreciate the interesting perspectives and information he provides the baseball community. I think this is a point of view a lot of people share and I believe its far too simplistic to just paint owners as the villans evertime. Its frankly lazy and ill thought out. Perhaps I too made a mistake in givng the owners too much credit, but I will never join the crowd that anyone holding wealth has poor intentions.
Strike Four
At no point has MLBTR said they are totally unbiased.
In fact, the writers biases are why a lot of people come here.
Tdog12
You’re certainly correct, and I have no doubt that it’s incredibly difficult to remove all bias in this type of media. What I meant, and should have described more clearly, was I felt that bias replaced a legitament argument in this scenario. The author failed to provide any statistics, figures, any sort of numerical data to disprove what Dewitt said. To immediately discount what Dewitt said as “beyond all reason” is ridiculous when I don’t see legit reasoning in the author’s argument. Immediate skepticism certainly is fair, but it absolutely needs evidence to form an actual argument.
WarkMohlers
Why would an owner lie about profitability during ongoing labor negotiations? Yeah that makes no sense. Like why would someone try to sway public opinion away from the other side. It’s like thinking companies are more concerned with appeasing shareholders than providing clear and consistent information as to how they are actually doing financially.
Tdog12
Of course he’s trying to sway public opinion. He’s giving an insight into the reasons behind the negotiations from an owners perspective. They not only are in an industry that isn’t highly profitable, they’re also trying to agree to compensation for major leaguers and minors alike in an unprecedented time. He clearly has an incentive to let a frustrated fanbase understand his perspective behind why they are far apart currently. Just because it’s what people may not expect to hear doesn’t immediately imply they’re lying. That kind of mentality is definitely understandable but doesn’t constitute reality without any evidence to suggest so.
Linkster
OMG! Then why doesn’t he sell the team at a discount and get out of the business why he can?
Teams have spent millions of dollars on back office personnel, analytics, stadiums, etc. because they hadn’t invested in these areas for years…if ever.
Look at the A’s for a perfect example of placing a quality team on the field, with analytics, on a shoestring budget and a very old stadium.
If MLB and MLBPA can’t agree now, then the 2021 CBA is a non-starter.
On his way out the door, he can give the fans a giant middle finger like he is doing now!
wild bill tetley
A’s are a bad example because they are an embarrassment to sports and the shining example of teams using budget restraints as an excuse to fall short year in and year out. They play the victim card. No thanks.
Perhaps profit is secondary to DeWitt, and it’s not about the money. Perhaps he is pointing something out that isn’t necessarily important to him. Winning is.
ImAdude
DeWitt has NEVER said winning is important. Their goal that they publicly state every year is, “to be competitive.”
wild bill tetley
Cards won in 2006 and 2011. I realize you have this perception of the Cardinals not having the total desire to win championships, and you might be right, yet they’ve won. They’ve been to the World Series 4 times between 2004 and 2013. They’ve been to the NLCS numerous times.
Have they spent money inadequately? Yes. Molina and Carpenter come to mind. Regardless, your Cards have won and have used the “competitve” outlook to continue consistent results. Unlike the A’s, who are walking excuses of a franchise.
Ease up on the bitter pills.
tesseract
This is no secret. Owning a team is like owning a rental house, The value goes up overtime but the actual income from the rent might be enough just to cover the expenses, some years you could even have a loss. But that does not mean it’s a bad investment because the value of the franchise continue to go up! Real investors don’t think in the value of cash, they think in the value of wealth.
stollcm
You buy a stock in Verizon because of the dividend, cash flow, it pays out. You buy Amazon because of the appreciation of the underlying assets and don’t need/want the cash flow. Sports franchises are more like the Amazon’s of the stock market.
Halo11Fan
But you don’t have to spend money every year for the privileged of keeping your Amazon stock.
And if owners only recuperate their money when they sell, isn’t that a pyramid scheme? You will eventually run out of new investors who don’t want to lose money every year.
tesseract
Don’t confuse money/cash with wealth. Wealth > Cash. Owners don’t need to “recuperate” their money while they are $2B worth in wealth.
Halo11Fan
Thanks for not ripping on “Recoup”.
There is so much we don’t know. But if baseball is a business where the majority of teams lose money every year, eventually it will run out of investors.
Why spend a billion dollars on a business that doesn’t make money? How many people are capable of doing that?
Halo11Fan
I don’t think it’s a bad investment, but how much should owners lose every year?
When Arte Moreno says he loses a little money, I believe him. That one extra ball player could turn a one million loss into a 15 million dollar loss. Owners only have so much liquidity. A loss every year adds up. They shouldn’t have to sell their team team.
tesseract
If an owner loses $30M a year in 10 years it’s $300M… Meanwhile, suppose the franchise value went up from $1B to $2B…. actually, they increase their wealth by $700M ($1B – $300M). It’s hard to get a grip on this but it’s true.
Strike Four
Imagine believing anything Arte Moreno says. What a nightmare. Bet all your finances are in pyramid schemes. Arte is pure evil, wake up dude.
Halo11Fan
Strike Four
Imagine someone believing anything you say?
My imagination isn’t that good.
BlueSkies_LA
Not really, and it would definitely not be a sound way to invest in real estate if it was true. The value of an investment property is not going to increase unless the income that can be derived from it increases. If you aren’t making a positive cash flow with mostly fixed carrying costs, if not right away than pretty soon after you bought, then you bought too high. The same is true of the baseball franchise owners. They buy for ROI. If their ROI goes up, their equity value goes up. No, DeWitt thinks we’re rubes when it comes to finance. If this how the owners talk as group no wonder the game is so screwed.
tesseract
While I don’t consider myself a real estate investor I do own a couple rental properties. I have lost money some years (repairs, tenants not paying and getting evicted, etc). But the value of the property has steadily gone up every year. One property has gone up over $100K in value, and I have no interest in selling it, why would I? Sure, I may have “lost” about $10K one year but my net worth and my wealth keeps increasing every year. You are wrong when you say “the value of an investment property is not going to increase unless the income that can be derived from it increases” Property value is in no way tied to operating income. A similar concept applies to sports franchises. The bulk of the return on these types of investments comes from holding that investment over time, not the operating income. If I may recommend you should read some books on investing so DeWitt does not think you are a rube when it comes to finance 😉
BlueSkies_LA
On income property value and income absolutely are tied together. You will find if you go to sell income property that (whether you know it or not) the market value and its appraised value at that time will be based on how much income it can produce at that time (which has nothing necessarily to do with how much rent you happen to be charging the current tenants). The income multiples that property investors use are pretty standard. It’s called a gross income multiplier. You could look that up.
Halo11Fan
And we all remember the housing bubble. I have a hard time believing MLB franchises are immune to this bubble.
BlueSkies_LA
I don’t remember a housing bubble so much as I remember a lot of people being lent money to buy houses that they didn’t have the ability to pay back, and also all those bad loans being securitized in such a way that nobody knew what was in them.
If MLB faces a bubble of some kind it will probably come from the collapse of the media revenue model. Of course they could also continue to treat the customers as if they don’t matter. That will come back to haunt them eventually too, if there’s any justice in the world.
Iknowmorebaseball
It’s time to get rid of this clown DeWitt. Card fans are the most moronic of all and arrogant to the point where they don’t realize that they have not done squat the last few years and DeWitt is holding them back.
Slapin
DeWitt should have been convicted for his roll in the Who Concert tragedy in Cincinnati in 1979.
stollcm
Thanks for adding nothing to the relevant discussion
tonyinsingapore
Baseball aside- this is horrible sports journalism and is an example of what keeps MLBTR as second tier. Unless labeled as an opinion piece, the facts/commentary are objectively presented from both sides. The reader then decides, in this case for players or owners.
In this story, the writer basically listens to a third party interview then calls DeWitt a liar. Not good journalism work.
Oh, I’m generally on the side of the players btw. But this article? Disappointing….
Halo11Fan
You haven’t been able to tell this site is pro player and anti owner? I’m not sure how anyone can miss that.
This site isn’t fair to the owners.
DarkSide830
i disagree. make your claim.
Halo11Fan
DarkSide830
You disagree with my claim?
Read yesterday’s chat.
Heck, read any chat.
Strike Four
What on earth are you talking about, the comments sections were wildly pro-owner a few months ago.
Owners don’t deserve things to be “fair” they steal money from others for a living.
Arte Moreno is one the most evil people in America, period. He deserves any and all smoke coming to him….and it’s coming….bet on it.
Halo11Fan
Arte Moreno is one the most evil people in America, period.
Imagine anyone believing anything you write.
DarkSide830
let me guess – he’s somewhere in the top 30, the other 29 being the other owners?
BlueSkies_LA
Bridge for sale. Cheap!
Free Clay Zavada
I know people love to side with the owners from some unknowable reason, but this a new low. I can’t imagine how anyone can believe this claim, which has no evidence behind it and defies any semblance of logic. Yet the comments section is full of shills…
Strike Four
I used to think homerism was a form of mental illness, but now I’m thinking it’s more mind control at this point. These defenders of owners, their minds, they are simply not like ours. Something is broken or being corrupted. The fibers of their souls are broken. They are morally bankrupt. Like, its baseball, your fave team definitely has done terrible things no matter who you are so just own it, acknowledge it, say it sucks, but they’re still your fave team, and move on.
Why is that so hard for people to do? No one “wins” and “loses” at online commenting, no one is keeping score, no one cares that much. So instead of saying “billionaires worked hard for their wealth” say “yes I know all billionaires did was provide startup money and then they stole valor from those doing the actual work, but I still respect them for it”. It’s fine to say this, it’s not fine to outright ignore what is happening and instead point fingers at literally everyone else except the billionaire, even an anonymous commenter? Imagine holding an anon commenter to a higher standard than a billionaire? Just a broken-minded comment for sure. I simply can’t fathom thinking like this.
Halo11Fan
Why do we believe owners. Because this century only two have opened their books and they both tell a story that teams don’t make money
The Braves and The Disney owned Angels.
It’s not a big sample size. But it is a bigger sample size than the people who believe otherwise.
madmanTX
Maybe hacking other organizations? Oh wait, the Cards already did that.
Whiskey and leather balls
Not happy with the millions go buy your own franchise…not everybody gets to do what they want for a living
tigerdoc616
Owners are billionaires for the most part. They don’t make that kind of money being stupid. Franchise values have soared over the years. MLB made record revenues last year. 29 out of 30 franchises made money last year according to Forbes. So Mr. DeWitt, I am not buying what you are selling. If baseball did not make you money, you would not do it. And you wonder why the players don’t trust you? And increasingly, the fans are not trusting you either!
Strike Four
Billionaires aren’t stupid, but they sure are greedy – they are literally hoarding money. The govt should force them to give it back, like they did in the 60s and 70s to prevent billionaires from happening this often, like this.
Ancient Pistol
What your suggesting is unlawful.
Strike Four
Let me change “force them” to “make it too much of a pain in the butt to have” then 🙂
Ancient Pistol
Your mindset doesn’t understand law.
Ancient Pistol
This clearly violates the 14th Amendment.
Strike Four
What does saying “guillotine all billionaires” do?
Ancient Pistol
Ah! The “let’s destroy markets route where everyone is poor” attitude.
Strike Four
now replace “poor” with “rich” and youll see reality 🙂
this is America baby, we got alllll the money, everyone here about to be a living mtv cribs episode aha cant wait
Ancient Pistol
The level of naivety in this comment is beyond belief. Please enlighten us with any examples of where this has worked?
Strike Four
I cant see even the smoothest of smooth-brained Cardinals fans supporting this utter crud.
MLB has to force the owners to run at losses, or sell the team. Put money into the game you will get it back. Stop trying to put as little as you can into it for maximum profiteering: that’s whats ruining the finances of the game right now, not players or agents.
okinnitram
BS. Open up your financials , allow auditors to review and comment. Until then, STFU about profitability.
Ancient Pistol
The Braves are already open. All you have to do is look. Also, you have a very foul mouth.
Appalachian_Outlaw
Here we have yet another ploy by an owner to gain public favor, and a public negotiations tactic.
If I’m a player, and you’re telling me I’m taking a pay cut either way, why wouldn’t I just wait you out and force you to do the 50 game season? One, I’m safer with fewer games. Two, offer me less, and I want to work less. Oh, and when you do this, I’ll see you in court to go for ALL my lost wages.
As a fan, don’t tell me baseball isn’t profitable. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry. If there were no profit in it, you’d see franchises unloaded right and left. That’s how business works. If you want to say owning a team is more of a passion or a hobby, then eat your losses this year. Hobbies cost money.
dodger1968
This is a very interesting argument that both sides have argued well.
I would argue that like any business owner, the owner assumes all risk, whatever that may be for their business. They earn a right to make a profit on their business but are also smart enough to know which employees can make them the most money and need to be paid.
My example would be the Yankees, the most “profitable” team. Did they benefit from players such as Jeter and ARod amount others. Yes, but they paid them well and because of the market they were in those players were able to use that “job” to make them millions of money from outside of their main “job”. They didn’t pay the Yankees a fee or anything for the platform to be able to do that. Now both are in a position to be owners themselves.
In my mind both have equally benefited. The dollar’s just happen to be at an amount most of us can’t relate to. Still it’s the life long argument that no one can when.
Who should make more money?
The business owner who created the opportunity, or the guy doing the work creating the revenue?
dodger1968
Please excuse the fat finger misspelling
Bloomer76
1995 buys team for $150 million, 2019 Forbes estimates team worth $2.1 billion. Nope not profitable at all.
Strike Four
Yep, totally not trying to lead the IRS on or anything!
yankees2016rebuild
If they weren’t making money no one would want to own a team and baseball would just not be played. This guys aren’t billionaires cause their stupid. Just looking at the Ray’s for example how much free money have they got from teams like the Yankees red sox Dodgers they get all this money to spend on their teams yet their always at the bottom on spending.
Ancient Pistol
They make their money in the long-term. This is not a short-term investment.
NYMETSHEA
The KEYWORD is profiability.
The average value of a MLB team is $1.85 billion according to Forbes.
The MLB teams averaged $330 million dollars in revenue in 2019, according to Forbes.
“MLB profits are at record highs, with the average team operating profit—earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (Ebitda)—rising 25% to $50 million last year, thanks to flat player costs and increased revenue of $16 million per team on average,” according to Forbes.
Making average of $50 million profit on an investment worth $1.85 billion means that it is not very profitable. That’s 2.702% when companies worth fraction of the value are able to return a much greater percentage. Actual profit and profit to company value ratio are even less when factoring in interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.
Rise in team and potential TV network value are what probably drives investors.
Appalachian_Outlaw
I’m not going to sit here and say anyone would invest in something they’d lose massive amounts of money year after year. OTOH, does anyone buy a baseball team the same way you might buy Amazon stock? It’s a different animal. If the bills are paid, and you’re profiting 2-3% on a hobby, I’d say you’re fine.
NYMETSHEA
I am not saying it’s horrible. But the article seems to criticize owner and his terminology, even though he is accurate. Reason for post. Not to defend owners, but investments should yield some profit. Less profit for MLB is fine legacy terms but teams are being more owned by like regular companies. No longer single billionaires that view teams as fun luxuries. It’s actually their primary investment. Non-baseball fans may invest as it’s a business opportunity, and can’t put this stigma as an outsider with little chance of actual team ownership. Easy to say that when it’s their money. If a homeless person with absolutely nothing came and said you should be more benevolent. Ask you to give out everything over 2% profit to be donated to homeless. Would that be reasonable?
619bird
lol I didnt see through the first 187 messages that Dewitt just bought Eva Longoria’s house in the Hollywood Hills for 9 million.
I guess it depends on how much of a profit he’s making on if it’s very lucrative. He missed the playoffs 3 of the last 4 seasons and the Cardinal attendance has sagged a wee bit. I don’t know how much revenue is gained from making the postseason but he’s likely missing that added revenue.
I will say the Cardinals do what they can to get butts into the seats before Memorial Day and after Labor day by offering deep ticket discounts. Some owners don’t even do that.
sandman12
DeWitt speaks the truth. People buy sports franchises as toys, just like yachts and mansions. They have tons of money earned in the real business world (or inherited) and buy a ball club for prestige and entertainment.
If profit was the primary objective, there would be no $20-$30 million player salaries.
DarkSide830
im sure running a baseball team isnt nearly as fun as a yacht or a mansion
Simple Simon
Sure a bunch of financial geniuses posting here!
Most of them seem to have a big case of penisenvy.
There are a lot of reasons to own a baseball team but losing money is not on the list.
If you think it is, drop by a local junior college and see if you can get into an economics class.
Appalachian_Outlaw
If you’re going to insult people for offering their opinion in a comment section, and cap if off by implying they should become more educated- it’d be wise to come grammatically correct. I’m just saying.
Do you have any insider knowledge that they’re actually losing money? Have you seen the books?
Simple Simon
You must be one of the geniuses!
What’s the grammar error? You have two yourself!
If they’re not losing money without fans, why wouldn’t they play?
They pick a short season because that way they minimize the loss. Not exactly rocket science.
Their money comes from the playoffs.
ukpadre
@Appalachian – Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
ImAdude
Padre, is that from your experience arguing with that reflection in the mirror?
Koamalu
“At some point we do have the right to implement a season and pay full salaries”
Yes, the owners can implement a season of any length they want as long as they pay the players 100% of their salaries. Not the pro-rated salaries the players agreed to in March, their full 2020 salaries.
Otherwise they are legally obligated to play as long of a season as possible and they already proposed one of 82 games. Anything shorter than that and the players do not have a legal obligation to accept the owners proposal.
The players proposed 114 games and showed that a season of that length was not only possible, it was preferred by the players. The owners can’t reasonably claim that 114 games is not possible.
Simple Simon
If you’re a lawyer, good luck.
In the agreement, the Owners can pick any season they want and the players get pro-rated pay.
That much is simple.
shibbynotdude
They break the baseball business into multiple companies to hide their profits to players. It’s simple math. $11 billion in revenue. $4.75 billion in contracts and expenses tied to contract. Most leagues are 50/50 range for salaries to revenue.
whyhayzee
Why would you think that everything you buy is an investment? Sure, it’s an asset but I would not call a baseball team an investment. I can’t imagine any of the owners view it as one. It’s something to own. Maybe the annual return isn’t that great but wouldn’t every owner already know that about baseball teams? The real danger I see in opening things are up are the substantial increase in expenses. If you build it and they don’t come, you’re worse off than before. I’m sure the owners are aware of this. If the fans just don’t care to bother with baseball this year, they’re losing more.
66TheNumberOfTheBest
When an item is routinely purchased for one price and then sold for a much higher price, you can call it whatever you want, it’s still an investment.
“An investment by any other name…”
jdgoat
The owners truly hate us or think we’re idiots as fans if they think anybody is going to buy this.
BlueSkies_LA
Look at it as a peek behind the curtain at how the owners think.
scarfish
Consider the person claiming it isn’t profitable when he’s used to otherworldly net profits….
But I reckon he doesn’t like having to pump substantial coins from his team’s earnings to sustain maximum profits. It’s not like funds or stocks where you lay your money down and ride the waves.
JustCheckingIn
He doesn’t like he has a slightly less profitable team in one regard, if he ignores all the other ways his team gains money, sure!
dynamite drop in monty
Ah, isn’t baseball magical? And we wonder why the youth of America couldn’t care less about this sport.
JustCheckingIn
Really think it’s the society promoting violence in football a LOT more than billionaire owners
I mean, the NFL owners are such good people and all but….
Cmon dude. All sport team owners in all leagues are the from the same cloth. And they all should just bite their lip if they think this type of BS is going to be Taken at full value.
ukpadre
Bull
Crap
JustCheckingIn
He is as out of touch as the GOP
Shocker
troll
the party of donkeys is like that. dimwit is probably one. with your common sense, you should step on through to the other side.
pjmcnu
OMG, what utter BS. Does DeWitt think everyone not in ownership is an idiot? This is just garbage. I’m glad it wasn’t reported here like it’s at all plausible on its face.
troll
i knew a millionaire once. he said he was broke. had $10,000 in his pocket. on scale with me. i’m not a millionaire, but when i’m broke, i have between $0 and $1000.
KenAndTonic
It’s not inconceivable that owners would pour billions into teams that are not making money. The wealth gap continues to grow wider in this country. Billionaires are getting richer and many view their teams as status symbols. That doesn’t mean they aren’t still trying to make money, but while franchise values continue to rise, they don’t see any of that money until they sell and without significant investment. Obviously, that is their hope, but there is a huge about of risk in that. There is no certainty that values continue to go up into infinity.
GarysOldeTowneTavern
Seems like what he’s saying (though I can’t see his face) is that it’s time to get rid of MLB’s absurd blanket protection against antitrust laws, which are wholly un-American, non-democratic, and based on an absurd 100-year-old ruling that MLB doesn’t actually engage in interstate commerce.
If DeWitt doesn’t think baseball is profitable, it’s time to relieve him of the financial burdens of owning a professional franchise.
He clearly doesn’t appreciate the public welfare that having a legal monopoly provides him and his family.
Help him out!
Orichalcon
poor Bill…
he’s already flat broke
now you all are calling him a liar, too?
you should all be ashamed!
…… go Cubs
abcrazy4dodgers
Clickbait. Thought was gonna be another Florida Man Jeremy Dewitte story.
Simple Simon
It seems improper for MLBTR to question a MLB Owner so negatively — suggesting obfuscation at best and outright lying at worst.
This reads like MLBPA talking points.
Shouldn’t MLBTR report objectively without taking sides? Your coverage of the negotiation shows undeniable favoritism.
slainte2
Reports are that Mets lost 50M last year (even as value of club is somewhere in billions). That’s with major market, and top one-third player payroll. Even if you take out the 50M annual debt service for stadium, they are still only breaking even. Even if you normalize the sweetheart cable deal with SNY (SNY made 150M profit last year, and paid undermarket amounts to Mets for right to broadcast games), say the Mets would have made a 50M profit on a 2B asset …. with all assumptions in their favor, 2% return is not very profitable… maybe that’s what deWitt is thinking about?
17dizzy
Isn’t Profitable??? Now that’s funny!!! DeWitt laughs all of the way to the bank. I sure haven’t heard the other part owners of the Cardinals complaining about being short changed at the end of each season!!