WillPower
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2018
- 6,989
- 2,245
- 360
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #41
It is not profit sharing if the share is capped
The owners always tell the players it's a game until a salary-cap comes up and then they tell them it's a business. Again, the owners hold cities hostage, threatening to move the franchise if the city won't build them a new stadium every twenty years. Then they get an anti-trust exemption that keeps the players the property of the franchise for the first four years of their career. The players can be traded (uproot the family, pull the kids out of school) and sent to a city they have no desire to play in at the whim of the owner. Now, the players know all this before they turn pro and can retire anytime they don't like it.
But wait...even if they retire they still belong to the team until they are either traded or released, So later they go free agent and may sign with a partial no-trade contract once they're established and make an All Star team or two. Then they might accept a financial incentive to break the no-trade and accept a trade to a team they like. The owners can choke off free agency by simply not signing big stars and leave them dangling until they have to accept a fraction of what they were supposedly worth recently.
And the battle between labor and management rolls along while the value of the franchise skyrockets. When some new billionaire who wants his face in the newspapers and internet comes along, they may ditch their team and city and sell it to the newcomer as long as he doesn't have gambling ties. Wait, they just dropped that rule too...the Ilitch family in Detroit owns the Tigers, Pistons, and casinos which will now accept bets on MLB games. I wonder how that could possibly go wrong.....ever heard of the Black Sox? Hello?
Last edited: