The Yankees Are Not Evil, So Just Get Over It

The Yankees are not bad for baseball, and neither was their trade for Alex Rodriguez. Fans who want Major League Baseball to become more like the NFL conveniently overlook the outcomes of the past three World Series. The Yankees did not win any of them. In fact, MLB has had three different champions the past three seasons, which is more than the parity-crazed, salary cap-diluted NFL can say.

Doesn’t anyone get it? The middle class in MLB is growing, thanks to a labor agreement that siphons money from high-revenue teams such as the Yankees and redistributes it to low-revenue teams like -- ahem! -- the world champion Marlins. No team can match the Yankees’ spending power, but high payrolls do not automatically equate to success, as evidenced by recent travails of the Mets and Dodgers.

Starting with Red Sox Owner John Envy, er, Henry, Yankee haters need to get past their contempt for The Evil Empire and understand George Steinbrenner’s brilliance. The Boss might be overbearing, but he knows how to run a franchise. What’s bad for baseball is that few other owners can say the same.

Steinbrenner benefits from owning a team in New York, but the Mets have many of the same advantages, and the Yankees are turning them into the Clippers. The Boss is a master at creating new revenue sources, from his sponsorship deal with adidas to his YES television network. A lot of good it does him. Under baseball’s collective bargaining agreement, the more money he makes, the more he pays. As Yankee President Randy Levine says, “There are never any complaints when we write the check for $60 million.”

Sixty million. That was the size of the Yankees’ revenue-sharing and luxury-tax contribution last season; this season, it might be $75 million. In revenue sharing, each team contributes 34 percent of its local net revenue to a pool that is redistributed equally to all 30 teams. With the luxury tax, the Yankees will pay 30 percent on every dollar they spend above this season’s $120.5 million threshold. The CBA stipulates that the bulk of the proceeds go toward player benefits and baseball development projects. In other words, Steinbrenner pays for everything but Bud Selig’s dry cleaning.

Many fans instinctively yearn for a salary cap, and heaven knows the Red Sox are in favor of anything that will prevent the Yankees from embarrassing them again. Well, maybe Henry and Co. should start thinking more like Steinbrenner. No doubt, acquiring Rodriguez would have stretched the Red Sox’s finances. But it also would have allowed them to: A) purge Manny Ramirez; B) acquire a seven-year fixture at shortstop; C) keep Rodriguez from the Yankees, and D) benefit from his immense marketing appeal.

What’s all that worth, ladies and gentlemen?

Steinbrenner embodies the axiom, “You’ve got to spend money to make money.” The CBA is rigged against him, and he’s still collecting the most expensive toys.

Imagine, if MLB had adopted a fairer system that based revenue-sharing contributions on potential and not actual revenue, the Yankees still would pay more because they play in a large market. But they wouldn’t be punished for making extra money. Nor would other high-revenue teams.

“The Yankees generate more revenue than the Mets, but (Mets owner Fred) Wilpon shouldn’t be paying less to the system than Steinbrenner; then you’re penalizing Steinbrenner for being good,” says Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economics professor and author of the book May the Best Team Win: Baseball Economics and Public Policy. “You want to reward owners for being good. Otherwise, they have no incentive.”

Of course, MLB never would accept such a plan, preferring to subsidize incompetent owners. Take Selig, for example. His family-owned team, the Brewers, received a reported $15 million in revenue sharing last season. The CBA requires that money be spent improving the franchise, yet the Brewers have cut payroll by more $10 million in each of the past two years. They say the money is going toward player development.

The cash-strapped Pirates and tightfisted Reds are equally inert, but virtually every other low-revenue club is aggressively trying to emulate the success of the Marlins, A’s and Twins. Critics complain the window of opportunity for those franchises is small, but the A’s have made four straight postseason appearances, a testament to their shrewd management.

The Yankees have made nine straight but haven’t won the World Series -- Steinbrenner’s only acceptable outcome -- since 2000.

Yes, the Yankees’ financial muscle enables them to operate with a greater margin of error than most clubs. But let’s be realistic: The players union never would go for a salary cap, especially when the game appears headed for a renaissance. MLB negotiators didn’t even propose a cap in the last round of labor talks, knowing it would antagonize the union and impede negotiations.

Short of putting a third team in New York -- the purest economic solution -- the most realistic way to regulate the Yankees is to force them to make even greater revenue-sharing and luxury-tax contributions in the next CBA.

If the Yankees want to keep spending, make them keep paying. But don’t say they’re bad for baseball. Championships can’t be bought. And someone tell John Envy: Few things in life are more satisfying than outfoxing a bully.

#S#

x

x

x

xxx

xx