Old man yells at price of baseball tickets

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Pet peeve of mine when well paid sportspersons earnings are compared to "average earnings".
MLB is rolling in cash. The average american household contributes a significant amount to MLBs earnings to pay to watch the product on the field.

Should all that money go to the millionaire execs and billionaire owners? Or should a significant chunk of it go to the players that actually play the game...
 

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,900
Calgary, Canada
Pet peeve of mine when well paid sportspersons earnings are compared to "average earnings".
MLB is rolling in cash. The average american household contributes a significant amount to MLBs earnings to pay to watch the product on the field.

Should all that money go to the millionaire execs and billionaire owners? Or should a significant chunk of it go to the players that actually play the game...
Well, it's not a rhetorical question. An argument could be made that the billionaires should get more. But I'm not going to make it. I ranted about this here: https://rubensrants.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/baseball-players-should-be-paid-more-not-less/
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,428
Pet peeve of mine when well paid sportspersons earnings are compared to "average earnings".
MLB is rolling in cash. The average american household contributes a significant amount to MLBs earnings to pay to watch the product on the field.

Should all that money go to the millionaire execs and billionaire owners? Or should a significant chunk of it go to the players that actually play the game...
How about they lower some fucking ticket prices in the outfield bleacher seats so an average family can go watch a game and still feed themselves for the week. There's a reason baseball is losing its appeal amongst younger viewers.
My connection to the red sox was being able to go to 3,4 games a year as a kid and experience the full game.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,704
Why is it that people still hang on to the labor theory of value when discussing sports? Ticket prices are what they are because people gladly pay them. If baseball players were making minimum wage the prices wouldn't change in any meaningful way. Teams regularly lower prices after embarrassing seasons in order to get fans in the door.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Why is it that people still hang on to the labor theory of value when discussing sports? Ticket prices are what they are because people gladly pay them. If baseball players were making minimum wage the prices wouldn't change in any meaningful way. Teams regularly lower prices after embarrassing seasons in order to get fans in the door.
Because it's financially impossible for the average Boston family to attend 3-4 games per year all together?
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,325
Because it's financially impossible for the average Boston family to attend 3-4 games per year all together?
And this a result of the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of families that want to attend 81 home games per season in a relatively small ballpark. If they made prices low enough to make it as affordable as you wish it to be, the entire season would sell out in 2 minutes and in order to get into any game at all you'd have to be either lucky, connected, or pay a scalper.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,566
And this a result of the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of families that want to attend 81 home games per season in a relatively small ballpark. If they made prices low enough to make it as affordable as you wish it to be, the entire season would sell out in 2 minutes and in order to get into any game at all you'd have to be either lucky, connected, or pay a scalper.
Yes. Prices on the resale market and the limited availability of non-resale tickets suggest that the Sox and teams in other desirable markets are actually pricing tickets below what they're worth, and that if they raised them to be the average of what they sell for on the resale market, then they would make more money without end consumers paying anything more for them. Your Boston family of 4 that wants to see a game is not going to be able to buy a cheap ticket. If the Sox make tickets cheaper, the scalpers will step in, buy them first, and then resell them for much, much more money. There is no free lunch here, tickets will sell for what the market says they are worth, and any attempt to reduce the cost of the tickets just opens up an opportunity for a middle man to seize that difference.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
10,017
Boston, MA
Pet peeve of mine when well paid sportspersons earnings are compared to "average earnings".
MLB is rolling in cash. The average american household contributes a significant amount to MLBs earnings to pay to watch the product on the field.

Should all that money go to the millionaire execs and billionaire owners? Or should a significant chunk of it go to the players that actually play the game...
I'm all for players earning whatever it is they can out of their contracts. If the market values their services at $10, $20, $30 million/year, then god bless them for getting those amounts. That said, I'd like all players and agents to dispense with the argument that "the length of our careers are finite and thus we must get every last dollar we can before we lose the ability to earn." As noted above, most professional athletes make more in 3 seasons than what the average American household will make in a lifetime. In the case of David Price, he'll make more in 3 starts. Kudos to the players for maximizing earning capacity and signing market value contracts, just shut up about career life expectancies and the like.

Edit: spelling
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,428
Yes. Prices on the resale market and the limited availability of non-resale tickets suggest that the Sox and teams in other desirable markets are actually pricing tickets below what they're worth, and that if they raised them to be the average of what they sell for on the resale market, then they would make more money without end consumers paying anything more for them. Your Boston family of 4 that wants to see a game is not going to be able to buy a cheap ticket. If the Sox make tickets cheaper, the scalpers will step in, buy them first, and then resell them for much, much more money. There is no free lunch here, tickets will sell for what the market says they are worth, and any attempt to reduce the cost of the tickets just opens up an opportunity for a middle man to seize that difference.
If they made cheap seats available by standing in line and day of only that wouldnt be a problem
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,158
Because it's financially impossible for the average Boston family to attend 3-4 games per year all together?
Should also be stated that taking a family of four to the same entertainment 3-4 times a year should be seen as a luxury not the norm, so it's a strange example to begin with. Also a family of four living in Boston should have higher income than a family of four in any number of cities. That said, this thread has been sidetracked enough to continue this debate.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Should also be stated that taking a family of four to the same entertainment 3-4 times a year should be seen as a luxury not the norm, so it's a strange example to begin with. Also a family of four living in Boston should have higher income than a family of four in any number of cities. That said, this thread has been sidetracked enough to continue this debate.
I was only responding to nighthob's question. It's perfectly reasonable for people to continue to complain about ticket prices to MLB games, because the average person's priced out of going to see the Red Sox on even a semi-regular basis. It's reasonable for people to watch games on NESN instead, or to take their kids to a Spinners or Pawsox game instead.

And yeah, I'm sure Groome will sign by the 15th. The difference in sides appears to only be about 18 years worth of gross earnings for the average Bostonian household.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,704
Because it's financially impossible for the average Boston family to attend 3-4 games per year all together?
I'm not arguing this isn't the case, I'm just pointing out that the player salaries aren't what's driving ticket prices. Value is subjective and things are worth what people will pay for them. The Red Sox have lowered prices before despite increasing player costs. And they certainly weren't losing money despite the product cost increasing and its resale value decreasing.

Now the declining popularity amongst the youth is absolutely a problem that the owners should be thinking about. And I think the inability of Americans in the bottom 50% to attend major league games is absolutely a factor (though not as big a factor as you're making it out given that a large portion of the country doesn't live within driving range of MLB stadiums). I think a much larger factor is the death of day baseball, but this is all really a discussion for its own thread.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,692
Baseball is still far and away the most economical sport for a family to attend. How many kids ever get to attend even one NFL game?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,742
If they made cheap seats available by standing in line and day of only that wouldnt be a problem
Never going to happen. The clubs want the cash in hand and the seat filled; they're not going to leave it to something as vague as the weather or the current performance of the team.
 

OptimusPapi

Jiminy Cricket
Mar 6, 2014
295
Can we create another thread for the economics of baseball? Every time I see this thread updated, I get excited thinking Groome has signed.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
How about they lower some fucking ticket prices in the outfield bleacher seats so an average family can go watch a game and still feed themselves for the week. There's a reason baseball is losing its appeal amongst younger viewers.
My connection to the red sox was being able to go to 3,4 games a year as a kid and experience the full game.
I'm sympathetic, and a few lucky families might hit the lottery in the first few minutes of ticket sales, but lowering prices would mostly just transfer the revenue from the Red Sox to ticket scalpers.
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
4,184
Pet peeve of mine when well paid sportspersons earnings are compared to "average earnings".
MLB is rolling in cash. The average american household contributes a significant amount to MLBs earnings to pay to watch the product on the field.

Should all that money go to the millionaire execs and billionaire owners? Or should a significant chunk of it go to the players that actually play the game...
A good question, though it triggers another good question of couldn't the same be said for the "average American household" and billionaire earnings too? :)
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
I'm all for players earning whatever it is they can out of their contracts. If the market values their services at $10, $20, $30 million/year, then god bless them for getting those amounts. That said, I'd like all players and agents to dispense with the argument that "the length of our careers are finite and thus we must get every last dollar we can before we lose the ability to earn." As noted above, most professional athletes make more in 3 seasons than what the average American household will make in a lifetime. In the case of David Price, he'll make more in 3 starts. Kudos to the players for maximizing earning capacity and signing market value contracts, just shut up about career life expectancies and the like.

Edit: spelling
David Price isn't the average American though. He is firmly in the 99.9999th percentile of people on the planet at throwing a baseball in a hard to hit fashion. He is literally one in a million (probably more like one in 100 million). His peer group from an exceptional talent standpoint are people like David Boise, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Paul McCartney, Frank Lloyd Wright, Jay Z, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, Eddie Vedder, Elon Musk, etc.. So far above the average that it is absurdly lucrative. But all of those guys can exercise their talents for decades or even their entire lifetime if no major malady befalls them. David Price has at best 20 years with the first six being at largely controlled pricing. The average baseball player doesn't even get to see their service time start until their mid-20's and so then really only have a decade and a half at best, with the first half of that time period again largely controlled by the employer.

It is a very valid point even beyond the fact that all we're really arguing over is how a multi-billion dollar pie gets divided up between prospective millionaires and presently billionaires. Call me a socialist I guess but I tend to side with the prospective millionaires becoming actual millionaires over a current billionaire becoming billionaire-ier.

Back on topic though, I can't see how Groome doesn't take the money and play ball now. The risks greatly outweigh the rewards and it's clear that playing pro is the real goal. Giving up a year to play JUCO just pushes his eventual arb. date if he does succeed further out, all in pursuit of an additional signing bonus he'll likely never realize. Maximizing career earnings is what it'll ultimately come down to for he and his agent when they sign.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,628
02130
Tickets are pretty affordable in Baltimore, Milwaukee, Atlanta, etc. Sox tickets are expensive because they have a generally successful team, a big regional and national fan base and a small park, in a nice city to visit. I don't think most people would want a bad team or a bad stadium just so they could go to 4 games instead of 1 each year, and there's not really anything to do about the size of the fan base. If you just want baseball, there's Pawtucket, Lowell, Portland -- but I suspect that these are less exciting. So they cost less.

I suppose New England could probably support an expansion team, maybe in Connecticut, but that seems unlikely anytime soon.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,428
Baseball is still far and away the most economical sport for a family to attend. How many kids ever get to attend even one NFL game?
This should be relative though. One football game is the equivalent of 10 baseball games. Are football tickets 10x more pricey?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Bleachers are $22/seat for 16 games and $28/seat for another 16 games. If that's not affordable for a family of 4 I'm not sure what the prices need to be. Minor league ball is still $12 or $13 at Pawtucket (less for GA which includes the berm).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,050
Bleachers are $22/seat for 16 games and $28/seat for another 16 games. If that's not affordable for a family of 4 I'm not sure what the prices need to be.
When something like 50% of Americans don't have $400 to spend on a hypothetical emergency then it quick prices them out of the market. That $88 or $112 represents more than 30% the average "emergency fund" for half the people you pass the street each day.
 

section15

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 23, 2007
227
Bradford, MA and section 15
It's supply and demand, folks.

The "no one can go to a game anymore, it's too expensive" harkens back to the great Yogi Berra exclaiming "no one goes to that restaurant anymore. It's too crowded."

If the Sox are drawing at roughly 95-98 percent of capacity, then their pricing model is correct and it's working. Yes, not everyone can afford to go to a Red Sox game in the summer, unless they plan carefully and buy the cheapest seats.

A few years ago, on a now-defunct fan page - one guy lamented that the Sox were charging too much for "Picnic in the Park" and he could not take little Butchie to the event. I explained - it's a CHARITY event. And, it SELLS OUT. And - since the Sox can only compel players to make (I think) two non-baseball appearances a year, they use this and the opening night dinner to raise money for the Red Sox Foundation. There are other opportunities to get closer to players - the Red Sox now hold their casino weekend in the winter; players conduct their own charities; things like the BoSox Club afford opportunities to meet players, etc. Back then, the "New Stars for Young Stars" Jimmy Fund event in January was such an event, and sadly, often was under-attended.

I tried to explain- if they lowered the price, you'd be paying some scalper the same price, it would just be hundreds of dollars over the face price. And the money would be going to Mom's Basement Ticket Agency, or Ratso Rizzo's Hot Tickets, and not the Red Sox Foundation.

The same holds true - if the Sox dropped the ticket prices, you'd have to go to a scalper for any ticket.

I might add - there were thousands of tickets for April and May games that went unsold... or were on Replay or StubHub for peanuts.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
When something like 50% of Americans don't have $400 to spend on a hypothetical emergency then it quick prices them out of the market. That $88 or $112 represents more than 30% the average "emergency fund" for half the people you pass the street each day.
This is really the reasoning?
Going to a baseball game with your family should be done with discretionary income. It is not the right of every American to go to a baseball game. A family can go to a major league game for approximately twice what it costs to go to a movie. They can go to a minor league game for about what a movie costs.

Baseball is priced via the free market at the end of the day. This year there are plenty of midweek games, where tickets are available near Fenway for half of face value. A family of four can go to a MLB baseball game for the price of 1 ticket to any of the 3 other major sports.

Comparing the incomes of the players or the owners to the average American is no more relevant than comparing the salaries of movie stars, rock stars, etc.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,628
02130
This should be relative though. One football game is the equivalent of 10 baseball games. Are football tickets 10x more pricey?
On the secondary market, yes, they are close - hard to compare but maybe 6-8x. And the Patriots have a much bigger stadium. The Patriots should probably be charging more.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,358
Seacoast NH
This should be relative though. One football game is the equivalent of 10 baseball games. Are football tickets 10x more pricey?
No they aren't but the below chart does help explain some of the pricing difference. The NFL split a total of $7.2B in revenue ($226M per team) in 2014. The Sox make $80M from local TV rights but that doesn't close the gap on what they get from their piece of the $1.6B TV revenue. I won't get into the revenue sharing process in MLB because that just adds noise. The bottom line is that in general a baseball team is more reliant on ticket revenue than a football team.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,050
This is really the reasoning?
Going to a baseball game with your family should be done with discretionary income. It is not the right of every American to go to a baseball game. A family can go to a major league game for approximately twice what it costs to go to a movie. They can go to a minor league game for about what a movie costs.
Well no shit it should be done with discretionary income. That's not my point.

I'm not saying it's expensive, especially relative to NFL/NBA. I'm not saying it should not be done with discretionary income before someone pays the light bill.

I *am* saying that almost 50% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (or worse) and do not have that discretionary income even though to most of us here it's seemingly a relative pittance. And therefore, FOR THEM, spending $100 or so for a family of 4 is expensive.
 

bernardsamuel

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
196
Denver, only physically
I actually am an old man, but I'm not going to yell as contrasted to reviewing how I'm grateful for each of the eras of "spectatorship" I've lived through. When I was a boy living first in Roxbury and then in Brighton, I frequently attended Sunday doubleheaders for 50 cents or 75 cents for the privilege of sitting in the bleachers long before anyone ever was concerned about skin cancer. I also enjoyed listening to Curt Gowdy and Bob Murphy on the radio at other times, and especially enjoyed listening to (I think it was a guy named...) Harrington bringing to life telegraph reports of far-away games when the Sox had been rained out. Watching a game on TV was also something not to be taken for granted, and I particularly remember watching Mel Parnell wrap up his no-hitter by taking a grounder at the mound and running over to first to make the final out rather than lobbing the ball over there.

Over the years, the TV-watching experience became better than being there at the park because of instant replay and related commentary (in my days as a kid, you didn't bring a transistor radio to the game). Ticket prices had also increased.

In the modern era, there are all sorts of baseball games to watch, and I particularly like the MLBTV equivalent to NFL Red Zone. The price for all this ease of keeping current on what's happening in the standings is that everything's gone up - what the players get, what the owners earn, what TV costs to watch (cable/satellite TV wasn't around when I was young). I don't begrudge anyone anything, and I don't feel "worse off" as I'm OK with watching on TV, especially since I can actually see some Red Sox games here in (gulp) Baltimore, my retirement home due to grandchildren.

This may be an off-topic way to conclude, so I ask forgiveness if that's the case. What's really different in the modern era, at least in my experience and vision, is that the old days had more hate of the MFY, for instance, than today. Free agency has meant that whom you love can turn into whom you hate, all in a contract-signing moment's time (see Damon, J.). The evolution of players' careers into broadcasting tends to render "the enemy" human - for instance, I will admit that I'm not unhappy that Aaron Effing Boone got past his coronary issues. Being a fan these days thus differs from being a fan in the old days, or maybe I was just unfortunate to have grown up along the way. ...though I cried like a baby in a hotel room in Hilton Head, SC (I was still working then, and I was traveling to make a presentation) when the last out was made in the 2004 World Series, as I felt that my father of blessed memory could finally rest in peace. One final thought - it's also a huge change from my youth to have this medium of a discussion board so that, among other things, people who do wish to complain have a relatively safe place to do so.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,331
Hingham, MA
Well no shit it should be done with discretionary income. That's not my point.

I'm not saying it's expensive, especially relative to NFL/NBA. I'm not saying it should not be done with discretionary income before someone pays the light bill.

I *am* saying that almost 50% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (or worse) and do not have that discretionary income even though to most of us here it's seemingly a relative pittance. And therefore, FOR THEM, spending $100 or so for a family of 4 is expensive.
I would argue that these people should not be spending money on pro sporting events. Even if they could take a family of 4 for $50.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
One final thought - it's also a huge change from my youth to have this medium of a discussion board so that, among other things, people who do wish to complain have a relatively safe place to do so.
There were no bars when you were young? No early bird specials for he retirees in Florida?

This medium just ensures that our complaining will live on in perpetuity, or until Nip stops paying GoDaddy for the domain registration.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,566
Well no shit it should be done with discretionary income. That's not my point.

I'm not saying it's expensive, especially relative to NFL/NBA. I'm not saying it should not be done with discretionary income before someone pays the light bill.

I *am* saying that almost 50% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (or worse) and do not have that discretionary income even though to most of us here it's seemingly a relative pittance. And therefore, FOR THEM, spending $100 or so for a family of 4 is expensive.
It's entertainment. It's expensive to have a new car, or big screen tv, or all sorts of other unnecessary items. 3D blockbuster movie tickets for 4 will bust the budgets of many people. That's life. If you were complaining about staple food items, housing, or public transportation, I'm right there with you. I love baseball too, but not seeing a game in person and just watching it on TV is a pretty good compromise for the budget conscious sports fan family. I make pretty good money and live a short distance from the ball park (I used to live only 4 blocks away), and I only go a few times a year because of how much it costs. I don't find my sports fandom or life any lesser for that.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,050
It's entertainment. It's expensive to have a new car, or big screen tv, or all sorts of other unnecessary items. 3D blockbuster movie tickets for 4 will bust the budgets of many people. That's life. If you were complaining about staple food items, housing, or public transportation, I'm right there with you. I love baseball too, but not seeing a game in person and just watching it on TV is a pretty good compromise for the budget conscious sports fan family. I make pretty good money and live a short distance from the ball park (I used to live only 4 blocks away), and I only go a few times a year because of how much it costs. I don't find my sports fandom or life any lesser for that.
I think we are talking past each other. I completely agree with what you're saying.

All I am saying is that people that say "It isn't expensive" are right--for their circumstances. For others though it is. And that sucks. But that's a macro issue and not a MLB issue, because they are affordable.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
When something like 50% of Americans don't have $400 to spend on a hypothetical emergency then it quick prices them out of the market. That $88 or $112 represents more than 30% the average "emergency fund" for half the people you pass the street each day.
Cool stats, source?

If prices were half as much, what percentage of folks wouldn't be able to go?

Where must we price tickets so ALL CAN BE ENTERTAINED?
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,261
Alberta
Major League Baseball is a luxury item. It is the Ferrari, the Rolex, the high end steak house of baseball. It's not at all unusual, or expected for everyone to be able to afford to attend. Some may be able to attend as a special occasion, others may never be able to...

For them, minor, independent league and college summer baseball teams are the baseball versions of Ford Focus, Timex and Denny's - affordable, accessible and plentiful alternatives to the higher priced brands.

No one gets indignant when a family of four can't afford a Maserati, why do we treat the live baseball experience differently?
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
Major League Baseball is a luxury item. It is the Ferrari, the Rolex, the high end steak house of baseball. It's not at all unusual, or expected for everyone to be able to afford to attend. Some may be able to attend as a special occasion, others may never be able to...

For them, minor, independent league and college summer baseball teams are the baseball versions of Ford Focus, Timex and Denny's - affordable, accessible and plentiful alternatives to the higher priced brands.

No one gets indignant when a family of four can't afford a Maserati, why do we treat the live baseball experience differently?
While I do agree with your point, I still feel the need to note that this is only relevant to a discussion that started because of player salaries if the factory workers building Maseratis are making a $500k beginning salary. The issue that started this thread was the cost of tickets THEORETICALLY caused by massive player salaries.

Nonetheless, you among many, are correct that tickets are a luxury item and that since supply is finite the price is actually based on demand more than periodicity cost.

That was a very wordy post to simply say - baseball is popular and thus expensive. We'll only see ticket prices fall of interest does (check stub hub for tickets to see a team that's bad and out of the race already - tickets to Sunday's SD game start at $15).
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,261
Alberta
The more important point of my post is that baseball is, like most products, available at numerous price points...
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
That was a very wordy post to simply say - baseball is popular and thus expensive.
To which you should add, baseball is popular and expensive and therefore the best people in the world at performing it are paid exceptionally well to do so. Competition for their services is what drives the prices.

Ignoring a giant chunk of the market dynamics to make some point about "players are paid too much" is willfully obtuse and at best confuses cause and effect. Put simply, baseball players make big money because people are willing to pay exhorbitant prices to see them perform. The prices are not the result of the player salaries.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,454
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
To which you should add, baseball is popular and expensive and therefore the best people in the world at performing it are paid exceptionally well to do so. Competition for their services is what drives the prices.

Ignoring a giant chunk of the market dynamics to make some point about "players are paid too much" is willfully obtuse and at best confuses cause and effect. Put simply, baseball players make big money because people are willing to pay exhorbitant prices to see them perform. The prices are not the result of the player salaries.
The other obvious example is the movie industry. The price of a movie ticket has nothing to do with Brad Pitts salary.
 

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
9,843
Land formerly of Sowheag
Well, I've been a season ticket holder for about 14 years (10 man plan). The Red Sox sell many tickets but get less and less people to show up. Lots of empty seats when they have "sellouts".

I would like more day games since I live in Connecticut and don't like getting home at 1am or 2am. Instant Replay is a disaster. Yet, the game goes on.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Well, I've been a season ticket holder for about 14 years (10 man plan). The Red Sox sell many tickets but get less and less people to show up. Lots of empty seats when they have "sellouts".

I would like more day games since I live in Connecticut and don't like getting home at 1am or 2am. Instant Replay is a disaster. Yet, the game goes on.
You do understand that the team cannot take this into consideration since most of the fans don't live in Connecticut, right? Hell, they honored your state just two days ago. Isn't that enough?

There are also Friday, Saturday and Sunday "Sox Pax" sold each year that would get you just games on those dates that might be better for longer commutes
 
Last edited:

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Is 10th Man considered "season tickets" purely because you get postseason access? Having tickets to 12% of games seems like one of the loosest definitions I've encountered. Good for their marketing department I guess.