The NFL seems to be a better league than the MLB for a small-time team, but the opposite may be true
If you live in or near Pittsburgh and root for the Pirates and Steelers, the sports year must be a perpetual up and down. For followers of the Pirates, hope springs eternal in March then quickly fades. This year, that the Bucs seemed like contenders into the summer merely prolonged the agony, and the last two months have seemed more like the 2010 season, when the Pirates had the worst record in baseball with a won-lost percentage of .352.
Then, just as Pirates fans have forgotten what hope is, the football season starts and the Steelers are all that matter. The Steelers not only have one of the league's most glorious histories, they have, so far, one of the most enviable records of any NFL team in the past decade, going to the Super Bowl three times in the previous six seasons and winning two. The Pirates, in contrast, have not won a World Series since 1979.
The big difference between the Pirates and Steelers, as everyone knows, is economics.
Every year, just before football starts, baseball takes a drubbing from critics for allowing an economic structure in which so-called small market teams like the Pirates have no chance against the big-city, big-money guys. How can Pittsburgh, with its paltry payroll of just over $45 million, lowest in the National League and third lowest of Major League Baseball's 30 teams, possibly compete?
In contrast to the Pirates, the New York Yankees had the highest payroll for the 2011 season, over $202 million, and the next four teams - the Philadelphia Phillies (just under $173 million), the Boston Red Sox (just under $162 million), the Los Angeles Angels (just over $138 million), and Chicago White Sox (nearly $128 million) - all play in the nation's biggest cities.
But the teams of the National Football League, no matter how big the city the play in, don't have those kind of payroll disparities. Each club receives virtually the same share from the largest single revenue source: the league's enormous national television contracts. Given such disparity in incomes, how can baseball possibly stack up against pro football in terms of fairness and opportunity?
Quite well, actually, Bill Maher to the contrary. This past February, before the Super Bowl, Maher took an amusing stab at an explanation for why football's championship game has surpassed the World Series in popularity. During his New Rules segment, he said, "The American people need to understand what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right. The NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poorer ones. ... Football is built on an economic model of fairness ... and baseball is built on an economic model where the rich always win and the poor have no chance."
Watch Bill rant here:
I'm not writing to defend capitalism. But in truth, it's baseball, not football, that "takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poorer ones." MLB does not have a salary cap like the NFL, but it does have a luxury tax, and teams that spend above a pre-set limit are required to pay a penalty that is divided among the other teams. Over the past few years the threshold for the luxury tax has fluctuated from around $150 million to $178 million this season.
The problem is that MLB has not yet found a way to compel the so-called smaller market teams to spend that luxury tax on improving their clubs. Pittsburgh fans are painfully aware of this fact: last year saw a minor scandal when it was revealed that the Pirates, Tampa Bay Rays and other teams weren't spending their tax money on players' salaries, as was intended. But let's move on.