Baseball markets are often described as small, medium, large and any of another dozen similar words. But what is a small market team? Who gets to decide what market "your" team plays in? Columnist Allen Berra of Salon.com in Damn Twins! (May 2, 2001) wrote:
"I'm so confused I'm not sure anymore what exactly constitutes a large and a small market. I used to hear that the Philadelphia Phillies were the largest potential single-market team in baseball, but the Phillies' management has spent year after year whining about poverty and how they need a new stadium in order to compete. (Compete, exactly, with who? The only other team in their market area was the A's, and they moved nearly half a century ago.) Now, the proposed new stadium will make the Phillies a big-market team again. But what if they continue to win without it? Does that mean they were simply a big-market team all along that was poorly managed? Is that what makes a big-market team big? A new stadium? Or good management?"
Baseball Almanac isn't quite sure either! Sometimes television ratings are used to describe markets and other times its population. Even the latter can be misused as it might or might not include adjacent cities. Al Streit discusses this exact topic and provides us with a very insightful look into Baseball Markets and their numbers as compared to the other major league sporting venues.
"Having these low-payroll, small market teams succeed also has to make you feel better about the state of baseball in general. For years, small market owners like Commissioner Bud Selig have bellyached that their teams simply cannot compete under baseball's current economic structure." - Tim Sullivan in Small Market Spells Salvation For Postseason (October 6, 2000)
Baseball Marketsby Al Streit |
An Analysis |
In the early part of the 21st century, Major League Baseball finds itself the professional sport confined almost entirely to the largest consolidated statistical metropolitan areas (CSMAs) in the United States and Canada. While the other three major professional team sports in North America have numerous franchises in metropolitan areas with fewer than two million people, only three major league baseball teams are situated in such locales: the Cincinnati Reds, Kansas City Royals and Milwaukee Brewers. In what follows, the size of the particular CSMA is given, together with the baseball team(s) in that area. American League teams are shown in red and National League teams in blue. Cities shown in black italics represent metropolitan areas without major league baseball, but home to NBA basketball, NFL football, and/or NHL hockey teams. Markets of more than 10 million people 21,199,865 New York Mets, New York Yankees Markets of 5-10 million people 9,157,540 Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox Markets of 3-5 million people 4,682,897 Toronto Blue Jays Markets of 2-3 million people 2,968,806 Minnesota Twins Markets of 1-2 million people 1,986,965 Vancouver, BC (NHL) Markets of fewer than 1 million people 951,395 Calgary, AB (NHL) According to 2000 Census figures, the average American League market size is about 6.87 million people while the average National League market size is about 6.09 million. The combined average Major League Baseball market is about 5.29 million (smaller than for either league because the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore, and San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSMAs are not counted twice). Thus, the average baseball market is larger than the average market for teams in any other sport, be it basketball (4.74 million), hockey (4.68 million), or football (4.07 million). The average NFL market is about 23% smaller than the average MLB market. The numbers are as follows: 5,293,083 Major League Baseball average market size 4,736,169 National Basketball Association average market size |
Baseball Markets by Al Streit |
Source for 2000 population of Green Bay, WI metropolitan area: |
How do you feel about the entire small market debate? Is revenue sharing the key to make it all work? Should some teams be eliminated? If so, who? Have the New York Yankees "bought the pennant" year in and year out because, simply put, they are financially able to afford the major players? Share your thoughts, opinions and solutions to the baseball market analysis on Baseball Fever.
During the 2000 Winter Meetings baseball owners discussed the payroll problem as it relates to various markets. A panel urged the owners to impose a fifty percent (50%) luxury tax on payrolls above eight-four (84) million. Another forty to fifty percent (40-50%) of local revenues — after ball park expenses — and broadcasting / licensing revenues were to be distributed unequally in an effort to assist those team. Comments heard at the meetings included:
"The bottom line is, in baseball today, if you want to have a legitimate chance to be competitive year-in, year-out, for most teams you have to be able to lose significant dollars to do it." - Houston Astros General Manager Jerry Hunsicker
"It (the payroll problem) hasn't changed. It's just coming into more focus. It's about how you want to proportion your dollars. In our case, our payroll is about $20 million. With a $20 million payroll, you can afford any one player. But then who do you surround him with?" - Florida Marlins General Manager Dave Dombrowski
"Those are both positive steps. If you can't afford to sign them, at least you can trade them for equal compensation. It all comes down to dollars." - Reds General Manager Jim Bowden
"We do not pretend to believe these changes will be easy or universally popular. We do believe them to be a solution to the alarming disparities between baseball's haves and have-not's." - Senate Majority leader George Mitchell (a member of the panel)
This baseball market analysis was not meant to answer any particular issue, but instead it was written by Al Streit (article comments welcome) to shed light on the topic and better define the markets using recognized sources.