The Congressional hearing was fascinating, and an even bigger issue looms for next season. How's your EBIDTA looking?
For context, I am a conservative capitalist in every sense of the word. I want the government out of our lives as much as possible, and I want the "haves" unhindered to "have more" if their heart so desires.
That said, I don't think this applies to Major League Baseball.
Baseball has to sacrifice its capitalistic rights to a great degree if they are going to benefit from being an anti-trust exemption. You can't have a capitalistic monopoly. The two words contradict each other.
So while I'm bothered by our U.S. Congress being involved with the steroids issue, I am actually for it. I enjoyed the peppering given yesterday; players, owners, and commissioners can dance around the media and the courts, but they can't avoid Congress, which made it obvious it will gladly legislate baseball for itself if those in power won't get serious right now.
Another story ongong is not getting enough attention. To put it simply, the Yankees are in for it.
Next year, the league is going to start to heavily fine and take away draft picks from teams who don't present a positive EBIDTA number.
EBIDTA stands for Earnings Before Interest, Depreciation, Taxes, and Amoritization. It's a calculation that gives a clearer picture of how a company is doing without masking it with difficult-to-disseminate extraneous factors. This is what Enron did for so long before getting caught.
The Yankees will show a very low number, and could be looking at losing dozens of draft picks and free agency rights, as well as being fined heavily for the infraction even on top of the luxury taxes they are currently paying for revenue share.
Many teams are preparing right now for this, cutting down on salaries and getting their finances in order before next year. Steinbrenner isn't. Neither are the Red Sox, I don't think.
If the result is a drug-free product with more marketably fair conditions for small market teams, I'm all for this.
Better days could be ahead for baseball.
For context, I am a conservative capitalist in every sense of the word. I want the government out of our lives as much as possible, and I want the "haves" unhindered to "have more" if their heart so desires.
That said, I don't think this applies to Major League Baseball.
Baseball has to sacrifice its capitalistic rights to a great degree if they are going to benefit from being an anti-trust exemption. You can't have a capitalistic monopoly. The two words contradict each other.
So while I'm bothered by our U.S. Congress being involved with the steroids issue, I am actually for it. I enjoyed the peppering given yesterday; players, owners, and commissioners can dance around the media and the courts, but they can't avoid Congress, which made it obvious it will gladly legislate baseball for itself if those in power won't get serious right now.
Another story ongong is not getting enough attention. To put it simply, the Yankees are in for it.
Next year, the league is going to start to heavily fine and take away draft picks from teams who don't present a positive EBIDTA number.
EBIDTA stands for Earnings Before Interest, Depreciation, Taxes, and Amoritization. It's a calculation that gives a clearer picture of how a company is doing without masking it with difficult-to-disseminate extraneous factors. This is what Enron did for so long before getting caught.
The Yankees will show a very low number, and could be looking at losing dozens of draft picks and free agency rights, as well as being fined heavily for the infraction even on top of the luxury taxes they are currently paying for revenue share.
Many teams are preparing right now for this, cutting down on salaries and getting their finances in order before next year. Steinbrenner isn't. Neither are the Red Sox, I don't think.
If the result is a drug-free product with more marketably fair conditions for small market teams, I'm all for this.
Better days could be ahead for baseball.
Comment