This is the owner of MLB Trade Rumors, who has a superficial understanding of sports economics. Before I continue, I want to say that his website is excellent and worth visiting. However, he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to sports economics.
Sports leagues are unique. They are joint ventures, not traditional monopolies. Without that joint venture, there is no league. There are no Dodgers or Giants. There is nothing. Teams would essentially become exhibition squads like the Savannah Bananas, or they might operate under something like the old WWF territory system, playing random opponents in their region as separate, independent businesses.
That is not how sports leagues function. They form a collective entity that creates the business of Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball cannot be a monopoly over itself.
Here is what is interesting about sports leagues: they create one of the most pro-labor environments in the history of collective bargaining. Within the business they create and establish a de facto competitive labor market. Players secure jobs inside the Major League ecosystem, where the league’s own member teams compete aggressively for those players and drive their wages higher.
It is like a franchise owner who operates multiple McDonald’s restaurants and allows those restaurants to compete with one another for the same employees.
Beyond that, other leagues, other sports, other industries, and other entertainment companies can compete with Major League Baseball for its players. Players are not obligated to play for Major League Baseball or one of its licensed teams. They have a wide range of options for employment as baseball players or in entirely different fields.
When people talk about monopolies in this context, they do not know what they are talking about.
It is also misguided to frame self-interested management as evil for protecting its own interests while portraying the union as engaged in some noble endeavor. Both sides are self-interested and are simply looking out for their respective priorities. That is their prerogative as business owners on one side and as a collective union on the other.
Of course Major League Baseball looks out for its own interests. Tim will claim to know its motives with certainty, but he has no clue. He is simply spouting opinions based on what he believes, and he attempts to castigate ownership with really bad takes that do not stand up to reason (as indicated by his monopoly argument). The problem is that economics does not support what he believes.
Finally, and here is the critical point I highlighted earlier today, one of the single biggest issues from an exploitation perspective is the surplus value extracted from arbitration-eligible players. The union had a chance to correct this back in 1994. They have a chance again. Yet their opposition to a salary cap, which really only impacts high AAVs and those high AAVs are partially funded by the very surplus value exploited from arbitration-eligible players, remains their priority. And Tim's right in line with them, protecting multi-millionaires who are going to be multimillionaires either way.
As you can see, both the owners and the union are exploiting that surplus value. The only problem is that the union is supposed to represent the players who are getting exploited, but they're too interested protecting the top end. It's more important to preserve the supposedly large share of revenue for a limited amount of people rather than hundreds of its members gaining earlier access to the labor market.
Tim is pro-union, he isn't pro-player, even though he may think he is.
Give me a legal monopoly with taxpayer subsidies. Then we’ll be apple to apples and you can decide if you’re cool with me ignoring what customers want routinely but then pandering to them on one issue when it’s extremely financially advantageous to me