It’s a little surprising, but the statistical relationship between a team’s winning percentage and its payroll is not very high.

Very true. But just because they bought the right players this time doesn't mean they didn't buy them.

More precisely, depending on the year, I find somewhere between 15% and 30% of the variance in team win percentage can be explained by the variance in team payroll. That means between 70% and 85% of a team's on-field success is explained by factors other than payroll. Those factors can include front office smarts, good team chemistry, player health, effective drafting and player development, intelligent trades, a manager's in-game decision-making, luck, and more.

Because you failed to even hint at how you conducted your analysis, you have no credibility. Whether or not you're correct, you can't just spout conclusions without any support.

Also, does this study account for the fact that realistically, winning % will range from 25-75% (even at the extremes)? Because knowing that, a variance of 15-30% is a lot. Note: I'm not statistically competent, so this comment might be completely ignorant.

Because you failed to even hint at how you conducted your analysis, you have no credibility. Whether or not you're correct, you can't just spout conclusions without any support.

It's pretty well understood that when somebody says, "X% of the variance in Y is explained by the variance in Z," it's based on correlation. The terminology that he used is more than a
"hint" about the analysis.

Also, does this study account for the fact that realistically, winning % will range from 25-75% (even at the extremes)? Because knowing that, a variance of 15-30% is a lot. Note: I'm not statistically competent, so this comment might be completely ignorant.

It's 15-30% of the variance.

Also, the biggest cause of variance in team win percentage/spending over the last decade... is the Yankees, and the ridiculous amount of money they've spent poorly.

>200 mill a year/~200% the payroll of their nearest competitors for a decade and one trophy to show for it. The Yankees are the reason spending doesn't correlate with titles in recent years! Ironically, to Zimbalist, the Yankees justified their 2010 title by spending gobs of money and not winning crap for the 10 years preceeding it.

No, they didn't buy the World Series. They just bought enough players to make it 95% sure into the play-offs with an excellent chance to win it (after their previous plan of building up a young pitching staff collapsed).
Only the WSJ could publish such obvious whore'sshit with a straight (indeed, as frozen as Nicholson's Joker's) face. Why not put such columns with the rest of the trash: on the WSJ's editorial page.

The New York Yankees: the Wolfram & Hart of professional sports.

Very true. But just because they bought the right players this time doesn't mean they didn't buy them.

Yeah, there's a fundamental logic fail in the article, even before we get to the data issues.

It's pretty well understood that when somebody says, "X% of the variance in Y is explained by the variance in Z," it's based on correlation. The terminology that he used is more than a
"hint" about the analysis.

It's 15-30% of the variance.

Harold, thanks for the insight. I don't really know what I'm talking about.

Because you failed to even hint at how you conducted your analysis, you have no credibility. Whether or not you're correct, you can't just spout conclusions without any support.

Also, does this study account for the fact that realistically, winning % will range from 25-75% (even at the extremes)? Because knowing that, a variance of 15-30% is a lot. Note: I'm not statistically competent, so this comment might be completely ignorant.

You are missing a few statistical basics...for some clarification:

When someone does a simple statistical comparison like this, he's doing something called a 'linear regression'. Zimbalist basically did a quick-n-dirty calculation that seeks to test the validity of an algebraic equation like this one:

Winning percentage = Some constant * Payroll + minimum winning percentage

It's not an exact formula, and you can create more complicated models, but it seems as if Zimbalist is using a very basic one here. What he finds is that the 15-30% variance he's talking about can be directly attributed to payroll. When he says 15-30, it's not a full 15-30 out of a hundred; it's 15-30 percent of the variance.

Let's say the difference between the best teams and the worst is 35 games...say 100-win teams vs 65 win teams, in a given year. What Zimbalist is referring to is 15-30% of that 35-win range, so like 5-10 wins.

Hope that helps!

In 2009, the Yankees will pay around $150 million into baseball's revenue-sharing and luxury-tax systems.

And until the actual bill is assessed, we can estimate the Yankees' luxury-tax payment at $20-25MM. That would mean NY is paying about $130MM is revenue sharing. And Selig recently told us that total revenue sharing will be about $450MM this year. That means the Yankees are contributing about 28-29% of the total revenue-sharing pot.

Last year, for reference, a low-revenue team like the Pirates received $28MM from revenue sharing. As I understand it, league revenues have largely remained flat from 2008-2009, so last year's revenue-sharing pot should have been comparable in size. Let's just say the pot last year was $400MM. That means Pittsburgh received about 7% of the pot. Since the pot isn't distributed evenly, I assume a team like the Pirates was on the high end of the 2008 receiving scale. I'll guess a team on the low end maybe got 3% of the pot, or about $12MM last year.

I'm sure there's a bunch of numbers and details I'm missing, but this is one sure loopy system. Considering the frequency with which some teams complain about the Yankees and other high-revenue teams, I'm actually surprised how infrequently a team like the Yankees complains.

Let's say the difference between the best teams and the worst is 35 games...say 100-win teams vs 65 win teams, in a given year. What Zimbalist is referring to is 15-30% of that 35-win range, so like 5-10 wins.

Hope that helps!

mr. man, thanks. As you can see, I'm ignorant re: statistics and equated "variance" to "variation" in terms of overall winning %, rather than statistically.

In 2009, the Yankees will pay around $150 million into baseball's revenue-sharing and luxury-tax systems. The next biggest payor into these systems will contribute less than $90 million.

We can also tease some other numbers out of this. If we put the Yankees' luxury-tax payment at a low end, $20MM, that leaves $130MM from revenue sharing. The only other team that might get a luxury-tax bill is the Mets, but I think they'll just miss having to pay since they traded Billy Wagner.

So, the Yankees will pay $40MM more in revenue sharing than anyone else. Revenue sharing is based on some undocumented formula of one-third of each team's local revenues. If the Yankees are paying $40MM more than anyone in revenue sharing, then they had $120MM more in total revenue just from whatever sources are being considered.

For a quick and dirty perspective, that's greater revenue than the Opening Day payroll of 26 teams.

they didn't buy the world series ... they just signed a lease for the next 10 years.

or if you prefer:

the Yankees didn't buy the World Series ... the good taxpayers of New York did.

I got a million of 'em.

Or two.

I got a million of 'em.

Or two.

A million sour grapes, amirite

What is this guy talking about: "70%-85%" is explained by factors other than payroll?? If that's the case then why didn't the Yankees just put Shelly Duncan at first and Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes in the starting rotation and they could have saved $420 million dollars.

Check recent WS winners. The constant is that they had mostly healthy teams, specially rotations. Philadelphia: 4 pitchers over 30 starts, 5th spot shared by Eaton and Blanton (trade with Oakland). Blanton also didn't miss start the whole season. Outside those 5 spots, only Happ started, and only 4 games. Boston in 2007 had first 3 spots with over 30 starts, and in 4th and 5th spot Schilling and Tavarez with over 20 starts, Gabbard until they traded him, and Lester who returned for the last 2 months and playoffs. They needed only 4 more starts from other pitchers. St. Louis had worse luck in 2004, but they also had 3 starters with 30+ starts, 4 with 13-17 starts, and needed just 2 more starts from others. CWS in 2005 had 4 players who never missed rotation spot, and El Duque (22) and McCarthy (10) in 5th spot. Nobody else started that season! Boston in 2004 had 4 pitchers with 30+ starts and Arroyo with 29. They needed only 5 more starts. Florida in 2003 had two pitchers with 30+ starts, one with 29, one with 27 and Beckett, who missed May and June (but was rested late in the season and playoffs) with 23. They needed 4 more pitchers for 19 starts, actually, quite a lot for WS winner, but none of them started since June, and just one since May). Anaheim in 2002 had 3 with 32 starts, Schoenweis and Lackey together had 33, Sele had 26 and two others were needed for 7 starts. Arizona in 2001 used 11 starters, but they got 69 ace-quality starts from Schilling and Johnson.
Yankees also had 4 players with 30+ starts (Joba, Pettitte, Burnett, Sabathia), and 5 pitchers in 5th spot (32 starts). Yes, they lost Wang, but that was the only rotation spot they lost. Every WS winner had stable rotation. Yes, Yankees can buy great players, but they can't but their health, which is more important.

Haven't we been over this a million times; yes yes, payroll does not == wins, no ####. A 80M roster is not necessarily better than a 50M roster blah blah, we know. But we're not talking about team A and team B we're talking about the yankees. We're not talking about some team that just happens to spend more than everyone, we're talking about about a team that spends a SHITLOAD more than everyone. 80 blah blah you know what #### it never mind rah rah go Yankees MLB is awesome everyone that doesn't like it is a whiner that should go watch ballet blah blah blah.

Haven't we been over this a million times

I was thinking more like two million, but I guess that would be stretching it.

I was thinking more like two million, but I guess that would be stretching it.
I'm very weak on statistics, but I think if you set your confidence interval big enough, 2M is correct.

Regressions don't work when you have outliers like the Yankees -- the black swans of baseball.

What #4 said.

What #4 said.

Except no one, including TFA, is saying payroll correlates only with World Series trophies. The Yankees never have to suffer any real declines -- they've missed the playoffs once since 1993 -- and that is solely a function of their money advantage. The one year they missed the playoffs they were still very competitive and responded with an obscene spending spree that got them back in the playoffs and won them a World Series.(**) The Yankee "brand" never has to suffer like the other teams because the Yankees can always buy themselves competitiveness.

(**) By the way, in addition to the many other subsidies the Yankees advantageously avail themselves of, you can add the massive bailouts of Wall Street -- a Yankee prime customer. So when the Yankees go on their annual spending spree this winter, they'll be buying players from America's other teams with America's tax money. Their amen corner won't tell you this of course, and will continue to ascribe it all to the insatiable competitiveness and "willingness to invest in the product" of Hank Steinbrenner and the leadership and work ethic of Derek Jeter, and to the fact that Hideki Matsui's contract is coming off the books thereby "freeing up" money. Intelligent people will continue to chuckle.

and that is solely a function of their money advantage.

*bolding mine*

Solely? Really? You believe that any team with Yankee financial resources would have ripped off fourteen straight playoff appearances and five World Series wins since 1993?

Also, the amen corner recognizes the fact that bailed-out industries are by no means all exclusive Yankee customers.

Solely? Really? You believe that any team with Yankee financial resources would have ripped off fourteen straight playoff appearances and five World Series wins since 1993?

A team with the Yankee financial advantage would have won essentially the same number of games, made essentially the same number of playoff appearances and -- the point of the post -- never had to rebuild the business after a decline below competitiveness on the field.

Also, the amen corner recognizes the fact that bailed-out industries are by no means all exclusive Yankee customers.

You're right. Goldman, AIG, Citi, Morgan -- they're all over the place at A's and Padres games, too.

Solely? Really? You believe that any team with Yankee financial resources would have ripped off fourteen straight playoff appearances and five World Series wins since 1993?

I don't.

Yes, they could spend on whatever they needed, but ultimately - the difference between the 80s Yankees and the 90s/00s Yankees was that they developed some very, very good talent internally... Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, and Jorge Posada is a fine core - one that even a small market team could build a championship team around (they might not be able to keep them for eternity like the Yanks, but still). I mean - there are 2 surefire, deserving HOFers on that list and 2-3 others that at least deserve a long look.

In 2-3 years - when Jeter, Rivera, and Posada retire - then it might be interesting to revisit the question... Cano bounced back nicely and looks to be a near-star, but he's no Jeter. I like Hughes more than Joba -- but I'm not particularly sold on either.

I don't think that even the Yankees can eternally afford to fill every hole solely via the FA market/trade market for big contracts. Even if they could, they certainly couldn't afford any mistakes (and there just aren't good to premium players available every season at every position).

They're going to have 3 significant holes - more if we include AP/rotation in the mix - soon. I'm not seeing the same wave of talent that was cresting in the very early 90s on its way.

Yes, they could spend on whatever they needed, but ultimately - the difference between the 80s Yankees and the 90s/00s Yankees was that they developed some very, very good talent internally... Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, and Jorge Posada is a fine core - one that even a small market team could build a championship team around (they might not be able to keep them for eternity like the Yanks, but still).

That "but still" is big enough to drive Eddy Curry through. No other team would have been able to keep all those guys together through their first scent of free agency.

I'm 100% sure that the Red Sox would have been able to sign that particular core longterm. I suspect the Orioles would have been able to. The Mets certainly would. Probably the Phillies, too.

That "but still" is big enough to drive Eddy Curry through. No other team would have been able to keep all those guys together through their first scent of free agency.

I draw a distinction between "buying" and "investing" -- and it's worth noting, I believe that for all of those guys, they were breaking in while Jefe was under suspension (thus saving them from being dealt, as the Yanks did with most of the 80s talent they drafted/signed/developed).

Six years still takes the Yanks through most of their 'glory days' of the recent dynasty... and figure even then - were they a 'normal market team' - they still would've kept a couple of them.

I mean - the Twins have essentially kept their core together for 5 seasons now, with virtually all of that core sure to be around for a 6th... Johan is really the only player they've dealt due to salary issues (and frankly, I would suspect that they've got to be pretty happy they did rather than sign him long term at this point, crap package they got back notwithstanding).

Revenue sharing is based on some undocumented formula of one-third of each team's local revenues.

Actually, the formula is in the CBA. It's needlessly complex, arcane and byzantine, but it's not top-secret.

I'm 100% sure that the Red Sox would have been able to sign that particular core longterm. I suspect the Orioles would have been able to. The Mets certainly would. Probably the Phillies, too.

Most teams would have been able to keep that core together, OR let them all go and sign a bunch of free agent talent. Neither one of those paths alone would have led to the playoffs in 2009.

Only the Yankees could do both.

The Yankees didn't buy the World Series. Nor did they buy a spot in the playoffs. Baseball has too many variables (injuries, for example, or overall organizational incompetence) to ensure such a thing.

But they did buy a gun to bring to a knife fight.

There's this too, just to pile on:

success this year depended significantly on the acquisition of pitchers A.J. Burnett and C.C. Sabbathia, along with first baseman Mark Teixeira. But the Yankees did not sign these players to one-year contracts

No duh. But this is like saying that I didn't really buy the house that won me House of the Year from House of the Year Magazine, just because my mortgage extends through 2039.

Edit: Also note that the Yankees could afford an extra "B" in Sabbathia.

More precisely, depending on the year, I find somewhere between 15% and 30% of the variance in team win percentage can be explained by the variance in team payroll.

Given the number of factors that can affect the variance in team win percentage (some of which Zimbalist mentions in the article), I think that having one factor explain so much of the variance, in a relative sense, is pretty huge. It may be small in an absolute sense, but if it's the most obvious thing that stands out...

-- MWE

I'm sure there's a bunch of numbers and details I'm missing, but this is one sure loopy system. Considering the frequency with which some teams complain about the Yankees and other high-revenue teams, I'm actually surprised how infrequently a team like the Yankees complains.

Complaining won't do any good and would be bad PR. The welfare queens around the league have too much invested in maintaining that endless flow of free cash and the Commissioner has too much invested in keeping these stooges happy.

I'm free to complain as much as I want, however. Not everyone knows that the team ran by Bud's daughter Wendy used the "revenue stealing" scam to become the most profitable team in baseball in 2001, a surprising omission by the media to be sure.

#31 Gaming Boy,

"But they did buy a gun to bring to a knife fight."

I've read a lot of metaphors about the 2009 Yankees but that might be the best.

Given the number of factors that can affect the variance in team win percentage (some of which Zimbalist mentions in the article), I think that having one factor explain so much of the variance, in a relative sense, is pretty huge. It may be small in an absolute sense, but if it's the most obvious thing that stands out...

Exactly. A variable that explains 15-30% of the variance is a crucial variable.

Exactly. A variable that explains 15-30% of the variance is a crucial variable.

Well, not only that, but I fail to see how a leaguewide comparison of payroll vs win % is relevant in a discussion of whether one team can spend its way to a championship. Look at the teams which make the playoffs, and how much they spend. This years 8 playoff teams (9 if you include the Tigers), ranked 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 13th, 18th, and 24th.

Last year the 9 teams (including Minnesota) were 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 25, and 29.

2007 - 1,2,4,8, 13, 23, 25, 26

2006 - 1,5,6,10, 14, 16, 18, 20

2005 - 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 16

So, spending does not guarantee a playoff appearance. But the vast majority of playoff teams in the last 5 years have come from the upper half of payroll (31 of 42), and more than half (24) came from the top 10. Yeah, smart low payroll teams like the Marlins can win more frequently than less smart higher payroll teams like the Rangers, but since neither of them are going to the playoffs with any frequency, I don't see how that applies to the Yankees and others consistently among both the high spenders and the playoff teams.

I'd like to see a similar analysis substituting franchise profitability for payroll. Is there a central site that has P&L;statements for the major league teams?

Is there a central site that has P&L;statements for the major league teams?

If there is, I'd see no reason to trust the data. These are privately held entities and their books are closed; outsiders make plenty of guesses, but no one except the teams themselves know their profit/loss status, and how it's determined.

I should also note that having financial resources can have an impact beyond major league payroll, and show up in some of those other factors that Zimbalist mentions. For example, Zimbalist lists one factor as "effective drafting and player development". These are affected by finances, too - teams with more financial resources can, and do, take advantage of players that slide in the draft due to signability concerns and they can, and often do, provide more on-field resources to their minor league teams. The Red Sox were able to buy control of the Salem Class A team and got their affiliate in Greenville to build a "mini-Fenway", and the Braves (who lest we forget were a high-resource team for much of the Ted Turner era) and Cardinals own or have interests in most of their minor league affiliates. It's not just major league payroll.

-- MWE

These are privately held entities and their books are closed; outsiders make plenty of guesses, but no one except the teams themselves know their profit/loss status, and how it's determined.

The Cubs declared bankruptcy a few weeks ago -- were they able to keep their books closed throughout that process? Usually you have to open your books once you declare bankruptcy.

By the way, in addition to the many other subsidies the Yankees advantageously avail themselves of, you can add the massive bailouts of Wall Street -- a Yankee prime customer. So when the Yankees go on their annual spending spree this winter, they'll be buying players from America's other teams with America's tax money. Their amen corner won't tell you this of course, and will continue to ascribe it all to the insatiable competitiveness and "willingness to invest in the product" of Hank Steinbrenner and the leadership and work ethic of Derek Jeter, and to the fact that Hideki Matsui's contract is coming off the books thereby "freeing up" money. Intelligent people will continue to chuckle.

Well, this part of the amen corner isn't in denial about the Yankees' insanely successful exploitation of the New York market. But he just wants to ask you (or the other 29 teams) a simple question.

What of it?

Or rather,

What are you going to do about it?

The Yankees didn't make the rules; they merely exploit them. If you don't like the results, you've got 29 votes to their 1.

#38, Rod Fort (www.rodneyfort.com Sports Business Data Area) has the Forbes/Ozanian data going way back. I've got franchise values going back to 1980 around some place, and I'm pretty sure Fort has collected every source I've used. (Hell, I got most of what I have from 3 places, Rod Fort's site, Doug Pappas' site and Forbes)

Only the WSJ could publish such obvious whore'sshit with a straight (indeed, as frozen as Nicholson's Joker's) face. Why not put such columns with the rest of the trash: on the WSJ's editorial page.

This piece isn't news, doesn't describe itself as news, and it is on the 'Opinion' Pages of the WSJ and is identified as such in the online version. Maybe you should read TFA.

Fine, the Yankees didn't buy the World Series. I think it's probably true that they bought their way into the playoffs, though.

Well, this part of the amen corner isn't in denial about the Yankees' insanely successful exploitation of the New York market.

Leave Augusta out of this!

#38, Rod Fort (www.rodneyfort.com Sports Business Data Area) has the Forbes/Ozanian data going way back. I've got franchise values going back to 1980 around some place, and I'm pretty sure Fort has collected every source I've used. (Hell, I got most of what I have from 3 places, Rod Fort's site, Doug Pappas' site and Forbes)

The Rodney Fort site looks like an excellent resource, although the HTML coding appears to have been done back during the Sosa/McGwire home run derby.

As anticipated, these data hardly support the pink-tinged hysterics from the Budshoviks looking to further hamstring the Yankees. The Yankees spend more because they have different priorities than most other ownership groups.

#31 Gaming Boy,

"But they did buy a gun to bring to a knife fight."

I've read a lot of metaphors about the 2009 Yankees but that might be the best.

Thanks.

The Yankees spend more because they have different priorities than most other ownership groups.

Right, the $200 million (according to Forbes) in incremental revenues that the Yankees earn versus a typical team have nothing to do with it.

It’s more committed ownership.

Not that anybody should care, but I got the same basic results as Zimbalist.

Further, the point made that the Yankees have created the low correlation between payroll and winning is incorrect.

From 2000 to 2009 the overall correlation between winning percentage and opening day payroll is .438 (for those scoring at home, this explains ~20% of the variation of team winning percentage)

Remove the Yankees and it drops to .383.

#49 The extra money didn't come out of thin air. As I noted before, in 1980 the Yankees were only 4th in franchise value and had no discernible structural advantage over the Mets.

Starting in the 80s Steinbrenner worked hard to increase local revenues -- and pumped every extra dime back into the team (unlike most owners with revenue sharing money).

And seems to have created a feedback loop. The expectation of a dominant team allows them to command more money which goes to the team. And since they've generally got something close to value for money they can put out a good product. Repeat.

As I noted before, in 1980 the Yankees were only 4th in franchise value and had no discernible structural advantage over the Mets.

I'm don't see that. According to site you linked, in 1980 the Yankees had the highest revenue in baseball, and their revenues were 150% higher than the Mets.

This isn’t complicated. The Yankees have a massive, sustained revenue generation advantage due to their market and their brand, and they’ve used that advantage to average 90 wins a season since free agency was invented. They’ve squandered that advantage at times, and they’ve spent it more wisely at other times, but that advantage has always been there, has gotten bigger over time, and will probably never go away.

That’s why they win.

#52 Revenue isn't fixed, a huge part of marginal revenue is previous year's record. The Mets revenue was way below the Yankees in 1980 because they were coming off a 63-99 record. And followed it up with a 67-95 record in 1980. Teams in New York city are every bit as responsive to team quality issues.

Or to put it another way, the Yankees drew 2.2 times as many fans in 1980. Completely predictable given team quality issues.

I can only say so explicitly for the 90s because that's the only decade I've looked at closely. I was able to model most markets in MLB pretty well. My model consistently underestimated the Yankees revenue by about 2% and overestimated the Mets by about 2% (a correlation of .997 between my model and the Forbes estimates and a .994 for the Mets). I used Mike Jones' market size estimates for the size (rather than the way Zimbalist did it in his study -- which treated any team in a shared market as equal)

Putting my (consistent) errors together with Mike's study I'd say that by 2001 somewhere around 12% of the Yankee advantage over the Mets was structural anything else was a completely predictable reaction to the consistent high quality teams that the Yankees have fielded.

Bottom line: The money is really really really really important. Anyone who says otherwise is not playing with a full deck.

That said, is it 100 percent of the explanation of the Yankees' success? No. In addition to payroll, the Yankees have to not be stupid.

Therein lies the rub. Everybody else has to be some variation of smart. The Red Sox have to be smart. The Tigers have to be really smart. The Twins have to be really really really smart. And etc. The Yankees merely have to be not stupid. That, again, is a pretty big advantage.

The money is really really really really important.

This is it exactly. Moreover, the issue that the Yankees have created their present-day structural advantage, earned it over time, is beside the point in terms of considering the degree to which their present-day structural advantage undermines the competitive worthiness of the sport going forward.

Therein lies the rub. Everybody else has to be some variation of smart. The Red Sox have to be smart. The Tigers have to be really smart. The Twins have to be really really really smart. And etc. The Yankees merely have to be not stupid. That, again, is a pretty big advantage.

Perhaps the Twins have to be "really really smart" to win, but they don't have to be smart at all to make a profit - the free money truck will pull up every year and unload enormous piles of cash without regard for any sort of "smartness". Tens of millions in free money every year, win or lose? Actually that sounds pretty smart to me right there.

Perhaps the Twins have to be "really really smart" to win, but they don't have to be smart at all to make a profit - the free money truck will pull up every year and unload enormous piles of cash without regard for any sort of "smartness". Tens of millions in free money every year, win or lose? Actually that sounds pretty smart to me right there.

Yes, so if your issue of concern is whether teams other than the Yankees can readily turn a profit, then everything's hunky-dory. But if your issue of concern is whether fans of teams other than the Yankees (and a few other teams, though none nearly to the same extent as the Yankees) will continue to perceive their hometown team as having a compellingly competitive opportunity to achieve championships -- not so much.

Yes, so if your issue of concern is whether teams other than the Yankees can readily turn a profit, then everything's hunky-dory. But if your issue of concern is whether fans of teams other than the Yankees (and a few other teams, though none nearly to the same extent as the Yankees) will continue to perceive their hometown team as having a compellingly competitive opportunity to achieve championships -- not so much.

Do the respective ownership groups of these "teams other than the Yankees" share a similar concern for "competitive opportunity to achieve championships" over the guaranteed profits they seem to be enjoying without complaint?

Do the respective ownership groups of these "teams other than the Yankees" share a similar concern for "competitive opportunity to achieve championships" over the guaranteed profits they seem to be enjoying without complaint?

It isn't clear that they do, at least not many or most. Short-to-medium term ROI seems to be the primary motivation for most MLB investors.

The question is whether that motivation is optimal for the long-term health of MLB as a business, and most importantly from the collective fans' POV, whether the results of it are optimal for the inherent entertainment worthiness of the sport.

It is still of my opinion that New York State should move to a Yankee-Based economy. They could pay off the deficit and still have enough money for resigning Jeter next year.

What exactly would that entail? Getting the Federal government to build New York a new State House free of charge?