I think the stance on PED users is much, much softer here than in the general public.

I'm not sure about that.
If you ask the question to a regular sports fan in the middle of a conversation, I don't think you'd get much righteous indignation about PEDs.
If you ask the question in a poll after an article about a player being caught for PED use, I think you'll get a lot of anger about the subject.

I don't think people really care as much as we think, unless the media provokes them into caring about it.

It's probably the same way about all this fiscal cliff stuff in the news. Since the last time the media talked about it (summer 2011) until now, I don't think the average Joe gave a damn about it. But now, after the media has decided to whip up some frenzy about this issue, it's suddenly VERY important to a lot of regular folks outside of Washington.

I've never been in a situation, at least in my jobs after college, where I didn't know what others were making. I'm in government now, but when I was in the private sector I did payroll accounting.

A lot of people would buddy up to me, and try to turn the conversation to how much the boss was making. I found it amusing. Eventually I'd say I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Huh? The drug wars - and certainly the steroids wars - basically came after Miller left the MLBPA.

How can I put this. It's technically true, but the reality is quite different.

Ken Moffett was his chosen successor. When Moffett talked publicly about the need to cooperate with ownership to get coke out of the game, Miller arranged his removal. In other words, Don Fehr got the job because Miller didn't think Moffett would do an adequate job of protecting the player's interests.

Miller had enormous influence in the 80s even if he wasn't actually running the union.

Now by the time we got to the steroid wars Miller had no real influence. He actually opposed the deal the PA made with MLB (and the subsequent reopening of the deal to allow for much harsher penalties) but it simply didn't matter.

Anyone have a source estimating what the percentages were at earlier points in the game?

I'm pretty sure it's covered in Baseball and Billions. Having moved fairly recently I'd have to find my copy.

But I'm confident the players got a much lower percentage in the 50s and before.

various folks or groups have their wages made public to some degree.

public officials obviously
municipal workers
armed services
entertainers
ceos
execs in public companies

those are some that spring to mind

Well, the first three categories you list there aren't in the private sector.

I've been a compensation specialist for 30 years, and I can tell you with 100% confidence that the wage/salary/variable pay program details are confidential both within and between U.S. employers nearly all the time. Whether this is a good thing for employees is a debatable point, but the factual nature of the confidentiality of the data is not.

We could make a WAG on players' share of revenue based on the figures given in several comments upthread, notably that the average player salary is now 180 times what it was in 1966. If the average revenue is now $212M per team, then if that ratio were constant, teams in the mid-1960s would have been taking in about $1.1M per year. Average attendance in 1965 was about 1M per club: was the average 1965 ticket price $1.10? I doubt it was that low, though you could have gotten into some grandstands or bleachers for a buck (one source suggests the average 1965 ticket price was $2.29).

So that's double the current ratio just in tickets, not counting TV and radio income, and concessions and other amenities, not as fully developed as now but not nothing, either. I suspect the players' share has gone up considerably, if not astronomically.

#56, I do know that when Drysdale and Koufax made their shared demands in 1966 they had done some back of the envelope calculations as to what the Dodgers were taking in and were staggered. It was absolutely clear to them that they had been lied to repeatedly in past negotiations.

Is this really the way it's supposed to be? Games in played in soulless, billion-dollar concrete palaces? A night out at the ballpark costing a week's pay?

I'm having a hard time seeing most recent ballparks as being "soulless." In fact, parks like those in Baltimore and San Francisco would seem to be attempts away from that description -- as opposed to '70s parks like Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium and Montreal's Olympic Stadium. The latter is the most soul-sucking, depressing place I've ever seen a baseball game.

And there's no reason why a night out at a ballpark should cost a week's pay. Sit in the cheap seats, eat at home, take public transportation to and from the park, and avoid shelling out for souvenirs and you can see a game for a most reasonable price per person.

Franchise values have gone up more than 180 times since the mid 60s, most likely. The $2B sale of the Dodgers implies an $11.11M price tag, mid-60s. The Yankees sold for $8.8M in 1973.

Which further implies that owners weren't getting any richer, in relative terms, because of the reserve clause.

The latter is the most soul-sucking, depressing place I've ever seen a baseball game.

Try New Yankee Stadium. Your soul ain't surviving that intact.

Am I reading this right? The argument for Miller is:

1) helped bring improvement to quality of play via players being able to be players full-time (no part time jobs, no off-season jobs

2) getting players their fair share of the revenue (or at least, much much closer to it)--I assume the growth in salaries per se this isn't interesting to anyone but the players and their relations, but is part of the HoF argument because economic justice is good.

3) the standards for executives is shockingly low anyway

Franchise values have gone up more than 180 times since the mid 60s, most likely. The $2B sale of the Dodgers implies an $11.11M price tag, mid-60s. The Yankees sold for $8.8M in 1973.

Which further implies that owners weren't getting any richer, in relative terms, because of the reserve clause.

That oversimplifies things greatly. It only implies that if no other external factors have developed since then that affect franchise values.

The rise of RSNs, for example, would be one of those external factors.

That oversimplifies things greatly. It only implies that if no other external factors have developed since then that affect franchise values.

The rise of RSNs, for example, would be one of those external factors.

True, but franchise values completely negate the idea that the reserve clause was some kind of sui generis license to print money. Any objective owner would prefer, say, a publicly-funded luxury-box-encrusted stadium to the reserve clause. The monopoly the owners have over territories has proven to be significantly more valuable than the monopoly they once had over players.

None of those monopolies are right or fair, but their relative value should be understood to put the reserve clause in its proper historical perspective.

Bowie Kuhn was actually a far better commissioner than the used car salesman currently occupying the office -- if for no more than the ability to make a decision without farming it out to a committee for a year of study. He was simply a more professionally accomplished man than Bud Selig in virtually every way.

The final sentence works just as well if you insert just about any random Primate's name in place of "he" & change the verb tense to the present.

steve

not saying that the stuff cannot remain public. just that details of compensation get out there all the time. folks can find out what any exec of a public company makes because it has to be published. entertainers apparently like others to know what they are getting paid. i think it's crazy that the matt guy on today gets paid 21.5 million annually but it's out there for whatever reason

this also filters down when unions negotiate. it's not hard to find out what the different memberse of an auto assembly line make on an hourly basis.

i don't think it's anyone's business but the info is available

Am I reading this right? The argument for Miller is:

1) helped bring improvement to quality of play via players being able to be players full-time (no part time jobs, no off-season jobs

2) getting players their fair share of the revenue (or at least, much much closer to it)--I assume the growth in salaries per se this isn't interesting to anyone but the players and their relations, but is part of the HoF argument because economic justice is good.

3) the standards for executives is shockingly low anyway

No, it's more that Miller had a profound and lasting impact on MLB.

No, it's more that Miller had a profound and lasting impact on MLB.

So did Jose Canseco.

Just sayin'

i don't think it's anyone's business but the info is available

The info is not available for non-executive managers/supervisors/individual contributors in non-unionized private employers -- in other words, the great bulk of employees in the U.S. It isn't. The employers universally hold it confidential, and in the cases when they share it with firms like mine (for the purpose of conducting salary surveys) it is expressly under the condition of confidentiality to all eyes except my third-party firm, and only released in aggregated form in the survey (and generally, the survey data is available to participating employers only). This is a hard rule in the U.S. If we were found to violate it, we'd be out of business tomorrow.

What impact did Canseco have on MLB? Lots of players would have taken steroids with or without him.

(And, of course, I think Miller's impact has been mostly positive.)

What impact did Canseco have on MLB? Lots of players would have taken steroids with or without him.

(And, of course, I think Miller's impact has been mostly positive.)

Well, much like with Miller and free agency, I think we'd still have widespread steroid used and testing without Canseco, but he helped hasten both.

But, as you say, Miller's impact was positive (unless you're an Ayn Rand-style robber baron kook). Conseco's was not.

But, as you say, Miller's impact was positive (unless you're an Ayn Rand-style robber baron kook).

Actually, that might have been one of the 2 or 3 times in her life when Little Orphan Aynie probably would've come down on the right side of an issue, though I don't think we would have seen too many of her pimple-faced dittoheads scribbing "Who is Curt Flood?" above their dormitory urinals, at least without misspelling his name.

I'm having a hard time seeing most recent ballparks as being "soulless." In fact, parks like those in Baltimore and San Francisco would seem to be attempts away from that description -- as opposed to '70s parks like Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium and Montreal's Olympic Stadium. The latter is the most soul-sucking, depressing place I've ever seen a baseball game.

The soul of a stadium has never been in its design, but rather in the spontaneous noise generated by the crowds in reaction to events on the field. Baltimore's Memorial Stadium had infinitely more soul than Camden Yards, in spite of its grim outward appearance.

And there's no reason why a night out at a ballpark should cost a week's pay. Sit in the cheap seats, eat at home, take public transportation to and from the park, and avoid shelling out for souvenirs and you can see a game for a most reasonable price per person.

Sure, but back in the 70's you didn't have to sit in the nosebleed sections to get a good price, and you didn't have to shell out months in advance or pay even more inflated prices to see a "premium" game. StubHub has mitigated this somewhat, but good seats for high demand games still cost a ton more now than they did in the not so distant past.

You can summarize the difference this way: Before, you were hard pressed to spend all that much money at a ballpark. Today you're hard pressed not to, unless you bring your binoculars or resign yourself to going to see nothing but low rent attractions.

there's no reason why a night out at a ballpark should cost a week's pay. Sit in the cheap seats, eat at home, take public transportation to and from the park, and avoid shelling out for souvenirs and you can see a game for a most reasonable price per person.

That depends. In San Francisco, there is no such thing as a cheap seat. Ever.

In Oakland, there's cheap seats (some of them good) aplenty.

Sure, but back in the 70's you didn't have to sit in the nosebleed sections to get a good price, and you didn't have to shell out months in advance or pay even more inflated prices to see a "premium" game. StubHub has mitigated this somewhat, but good seats for high demand games still cost a ton more now than they did in the not so distant past.

Back in the 70's crowds were half the size or less. I'm not really sure that 10K people scattered around a 50K seat concrete bowl produced a more soulful experience.