- This topic has 153 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 7 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In 2023, the Fan Cost Index for the Cardinals was estimated to be $236.80. That was for a family of four to attend a game. It included four tickets, parking, four hot dogs, four soft drinks and two small draft beers and two least expensive caps.
All that revenue would go to the team except parking perhaps.
High was Boston at $366.71. Low was Arizona at $170.09.
For those who think that’s all profit, there are employees to be paid and the cost of the food supplies, etc. to be covered. So the profit would be less. The less number of people attending games actually lessens the profit margins since they would still need a certain number of people to work concessions, ushers, etc.
In 2023, the Fan Cost Index for the Cardinals was estimated to be $236.80. That was for a family of four to attend a game. It included four tickets, parking, four hot dogs, four soft drinks and two small draft beers and two least expensive caps.
All that revenue would go to the team except parking perhaps.
High was Boston at $366.71. Low was Arizona at $170.09.
So that’s about 60 bucks a person. If you hedge for parking, BikeMike’s $50M in revenue loss is probably not far off. Of course, team payroll is down a similar amount so it’s probably not a huge loss for Dewitt.
I don’t know why it is, but my gut tells me Dewitt is not losing any money. He may not be making as much as he’d like but I’d be surprised if he’s losing money. Of course I have no real figures to back up my gut.
I feel reasonably comfortable guessing that he is running a negative operating profit and probably has been for at least 2 years. I’m basing this off multiple factors surrounding his behavior and actions. But nothing concrete. Just enough for me to believe it is probably true.
That doesn’t mean he’s truly losing any money though since valuations of professional sports teams continue to skyrocket. He can always borrow against that equity and still come out ahead. Rest assured, his ownership team is still getting richer even if they aren’t actually turning a profit.
But the day-to-day ledger may be in the red.
No way to find out. But when the team is running a ‘negative operating profit’ as Jnevel suggested, does WDWJr have to go panhandling for cash from his investor buddies, or do the Cardinals have a rainy day fund to cover those down years when they happen?
‘Borrowing against the equity’ makes the most sense.
That would be similar to panhandling in that the ownership group would be spending part of their equity to keep the team afloat.One thing that I think is undeniable is that the Cardinals are being revamped and reestablished, top to bottom. And WDWJr’s fingerprints are all over it. When he bought the team, he paid a salvage yard price for it because that’s all it was worth. He turned the team into a model of success, and now it looks like he’s turning it into a new model of success. Glad to have him around.
(It’s been a slow day so far.)
There is a LOT of money in sponsorship. Just take a look at how much signage is around every professional sports venue, especially MLB stadiums. But, if attendance is down then the viewership of that signage is down and when those contracts are up for that signage then the new selling cost of that signage is going to be lower. So, that money may still be there now because of a contract, but in the future could be much lower. So there is probably current money to send with Gray or Arenado and such, but the futures could be lower.
As for consessions, a lot of that isn’t controlled directly by the Cardinals. They have a say for sure, but a lot of that space is leased out. Then that company is the one paying those employees and the costs. I’m sure there is a contract there also and a licensing agreement with the Cardinals logo printed on the stuff. It wouldn’t be cost effective at all for the Cardinals to be in the “restaurant” business and leasing that space out is much more controllable income. And again, lower attendance is going to mean lower sales for those companies and effecting the leasing cost of the space.
But anyone who thinks St. Louis isn’t a smaller market can look at the numbers the last few years. Sure the team performance hasn’t been great, but the cost of staying alive has skyrocketed and the disposable income in smaller markets just isn’t there for the people. I’ve said before, I live 2.5 hours from St. Louis, and considered “in the St. Louis market”, and for 15 straight years my family vacation every summer was the Cardinals-Cubs series in July. Come in Friday afternoon check into the hotel and go straight to the game, Saturday was Six Flags or Grants Farm or whatever, then the game, then go to Sundays game and head home. Usually would make our way over at least 1 other time for a game. Even after I got into high school and older I would find my way to at least 2-3 games a year. But I haven’t attended a game in over 5 years. The cost of getting to St. Louis, possibly a hotel, then the cost of attending the game is just not worth it regardless of the quality of the on field product. Larger markets with higher immediate population and a higher number of higher incomes (LA/NY/Chicago) are going to have less of an impact. The markets like St. Louis, Cincinnati, and such are going to notice it more. People have said St. Louis is a larger market because they have such a sprawling fan base going back many years. But I think the lack of disposable income this sprawling fan base, including me, that used to be making trips to St. Louis just don’t find it justifiable to spend the money doing any more. And the ownership knows it and sees the future and spending money isn’t going to happen. It has to be about investing in minor leagues and controllable players and having a cost effective roster. And if that means the roster the next few seasons is sub $100 million then so be it. The cost of what’s on the field has nothing to do with me watching or being a fan. They have to build a sustainable business model and where they are now isn’t, which is how they’ve come to hiring the people they have who came from organizations (Tampa Bay, Cleveland) who have had to build success on the same model. The problem is for something like 18 of the last 20 World Series winners have come from a top 9 payroll and I don’t foresee a future where the Cardinals are able to afford that. Which comes to the 2027 CBA and what happens there and if we even have a 2027 season.Yeah, 667, it’s slowly but surely nearing an area in which the primary focus is no longer anywhere near the game of baseball. Countless other distractions seem to have eclipsed a simple but wonderful game played on dirt and grass by enthusiastic young athletes. That’s too bad.
I wouldn’t have guessed that 4 people could attend a game with all of the extras mentioned for a cost of $236.80. That seems reasonable when I take into consideration the last time I wheeled through a fast food drive-thru the speaker box informed me that I owed almost $5 for a medium order of french fries…And they were a little on the soggy side.
To those that think the Cardinals aren’t doing this intentionally:
Bob Nightengale of USA Today Sports reported that the Pirates make a profit comparable to the top teams in baseball and that they keep the money made from revenue sharing instead of spening each season.
Chain Bloom came from the Rays. Within a few months of him joining the Cardinals organization, the Cardinals did a 180 on what they were doing, and started shedding payroll and crying poor. DeWitt probably had him look at the books, and he probably laughed because the Rays made way more in profits. And that is what most likely is fueling the direction of the Cardinals.
Once it came out that smaller market clubs were receiving $70 million in revenue sharing, DeWitt went full tank mode. Now, for the first time, Cardinals are a revenue-sharing recipient. Welfare for billionaires.
As for the next CBA:
“There is a possibility of a fight among clubs over revenue sharing, with the smaller markets seeing a greater contribution,” agent Seth Levinson said. “The payors (large-market clubs) will argue that insufficient revenue-sharing funds are being spent on player acquisition.
“Hence, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the smaller markets compete for talent in the free-agent market to convince the payors that they are committed to putting a better product on the field.”
People are talking about the Cardinals losing $50 million per year in revenue.
How much have they lowered payroll over the last two years?
Going back to profitability:
The Pittsburgh Pirates had attendance of 1.525 million this past season, versus 2.25 million for the Cardinals.
Now, the Pirates ran a payroll of $84 million last year and received $70 million in revenue sharing.
The Cardinals ran a payroll of $131 million and received $0 in revenue sharing.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which operating model is better. And DeWitt is determined to show MLB that he is finally listening to them, and is going to make the Cardinals into a small market team so he can claim those welfare dollars.
LACardFan couldn’t disagree more. The DeWitts have been “crying poor” munch longer than that. They have said for years baseball isn’t a profitable business, and it is a business. There are major expenses, players making crazy money, many many coaches and front office personnel, and thats not even all the “small” departments like marketing and tickets and the people who run all those offices. Even the Cubs owner has said “with what money” when fans have cried for them to spend more on FA like the Dodgers and their market is substantially larger than St. Louis. “Welfare for billionaires” that are expected to compete in a game with the ones paying the welfare are making 10 times what they are. I’ve said before I like the open market side of baseball, but I think something has to be done with the financial disparity of the top 8-10 over the other 20. I think if a team is receiving revenue-sharing their payroll has to be 100% of what they receive + a number based on market size. But something needs to be done to bring the top down to the field, but placing a hard cap on them just means those owners are profiting more. So the luxury tax system could be reworked.
LA Card: Any idea who the “people” are doing the talking about the Cardinals losing $50 million a year and where they find that figure?
CIF – it was a “spitball” estimate earlier in the thread. And it wasn’t that they are losing money, it is that revenue is down by that much. Sorry if I misspoke.
. I’ve said before I like the open market side of baseball, but I think something has to be done with the financial disparity of the top 8-10 over the other 20. I think if a team is receiving revenue-sharing their payroll has to be 100% of what they receive + a number based on market size.
The problem is, the small market teams aren’t using that extra revenue for on-field product. Right now, they are “supposed” to spend 150% of those revenues, but all that can happen is a grievance. And the last grievance was filed more than eight years ago and still isn’t resolved, which is why the Marlins and Pirates thumb their collective noses at it.
Every single MLB team receives a share of local TV revenue pooling (teams must contribute 34%, then it is divided among all the teams), national broadcast + streaming revenue, and MLB revenue. That’s up to $200 million.
So, these small market clubs are receiving $270 million per year without doing anything for themselves.
But they can only afford $80-100 million payrolls.
They should be forced to spend all they are making from MLB, not just the revenue sharing portion.
Under the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated in 2022, each MLB team pools 48 per cent of local revenues with the total amount split equally between all 30 teams. This results in each team taking in 3.3 per cent of the total—an estimated $110 million USD, if not more. Teams also receive a share of national revenues, totalling around $90 million USD per team.
That’s $200 million per team, without ticket sales, and without the remaining local TV revenue.
Right now, they are “supposed” to spend 150% of those revenue
That doesn’t seem right.
Team A: Slightly bigger small market receives $50 million would be required to spend $75 million. $25 million of own money.Team B: Small market receiving $100 million is required to spend $150 million. $50 million of own money.
So, these small market clubs are receiving $270 million per year without doing anything for themselves.
Not doing nothing themselves. That number includes the 34% they put in too. I get the point. But everyone is paying into the pool.
There is a huge market advantage to certain markets. And allows them to be very active in free agency and extending players contracts. Then there are the other 20 teams that have to be financially responsible. The Cardinals aren’t in the teams that have money for sure. The DeWitts own a business and want to be financially responsible and cost effective. And I don’t blame them one bit.
Infrastructure costs redeem their value much better long term, than short-term player investments. Too much hit and miss in players.
“Cycles” – Bill. He spoke of it last WWU. Once the bronze boys declined maybe he saw a down cycle in the roster. His investment level in players is a down cycle match.
Re-investing in your base of operations has always been sound, but it’s clearly at the cost of the player budget. The returns of this “reset” are TBD while the costs from the budget have been accumulating. Sure hope we like the return.
I generally agree with Cards667’s comment above. Baseball costs too much to the fans. Instead of worrying about how much the ball clubs are making, just lower the cost of everything from tickets to player salaries.
It’s just as absurd that a player should get $800K, minimum, for playing baseball for a year as it is for an organization to make many many millions of dollars for a year of owning a team. In fact, the idea that a player should get as much money as they get is arguably more absurd than a team making all those millions. The team has a whole lot of money tied up. The player has no money tied up. Forbes, at least at one time, had the Cardinals valued at $2.55B. The return for the organization on the team owners’ investment of $2.55B is likely not worth the risk. The owners might just as well sell the team and take the $2.55B and put it in a mutual fund or something.
Who’s fault is it? It’s the players’ fault for blackmailing the fans into paying them so many millions of dollars. And it’s, equally, the owners’ fault for paying it. And it’s the fans’ fault, also. It’s the fans’ fault for allowing it all to happen.
The finances of everything related to MLB are shameful. The players, the owners, and the fans are going to have to figure out what to do about it.
Begining towards the end of 2021 through 2022 and into 2023 we all experienced double digit inflation combined with shrinkflation (less product for a smaller price increase)
We all go to the grocery store. The same trip today costs 25-35% more than it did in early 2021 – and prices will never go back. Our incomes will never catch back up at our (most of us) advanced ages
As far as a trip to StL goes, hotel room prices have skyrocketed as has the cost of eating out.
I’d bet Bill’s ballpark village gross income has suffered as prices for everything have reached the puke point for a lot of people.
The days of post covid revenge travel finally petered out in mid- 2024.
Baseball as a whole needs to rework its archaic regional broadcast system in order to maximize that revenue stream – and I think that is slowly happening.
Fan engagement and putting a good or even better a great product on the field and then providing your fans with multiple ways to give you their money has always been the formula but the specific ways to separate fans from their money is always evolving. Baseball in general and the Cardinals specifically are behind the curve.
Going back up to previous comments, I as well always used to go down for at least one weekend series if not two, even being up here.
Two people for one weekend between the games, tickets, BPV, etc was at least $1,000. I have not been since 2022 because of the on field product since 2023.
The best value is going up to Milwaukee and when they play the White Sox.
The attendance numbers announced were definitely not “butts in the seats” in 2025, and they will be even worse in 2026 unless they give fans a little hope. I love Libby, but he can’t be your #1 starter….. #3 at best.ZTR is correct about MLBs antiquated blackout rules. These rules are not comparable to the technology of the day. They aren’t fan friendly. There are ways around them, but it is discouraging to fans purchasing the MLB package.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.