Truck and Barter

Reinsdorf the Benevolent

Of course this is not benevolence:

"I voted 25 times for [Podsednik]," said Jerry Reinsdorf, chairman of the White Sox. "Well, you know, this is Chicago, where the slogan is, 'Vote early and vote often.' And it would cost me money. He's got a clause in the contract that if he makes the All-Star team he gets a $100,000 bonus. But it's worth it."

How much was it worth to the White Sox for Podsednik to make the All-Star team?

Jock Tax

While reading through the Tax Foundation's Tax Watch newsletter, I ran across an article on the origins of athletes paying income tax in states where they play away games. As one could imagine, it now affects many beyond the star athlete.

If state tax collectors have their way, we may all be “jocks” soon.

That’s the finding of a new report from the Tax Foundation that explores the growth of “jock taxes”—taxes requiring visiting athletes and other team employees to file tax returns in every state where games are played.

“The jock tax began with California trying to get back at Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls for beating the Lakers in 1991,” said David Hoffman, adjunct scholar with the Tax Foundation and co-author of the new report. “Illinois fought back with a retaliatory tax the next year. Since then, many other states have joined in.”

Today, of the 24 states with pro teams, 20 have enacted jock taxes, along with a half dozen cities.

The study finds that revenue-hungry state treasuries are extending their income taxes to more and more nonresidents who just work a few days a year in their states. Jock taxes were first aimed at a tiny number of wealthy athletes, but the study shows they are now beginning to spread to salespeople, newspaper reporters, lawyers and others, forcing non-jocks to pay as well.

New Jersey has begun taxing visiting attorneys, Cincinnati has levied a tax on touring skateboarders, and several jurisdictions have begun taxing traveling entertainers.

Click here to download the PDF and scroll to page 3 for the whole thing.

OSU Scandal

I would like to make some relavent comments about this scandel at Ohio State, but that would be quite foolish. Considering there has been a federal investigation of the institution which I would discuss and the miserable record of its sports program, there is no need to hang the laundry out so to speak on the internet(statutes of limitation has ended by now for all but the most serious crimes right?).

My view of college sports is different than how I view professional sports. The latter does not need socialism to thrive. The key difference is that they are a different type of institution, profit maximizing is not the goal. Players should be paid a nominal though equal sum to play college football. For those who aren't aware, playing college football is a full-time job and then some. It means going to class in the morning and then practice/films in the afternoon. The day is basically filled from around 8 a.m. till 6 or 7 p.m. and, oh yeah, your dead tired at the end of the day when trying to study.

Studies have been done which say that most college programs lose money, but these don't take into account the social profit they produce. Let's face it, what kind of place would Nebraska be without their university football team? Paying the players a small amount would lessen the incentive for activity mentioned in the article and give players some compensation for the profit they produce.

NHL Lockout

A very interesting article and comments from The Sports Economist.

I will say this about sports in America; Europeans do it it better(that is one of the few things I'll grant them. The others have to do with beer and topless beaches). With regulation, what would Donald Sterling of the Clippers have done for all the years he's owned the team. It is, more or less, socialism that we practice or want to introduce here in our sports leagues. I'm happy for the NHL players to be able to give the finger to NHL owners and yet still make as much money. What most people don't recognize when they support trade unionism of the like in Europe is that they are regularly expected to take less of a wage hike to help control inflation. Here, we have the owners wanting to impose some sort of salary cap for the sake of "competition", but this is the opposite of the business enterprise who wants to be able to reward their most valuable employees. It is an anathema to most people that wages should be restricted, this should be true for athletes as well.

DC Baseball turns into Ping Pong

Looks like there are a still a few things to iron out for the new DC baseball stardium: Councilmen Propose D.C. Baseball Plan Changes.

Yesterday's WaPo carried an interesting commentary on the issue from Henry Aaron (no, not that one). Here's an excerpt:

My enthusiasm dissolved, however -- replaced by concern for the District's financial recovery -- when the details of what the city had offered to lure a team became public. The proposed deal imposes huge costs on the District and gives virtually all of the financial gains to the team. The city will bear the burden for years to come, while enjoying little real financial benefit from baseball's presence here.

At heart, the issue is a question of how much the new team and stadium might benefit DC. Both sides of the issue brandish various studies and opinions to suggest they are right.

I recently moved to DC from Chicago, where we have (in case you weren't aware) two major league baseball teams. One, the Cubs, is on the north side of the city, and the other, the White Sox, is on the south side of the city. One, the Cubs, continues to do very well, while the other, the Sox, does not. It seems to me that these two stadiums encapsulate the visions proposed by the opposing views.

On the optimists side, the area around the new DC stadium would look like the area in which Wrigley field sits: vibrant, populated, (relatively) well taken care of, and -- best of all -- expensive. The whole area is surrounded by expensive condos, decent restaurants, clubs, bars, and more.

On the other hand, the neighborhood surrounding Comiskey (and I still think of it as Comiskey) is notoriously unappealing. Despite the building of the new stadium several years ago, little has changed in the area: it's still dirty, unpopulated, and downright dangerous at certain times of the day.

Here's my view on the discrepancy: parking.

For Wrigley, the act of getting to or around the stadium on game day should never be attempted via car. There is easy public transit access from two different lines, walking from numerous neighborhoods is pleasent in decent weather, and there are rows and rows and rows of places to lock up a bike. The only real car traffic that does regularly move are cabs. And they can just keep moving. Sure, there are places to park for those coming in from out of town -- neighbors of Wrigley do a brisk business charging between 15 and 50 bucks for their parking spaces behind houses, in alleys, or in the parking lot of their small business, depending on the distance to the field. (And -- something that puts a smile on my face -- there is ample opportunity for price discrimination: "easy-out" parking is more expensive, but your car isn't blocked in Tetris-style behind 30 others so you can leave when you like.)

Comiskey, on the other hand, is surrounded by parking facilities owned, operated, and within close distance of the stadium. You rarely have to set foot anywhere else than the Sox facility to go see a game.

The effect is clear. People on their way to Wrigley field stop for souveniers, buy their peanuts, meet friends at their apartments, or gather in the bars for pre- and post-game drinks. The foot traffic that occurs because no one can park nearby turns a few square blocks into a sea of humanity that is hunrgy, thirsty, and looking to be consoled or to celebrate. The end of a Sox game is an orderly affair with people travelling only a short distance to their cars to make the drive home.

A large part of the argument about the benefits of a stadium involve the potential benefits to local business. I'd say that would only be the case if the people attending the game had cause to cross paths with those businesses. If the stadium goes up in Anacostia with a sophisticated complex for parking, I'd be willing to bet that there will be little to any benefit in Anacostia itself. And unfortunately for those small businessmen of Anacostia, it's highly unlikely that the hefty price tag on the stadium doesn't included sufficient parking only feet away from the field.

A More Efficient Organization

As previously noted, I am a fan of the Anaheim Angels and while the team has spent much of the season in first, the injuries have really mounted. In fact, much of the heart and soul of the organization has been on the disabled list: Darren Erstad, Tim Slamon, Troy Glaus, Troy Percival, Garret Anderson, Raul Mondesi, Aaron Sele and Brendan Donnely. To top it all off, I read today that a lingering injury may account for Bartolo Colon's poor season, looks like the guys may get some company. Injury plagued Angel teams aren't anything new for the Angels, the most famous incident is Moe Vaughn falling into the dugout and twisting his ankle. It is with this long and never-ending tradition that the organization has finally realized its folly and decided to chart a different course. This years draft marked the first steps in their new strategy:

Other sleepers from the Angels' draft are 14th-round pick Nick Adenhart, a right-handed pitcher from Hagerstown, Md., who would have gone very high in the first round if he didn't suffer an elbow injury last month that forced him to have season-ending Tommy John surgery.

Adenhart will probably sit out his injury at the University of North Carolina, but Bane said he would fly to Maryland next week and talk to Adenhart's family.

"We've got some idea of what we can do," Bane said. "It's a sad situation. He knows he's not going to get the money he would have gotten."

Other sleepers, according to Bane, include 30th-round pick Alan Horne, a right-handed pitcher from Chipola Junior College who played for the same high school as top Angels prospect Jeff Mathis in Marriana, Fla.

Horne was a first-round pick of the Cleveland Indians and "turned down a lot of money," as Bane put it, to pitch at the University of Mississippi. Since then, Horne has had multiple arm injuries.

"We think we might be getting him at the right time," Bane said.

Exactly, why should we draft a healthy player, have him make it through the minors up to the big leagues only to get hurt? This cuts out a lot of the hope and expectations of the organization and the fans, just draft people you can immediately place on the DL. My only question is; What? The cripple in the wheelchair was taken ahead?

So forget the minors for these guys, just sign them to major league contracts.

What are They Thinking

I remember seeing this earlier in the week, but forgot about it until perusing the Bangkok Post. Here is some info:

BANGKOK, Thailand -- The Liverpool soccer club agreed in principle Tuesday to sell a 30 percent stake to Thailand.

"In principle, they agreed to give it to us and now we are working on details," Thailand Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said. "It has moved forward in a good way ... we still have to work out the details.

"By June, things will probably be concluded officially."

This is probably the most asinine thing I have ever seen a politician do. Thailand is not a rich country; if, say, Singapore were to announce a bid for Manchester Untied, it would be funny. Who knows, maybe they'll get a nice return on the investment and in the end put more resources into education and such, but I doubt it. It's not as if this is a local team, so you can't really compare it to the Green Bay Packer deal. The economics of this are dubious, Thaksin has done O.K. for Thailand, but come on.

Mark Matthews, if you are intrested in SouthEast Asian, mainly Thai, Equities, his is the only place to go, offers a different take:

People who think this is a bad move miss the point.

Emperor Augustus recognized the way to get the people "on side" was to give them "bread and circuses".

That’s why municipal and state governments build expensive football and baseball stadiums. It’s fun to go to the ballgame. That’s why the Olympics happen. And that's what Thaksin's doing with Liverpool. The only strange thing is the circus is in so far away. But I hear part of the deal is to bring them here for part of the year and use them as a base to further sports in Thailand.

Of course, further in the posts, he shows he's probably right:

“ABAC Poll, a survey conducted by Assumption University, shows positive result from its research on Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s plan to buy a 30 percent stake in Liverpool soccer club, that hopes to take Thai football players to the international level. “Our research shows that 83.2 percent of voters have agreed with the plan to buy a stake in Liverpool,” said Abac Poll chairman Srisak Jamornmarn.”
A summer election

It seems like it is a brilliant move politcally for Thaksin. But 83.2 percent of the voters like the idea? I could make some nasty comments here, but I'll refrain.

Of course it could be worse, he could be proposing a massive new entitlement. This money could be a much cheaper way of keeping the people happy than a nationalized healthcare system, presciption drug benefit, welfare programs, social security and education. Do we get these ideas because the people aren't well-educated or are the people not well-educated because of these ideas?

Doctors Pay Athletes for Medical Care

Bill Pennington of The New York Times reports that, in exchange for promotion rights, tickets, and other goodies, doctors and hospitals are paying sports teams (rr) and providing free or highly discounted medical care:

Despite concerns among many doctors and the players' unions over the ethics of putting health care out to bid, about half the teams in the four major North American professional sports are now tied contractually to a medical institution. Industry analysts expect that number to grow significantly....

The Mets, for example, are paid more than $1 million a year by the New York University-Hospital for Joint Diseases, with the hospital providing the services of its doctors at no cost. In return, the hospital advertises at Shea Stadium and receives free tickets and periodic visits from players at hospital events. When the Mets signed their seven-year deal in 2001, their longtime team doctor, Dr. David Altchek, was let go.

Some medical care consumers might complain that this only makes healthcare more expensive for the rest of us. But this isn't so, since these organizations would have huge advertising and marketing budgets even without spending money and time on professional athletes.

Many doctors have a hard time accepting that their service should be packaged, marketed, and sold:

Many doctors, however, are deeply concerned about the propriety of these arrangements. "These groups should have to put out a disclaimer: `We paid for the ability to treat these top athletes,' " said Dr. Robert Huizenga, a former team doctor for the Oakland Raiders and past president of the National Football League Team Physicians Society. "What's it say about our profession when the most high-profile jobs are awarded not by merit, but by auction?"

Dr. Dan Brock, director of Harvard Medical School's Division of Medical Ethics, called the marketing arrangements unseemly....

Dr. Gordon Matheson, editor in chief of The Physician and Sports Medicine, a journal, and Stanford University's team doctor, said: "It hurts us all. Do physicians fight over the right to take care of a run-down section of town? These arrangements can't help but imply some competition for secondary financial gain, and that doesn't jibe with the central values of health care."

I think doctors have to stop kidding themselves. Most people--including doctors--strive to make money, regardless of their occupation. There is no reason why a responsible, moral person cannot make money providing medicine for people willing to pay. I gather that Dr. Matheson insists that money-striving doctors treat people who cannot pay along with those who can. But his argument in favor of medical charity has nothing to do with any particular advertising plan implemented by a medical facility.

Is he seriously arguing that without such an advertising-care agreement, the best possible care would always be given regardless of cost? Or that a greater emphasis will be put on cost-savings than was before? And that now, a lesser quality of care would be given?

Surely all these are possible outcomes, but how likely are multi-millionaires to accept bad medical care? How likely are sports team to compromise the health of their employees who make them all their money? Won't a contract for medical care specify the quality and cost up front, with appropriate punishments for not meeting the contract? If so, what's there to complain about?

In fact, some professional athletes are terribly concerned about the new arrangements, in spite of finding their medical care far more than adequate:

Mets pitcher Tom Glavine said he was satisfied with the care provided by the Mets' doctors but concerned about the principles of the new financial model. "Potentially, it's an issue that could be disturbing or warrant concern," he said. "You'd like to think the team is getting you the best possible care and you're not just treated by whoever gives the most money."

Let me put Mr. Glavine's words into a different context:

As a fan, you'd like to think the team is presenting you with the best possible pitching, and you're not just treated to whoever makes the most money for the team.

But, I submit, if you think that, you're absolutely clueless.

In sports and medicine, putting together the best possible team--the one the wins the title or has the best record in saving lives--is a surefire way to become rich and famous.

Some say that fielding a top-notch team is only possible with an enormous salary fund. Others say you can do so by picking and choosing lower-cost options wisely. We've seen winning sports teams come from both management philosophies. How about medical teams?