False dichotomy.

Things that are newsworthy != things I will complain about

That’s baloney.  If a team wins, they get the support of the fans.  The problem is that the teams do not have an equal chance of winning.  The sport needs a salary cap.  As it is now, every year: same teams in the front and the same teams in last place.  But the baseball commissioner has no guts and will not level the playing field for all teams.  That’s why, after being a full season ticket holder for 19 years, I cancelled my subscription this year.

Baseball doesn’t need a salary cap. Since 1990, MLB has fielded 12 different world series champions, the NFL has fielded 12 different finals champions, and NBA has fielded 6 different NBA champions.
Without a salary cap baseball has had more parity then any other sport over the past 20 years. People who keep crying for salary cap are fans of loser franchises who are victims of poor ownership and dumb general management, not an unlevel playing field.

For whatever it’s worth, Craig, if you news.google.com just “baseball ticket prices,” you get 3,006 hits.

“But you can get front row seats and dinner to the best baseball in the world for that price.”

If you’re watching the best baseball in the world, you took a wrong turn on your way to Camden.

*snicker*

I would guess the sportswriters are more likely to see themselves as the ‘guardians of the game’ and its traditions, and therefore be more upset at steroids.  Plus, most don’t have to pay for tickets and get free food (I think).

On the other hand, most fans are mainly interested in a fun night out with their friends or family, and are more concerned with how much that’s going to cost them.

I live far enough away from a major league team that it is always a special occasion when I get to go to a game, so ticket price usually isn’t an issue.

I have always wondered about the (in)elasticity of ticket prices vis-a-vis attendance. It seems clear to me that we haven’t yet achieved any sort of price equilibrium, as evidenced by the success of secondary markets such as Stub Hub and increases (or at least constancy) of attendance figures.  Now, I suppose that Stub Hub et al. appeal to the one-off ticket buyer, but ticket prices have far outpaced inflation.

In fact, my opening day ticket to Jacobs Field in ‘94 was $14 for lower box.  Those same seats today are $48.  If we assume a 5% annual rate of inflation, that means prices should be about $29.10.

At what point do we see ticket prices begin to affect attendance?  It hasn’t happened yet (at least not to my knowledge) in any major sports. 

Using my data from above, an individual/business could have bought 4 pretty good seats to all 81 games for $4.5K.  Assuming the same 5% inflation rate, in today’s dollars, that would now be about $9.4K.  However, using the price now charged, those same seats would actually cost $15.5K- 50% > the inflation rate.  That means that, if these are corporate tickets, I would have need to increase part of my marketing/advertising budget significantly at a time when real revenues have not increased proportionately.  Moreover, the Jacobs Field data from above is likely lower than the stadia the require the purchase of some sort of PSL. 

Since most of the good seats at every arena or stadium are season tickets bought by businesses at what point do these organizations begin to say no?