Potentially, the owners first started raising salaries in an effort to maintain a competetive team, but cut into their own profit margins. Then, in an attempt to recoup their profits, raised ticket prices.
I can't see how it's so obvious that a first-year economics class would explain it contrary to the above. Maybe in a situation that was simplified (such as how a first-year physics class assumes that all objects are point masses).
I'm saying that prices are based on demand. They can't charge more money for the product just because it costs them more to put it out there... not unless people are willing to pay more. Nor are they going to charge less for the product, if people are willing to pay a higher amount. They are always going to charge the amount that best maximizes their profits.
"Demand", of course, being defined in terms of total dollars, not by the number of consumers. They don't (and, really, shouldn't) care whether they are getting X amount of money from 2 million people or 4 million... they only care about the X amount. In fact, it's easier in a lot of ways to get it from 2 million. That's why they always want new stadiums with more skyboxes and other things that cater to the corporations and rich folks that are more willing to be luxurious. So, it's ok with them if you're priced out, as long as someone else isn't.
gonna build a giant drill and bore straight into hell releasing ancient demons from their sleep-forever spell so they can walk upon the earth and get recituated and run the diet pill pyramid that MC Pee Pants has created
Bottomline though is this: if fans are willing to pay the ticket price, they will stay in business. If not, they won't AND therefore something will have to change (including the possibility that salaries will have to be lowered). Bonds doesn't cause your tickets to cost more, he could probably care less how much a ticket costs. The owner is responsible for both ticket prices AND Barry Bonds's salary. If Bonds is getting paid at a level that forces ticket prices to a level that people aren't willing to pay, that's the owner's fault, not Barry Bonds. Barry is just trying to get paid whatever he can (and in his case, that's a lot, but that shouldn't matter), just like the rest of us.
Here's my thing: an owner can waste all the money in the world, including on players, but if he can price his games at a reasonable level, I'll buy. But if he can't, regardless of how wasteful or nonwasteful he may be, I won't buy.
But you must blame the chief, not the indians. (perhaps the owners should develop a backbone and not pay whatever Barry Bonds asks) And one last thing, can anyone honestly say they would turn down 122% worth of raises over the last decade? I wouldn't, and I don't blame Barry Bonds for not turning it down either. It's the owners who are in charge, at least they should be.
As I said earlier, I don't watch baseball anymore. The last strike, where the World Series was cancelled, made me realize that they don't care, so why should I? I DO think ticket prices are too high in general, and that the players get paid far more than their worth (I just don't blame the players for that) That said, I only agree with this particular Bonds statement as quoted. I DON'T agree with the idea of a players strike (I mean, average salary of $1.9 million! I hardly think the conditions are bad enough to leave work over for goodness sake!) And the players ARE to blame when they strike (and if they strike again). Barry also stated something about striking for the children, which is total crap. Barry does things for Barry, not the freakin' children (which SO many will become baseball players, right).
Want to send a message to both players and owners, boycott the league.
So, just one day after Andy MacPhail (sports.espn.go.com) hits the bricks, manager Dusty Baker will not be brought back (sports.espn.go.com). Dusty? And MacPhail even admitted his tenure was... how you say, more like MacFail?