Big and VC,
I am sure that you can do "what ifs" from now until kingdom come to support your view - and rail against the owners as well. Owners would certainly be a tough bunch to defend. LOL
But I still admire what Schilling did. It was a refreshing change - as I stated before - and one that I am sure will not be appreciated by alot of folks in the rep. business.
A slightly different angle - The flip side of Capitalism: I can recall - 3 years in a row - one of the NBA teams I worked for - lost money - every year.
Every year - the salaries went up dramatically - and every year the ticket prices went up. And every year the cost of concessions went up. And they were locked into a long term television agreement - so virtually no added revenue there.
And every year - they lost money. Were the owners greedy in that case? Stupid maybe - but greedy? Shoot - they were holed up like rats in a corner. Pay the salaries - or watch your franchise fall apart. End of story.
Are we now to believe that salary levels do not affect the cost of viewership?
I do think players deserve whatever someone is willing to pay them - and I also think owners deserve to make a return on their investment. Pretty basic stuff.
But someone has to be paying for that stuff right? The money doesnt just materialize.
MY MAIN POINT:
If both owner and player can be satisfied (ala Schilling) without the middleman getting a piece - I'm all for it. That, also, is an example of Capitalism. Some would argue - at its most efficient.