Baseball's Financial Disparity (Non-)Problem

If my beloved New York Yankees prevail in Anaheim this evening, it will continue a streak unique in major U.S. sports, and put another nail in the coffin that currently holds the notion of a baseball salary cap.

Salary cap advocates argue that it is necessary in order to restore competitive balance in a sport where one team can outspend the rest of the league combined. It derives from the simplistic notion that budget equals success, an idea that requires one to ignore big-budget disasters (see: Mets, New York and Dodgers, Los Angeles) and small-budget teams that remain competitive over a long period of time (see: Athletics, Oakland and Twins, Minnesota).

But baseball is currently unique among the big three U.S. team sports in terms of competitive balance. Since the start of this decade/century/millennium, baseball has had a different champion every year (Diamondbacks in 2001, Angels in 2002, Marlins in 2003 and <> Red Sox in 2004). Contrast that with football, which could be renamed the National Patriots League and with the NBA, where the Spurs won two of the last three championships (and which has only had five franchises win a championship in the last 20 years).

If the Angels go down tonight, baseball’s streak will remain intact. (And before readers bury me with emails pointing out that the Yankees won in 2000, keep in mind that this decade/century/millennium commenced in 2001, as there was no year 0.)

Perhaps the competitive balance advocates should give up on a baseball salary cap and turn their attention to repealing the football and basketball caps and restoring competition to those sports.