$%@! the Players and the Owners

Now fill your favorite four-letter word into the headline (and I don't mean 'feed' or 'hall').

Do you really care about either side? Do Richard Ravitch and the owners actually come across as more appealing than Donald Fehr and the players?

After all, it is the fans who once again have turned out the big losers because of yet another baseball strike.

We have thrown millions, perhaps billions of dollars into the coffers of these "gentlemen" and Marge Schott, and for the eighth time in 22 years, the players and owners have forgotten about us.

World War II didn't cancel the World Series. An earthquake in 1989 also didn't. Nothing since the first decade of the century has postponed the postseason, but now the collective greed of both sides has killed the Fall Classic.

Then again, it's just as well that the owners voted to cut out the playoffs last week--everyone should know that the only reason the strike would have been settled would have been so that they could collect the massive television revenue that the postseason generates.

After all, the only time either side concerns itself with the fans is when the fans don't fill up the stadiums.

Right now, the players and owners think we're dying to flush more money down the drain, i.e., their bank accounts. They think we are heart-broken (which we probably are to some extent), that our lives are incomplete without baseball.

Well, it's time for a change.

I don't plan on supporting them if they ever do settle, and neither should you. (I'll talk about how to strike back a little bit later.)

Why take such drastic action if we love baseball so much?

Without getting into who is right and wrong in the current situation, let's examine how devious each side is.

The players: HBO hit the bullseye with its "When It Was a Game" series several years ago. The show talked about the 1920's, '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s, when it was an honor and it was fun to play a game called baseball.

Sure, wages were low. (Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams couldn't have made much more than the current minimum wage of $109,000.) But that didn't stop the players from playing.

It is obscene to think that people making an average of over $1.2 million a year (more than the average American will earn after 25 years of work) or median salary of over $500,000 can claim they aren't being paid enough money.

On top of their enormous wages, they then have the gall to charge kids $15 for an autograph.

Come on!

Twenty years ago, the players didn't grab their crotches on national television to show up their opponents (i.e., Ken Griffey, Jr.) or charge the mound every time a pitch came near them.

And the current crop of players didn't have to care too much about walking out--they have strike insurance to support them and judges who are willing to cut their alimony payments in half (Can Barry Bonds really evoke that much sympathy?).

OK, so you would like to side with the owners and say that the players are wrong. Well, you shouldn't feel sorry for the owners, either.

These people who say that they need a salary cap (as in football or basketball) are the same people who have been unwilling to hire a commissioner, a person whose interests, (God forbid) would be for both the players and the owners, not just the owners.

(Sorry Buddy Boy, but you just don't cut it as commissioner.)

Fay Vincent was a good man who was ousted because his actions threatened to curtail some of the owners' profits, regardless of whether those actions were good for baseball.

The owners have also taken the game away from the fans. Take the pile of junk called The Baseball Network as an example.

Regional coverage on ABC or NBC--this means that if you live in an American League city, you will never see Tony Gwynn play in a nationally-televised game except the All-Star Game or the World Series, should his team make it. Likewise, a National League city, wouldn't see Frank Thomas play the entire season.

And the most idiotic part is that areas that have two teams (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles/Anaheim and Oakland/San Francisco) can see only one team play while the other one is blacked out.

Football has Monday Night Football, basketball has a weekly national game on Sunday afternoons and even hockey has a new national television package.

The owners are the same people who brought expansion (ie., massive entrance fees and more low-quality baseball players) to stadiums near you the past season and who threaten to expand again by the end of the century.

The next thing is that even if a half-dozen teams are losing money, teams with new stadiums (Orioles, Indians, Rangers) and massive cable television contracts (Yankees, Dodgers) have enough money to set up a system similar to the players' last proposal.

If the owners disagree about their profits, have an independent firm come up with the true figures.

Even if some teams have no money, how did the Montreal Expos, with the second-lowest payroll, establish the best record in baseball before the season was canceled?

Furthermore, poor financial situations haven't stopped teams from relocating in the past or other businesses from folding. Pittsburgh and San Diego are great cities, but nobody says they have to have a franchise.

OK, the players and owners are both cold-hearted.

Now forget about the fans for a moment and look at the concessions workers, the vendors, front-office workers and the neighborhood businesses in and around the major league ballparks.

Thousands of people (college students trying to pay part of their tuition, people trying to support their families) have been laid off, and not one moment's thought has been given to them by either side.

Then there are baseball's charities, such as the Jimmy Fund here in Boston. Again, these causes are being ignored by the greed. Even if some players like Matt Williams are still giving to charity, the fans who would give because they were asked to at a game wouldn't think about it now.

What are we supposed to tell a terminally-ill child whose wish cannot be granted because people making an average of $1.2 million find that their salaries are unacceptably low?

If the poor treatment of the fans by both sides doesn't bother you, then the plight of the workers and charities should.

So the next time (if there is a next time) you feel tempted to use your vacation money or weekly earnings to take your family to a baseball game and spend $5 for parking, $12 for a ticket and an average of $7 per person on overpriced hot dogs, sodas and peanuts, think twice about who will be reaping the profits.

If you have season tickets, return them and use the money on concerts, museums or travelling or even put it into the bank.

You want that $20 Chicago White Sox cap--keep the money and save it for a good cause.

Playing major league baseball used to be a dream, and it still is from little league through college and the numerous amateur leagues for adults. There it's still a game. And a fun one, too.

It's no coincidence that football and basketball are more popular than baseball among America's youth, and even hockey is rising in popularity.

And for those of you who feel your lives are worthless without baseball (and I pity you if you fall into this category), at least form a boycott of opening day next season--whenever that might be. Fans were planning a strike this year, but the players started their walkout before the fans could get organized.

The next time, it's the fans who are holding all the cards.

After all, without our money there would be no professional baseball.

It's time the players and owners made some concessions for the fans--like lowering ticket and food prices and having the players act more like role models than mercenaries with beer bellies.

Let Congress yank the antitrust exemption--do you feel that you can trust either side?

Otherwise, you can finally make some use out of those 125th anniversary patches the players were wearing this year.

As in, let the current Major League Baseball system R.I.P.

(1869-1994)

David S. Griffel is an Associate Spors Editor for The Crimson.