I read somewhere, and I forget who it was exactly, because it is a sentiment of many people right now. The quote was, or was close to "there is no such thing as a small market, just cheap owners." It was in response to some owners looking to cut costs, perennially keeping costs down, or looking for ways to short change players on contract issues, all while the Mets seem willing to shoulder all sorts of cost this offseason.
The problem is that most owners look at the teams like any number of their investments. Some owners view teams as passion projects and sink a lot of money into them, while others look almost exclusively at the bottom line. That, I would venture to guess, accounts for most of the owners in all sports. This means that, yes, from a budgetary standpoint, the bigger markets, with their typically larger crowds, higher ticket prices and better TV contracts, would have more money to spend on players.
Yes, owners are fabulously wealthy and can usually afford bumps to the MLB payroll, but I would argue that most do when competitiveness is right around the corner. The problem for many is the depressed payroll when that competitive team is a few years away.
The argument is decent enough. Cities, states and counties sink a lot of money into teams and stadiums, and should rightfully look to some sort of recompense. Wins and losses aren't really a community benefit, however. At best, they lift the spirits only of those who are fans of the team, which isn't a blanket statement for any community or any team. Owners are cheap to the detriment of the community if and when they don't offer as many jobs with a livable income. The administrative and maintenance staff, those that live in the community even when the season is over, should be well compensated and can participate in the local economy.
It's more important that that should be addressed than the top end payroll, in my opinion. There are signs that that isn't necessarily happening, however. None are more obvious than the contraction of dozens of minor league teams, costing players and team personnel their jobs, all of which were at the bottom of the MLB totem pole to begin with. Save money by not paying a 35 year old pitcher, not by depressing the salary of secretaries or janitors, or eliminating jobs in far flung communities.
I'm not making any direct accusations of any particular organization or specific offense. I'm just saying that a low MLB payroll is not the worst offense an owner can make. Baseball is a tough sport to sustain or regain relevance. Large payroll helps some teams, but not all teams and not all the time. Sometimes, it takes front office ingenuity, like in Tampa or Oakland. With success like those two organizations have, it makes it unlikely that there will be widespread raises to payroll in Major League Baseball.
Like it or not, that will be used as an argument against increased payrolls. As long as teams win games, they have no real obligation to keep their roster payroll high. There should be an obligation to keep the rest of the organization well paid, however. Let's hold owners to that.
