Category Archives: News

09.16.13
by

A’s to implement walkthrough metal detectors starting Thursday (updated 9/17)

Update 9/17 3:45 PM – David Rinetti gave me a call today to straighten out some of the misconceptions about the metal detectors.

  1. There is a league-wide mandate, but it doesn’t call for a specific type of detector. The only requirement is that each park use some sort of metal detector.
  2. The A’s are using the last 4-game homestand as a trial run before the postseason. Ongoing training is happening prior to Thursday.
  3. Walkthrough detectors are being used because they’re already in place at both the stadium and arena, and because they’re faster than wands (which are more prone to human error and slowdowns).
  4. The policy regarding allowed and banned items has not changed.

I pointed out that the press release was perhaps worded in such a way that it could be misinterpreted that the walkthrough detector was mandatory. Hopefully this will clear up some of the confusion.

—–

Surprise press release from the A’s today:

A’s to Use New Security Procedures for Remaining Home Games, Starting Thursday

Team Adheres to MLB League-Wide Mandate in Using Metal Detectors

Adhering to a new Major League Baseball league-wide mandate, the Oakland A’s will begin using a walk-through metal detection system for fans entering O.co Coliseum for all remaining home games beginning Thursday night when the team hosts Minnesota at 7:05 p.m. MLB teams will implement a similar league-wide system that is currently in place for all NFL and NBA teams.

The A’s recommend that ticket holders enter O.co Coliseum when stadium gates first open to allow ample time for this new security procedure. Gates will open at 5:35 p.m. Thursday, 4:30 p.m. Friday, and 11:05 a.m. on both Saturday and Sunday.

Similar to airport security, fans will have their bags searched and will need to empty pockets of keys, cell phones and other items before walking through a metal detector. The A’s have not changed any of their current policies on carry-in items, as referenced in the “A-Z Guide” on the A’s web site, http://www.oaklandathletics.com. However, it is suggested that fans minimize the amount of items they bring to the ballpark.

This new procedure will continue through any potential 2013 post-season games, and for all future regular season games.

I’m not quite sure this is happening in the middle of the homestand as opposed to today, especially considering the fact that the metal detectors were already in place for the Raiders game yesterday. In any case, it’s a major inconvenience that, unfortunately, was completely inevitable. Many ballparks – though not the Coliseum – have already started using metal detector wands. Starting Thursday, plan to get to the Coliseum 15-30 minutes earlier than usual to accommodate the extra screening time. I’ll be back from Anaheim on Thursday, so I’ll get the metal detector the first game back.

On a related note, I recall that the two New York ballparks and Atlanta’s Turner Field used wand metal detectors at the gates. Seattle, Milwaukee, and the Chicago parks did not. I suppose it’s convenient for MLB that the infrastructure is already in place at the Coliseum, because if the league wanted to use walkthroughs instead of wands at all 30 parks, the Coliseum could serve as a trial balloon. How’s that for trailblazing?

09.15.13
by

Mayor Quan shows up late to Raiders/NFL presentation

According to Matier & Ross, Mark Davis and the NFL held a meeting last week with East Bay pols to talk new stadium. Apparently things got off on the wrong foot when Oakland Mayor Jean Quan showed up late.

People at the meeting – none of whom would speak on the record, because the session was supposed to be private – say their efforts to convince the NFL that there’s still hope in the East Bay weren’t boosted by the tardy entrance of Oakland Mayor Jean Quan.

‘She arrived 20 minutes late,’ said our attendee. ‘he apologized, saying she was held up by a phone call.’

M & R also pointed out the elephant in the room, the lack of funds on either side, and the political reality surrounding the potential for public funds.

And while no one said it at the meeting, everyone knows the chances of voters helping out with a new stadium deal – while they are still paying off $20 million a year for the 1990s renovation of the old one – are slim to none.

Ah, maybe the pols can keep repeating the “no vote needed” mantra. Because that’s helpful.

I don’t know if Mark Davis and Lew Wolff have ever talked about their respective stadium issues. They both live in LA, so they could have lunch without Bay Area gadflies noticing if they wanted to. Even if they haven’t, Davis is doing Wolff a favor by forcing the issue with Oakland and Alameda County. By getting the public side to start moving, we’re finally seeing their level of commitment to the Raiders, and downstream to the A’s. As far as Mayor Quan goes, it’s at best token effort, which is what we’ve come to expect.

09.14.13
by

Bending rules instead of fixing them

As the legislative session ended late Thursday night in Sacramento, the assembled pols found themselves at yet another crossroads regarding CEQA. They were getting ready to prove another project’s sidestepping of existing CEQA law, all in the name of making the state more competitive, or jobs, or keeping a team from moving to another state. While Democrats were generally in lockstep about the prospects of the project, Republicans complained about how granting exceptions like this one doesn’t fix the core problem.

Just about everyone including Governor Brown agrees that CEQA makes the procedural environment too difficult to get things built. It’s all too easy to create year-plus delays because of often frivolous CEQA challenges. Don’t get me wrong, many CEQA challenges have real merit. If a contaminated site needs to be cleaned and an applicant isn’t thorough about mitigation steps, CEQA provides the method to keep such abuse in check. But uses of CEQA can themselves be abusive, such when homeowners object to a project simply because it will affect their property values.

CEQA was designed to protect the environment. While it needs to be overhauled to prevent abuse, whatever programmatic changes need to be made must keep the spirit of the law intact. Judging from the debate on the Assembly floor on Thursday, it’s not clear exactly how that will happen.

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) did a victory lap Thursday afternoon as SB 743, the bill designed to help streamline CEQA for the Kings’ downtown Sacramento arena, was easily approved in both houses. Previous bills provided similar exemptions for other big projects. Farmers Field received an exemption because it was thought that streamlining CEQA would help bring a NFL franchise to LA. It didn’t. SF Assemblyman drafted similar legislation for the Warriors’ arena (AB 1273). And if Howard Terminal got off the ground for any kind of major project including a ballpark, it’s likely that another bill would be written to benefit that project. Given the amount of cleanup that would be required, bypass legislation is practically a given.

During the debate over AB 852, a last minute gut-and-redraft meant to impose union-backed CEQA protections over certain projects, Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) asked the bill’s author, Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento), if the bill and AB 743 could help a project Fong champions in his backyard, Apple’s spaceship campus headquarters. Dickinson indicated that this was the case.

The problem with providing exceptions for big, high profile projects like stadia and convention centers (or corporate headquarters) is that they chiefly benefit the big money team owners and associated businesses who run such facilities. If we’re going to be serious about real, substantial CEQA reform, we need real legislation to get to the core problems regarding abuse and delay. That way every kind of applicant can benefit, not just incredibly wealthy business interests. Steinberg made some headway by reshaping how some areas of concern are measured, but only after he shelved SB 731, the bill he wrote as a broader approach towards real CEQA reform. Chief among the issues addressed in SB 743 are parking and traffic, both of which will now have a potentially more flexible way to define mitigations. Aesthetics are also deemphasized for certain projects. All in all, these are small but necessary steps that should modernize CEQA. Steinberg did what he needed to do to help the Kings arena, just as he promised to David Stern and the NBA’s Board of Governors. As for properly reforming CEQA? That’s for the next legislative session, I suppose.

09.13.13
by

Earthquakes Stadium slips again to 2015

After what has to be considered the most excruciating site excavation ever, the Earthquakes revealed today that their stadium’s opening date is slipping (yet again) to 2015. The stadium was originally supposed to open in 2014 after last year’s groundbreaking ceremony. Then it slipped to midseason as crews encountered difficulties clearing the former defense plant of underground concrete bunkers and various other surprises found on site.

The full scope of the site-related work could only be determined when the work was fully underway, and the site-related work has continued to take longer than expected. Beyond the complications announced in July, there have been additional complexities in connecting the stadium to the city sewer system, and the high water table has slowed the site utility phase.

“Projects of this size and scope often encounter delays, especially with the amount of demolition and site preparation we had to do. What is most important is that we build a great stadium that will stand the test of time for our fans and this community,” Kaval elaborated.

Despite the complications at the site, progress has been made on the project. Demolition and grading are now complete and the site utilities have been installed. Additionally, the footings are currently being placed. The next steps in the process will be the pouring of the foundations for both the stadium and team building, followed by the steel erection. The steel has been ordered through Schuff Steel and is currently being fabricated in Stockton. The team office building is scheduled to be erected in November, followed by the stadium bowl in late December.

Well, at least they’ve ordered the guts of the new stadium. It’s just amazing that the 49ers stadium, which is nearly four times the size and well past ten times as expensive, will open before the Earthquakes’ digs. All because the site was cleaner to start. Beware, all you who think you can build on brownfields quickly. Something lurks beneath the surface.

09.11.13
by

Roger Noll declaration

Economist and Stanford Professor Emeritus Roger Noll made a declaration in support of the City of San Jose’s antitrust lawsuit against Major League Baseball. He also provided a (presumably paid for) analysis of the issues at stake. The following is Professor Noll’s complete statement. A PDF version is available here.

DECLARATION OF EXPERT WITNESS ROGER G. NOLL

1. My name is Roger G. Noll. I reside in Palo Alto, California. I am Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where I am Co-Director of the Program on Regulatory Policy. My educational background includes a B.S. in mathematics from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. My complete curriculum vita is attached as Appendix A.

2. My primary area of scholarship is the field of industrial organization economics, which includes antitrust economics and the economics of specific industries. I have taught antitrust economics at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. I am the author, co-author, or editor of thirteen books, and the author or co-author of over 300 articles. Many of these publications deal with antitrust economics. I also have published extensively on the economics of sports, including Sports, Jobs and Taxes, co-edited with Andrew Zimbalist, which deals with the economic impact of sports teams and facilities and for which Professor Zimbalist and I wrote a chapter on the implications of the economic impact of teams and facilities for antitrust policy.

3. I have served as a consultant in antitrust litigation, including matters pertaining to sports. I have served as an economic expert for the players’ association in all major U.S. team sports (baseball, basketball, football, hockey, and soccer) on the economic effects of restrictions on competition in markets for the playing services of professional athletes, including testimony at trial in Freeman McNeil, et al., vs. National Football League (U.S. District Court, Minnesota) and John Mackey vs. National Football League (U.S. district Court, Minnesota). In Bernard Parrish, et al., vs. National Football League Players Association (U. S. District Court, Northern District of California) I testified on behalf of the players’ association about the value of licensing rights for retired NFL players.

4. Other cases in which I have testified at trial in recent years are the following:

• In re Application of MobiTV Related to U.S. vs. ASCAP (U.S. District Court, New York City);

• Reggie White, et al., v. NFL: Lockout Insurance & Lockout Loans (U.S. District Court, Minneapolis);

• SmithKlein Beecham d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline vs. Abbott Laboratories (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland);

• Novell vs. Microsoft (U. S. District Court, Salt Lake City);

• DVD CCA vs. Kaleidescape (Superior Court, San Jose); and

• In the Matter of Adjustment of Rates and Terms for Pre-existing Subscription and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (Copyright Royalty Board, Washington, D.C.).

5. In addition to the cases in which I have testified at trial, I have submitted expert reports and/or been deposed in numerous matters. I have also testified before the U.S. Congress on antitrust and sports matters on numerous occasions.

ASSIGNMENT

6. Attorneys for Plaintiffs have asked me to analyze Plaintiffs’ allegations in this matter to determine the economic evidence and analysis that would be used to prove liability in support of their claims. In undertaking this task I have read the Complaint, which was filed on June 18, 2013. I also have read Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on August 7, 2013. Finally, I have made use of information that has been collected from other public sources and my four decades of research on the economics of sports.

7. The purpose of this Declaration is to provide a preliminary analysis of the economic issues in this litigation before discovery has taken place. Hence, I reserve the right to revise my analysis and amend my conclusions on the basis of new information that has not yet become available. In particular, I understand that this Declaration is being submitted in connection with settling of the pleadings and that I am not being asked to opine on the merits of the claims. I would like to have the benefits of the complete discovery record before reaching my conclusions on the merits.

ANALYSIS

8. The objective of an antitrust economics analysis of liability is to determine whether conduct by Defendants caused harm to the competitive process. Ultimately, harm to the competitive process means harm to consumers, in this case sports fans. My main conclusion is that preventing the Oakland Athletics baseball team from moving to San Jose causes harm to competition because relocating to San Jose would substantially increase the potential fan base and attendance of the team.

9. Major League Baseball (“MLB”) is made up of thirty teams. These teams are economic competitors in many markets, including markets for players, coaches, regional television rights, and product licenses. If teams are geographically close, they also compete for attendance among sports fans in a local area. Presently MLB has local teams that compete for attendance in Baltimore-Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and the Bay Area.

10. Economics research and prior litigation have concluded that each major professional sports league in the U.S., including MLB, possesses market power in the provision of major league games in its sport in North America. Among the ways that MLB exercises its market power is by controlling the number and geographic location of major league baseball teams in North America. MLB has adopted rules that define the “home territory” of each team in the league and that place restrictions on franchise relocation. For now irrelevant historical reasons MLB has placed San Jose in the home territory of the San Francisco Giants, even though a team in San Jose would be less of a direct competitor to the Giants than is a team in Oakland because San Jose is much further than Oakland from the Giants’ home stadium.

11. One domain of competition in MLB as well as other professional sports is competition among cities to attract or to retain a team. Economics research shows that the financial success of a baseball team depends on the economic and demographic characteristics of its home territory, the quality of its home stadium, and the financial terms and other arrangements concerning the stadium. Cities actively compete for baseball teams on the basis of agreements that they offer to a team concerning a home stadium. The alleged anti-competitive conduct in this case is Defendants’ inhibition of competition and restraint of trade through the application of restrictions on team relocation which are preventing the City of San José from competing with the City of Oakland for the Athletics Baseball Club (Athletics).

12. Economists who have studied the location of teams in a league have concluded that in some circumstances a league has a reasonable business justification for restricting relocation. In particular, because the success of a league depends on the financial success of each team, leagues have a valid interest in assuring that each team will enjoy sufficient popularity in its home territory to be financially viable. This pro-competitive justification does not apply to MLB’s refusal to allow the Athletics to move to the City of San José.

13. San Jose is much more attractive than Oakland as a home location for a baseball team for several reasons. First, San Jose has a much larger population base, and so substantially greater potential home attendance for a local team. Second, San Jose is located in the Silicon Valley, which is the corporate home to many of the world’s leading high technology companies. This feature of San Jose is important because an increasingly important component of the revenue of a major league sports team is the sale of luxury boxes and other reserve seating to corporations, law firms, and wealthy individuals. Third, San Jose has identified and made available to the Athletics a location for a new stadium that will be a substantial improvement over the facility and location where the Athletics currently play. For these reasons San Jose is a much more attractive home territory for the Athletics than Oakland. Moreover, relocation to San Jose is financially attractive to the Athletics precisely because it increases total economic output, which in sports is the number of fans in attendance.

14. Competition in the local market for major league baseball would be enhanced if the Athletics relocate to San José. By increasing the potential revenue of the Athletics, relocation to San Jose would increase the financial incentive of the Athletics to field a team of higher quality. Making the Athletics more competitive would intensify competition between the Athletics and the San Francisco Giants, the other Bay Area major league baseball team.

15. MLB has not yet set forth its complete business justifications for preventing the movement of the Athletics to San Jose, so a full analysis of this issue is not feasible at this time. In antitrust economics, a restriction on competition can be justified only if it is reasonably necessary to achieve a pro-competitive objective, which is defined as an improvement in performance that benefits consumers. Given that San Jose is substantially more economically attractive than Oakland as a home location for the Athletics, the only plausible reason for preventing relocation of the Athletics to San Jose is to protect the Giants from more intense competition from the Athletics.

16. Protecting an incumbent firm from losing business to a more efficient competitor is never a reasonable business justification for a restriction on competition. In this instance, such protection is especially unwarranted. Since moving to their new stadium in downtown San Francisco, the Giants are among the most successful teams in MLB. Indeed, the success of the Giants since relocating to a new and much superior stadium illustrates why the quality and location of a stadium is extremely important to the success of a team. While the Giants will experience more intense competition from the Athletics if the latter move into a much better stadium in San Jose, historical experience with stadium improvements demonstrates that increased attendance at home games of the Athletics will not come at the expense of the Giants, just as the Giants’ improved attendance since relocating to downtown San Francisco has not come primarily at the expense of the Athletics.

I declare that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on September 6, 2013 at Stanford, California.

ROGER G. NOLL

09.10.13
by

2014 Schedules (Tentative) Released

Right on schedule, MLB delivered its 2014 team schedules. The season starts with another overseas sojourn, as the Dodgers and Diamondbacks will play two games at the venerable Sydney Cricket Ground in Australia. The North American slate begins on Monday, March 31, which is the first time in recent memory that the networks are bypassing a single Sunday game opener. The final day of the season will be Sunday, September 28. As usual, times for most games are to be announced, though based on how these things usually go you can guess what times the games will be played.

Without further ado, here’s the first half schedule:

oakland-2014-tentative-1H-med

 

Now the second half:

oakland-2014-tentative-2H-med

Surprises? Obviously, the A’s aren’t cursed with facing Felix Hernandez on Opening Day. But they won’t avoid him during the first week, as the M’s come in immediately after the series with the Indians, with the King likely to pitch on Saturday. Other observations:

  • Interleague matchups will be the usual home-and-home 4-game series against the Giants in June. Against the NL East, the A’s are also matched up 4-game, home-and-home against the Mets. They have 2 road series against the Marlins and Braves, and 2 home series against the Nationals and Phillies.
  • There are no truly grueling stretches of play. The longest streaks of consecutive games played are 17 going into the All Star Break and 17 in August, most of the latter trip at home.
  • The Yankees and Red Sox only visit once each, bookending a mid-June homestand.

Personally, I’m eyeing a return to Citi Field on June 24-25, when the A’s are in town. That should be followed up by a trip to Barclays Center or Madison Square Garden for the NBA Draft on June 26. Later this week I’ll put together the league travel schedule grid, which will help me (and maybe you) plan additional ballpark endeavors. Downloadable schedules are available in the left sidebar under Travel Tools.

09.09.13
by

Coliseum/Airport BART Station to be renamed

The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg reported today that BART station we all know and love (and some outsiders fear) servicing the Oakland Coliseum will be renamed.

Why? It has to do with the Oakland Airport Connector, the 3.2-mile, $484 million people mover which is scheduled to open in fall 2014. You’ve probably seen construction of the OAC’s metal guideway along Hegenberger, or the terminal just across the street from the BART platform.

Route from Oakland International Airport to the Coliseum

In order to avoid confusion among air travelers, the BART station will simply be named “Coliseum” while the OAC station at the Airport end will be named “Airport“. BART Train operators have long had the practice of announcing the transfer method to the airport when approaching the stop. Expect that practice to continue with a longer explanation (no, the airport didn’t disappear!).

On the other hand, the OAC will not have train operators at all. It uses automated people mover technology, similar to SFO’s AirTrain or driverless shuttles at other airports (Denver, Atlanta, Tampa, New York JFK). The technology comes from Austrian firm Dopplmayr. In Australia I rode the Katoomba Scenic Railway, a cable car funicular that’s one of the steepest in the world. It’s also a Dopplmayr installation.

Like the recently opened Airtrain JFK, the OAC (a brand has not been announced yet) will require a fee, just like its AirBART bus predecessor. BART estimates that the fare could be up to $6 each way, twice as much as the old bus. By comparison, AirTrain JFK costs $5 and runs a longer route, 8 miles to the Jamaica transit hub in Queens.

OAC-1-Airport

Airport Terminal Station of the Oakland Airport Connector

OAC was highly controversial at its inception because of its high cost and limited usage, but the argument that it was better to have a more efficient route not tied to surface traffic won out. Hopefully the fares will be able to cover operating costs.

Besides the Coliseum and Airport terminals, a third station is under construction at Doolittle. A fourth station at Hegenberger and Coliseum Way was considered at one point, but was slashed due to cost. Given the high fare that’s probably a smart move, though it’s also something of a lost opportunity should Coliseum City come to fruition.

09.07.13
by

Raiders want to build at current Coliseum site, whither the A’s?

Absent a short or long-term lease at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, the Raiders made an unusual request of the Coliseum Authority (JPA): they want to build a new stadium on the site of the current Coliseum.

That’s a departure from the commonly held belief that the Raiders wanted a stadium next to the current one, in the Coliseum’s B Lot. Should the JPA take up the Raiders’ request, both the Raiders and A’s would be unable to play in the Coliseum as the old one was torn down and a new one built. Of course, this isn’t necessarily a problem for the Raiders, since they could become roommates with the 49ers in Santa Clara for a few years while all of the upheaval occurred. As for the A’s, they’d be out of a place to play.

Of all the different ways we all considered how this dance could play out, the Raiders wanting the Coliseum to themselves in this way did not climb to the top of the list. If you think about it for a minute, it makes sense. What the Raiders want is what many teams want at their stadium sites – full control of the complex. All parking revenues, all signage, all ancillary event money, all of it. And I don’t blame them. If they say they’re going to put up $300+ million for the stadium, they want to ensure that they’ll get that back. Pushing the A’s out of the complex is the best way to do it because there’s much less chance of the legal (and revenue-sharing) love triangle between the Raiders, A’s, and JPA that Mt. Davis wrought.

Lame duck JPA board Vice Chair Larry Reid knows what this means for the A’s and MLB.

Lew Wolff would be happy if that was the scenario that played out. He could tell Major League Baseball, ‘See, they didn’t want us. Look what they’re doing for the Raiders.’

Exactly. The JPA knows this and they don’t want to be caught throwing more good money after bad, in this case, a second Mt. Davis. We don’t know yet what commitments Oakland and Alameda County are willing to make, yet the Raiders are making demands. At least the Raiders have put some cards on the table. The City/County haven’t. And the A’s have no interest in playing.

Funny thing is that there’s still doubt about what revenue the Raiders could generate to back a new stadium that could cost upwards of $800 million to build. Yet they don’t have to prove anything at the moment. This is about getting the JPA to commit to one team over the other. This won’t make the A’s respond with a different stance in the least. They sent a lease offer to the JPA that accounted for this. And that puts the JPA in a very, very tough position.

The Raiders have options and they’re playing this like they’re ready to exercise any of them. They could go to Santa Clara. Mark Davis is in talks with LA, despite how unlikely that move sounds. They’re giving the appearance of a team that wants, but does not need, Oakland. I told all of you about a reckoning earlier in the summer. It’s starting.

—–

Update 9:15 PM – In an ESPN interview today, Mark Davis laid out more specifically what he wants. Most interesting is the news that he confirmed the 58,000-seat capacity stadium concept.

I’ve come to the conclusion that a 53,000-seat stadium, that we played in from the 60’s and all that, is basically what our market is. We’re not an 80,000-seat stadium, we’re not a 65,000-seat stadium, really, unless you’re winning every game and all that stuff. But those aren’t the hardcore fans that are there … for us the 53,000–seat stadium is good and maybe 5,000 club seats bring it up to 58,000 seats.

Like I said, Davis is laying down his cards.

09.07.13
by

In final pre-hearing response, San Jose takes full aim at MLB’s antitrust exemption

Friday was the last day that the City of San Jose had to file a response to MLB’s filing from a month ago. And so they did, as Joe Cotchett went after baseball’s antitrust exemption. He also brought renowned sports economist Roger Noll to back him up.

The thrust of Cotchett’s argument is that the ATE is limited to the reserve clause and goes no further, citing the Flood, Piazza, and Federal Baseball cases. Naturally, that runs counter to MLB’s argument back in August that the exemption was enshrined by virtue of its long standing and couldn’t be changed except by an act of Congress. What view Judge Ronald Whyte takes when the first hearing is held October 4 is unclear. I’m eager to find out.

In addition to the attack on the ATE, Cotchett argues that the motion to dismiss the case should be denied, because the plaintiff’s claim is ” ‘plausible’ in light of basic economic principles.” Now remember that the original claim was that MLB colluded to prevent San Jose’s competitive bid to get the A’s. The case essentially rests on this particular argument. If Judge Whyte believes the argument is plausible, the case moves forward. If not, the City goes back to square one.

MLB claimed in its filing that the San Jose’s assertion that California’s Unfair Competition Law wasn’t violated because it the supposed violation was an antitrust violation, but because of the ATE, there is no violation. San Jose countered Friday that this ignores the UCL’s additional definitions of “unfair”. Historically, state courts have had difficulty properly codifying what “unfair” truly means, making this yet another test. It’s that very test that should push the case forward, according to Cotchett. Moreover, a chronology of actions/non-actions that have led up to this point was provided. They outline the various stalling measures MLB and the Commissioner’s office have taken to prevent a timely decision regarding an A’s relocation to San Jose, including Commissioner Bud Selig asking San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to delay a stadium vote.

Cotchett also brought out California Business and Professions Code section 17204, which especially points out unfair competition against cities whose population is larger than 750,000. Of course, that means the statute only applies to four cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. All other California cities have less than 500k population. Does that mean anything? We’ll see.

Finally, Stanford professor emeritus Roger Noll provided a declaration of support for the lawsuit. While it probably won’t have any material bearing on whether or not the case will go to trial, Noll’s presence could become important as a witness if the case does go to trial. Noll’s quote:

“there is no pro-competitive justification for MLB’s refusal to allow the Athletics to San José…There is no conceivable economic justification for protecting the market for one of MLB’s most successful teams (the San Francisco Giants) at the expense of one of the MLB’s least successful teams (the Athletics).”

Noll is referring to the teams’ off-field and box office success, not their respective on-field exploits. I’d like to see which sports economists MLB brings out to argue for the preservation of the antitrust exemption. Then again, even if the case goes to trial, it seems more likely that MLB will be forced to make a deal, instead of the alternative of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and threatening the ATE in earnest. Whoever wins, I’m excited for October 4. It’s a step, even if it’s a halting one.

Armchair antitrust experts, have at it.

09.03.13
by

Postseason Coliseum scheduling conflicts mostly averted

MLB announced its schedule for the 2013 postseason today. For the most part it’s a very tidy package, further proof that it’s better for the league to start a little early, around April 1-2, instead of April 6-7. There are always tradeoffs, such as the increased possibility of weather postponements in the spring, but overall it’s better than having the postseason extend into November. As currently formatted, the seventh game of the World Series would occur on Halloween night.

october2013

American League 2013 Postseason Schedule

The National League will get things started on October 1st with their Wild Card Game. The next day will feature the American League Wild Card game. Friday, 10/4 will kick off the AL Division Series, followed a week later by the Championship Series. October 23 is the date of the first World Series game. Remember that by virtue of the American League’s All Star Game victory, the AL representative has home field advantage, including Games 1, 2, 6, and 7 (if necessary).

Since the A’s are the only team in contention that has to worry about scheduling conflicts with a football team, naturally there was concern when the Raiders’ schedule was released earlier in the year. For the most part, the concerns have subsided. The Raiders have home games against the Chargers on 10/6, an off day during the ALDS. Assuming that the A’s make it to the ALDS, there will be a conflict of sorts in that the Coliseum’s grounds crew will have a very tight timeframe to convert the Coliseum from football to baseball (or vice-versa). Normally the conversion takes 36-48 hours. In this case, there will be 18-20 hours tops. It should be a very good demonstration of how bad the situation is for both the A’s and Raiders.

Update 6 PM – The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser notes that because the 10/6 game is between division rivals, the dates could be swapped with the game in San Diego happening first.

The Raiders also have a home game vs. the Steelers on the 27th, but that’s during the three-game middle section of the World Series scheduled for the National League park, so there’s no conflict there. The previous week is a scheduled bye week. Including the just completed NFL preseason, there will be five baseball-to-football-to-baseball conversions in a matter of three months, plus the final conversion to the football configuration for the completion of the Raiders’ regular season. Could’ve been worse.