MLB moves 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta to Colorado

[infrared41]

9 minutes ago, Digby said:

I don’t understand what hypothetical layoffs at Coca-Cola have to do with the All-Star Game being moved. Who is trying to ruin Coke? Coca-Cola’s CEO has been critical of this same law!

 

OK, let's say that Coca-Cola is expecting X number of dollars from the ASG. With the game being moved, Coke won't be getting that money which could mean losses to the stockholders. Because Coke doesn't want to have a quarter in which they lose money, they look for ways to get back the money that was lost on the ASG. One of the ways to get that money back could be layoffs or firings. Hypothetically, MLB moving the game could end up costing people jobs. Worse it could mean hurting the very people they were trying to help by moving the game. 

[infrared41]

6 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I read through this breakdown of the bill and it's impossible to come to the conclusion that they've done anything close to expanding ballot access.

 

After reading it myself, I'd have to agree.

[slapshot]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

San Antonio is getting $27 million for hosting the Final Four this year. I'm sure $10-$12 million would be a decent figure for the week. 

 

San Antonio is allowing fans, correct? For the host cities like Indianapolis and San Antonio, you might say that since all the games are being held in one city, the amount they lost with less fans during the Final Four itself might be balanced by the additional weekends and games in the host city. Instead of the final 3 games, you gave 67. Maybe it depends on venue - Butler University is a private institution, so maybe revenue isn't shared as if it were a state-owned site like Indiana in Bloomington.

 

My guess is that the MLB All-Star game might bring in more revenue than an NHL/NBA All-Star Game due to the number of fans/tickets at the game and skills competitions. Baseball stadiums would hold at least twice as many fans as an arena, maybe almost 3 times.

 

From past experiences, it's mostly local fans that would come into the city for the "fan experience" events and NOT attend the game itself, so while you may have 50,000-60,000 fans over that weekend, less than a third would be people traveling 2+ hours to get there. So 2/3 of the fans are not really providing extra tax money from air travel or lodging.

 

I don't know where the majority of the money that is generated for All-Star games comes from - I could not find a good breakdown beyond broadcasting and commercials. Random articles talk about extra money for small businesses, restaurants, shops and hotels, but I've never seen real figures. While many arena are considered public buildings (even with corporate names), they still have some ownership group behind them that would be paid by the league to host the game itself, and it's up to the city's tourism and convention bureau to promote the available lodging and exhibition spaces to host other ancillary events.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I don't know. I think centering Coca Cola shareholders is a weird place to start when the issue on the table is increased partisan control and the fundamental thing that's supposed to make our country what it is.

 

Perhaps Joe F-150 doesn't get to see some dingers one night, and perhaps some Coke line workers get laid off (which seems to be the stretchiest of stretches; Coke ain't losing too much sleep over missed events as they are sugar taxes being enacted throughout the country), but the bottom line is there is a clear intent to make it easier to vote for people who prefer one party and make it harder to vote for people who prefer another party. That's not viewing the bill through a prism of partisanship; it's seeing it for what it is.

 

Any restriction on voting -- and that is literally, any -- is a restriction of democracy. It's the most basic right Americans have and one that has routinely been taken away or made difficult for marginalized people. 

 

Like, IDGAF about Coca Cola in this context. At all. MLB is doing the right thing, but in part because it's the most basic, morally imperative thing they have to do.

[FiddySicks]

6 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

OK, let's say that Coca-Cola is expecting X number of dollars from the ASG. With the game being moved, Coke won't be getting that money which could mean losses to the stockholders. Because Coke doesn't want to have a quarter in which they lose money, they look for ways to get back the money that was lost on the ASG. One of the ways to get that money back could be layoffs or firings. Hypothetically, MLB moving the game could end up costing people jobs. Worse it could mean hurting the very people they were trying to help by moving the game. 

Yes, maybe in the short term, but isn’t that sort of the design? Part of the functionality is to create enough public blowback to pressure change in that manner. In politics the only way you can really fight back against monied interests is with a well organized populous that has a collective and focused outrage. These kinds of things are sort of a vehicle to that. Or at least, residually.  

[infrared41]

8 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

I don't know. I think centering Coca Cola shareholders is a weird place to start when the issue on the table is increased partisan control and the fundamental thing that's supposed to make our country what it is.

 

I was trying to make a point about the economic impact of the city losing the game. I chose Coke because it's a big business based in Atlanta. Maybe I should have gone with Chick-Fil-A instead. I don't know. Don't make more if it than I intended it to be.

[infrared41]

12 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

Yes, maybe in the short term, but isn’t that sort of the design? Part of the functionality is to create enough public blowback to pressure change in that manner. In politics the only way you can really fight back against monied interests is with a well organized populous that has a collective and focused outrage. These kinds of things are sort of a vehicle to that. Or at least, residually.  

 

I suppose? My thing is I've never been a fan of boycotts. Yes, Georgia passed a bad law, but I'm not sure moving the ASG is going to do much to help with that. It sends a message, I guess, but how effective will that message be? Could be very effective. Could be we've forgotten all about it by next week. Despite the fact that D_G thinks I'm being purposely dense on the issue, I'm just trying to see more than the typical Team Sports Politics side of it. And I'm not having much luck.

 

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is.

[slapshot]

 

28 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

OK, let's say that Coca-Cola is expecting X number of dollars from the ASG. With the game being moved, Coke won't be getting that money which could mean losses to the stockholders. Because Coke doesn't want to have a quarter in which they lose money, they look for ways to get back the money that was lost on the ASG.

 

So, Coke is an official sponsor of the Braves, and is the beverage provider for the stadium. However, Pepsi is the official soft drink of MLB. For an MLB-specific event like the All-Star Game, how does this work? Are all Coke signs covered, and no Coke signs visible at the concession stands? Do they stop serving Coke during the event itself?

Sort of a tangential argument - fans and players may boycott the Atlanta-based company (and others like Home Depot, Delta, Cox, etc), but would they really lose much money from the game itself if they're not part of the official league brands?

[DEAD!]

13 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

I was trying to make a point about the economic impact of the city losing the game. I chose Coke because it's a big business based in Atlanta. Maybe I should have gone with Chick-Fil-A instead. I don't know. Don't make more if it than I intended it to be.

Good thing you didn't go with Chik-Fil-A...  I will leave it at that...

[Digby]

8 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

I was trying to make a point about the economic impact of the city losing the game. I chose Coke because it's a big business based in Atlanta. Maybe I should have gone with Chick-Fil-A instead. I don't know. Don't make more if it than I intended it to be.

 

I am really having difficulty imaging either of these massive, international brands laying people off because of today’s MLB decision. What do you think the “economic impact” of all of this actually is?

[waltere]

32 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

And you know this how, exactly?

 

It's certainly my belief that this is the case (making absentee voting harder, therefore forcing people to polling stations and very likely lengthening lines, then criminalizing assisting those waiting in line whilst simultaneously making it harder to extend the opening hours seem to me to trying to do everything up to that).

 

I hold my hands up for slightly sarcastically presenting this as fact, sorry.

[slapshot]

4 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

I suppose? My thing is I've never been a fan of boycotts. Yes, Georgia passed a bad law, but I'm not sure moving the ASG is going to do much to help with that. It sends a message, I guess, but how effective will that message be? Could be very effective. Could be we've forgotten all about it by next week. Despite the fact that D_G thinks I'm being purposely dense on the issue, I'm just trying to see more than the typical Team Sports Politics side of it. And I'm not having much luck.

 

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is.

 

Maybe it depends on the strength of the players association, or how much the cause directly affects it players or league personnel. One would think the MLK issue would affect a higher percentage of league players/personnel than LGBTQ, but both causes were strong enough for the respective leagues to either not choose the state for the biggest game of the year, or pull out entirely.

[infrared41]

2 minutes ago, slapshot said:

 

 

So, Coke is an official sponsor of the Braves, and is the beverage provider for the stadium. However, Pepsi is the official soft drink of MLB. For an MLB-specific event like the All-Star Game, how does this work? Are all Coke signs covered, and no Coke signs visible at the concession stands? Do they stop serving Coke during the event itself?

Sort of a tangential argument - fans and players may boycott the Atlanta-based company (and others like Home Depot, Delta, Cox, etc), but would they really lose much money from the game itself if they're not part of the official league brands?

 

From the game itself? Probably not. Delta could lose flights, Home Depot...well...unless go to the ASG and then buy the stuff to remodel the kitchen because it's the All-Star break is some sort of thing, Home Depot will probably be OK.

[infrared41]

6 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

I am really having difficulty imaging either of these massive, international brands laying people off because of today’s MLB decision. What do you think the “economic impact” of all of this actually is?

 

Honestly, I have no idea. Could be millions. Could be nothing. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

[infrared41]

4 minutes ago, slapshot said:

 

Maybe it depends on the strength of the players association, or how much the cause directly affects it players or league personnel. One would think the MLK issue would affect a higher percentage of league players/personnel than LGBTQ, but both causes were strong enough for the respective leagues to either not choose the state for the biggest game of the year, or pull out entirely.

 

Players are the one variable in this that I hadn't considered.

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, slapshot said:

 

San Antonio is allowing fans, correct? For the host cities like Indianapolis and San Antonio, you might say that since all the games are being held in one city, the amount they lost with less fans during the Final Four itself might be balanced by the additional weekends and games in the host city. Instead of the final 3 games, you gave 67. Maybe it depends on venue - Butler University is a private institution, so maybe revenue isn't shared as if it were a state-owned site like Indiana in Bloomington.

 

My guess is that the MLB All-Star game might bring in more revenue than an NHL/NBA All-Star Game due to the number of fans/tickets at the game and skills competitions. Baseball stadiums would hold at least twice as many fans as an arena, maybe almost 3 times.

 

From past experiences, it's mostly local fans that would come into the city for the "fan experience" events and NOT attend the game itself, so while you may have 50,000-60,000 fans over that weekend, less than a third would be people traveling 2+ hours to get there. So 2/3 of the fans are not really providing extra tax money from air travel or lodging.

 

I don't know where the majority of the money that is generated for All-Star games comes from - I could not find a good breakdown beyond broadcasting and commercials. Random articles talk about extra money for small businesses, restaurants, shops and hotels, but I've never seen real figures. While many arena are considered public buildings (even with corporate names), they still have some ownership group behind them that would be paid by the league to host the game itself, and it's up to the city's tourism and convention bureau to promote the available lodging and exhibition spaces to host other ancillary events.

San Antonio is allowing 17% capacity. No fans were allowed for the first two rounds, unlike the men. Fortunately everything other than hotel space for some fans is within a 2 mile radius of the Alamodome. 

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

I suppose? My thing is I've never been a fan of boycotts. Yes, Georgia passed a bad law, but I'm not sure moving the ASG is going to do much to help with that. It sends a message, I guess, but how effective will that message be? Could be very effective. Could be we've forgotten all about it by next week. Despite the fact that D_G thinks I'm being purposely dense on the issue, I'm just trying to see more than the typical Team Sports Politics side of it. And I'm not having much luck.

 

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is.

I think the Admiral probably had the right idea. Not really worth the headache, even if this does die down. The league isn’t going to lose anything of any real significance with a move to another venue, so why risk it? Sucks for Atlanta, but it’s indicative of a larger issue they have there. 

[BBTV]

Do we even really need an all star game anymore?  Maybe just skip it again.  And then again next year.  And the year after.

[Digby]

the entire thing is for the 1 percent even of MLB people. The tickets don’t go to for local baseball fans, the expense accounts aren’t dining at small businesses, the dorky marketing execs with tickets aren’t going to Atlanta barbershops or Five Points dive bars or whatever other black-owned businesses that Twitter concern trolls are pretending.

[O.C.D]

The move isn't surprising. Only time will tell how this move will effect the MLB or local politics.