Is the Brewers’ Threat Real?

While I wait for the second half of the baseball season to get underway I thought I’d spend another day musing about the Brewers’ owners’ threat to leave Milwaukee unless the taxpayers pony up about $300 million to spiff up AmFam Field.

If the Brewers are making a credible threat then they have to have someplace to decamp to. So, today’s question is: where would they go?

Assuming that the California-based billionaires who own the team have no loyalty to Milwaukee or its fans (a safe assumption), there appear to me to be three primary business considerations about moving their ball club.

First, and most importantly, is the size of the media market. It’s TV and radio, but mostly TV, that generates the most revenue. Milwaukee, as you’ve heard a billion times, is a small market club. In fact, it’s the smallest market of any MLB team. Milwaukee ranks 37th and there are 11 cities that are in bigger markets without a major league team. In fact, it was primarily the size of media market that led the Braves to leave for Atlanta back in 1966. But…

Second, would they draw well? Gate receipts, parking, concessions and merchandise sold at the ballpark are no small matter and Milwaukee over-performs on that score. So far this year, the Brewers rank 15th — dead center among the 30 clubs — for attendance. That means that they’re outperforming 15 cities in bigger markets. In fact, a half dozen of those teams have better records than the Brewers right now. Tampa Bay, with the second best record in baseball and a team that got off to a blazing start, is ranked 27th. The Rays have drawn a half million fewer fans then the Crew. So, why not stay amid the friendly confines of AmFam Field? Because…

Third, would the ballpark situation be any less controversial someplace else? Almost none of those 11 bigger market towns have a stadium ready by MLB standards. They’d need to build a new ballpark or make substantial and expensive upgrades to something they have. It could be an “out of the frying pan and into the fire” situation. And the Brewers already have a $77 million taxpayer handout — a renovation account created by the Stadium Authority before the special stadium sales tax was ended — that sits in the bank waiting for them here.

The Brewers could go to Nashville. I’d be fine with that.

The most likely candidates for a Brewers’ move are probably Las Vegas, Oakland and Nashville. Las Vegas, interestingly enough, is actually a smaller market than Milwaukee, but it’s a hot property for pro sports right now. The city is probably going to lure the A’s from Oakland with a shiny and very expensive new stadium, shutting down that possibility for the Brewers, but reopening Oakland. The trouble there is that, while Oakland sits in the sixth largest media market, it shares that with the Giants across the bay. Also, the A’s are dead last at the gate, no doubt a product of their dead last record, but Oakland hasn’t been a good baseball town since Rollie Fingers pitched for them before coming to the Brewers. And if the Brewers think they have a controversy about a public subsidy for their stadium upgrade here, well, they ain’t seen nothing yet if they try that in Oakland.

That leaves Nashville, which is probably the Brewers’ best bet. It’s a growing community and, geographically, the Brewers could stay in the NL Central, easing approval from the other owners. Also, the Brewers’ AAA team, the Sounds, are already there. The problem in Nashville is that there is already an active, high-powered ownership group looking to own the next expansion team. If the current Brewers owners wanted to keep owning the team, Nashville might not work. But if they were willing to sell to that group, I suppose the Brewers might become the Nashville Stars, a homage to the Negro Leagues, which is what is planned for an expansion team there.

All of which is to say that we should call the Brewers’ bluff. Yes, they might leave. They do have some options. But none are overwhelmingly better than what they have now. The offer should be: we’ve got $77 million for your stadium which sound engineering studies say should be enough. If you guys want to do more, fine, but you can pay for it yourselves. Take it or leave it.

Published by dave cieslewicz

Madison/Upper Peninsula based writer. Mayor of Madison, WI from 2003 to 2011.

4 thoughts on “Is the Brewers’ Threat Real?

  1. Agreed.
    The Brewers definitely punch above their weight, both in attendance and fan interest. Also, while the Brewers’ local Milwaukee market is small, they are Wisconsin’s team. Baseball fans can and do listen to Uecker’s dulcet tones anywhere in our great state and the Crew actually helps to fill the Twin, Cub and (to a lesser degree) White Sox stadiums with fans enjoying friendly rivalries. Unlike Oakland, where attendance has cratered, it would be very difficult for Rob Manfred to keep a straight face when he inevitably blames fans for their team’s departure.
    I’m not really sure, probably because I don’t follow it closely enough, what it is that AmFam really needs for a better in-person experience. The last time I went to a game there, I didn’t see anything that screamed a need for improvement. Seemed nice to me. Not a fan of the roof but I recognize its usefulness in our climate.
    Frankly, the greed that afflicts many rich people, like Mark Attanasio, has always perplexed me. How much wealth is enough? Will he be even happier with $2 billion, if he already has $1 billion? How much crap can one person own?
    If we call their bluff, I’d bet that the Brewers will stay.

    Like

  2. Amen. To Dave and the other commentors.

    Enough with the Field.of Schemes aka public money for private sporting venues.

    Call their bluff.

    Like

Leave a reply to Ed Hanson Cancel reply