UPDATE: MLB relocating All-Star events from Georgia after voting bill approved

[HBK27]

No, I'm not being naïve, but you are being ignorant.

Businesses live and die on their reputation today. This isn't the 1980s where CSR wasn't really a thing that mattered; how a company is perceived in 2021 has a massive effect on their bottom line. And being perceived to support a state that is actively trying to suppress the votes of their competitor party? That's bad news f***ing bears.

Reputation is even more important for a business like professional sports. Teams and leagues derive most of their revenue today from public-facing ventures: TV deals and sponsorship. If MLB would have stayed in Georgia for the ASG, both of those would have been threatened.

It's funny how you say "it's setting a bad precedent to get involved in local, legally legislated laws" but instead suggest the correct business move would have been to keep the ASG in Georgia and then criticize these "local, legally legislated laws."

MLB had awarded the all-star game to Atlanta well before any of this happened. Why would doing nothing (i.e. just keeping the game there) be perceived as a sign of support for this legislation? By that standard, are we now going to accuse any band or comedian that decides to perform in Georgia as guilty of showing support for this legislation? Any company that decides to hold an event there? Do you not see how crazy this all is?

There are polls that show that most Americans are in favor of requiring valid ID to vote, though I understand there's more to that in this issue and polls themselves are often unreliable. What's happening in Georgia though is a highly controversial issue, with high levels of support on both sides. MLB decided to interject itself to the forefront of this issue, which is going to turn a huge number of fans off, when they could've largely stayed out of it or not taken such a strong stance to the point of moving the ASG.

As much as you want to frame this as a state that "is actively trying to suppress the votes of their competitor party" and boil this down to a good vs. bad issue, it's not that cut & dry. There are plenty of logical reasons for the actions being taken besides any malicious intent to reduce the number of voters from "the other side" and towing the DNC line and stating matter-of-factly about this being all driven by a desire for "voter suppression" is either disingenuous or you're not being open to the other side of the argument. MLB made a rash decision to move the game driven by activists before any discussion of the pro's & con's and a better understanding of this legislation by fans could even occur, when they were up against no timeline for a game that's still more than 3 months away.

As far as TV deals & sponsorships, you know what hurts those the most - fans not tuning in or showing up, which is a very real possibility as part of the backlash MLB will get as part of this move. We can agree to disagree on whether moving or not moving the ASG will have a more negative consequence.

MLB also just signed a 7-year national TV deal that starts next year, so that would not have been threatened by any decision.

I'm also not suggesting the "correct decision" was to stay and criticize those laws - I just said that was just one option they could've done, so at least get my argument correct. The correct decision, IMO, would've been to just stay the hell out of all of this - let the activist scream and pout about it for a few days before they move on to their next topic of outrage.

 

[HBK27]

Good.

So, what did I get wrong professor?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

And in the ultimate irony, they move it to a state (Colorado) that already has an ID requirement and a ban on handing out food/drinks within a certain distance of polling places...the same things that were so "deplorable" when GA passed them.

On the ID front, according to the GA Secretary of State office, 99% of registered voters in Georgia have an drivers license, SS# or state issued ID, any of which fit the new ID requirement. You can still vote by mail, you just put that ID# on your ballot instead of the old system of comparing the signature to a signature on record.

 

[Fordy]

they moved the all star game from one of if not the blackest cities in america to denver colorado? ok

 

[PCSPounder]

And in the ultimate irony, they move it to a state (Colorado) that already has an ID requirement and a ban on handing out food/drinks within a certain distance of polling places...the same things that were so "deplorable" when GA passed them.

On the ID front, according to the GA Secretary of State office, 99% of registered voters in Georgia have an drivers license, SS# or state issued ID, any of which fit the new ID requirement. You can still vote by mail, you just put that ID# on your ballot instead of the old system of comparing the signature to a signature on record.

More than 90% of ballots in Colorado are mailed in, so there’s no need for lines.
The fact these these facts are being ignored in all this calls into question most of the assertions being made in Georgia.

 

[Bjorn Le]

MLB had awarded the all-star game to Atlanta well before any of this happened. Why would doing nothing (i.e. just keeping the game there) be perceived as a sign of support for this legislation? By that standard, are we now going to accuse any band or comedian that decides to perform in Georgia as guilty of showing support for this legislation? Any company that decides to hold an event there? Do you not see how crazy this all is?

There are polls that show that most Americans are in favor of requiring valid ID to vote, though I understand there's more to that in this issue and polls themselves are often unreliable. What's happening in Georgia though is a highly controversial issue, with high levels of support on both sides. MLB decided to interject itself to the forefront of this issue, which is going to turn a huge number of fans off, when they could've largely stayed out of it or not taken such a strong stance to the point of moving the ASG.

As much as you want to frame this as a state that "is actively trying to suppress the votes of their competitor party" and boil this down to a good vs. bad issue, it's not that cut & dry. There are plenty of logical reasons for the actions being taken besides any malicious intent to reduce the number of voters from "the other side" and towing the DNC line and stating matter-of-factly about this being all driven by a desire for "voter suppression" is either disingenuous or you're not being open to the other side of the argument. MLB made a rash decision to move the game driven by activists before any discussion of the pro's & con's and a better understanding of this legislation by fans could even occur, when they were up against no timeline for a game that's still more than 3 months away.

As far as TV deals & sponsorships, you know what hurts those the most - fans not tuning in or showing up, which is a very real possibility as part of the backlash MLB will get as part of this move. We can agree to disagree on whether moving or not moving the ASG will have a more negative consequence.

MLB also just signed a 7-year national TV deal that starts next year, so that would not have been threatened by any decision.

I'm also not suggesting the "correct decision" was to stay and criticize those laws - I just said that was just one option they could've done, so at least get my argument correct. The correct decision, IMO, would've been to just stay the hell out of all of this - let the activist scream and pout about it for a few days before they move on to their next topic of outrage.

This is just pure nonsense, and most of this post is political drivel.

You clearly don't understand why reputation is important to business, so there is really no reason to engage with you anymore.

 

[HBK27]

This is just pure nonsense, and most of this post is political drivel.

You clearly don't understand why reputation is important to business, so there is really no reason to engage with you anymore.

Except you never really did engage with me, instead you just called my post "pure nonsense" instead of actually disputing or rebutting a single thing I wrote - which is very weak on your part.

I certainly understand why reputation is important in business, though it's obvious the two of us disagree with whether or not this move by MLB is helping or hurting their reputation - which is fine as that is purely opinion/speculation at this point.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

With GA's governor further attacking MLB, the Braves should retaliate by moving their home games for the rest of 2021 to CoolToday Park in North Port, Florida, their spring training facility, shutting the state of Georgia entirely out of MLB for the rest of 2021.

 

[StoveTopStauffer]

By "making voting harder for citizens" do you mean requiring some proof of ID or are there other restrictions you're referring to?

Most other countries require ID to vote as do many states. You can be opposed to this measure and think that ID should not be required to vote, but at least be honest about it and acknowledge that there is a valid reason to have this requirement (to reduce voter fraud) versus insinuating this is JUST being done in an effort to reduce voter turnout.

A few million Americans don't have government ID...

Also many other countries allow voting to happen without ID through some other means. And also don't suddenly make it more difficult for the lower class to vote.

Georgia also has a lot of African Americans who were born without birth certificates, which makes it difficult to obtain an ID.

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

Delete

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

The following teams are scheduled to be on the road for each of their final two series prior to the All-Star Game, thus their home parks would be able to host the game should it be relocated: Athletics (last hosted 1987), Blue Jays (last hosted 1991), Cardinals (last hosted 2009), Nationals (last hosted 2018), Phillies (last hosted 1996), Reds (last hosted 2015), Rockies (lasted hosted 1998), Tigers (last hosted 2005), White Sox (last hosted 2003), Yankees (last hosted 2008).

Jays are out. Can't host it at Rogers Centre

 

[golfortennis]

As thought, legislation proposed to remove MLB's anti-trust exemption.

Legislation Introduced Seeking to End MLB Antitrust Exemption

I'm curious how this will go. On the one hand, I would like to think that this isn't as partisan as other issues, but who the heck knows anymore. There has been some disappointment expressed over MLB's decision by some you wouldn't think would be saying what they are. On the other hand, Congress loves the ability to use this exemption as a way to haul in people from MLB for "hearings", which is really about getting their faces on TV.

I'm just shocked it has been allowed to remain in place this long. I know labor and a couple other things have already been removed from the original exemption, but the reasoning for the ruling originally gets more ridiculous by the day.

 

[daver]

Partisan politics

No, I'm not being naïve, but you are being ignorant.

Businesses live and die on their reputation today. This isn't the 1980s where CSR wasn't really a thing that mattered; how a company is perceived in 2021 has a massive effect on their bottom line. And being perceived to support a state that is actively trying to suppress the votes of their competitor party? That's bad news f***ing bears.

Reputation is even more important for a business like professional sports. Teams and leagues derive most of their revenue today from public-facing ventures: TV deals and sponsorship. If MLB would have stayed in Georgia for the ASG, both of those would have been threatened.

It's funny how you say "it's setting a bad precedent to get involved in local, legally legislated laws" but instead suggest the correct business move would have been to keep the ASG in Georgia and then criticize these "local, legally legislated laws."

Perceived by who? Why would anyone expect a professional sports league to get involved in partisan politics?

 

[Cas]

As thought, legislation proposed to remove MLB's anti-trust exemption.

Legislation Introduced Seeking to End MLB Antitrust Exemption

I'm curious how this will go. On the one hand, I would like to think that this isn't as partisan as other issues, but who the heck knows anymore. There has been some disappointment expressed over MLB's decision by some you wouldn't think would be saying what they are. On the other hand, Congress loves the ability to use this exemption as a way to haul in people from MLB for "hearings", which is really about getting their faces on TV.

I'm just shocked it has been allowed to remain in place this long. I know labor and a couple other things have already been removed from the original exemption, but the reasoning for the ruling originally gets more ridiculous by the day.

Just as a general rule, the vast, vast majority of legislation proposed in American legislatures (state and federal) never goes anywhere, regardless of its content.

 

[S E P H]

It's unbelievably stupid for anybody to punish an entire population based on the political decisions of like four people - regardless if you think they're justified or not. Especially when one lady was also the main reason why it was moved in the first place too. Just stupidity all around.

Just as a general rule, the vast, vast majority of legislation proposed in American legislatures (state and federal) never goes anywhere, regardless of its content.

Pretty much dead-on, this is just overreaction by everyone involved. D.C. isn't becoming the 51st state, North California is still going to be part of California, Northern Colorado is still going to be part of Colorado, minorities will still get the right to vote in Georgia, the Supreme Court will not be upgraded from its current total, and everything else that's getting similar treatment in the corporate political news spectrum.

 

[golfortennis]

Just as a general rule, the vast, vast majority of legislation proposed in American legislatures (state and federal) never goes anywhere, regardless of its content.

Sure. But this is something that has been brought up many times over the years, and been partially eroded. As I said, this could be sabre-rattling. Or it could be the start of something. This isn't "Rep from backwoods Idaho introduces bill to protect a very small area's highly unique business."

 

[golfortennis]

It's unbelievably stupid for anybody to punish an entire population based on the political decisions of like four people - regardless if you think they're justified or not. Especially when one lady was also the main reason why it was moved in the first place too. Just stupidity all around.


Pretty much dead-on, this is just overreaction by everyone involved. D.C. isn't becoming the 51st state, North California is still going to be part of California, Northern Colorado is still going to be part of Colorado, minorities will still get the right to vote in Georgia, the Supreme Court will not be upgraded from its current total, and everything else that's getting similar treatment in the corporate political news spectrum.

Um, if you think MLB's anti-trust exemption is in the same league as that stuff.... well, we will have to agree to disagree. It may be sabre rattling, but removing MLB's exemption is something that has been discussed for decades, and even went to SCOTUS once already, who either were really holding to their jurisprudence, or were just inexplicably foolish, stated Congress would have to remove it, even though it was their decision that cemented it.

Manfred's mistake was getting political. If you peel back the emotions of the last couple of weeks, there is a lot people on both sides of the aisle would get behind in this matter. MLB can rig sales so their preferred candidate wins, and the exemption gives them the cover to do it. Go read up on John Henry's purchase of the Red Sox, and then tell me if you think this is the same type of thing as those you mentioned.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Perceived by who? Why would anyone expect a professional sports league to get involved in partisan politics?

Lol @ more people making ignorant comments like this.

Sure. But this is something that has been brought up many times over the years, and been partially eroded. As I said, this could be sabre-rattling. Or it could be the start of something. This isn't "Rep from backwoods Idaho introduces bill to protect a very small area's highly unique business."

This is incorrect. MLB's antitrust exemption has not been eroded in the slightest any time recently, and bills are threatened almost yearly to remove it; spoiler alert, they always go nowhere

Absolutely nothing suggests that MLB's antitrust exemption has been eroded. There was some lower lever cases from the 1990s that perhaps the exemption was narrower than previously thought, but those cases haven't been cited in forever and are pretty much forgotten today. The Curt Flood Act removed the exemption for certain labour relations issues in MLB, but explicitly did not affect the exemption in all other aspects, and the legislation was really more intended to be a symbolic memorial of the then-recently deceased Curt Flood.

 

[daver]

Lol @ more people making ignorant comments like this.

I would say relying on a pro sports league for guidance on what is right or wrong is pretty ignorant.

 

[HBK27]

A few million Americans don't have government ID...

Also many other countries allow voting to happen without ID through some other means. And also don't suddenly make it more difficult for the lower class to vote.

Georgia also has a lot of African Americans who were born without birth certificates, which makes it difficult to obtain an ID.

Where are you getting these stats from?

And who the hell is being born in the USA without a birth certificate?

Where are the news articles or interviews with these people that explain why it's so difficult for them to get a Government ID (and maybe fill us in on how they function in life without one while they're at it). Why not have a program to help them get one versus removing the ID requirement for the 99.9% of registered voters that do?

 

[DoyleG]

A few million Americans don't have government ID...

MUH FREEDOM!!!!!!!

Also many other countries allow voting to happen without ID through some other means. And also don't suddenly make it more difficult for the lower class to vote.

Its called a National ID card and it actually has to be shown as proof of eligibility.

Georgia also has a lot of African Americans who were born without birth certificates, which makes it difficult to obtain an ID.

If you are paying taxes or getting government benefits, then you would have a birth certificate already. You are clearly confused on how they are issued.

People are getting to wound up over the wrong issues.

 

[Bjorn Le]

I would say relying on a pro sports league for guidance on what is right or wrong is pretty ignorant.

Let me know when you've advised a corporation on their risk related to their public actions. Or when you take your political blinders off and start looking at this objectively.

 

[daver]

Let me know when you've advised a corporation on their risk related to their public actions. Or when you take your political blinders off and start looking at this objectively.

.
I am apolitical or nonpartisan, I let my own individual actions speak for themselves. If I was a corporation I would avoid getting into taking a partisan position on an issue. It is bad business.

If you want to choose to support a business based on their political leanings, go right ahead, but dictating to businesses that they have to take a particular political position is authoritarian and not healthy.

But seriously, why in the hell would you expect a corporate entity to have "feelings" on a political issue other than to "feel" like something is good for their bottomline.

If they care about the issue, they could show their support for a nonpartisan effort to ensure reasonable voting rights.

 

[BanditKeith99]

Ah yes , racism . Even though most first would nations require ID.

 

[golfortennis]

.
I am apolitical or nonpartisan, I let my own individual actions speak for themselves. If I was a corporation I would avoid getting into taking a partisan position on an issue. It is bad business.

If you want to choose to support a business based on their political leanings, go right ahead, but dictating to businesses that they have to take a particular political position is authoritarian and not healthy.

But seriously, why in the hell would you expect a corporate entity to have "feelings" on a political issue other than to "feel" like something is good for their bottomline.

If they care about the issue, they could show their support for a nonpartisan effort to ensure reasonable voting rights.

I think I mentioned earlier about CJ Nitkowski's thoughts on this, and his first one was flat out MLB owed the people a detailed explanation. What it was in the legislation they did not like? All Manfred ever did was speak in generalities. Cite the specifics and how you disagree. To rip a $100 million impact from a market, to expect those people to continue consuming your product, deserves a bit more than the pabulum that was put out.

Especially when you look and see that you ripped it from a market made up of 51% of the people you are supposedly "standing up" for, to move it somewhere where it is 10%. From a business perspective, why would you even open yourself up to that kind of thing, especially when you have other leagues that show this type of move, hurts, and those who argue that they don't hurt the league, have never been able to prove it has helped?