The Lockerroom

This is a the place to discuss the site, community issues, discuss ideas for opinions, and other things related to the community but not specifically about sports. You can add something to the locker room by clicking the link.

MLB vs. Little League

Posted by Erooster

551 days ago

I saw a news article, though now I can't find it. I don't even know if was recent or old news.

I was hoping that someone saw the article or could tell me how recently the information was released.

From what I read, Major League Baseball will no longer let Little League Baseball use the names of their teams without paying them a royalty. So, no Little League teams can be named the Yankees, Cubs, White Sox, A's, etc.

Has anyone else heard of this?

I found the link to an AP video, but still can't find the hard copy text.

http://www.comcast.net/providers/fan/popup.html?v=753724110

Enable Comment Auto-Refresher

Behbigben15All-Star

551 days ago

Score 3

What!? No, I haven't, but it must not be in affect until next year, not this year. Because one of my little brothers is the Astros, and the other plays on the A's. That really sucks though. Stupid move on MLB's part.

Permalink | Reply

C.harrison1515Waterboy

551 days ago

Score 2

STUPID!!!

Permalink | Reply

EroosterMajor Leaguer

551 days ago

Score 2

The link goes to a different story from what I read. But you get the gist.

Permalink | Reply

LASportsblogAAA-er

551 days ago

Score 2

That would be absurd! Little League is what cemented my love for baseball in it's purest form! Being able to identify with the Major League teams is part of the experience of Little League. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of my Dodgers little league teams playing the Red Sox. That would be way different if it was the Gators vs. Bruins or something like that. My 2 seasons in Dodger blue under an LA cap also cemented my love of Dodger baseball. This would be a travesty as someone who cherishes his Little League memories. I kinda hoped that if I had a kid 10-15 years from now (I'm waiting =D ) that he/she would also get to wear Dodger blue. I hope this isn't going to happen.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

551 days ago

Score 2

Don't worry, LASB: now you just have to wait 30-35 years for them to wear Dodger blue!

Agent0Red-Shirting

551 days ago

Score 1

A damn travesty. Million dollar organizations trying to pockets around $1000-$2000 per little league...Everything is all about money....not for the joy of the game. As LASB said, getting to wear a real teams jersey was so awesome. You feel like you are apart of a real league...not instead people are called bullsh*t names like the Bulldogs. I would like to shove a dollar right up there a-holes.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

551 days ago

Score 1

This really doesn't bother me. I think it is better if LL teams have different names and unis anyway. After all, the most famous LL team was the Bad News Bears, not the Little Yankees.
If anything, baseball is only shooting themselves in the foot with this move by missing out on the chance to build a younger fanbase.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

551 days ago

Score 1

It's current. [1] an article dated May 25, 2008. Uniwatch Blog mentioned it today.
What makes this news is that they are not only going after logos, but now also team names. They want LL teams to buy Majestic apparel, not just screen print their own with MLB names/logos.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

551 days ago

Score 0

I'll try again: Here's the article.

CheezerAll-Star

551 days ago

Score 5

This makes perfect sense. Why would MLB want kids identifying with a major league team and it's players. Maybe buying hats and baseball cards, etc. Where's the marketing value in that?

Permalink | Reply

J-DawgVarsity Captain

550 days ago

Score 4

In Canada we call them the Eh's...

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

550 days ago

Score 3

MLB was trying to pull the same crap with the non-profit Cape Cod League, which helps produce about 1/7 of the talent in the Majors. http://www.c...e_p?blog=163

Permalink | Reply

KelsdadAll-Star

550 days ago

Score 2

Without the financial support of MLB, the Cape League doesn't exist. Which basically means MLB owns the Cape League, and therefore can dictate to them whatever they want.

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

550 days ago

Score 3

One can also argue that without the Cape League, MLB as we know it doesn't exist.

KelsdadAll-Star

550 days ago

Score 2

Not much of an argument, however. The players currently in the ML who played there were good enough to play at any level. If the Cape league didn't exist, they would have played at any number of college leagues throughout the Northeast. Cape League, Lehigh Valley League, (Pennsylvania), Twi-Met League, (Connecticut), the scouts still would have found them, regardless.

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

550 days ago

Score 2

So what's your point? MLB actually owns the logos and names on Little League uniforms, "and therefore can dictate to them whatever they want." That doesn't mean it's still a crappy thing to do.

KelsdadAll-Star

550 days ago

Score 2

See, told you it wouldn't be much of an argument. Let's see, give free stuff to kids groups, but charge adults? Hmmm. Interesting concept.

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

550 days ago

Score 2

Little League Baseball and the Cape Cod League are actually very similar. They're both non-profit organizations that run amateur baseball leagues. They both take in good chunks of revenue (Little League from ESPN's broadcasting of the LLWS, Cape Cod League from merchandise sales), but neither one turns a profit. You're not being very clear here, but it seems as though you think it's okay for Major League Baseball to demand royalties fees from the Cape Cod League? But at the same time, it isn't okay for them to demand them from Little League?

KelsdadAll-Star

550 days ago

Score 2

Actually, yes.

Baseball does a poor job of marketing itself to the younger crowd, a decision they made intentionally, I might add. When you were a kid, did your parents let you stay up late when the Red Sox were in Oakland? So your connection became "Red Sox" across your cheaply made little league jersey.

Does a 20 year old college kid need that connection? God, I hope not.

And one thing these college leagues do that little league doesn't is add money to the coffers. The players work in town, families come and stay for awhile, spending money in restaurants and hotels and gas stations. The little league parent may have to spend a c-note to register their two kids, but the money goes to insurance and equipment and field maintenance. No one in town benefits financially from its existence, unless the local pizza parlor gets a big order when a team wins a championship.

There are similarities between the two, yes, but not many. There's no reason why Chatham should call themselves the Red Sox, and if they do feel the reason is legitimate, then they should pay for it.

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

550 days ago

Score 3

Actually, Chatham is home to the Athletics, Yarmouth-Dennis has the Red Sox.

The real question is, do Cape Cod League teams make money by naming themselves after Major League teams? Would the Brewster Whitecaps, for instance, benefit by changing their name to the Brewster White Sox? By the same token, would the Bourne Braves suffer if they changed their name to the Bourne Bulldogs?

In minor league baseball, affiliation to a Major League team adds prestige and brand name recognition. That's why many minor league teams have similar names and/or uniforms and/or logos as their Major League partners. No such direct partnership exists between Cape Cod League teams and the MLB teams that have the same name/uniform/logo.

However, I'd argue that Cape Cod League teams make their money based on the quality of product they present to the public, not the names of the teams. The League draws the best amateur players from across the country, uses wooden bats, has well kept fields, and is free to attend. People donate to the League, and buy merchandise because they enjoy the product on the field and the quality of family entertainment they get on summer nights.

Your argument seems to be based more on a business decision. I'll agree with you, hasseling Little League teams is a dumb business move because you want kids to want to be on the Braves or the Yankees or the Mariners (for the record, our town didn't have a "Red Sox" team, the cool team to be on was the Braves). However, I think the same moral principal applies to both the Cape Cod League and Little League. Is it right to demand money for logo usage from a nonprofit league?

The answer: Only if the league and/or its members financially benefit from the use of the logo.

KelsdadAll-Star

550 days ago

Score 2

You're right, it is business. But where do you draw the line. Ask 10 people, the'll give you ten different reasons why MLB should or shouldn't charge, and in a sense all of them would be right.

My point of contention is the difference in the participants, children vs. adults. The game is the same, the structure is similar. When you do business with a children's organization your only expected return should be to feel good about yourself. When you do business with an adult organization, there is an expectation of at least equal return.

And as a former Cape League player, I can tell you they make money hand over fist. Non-profit, my ass.

Permalink | Reply

LASportsblogAAA-er

550 days ago

Score 1

Game, Set, Match - Kels - however Rawbee had a helluva an arguement

Categories: Lockerroom | Lockerroom by User Erooster | May 28, 2008 | May 2008 | MLB lockerroom | Little League Baseball lockerroom

Latest Posts

Happy Birthday Rawbeezeitz!

Happy Birthday to....

So if you're a Mets fan...

AGM Superlicious Prognoguesstimation League Week 6

AGM Superlicious Prognoguesstimation League Week 5

In the News

Hey ArmchairGM users! Want to help the admins update this news section? Click here to help us out.

Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Lockerroom:MLB_vs._Little_League"

This page was last modified 02:41, 28 May 2008. Content is available under the GFDL.