You know what would be even more fairerer?

…that a more competitive league would lead to an increase in overall league revenues. It might be the case, but it might also not be.

until you are a free agent. In most cases, as Vlad has pointed out, you are at the mercy of the team for at least six seasons.

I have a non-compete clause in my contract, so I cannot just leave and work for another company in my field.

Then you should be able to empathize with the players. Most people don’t have one of these. Doesn’t it chafe, having to give up that freedom?

If MLB players wanted the flexibility to change place and teams, they could sign one year contracts.

Coming out of the draft, the team drafting you controls your rights for between six and sixteen years, as I said earlier (depending on when you’re rostered and where the team places you during your option years). A one-year contract at that point is not an option.

[Explaining the “sixteen years” thing: Seven years in the minors (not impossible for a foreign teen or high school pick), rostered immediately before the deadline for minor league free agency, three option years in the minors, three years of minimum salary in the majors, three arb years in the majors. If you signed at 18, you hit free agency for the first time at 34.]

The owners accept all the risk in those contracts yet they are vilified.

The owners are vilified because they are part of a legally-sanctioned cartel, protected from antitrust legislation by an accident of history. As such, they’re able to grossly exploit a ballplayer in his first years as a pro, before he reaches free agency.

Example (though from a different sports because I don’t know the MLB numbers): Only roughly 3% of high school football players will ever play a single down in the NFL. As you move up the chain, the field gets more narrow. Most high school football players aren’t good enough to get athletic scholarships. What’s more, you can be an awesome football player, but unable to get a scholarship due to academics.

Out of college football players, only 224 are drafted each year, plus a few for compensatory picks and the undrafted free agents.

Of those signed to NFL contracts, an average NFL career is only 3-4 seasons, due to both injury and ability gaps.

All that considered, there’s a very high demand for a very low supply of players like, say, Peyton Manning, Troy Polamalu or Andre Johnson. It’s only natural that salaries would be very high for those who are the very best of the very best of people with an incredibly rare skill set.

But, if an ancient Ken Griffey Jr. puts more butts in the seats, sells a few more jerseys, and gets more folks to tune in on TV/Radio then he is worth his salary.

This is a good point. For another example, look at this offseason’s discussions as to how much the Yankees should offer Jeter, a player of diminished (and diminishing) physical skills, but substantial marketing value.

I do have to disagree with calling the owners cartel members. They do assume all the risk of running a business and as such deserve to reap the benefits of owning that business.

MLB’s owners meet the dictionary definition of a cartel. They’re a confederation of independent operators within an industry who collaborate in order to fix prices and restrict market competition to the point of monopoly. There’s nothing untoward about the situation – they’re permitted to do so because of MLB’s antitrust exemption. But if they were run under the rules that all other American businesses have to follow, things like team-specific territorial restrictions would have to be dropped (to name just one example).