Rating: 
Summary: Philosophically dubious
Review: There isn't a book's worth of material here, that's for sure. This could easily have been boiled down to a lengthy magazine piece for Sports Illustrated. And his prose is merely serviceable - far short of George Will's eloquent standard.I'm not familiar enough with the background of this debate to say whether his ideas are "original" or not. But they're certainly plausible enough to warrant examination. My only real beef with them is philosophical in nature, I suppose. He repeatedly insists that the few superstar players asked to sacrifice under his salary cap proposal could easily afford the loss. First of all: they wouldn't be "asked" anything. They would be legally prohibited from earning their full market worth. Say it's "for the good of the game" if you like, but that seems like one slippery damned slope to me. Second: I don't know if that's a judgment you're entitled to make, Bob. I'm sure you're making plenty of scratch these days too. Feel free to donate as much of your salary to the Expos - in the name of "competitive balance" - as you like. But taking money out of someone's pocket - even Alex Rodriguez's pocket - without their consent is usually called theft.
Rating: 
Summary: For Every Problem, There Is a Solution
Review: Though Major League Baseball is mired in a sea of problems, most dealing with economics, these are not problems that cannot be fixed. Bob Costas offers some cogent solutions to remedy most of these problems in order to restore the competitive integrity of the game. Costas' proposal to implement not only a salary cap but also a salary floor benefits not only the majority of the owners but also the players who make the minimum salary. He talks at length about the wild card and how he believes it should be abolished; I absolutely agree. Given the best-of-five first round, the team with the best record in each league should be rewarded, as the two best teams in each NFL conference are, with a bye (this is mentioned in the book, along with many more reasons for why there should be no wild card). Basically every major issue is brought up by Costas that needs to be rectified, and for many he answers questions many skeptics may pose. I would love to hear his evaluation of the most recent CBA, along with his take on the issue of steroids in baseball.
Rating: 
Summary: "Fair Ball" Revisited
Review: Written from a fans' viewpoint, in "Fair Ball" Bob Costas succinctly identifies economic disparities in MLB and offers some solutions to restore stability and competitive balance in the sport. For example, to reduce the expanding revenue and payroll gaps between small, medium, and large market teams, Costas proposes that clubs share equally 50 percent of local broadcast revenues and 30 percent of ticket sales. Besides eliminating the designated hitter and wild card system, restructuring the American and National Leagues each into three five-team divisions, implementing an international draft, and other reforms, he also argues for maximum and minimum player salaries. Costas' proposals such as revuenue sharing, salary constraints, and league reorganization are, in part, justifiable and commendable. He, however, fails to convincingly discuss the financial incentives and impetus for large market team owners and the players union to accept his reforms. Another issue that Costas overlooks is: Assuming revenues are redistributed, to what extent will equity be restored among league teams. For instance, will the Expos and Twins win league championships before 2005? Will the Devil Rays or Royals play the Brewers or Pirates in the World Series before 2010? These questions need to be addressed. See "Fair Ball II." In "Relocating Teams and Expanding Leagues in Professional Sports," published by Quorum Books in 1999, John Guthrie and I conclude that demographics, win-loss percentages, and attendance are the primary factors in league decisions to allow inferior franchises to move.
| 
