The friendly con-fines of Wrigley Field?
Folks, I have been busy. I haven’t been posting to the old blog, but should pick up the pace down the home stretch of the semester.
If you’ve missed it, baseball season has begun. My beloved Cubbies haven’t won a world series in 100 years, so they are due.
And then I came across a story about Wrigley today.
For those of you who don’t know, Wrigley Field, home of the Chicago Cubs, is in the middle of a fairly residential neighborhood in Chicago. (To be sure, there are few bars in the neighborhood.)
There are several buildings that are just across the street from the outfield bleachers, and these buildings have excellent views of the ball parks. The owners of the buildings rent out the “roof tops” to groups, generating revenue in the process.
A while back, the Cubs and the building owners had a dispute. The Cubs claimed the owners should give them a portion of the revenue these owners generated. Naturally, the building owners would have preferred not to.
Surely this makes sense from the Cubs perspective. It is quite likely that watching from the stadium and watching from the stands are substitutes. The Cubs were not generating any revenue from the rooftop rentals, even though without the Cubs game, there would be no rental of the rooftops. In fact, the building owners and the Cubs got together and made an agreement – the Cubs would get a fraction of the revenue generated.
This discussion should ring a bell with our discussion of public goods, or more pointedly, of free-riders. The question is – are the views of the Cubs games from the rooftops non-excludable? Is it prohibitively costly for the Cubs to keep people who haven’t “paid” for the right from enjoying the view?
If so, the Cubs will have a hard time getting the building owners to “reveal their willingess to pay” for the right to watch cubs games (and charge people to rent their rooftops).
How might the cubs exclude non-payers from enjoying the game? Read this mini-article here. Do you think it will work?
Extra credit for the answer, but only for the first answer (not for the “I agree” posts).
–CT
April 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I think that this Rogue roof top rebel will soon see the light. His actions are tampering with an agreement the other roof top owners have hashed out, and threatens more than his particular interests. The Chicago Cub fans are noted for their innovation in affecting the game off the field. Remember the poor shmuck who tried to catch a ball on the wall; I think they ran him out of town on a rail.
In short this is not a case of a classic free rider; there are options that can prevent this guy from seeing the game without affecting the majority of the fans. This is a case that will be settled amongst the smaller group of roof top owners. Be it smelly water balloon barrages, fire or cash, this individual will conform his peer’s desires for the grater good of this small group. Michael Martin
April 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I think the screens should be put up. Wrigley field is not a non-excludable good. People are allowed in and out based on payments of seats. Wrigley Field has the right to get compensations for the rooftop dwellers since there was a deal cut between the team and owners of the buildings. I agree with Mr. Martin. This is not a typical free-rider since things can be done to prevent the rooftop dwellers from enjoying the game as other may.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I believe its a cubs traditon for their fans to sit on the surrounding rooftops. Even if this income is not shared with the cubs im sure they will still be able to maintain. Also, these people still by cubs jerseys, t-shirts, etc. If the cubs want the profit from these rooftop owners maybe the cubs should dish out some cash and buy the buildings for themselves. – Britton Comeaux
May 1st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Putting up the screens may be a good idea for Wrigley Field and the surrounding buildings. They will both be making money off of the deal.
I also think that if one building has to pay a certian percentage to the Cubs, they should all have to pay. Making everyone pay would eliminate the thought of having free riders or any other problems people may have. With everyone paying, the rooftops would not be a public good. They would be excludable goods because they could put the screens if people do not pay to go on the roof.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Score one for excludability. It turns out there were legal issues that were not clear from the first article, but it would see that excludability rules.
If only the Cubs could stick Rich Hill on one of those rooftops…
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/929134,roof050208.article
–CT
June 26th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Harry Keary must be rolling over in his grave. I am sure he is thinking has the Chicago Cubs organization lost their minds. Have the Cubs over looked marketing good will to their fans and the positive effect of continuing a long Cub tradition. Sure there is obviously a small of revenue being lost by the Cubs organization from the rental of the nearby roof tops. Question: Is this small amount of revenue worth the ill will the Cub organization is creating? I believe that it is virtually impossible to totally eliminate non paying spectators from a ball park such as Wrigley Field due to the openness of the park. I also believe that the Cub organization should take a positive marketing approach to this situation to promote good will and enhance team loyalty through this long standing tradition of people watching the games from the nearby roof tops. Why not use the revenue collected from the building owners and donate these funds to enhance the neighborhood surrounding Wrigley Field in creating a positive community image for the Cub organization. It would be interesting to hear how the Cubs organization plans to collect revenue from the city of Chicago for the non paying fans who pass by the ball park as the game is being played from those individuals who are riding the L-train.
Brooke Hochstetler
Morris Coats 211 Econ Class
M-F 9:40-11:40
June 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Brooke,
You should see that the Cubs are fighting against a possibility that we raised in class, the issue of free-riding. To me, putting up selective screens is a clever way of reducing free riding. One issue is that if one allows free riding, then those who do pay may begin to question why they have to pay when others are allowed to view the game for free. Pretty soon, the club has a hard time surviving, except for TV revenues.
-MC
May 12th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I believe that nothing in life is free and when someone is taking a free ride from someone who is honestly working for there share of the pie I think that is wrong and some type of block should be build up to obstruct the view of any nonpaying eye because the players,owners, and most importantly the paying fan should be defended against these crime to justice.
May 12th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I believe that nothing in life is free and when someone is taking a free ride from someone who is honestly working for there share of the pie I think that is wrong and some type of block should be build up to obstruct the view of any nonpaying eye because the players,owners, and most importantly the paying fan should be defended against these crime to baseball.