Wrigley, scoreboards, rooftops, and the economics of baseball

The chairman of the Chicago Cubs, Tom Ricketts, dropped a bomb that sent shockwaves through Major League Baseball yesterday. According to the Chicago Tribune, Ricketts “said publicly for the first time that he would consider moving the team if moneymaking outfield signs central to his Wrigley Field renovation plan failed to win the city's blessing.”

Ricketts unveiled plans for a $300 million renovation of Wrigley that would include building a hotel with retail space at the corner of Clark and Addison, a six-story team office building on Clark (with boards for advertisements), restoring the stadium’s façade, a plaza with obelisks for advertising, a new 14,000-square-foot Captain Morgan Club (to replace the current one), remodeled upper-level seating and concession areas, a remodeled main concourse, a new locker room, new luxury boxes, a “home plate club,” a restaurant, suite/club seating, and oodles of new advertising boards in the outfield: a proposed 6,000-square-foot video board in left field, an LED advertising board in left field (to mirror the one placed in right field recently), and an LED advertising ribbon in center field.

Phew! Say that three times fast.

Aside from the shameless monetizing of everything Wrigley — which really makes me want to hurl — the sticking point of the whole thing are the signs in the outfield. For years, the buildings on Sheffield and Waveland have featured rooftop seating, and the Cubs and rooftop operators have a twenty-year agreement: in exchange for an unobstructed view of the field, the rooftop operators give 17 percent of their profits to the Cubs. That contract expires in 2023.

But contacts be damned! Ricketts does not care. If he cannot get what he wants, he will move the team elsewhere.

Where have we heard this before? Baltimore, Cleveland, Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles, and now Sacramento. It has become old hat in Chicago, where the threat to move a team has been made twice already. In the eighties, the Cubs flirted with relocating to a new stadium in the suburbs if the team could not play night games, and the White Sox threatened to move to Tampa if a new stadium was not built. (The dome where the Rays play was built to lure the White Sox away from Chicago.) The Cubs and White Sox obviously stayed, but the Colts, Browns, SuperSonics, and Raiders all skipped town. (We will see if the Kings follow suit.) The precedent is there, and though Ricketts has somewhat backtracked on his statement about moving, I think the threat is real given the economics of the game.

Despite what people believe, nothing is sacred in professional sports. History, tradition, identity — all that stuff gets thrown under the bus for hotels, luxury suits, retail space, and LED scoreboards with lots of room for advertisements. That is the revenue model right now. That is what brings in the big bucks — which buys the players and, potentially, the championships. It is a model the Cubs will need to follow to stay relevant and competitive in the future. Much to the ire traditionalists and rooftop club owners.

I have only been to Wrigley Field twice, but both times were magical. Especially the first. During batting practice before the game, I walked down to the field level seats to take in the whole stadium. It was very surreal. Not only was I there, in a place I had seen on TV since I was a little kid, but I felt like I had traveled back in time. The obstructed views, the ivy covered walls, the bleachers, the hand-operated scoreboard, the rows of houses on the other side of the street. Add to that the truly friendly confines and the experience of Wrigleyville… It was true Americana and it gave me goosebumps.

Wrigley Field is a special place — I do not know how else to say it — and I think the proposed renovations are a win-lose. Though they may bring in much desired revenue, the changes, especially the outfield scoreboards, will tarnish a landmark.