Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
How do you know the profit margin? I don’t think that’s public info.
Edit. Never mind. I saw your Forbes report. Now, I want to know where Forbes got their information since revenue isn’t public knowledge.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
According to Forbes (March 2025), teams relatively like the Cardinals in terms of revenue had averaged these operating incomes over the prior 10 years:
Baltimore - $32 million
St. Louis - $27 million
Seattle - $33 million
Toronto - -$22 million
Texas - $21 million
LA Angels - $27 million
Other than Toronto being an outlier, they are all pretty close. The Dodgers were at $10 million.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
According to Forbes (March 2025), teams relatively like the Cardinals in terms of revenue had averaged these operating incomes over the prior 10 years:
Baltimore - $32 million
St. Louis - $27 million
Seattle - $33 million
Toronto - -$22 million
Texas - $21 million
LA Angels - $27 million
Other than Toronto being an outlier, they are all pretty close. The Dodgers were at $10 million.
Thank you, Matt. Although I don’t always agree with Goldfan’s takes, in no way did I assume he just made stuff up. He’s too good a poster for that, as are you. Thank you for confirming my faith in humanity!
Wee, Matt forwarded the ‘25 list. Obviously with the great decrease in attendance Cards operating income is significantly down. This is from ‘24 and is pretty consistent with years of reporting from 55mil-65mil. Which supports my statement that teams with much higher Rev. are keeping much less than BDW.
Key Financials for 2024 (Estimated/Reported):
Operating Income (EBITDA): $57 million (Forbes)
Revenue: $373 million (Statista)
Thanks, GF!
Agreed, it supports your statement. I assumed you wouldn’t state such a thing without facts, however, I was ignorant of them.
The Forbes list is quite revealing. Quite of few of the high Rev teams have lower Operating income than BDW. ‘20-‘21 are a washout due to Covid. And ‘25 as indicated is poor due to poor attendance. So this skews Matt’s avg. Going back to ‘19, ‘18…..it’s a consistent 65mil. Cranny likes to use the Debt service as a crutch attempting to nullify this larger income but its clear that the Cards are at the lower end of MLB debt.
The season listed as "2025" must in fact be the 2024 baseball season, as the numbers were published in March 2025, the last season could only be 2024.
And the pandemic years did happen, which is why I think looking at a 10 yr. average is more appropriate if you are trying to understand what actual average profit margins the owners of various teams are operating to.
My only conclusion is that I don't think the Cardinals owners are outliers in terms of taking excessive profits and not reinvesting them in the team.
From the Forbes data, here is every MLB team rank ordered by average operating income over the 10 years (2015-2024, in millions). The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.
Boston - +$63
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27 St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79
Operating costs do not equal profit. That's ridiculous. A while back I posted an article from Forbes that showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars. That profit, not operating expenses. With a payroll at the time that was about 175 million. Deduct the operating costs from the profit and still it looks pretty good. Now they've cut payroll to the bone. Will people come out to watch these guys? I won't. That being said, unless you have a 401k, this economy is killing you. Everything has gone up and continues to go up. I'd expect attendance to be down no matter what.
CCard wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 06:25 am
Operating costs do not equal profit. That's ridiculous. A while back I posted an article from Forbes that showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars. That profit, not operating expenses. With a payroll at the time that was about 175 million. Deduct the operating costs from the profit and still it looks pretty good. Now they've cut payroll to the bone. Will people come out to watch these guys? I won't. That being said, unless you have a 401k, this economy is killing you. Everything has gone up and continues to go up. I'd expect attendance to be down no matter what.
It's operating income. Operating income is, roughly, profits.
The Cardinals' operating revenue is about $350 million.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
How do you know the profit margin? I don’t think that’s public info.
Edit. Never mind. I saw your Forbes report. Now, I want to know where Forbes got their information since revenue isn’t public knowledge.
My point was that the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks double revenue and still have a lower operating profit than BDW. You can dispute the actual numbers….the comparison was against these other teams. Including the last couple years when BDW shot himself in the foot with attendance and TV eyeballs and including covid years obviously brings the avg down……but stil advances the POINT that while the large markets have a large $$$ advantage their ownership groups are putting most of that back into the team. How is it that BDW has 57mil and Dodgers ownership is in the 20’smil
Here's a look at their approximate operating income (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) by year, primarily from Forbes data cited in this Wikipedia article and the Forbes MLB Team Valuations page.
2025 (Est.): $6.7M (Projected)
2024 (Est.): $57M
2023 (Est.): $43M
2022 (Est.): -$34M
2021 (Est.): -$79M (COVID-impacted)
2020 (Est.): $72M (Also likely impacted by pandemic)
2019 (Est.): $65M
2018 (Est.): $40M
2017 (Est.): $41M
2016 (Est.): $59.8M
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
How do you know the profit margin? I don’t think that’s public info.
Edit. Never mind. I saw your Forbes report. Now, I want to know where Forbes got their information since revenue isn’t public knowledge.
My point was that the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks double revenue and still have a lower operating profit than BDW. You can dispute the actual numbers….the comparison was against these other teams. Including the last couple years when BDW shot himself in the foot with attendance and TV eyeballs and including covid years obviously brings the avg down……but stil advances the POINT that while the large markets have a large $$$ advantage their ownership groups are putting most of that back into the team. How is it that BDW has 57mil and Dodgers ownership is in the 20’smil
OK, yes that's what the numbers show.
But the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. are not the only points of comparison, and probably not the most relevant points of comparison.
More relevant, IMO, is either the ML average/median or specifically the other mid-market teams most like the Cardinals.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
How do you know the profit margin? I don’t think that’s public info.
Edit. Never mind. I saw your Forbes report. Now, I want to know where Forbes got their information since revenue isn’t public knowledge.
My point was that the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks double revenue and still have a lower operating profit than BDW. You can dispute the actual numbers….the comparison was against these other teams. Including the last couple years when BDW shot himself in the foot with attendance and TV eyeballs and including covid years obviously brings the avg down……but stil advances the POINT that while the large markets have a large $$$ advantage their ownership groups are putting most of that back into the team. How is it that BDW has 57mil and Dodgers ownership is in the 20’smil
OK, yes that's what the numbers show.
But the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. are not the only points of comparison, and probably not the most relevant points of comparison.
More relevant, IMO, is either the ML average/median or specifically the other mid-market teams most like the Cardinals.
I listed the years back to ‘16, looks like the numbers align better if dropped down 1yr but take out the Covid anomaly and then fans staying home the last couple seasons and it shows a rather consistent income stream. Getting back to the high level point is that having multi billionaire large ownership groups lessens the need to throw off annual income. Those big dog Billionaires or multiple billionaires in those groups didn’t get involved to receive annual income. Either they are invested to WIN or long term Cap Appreciation. If BDW operated around 0….at least one maybe two elite players could be in uniform.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
How do you know the profit margin? I don’t think that’s public info.
Edit. Never mind. I saw your Forbes report. Now, I want to know where Forbes got their information since revenue isn’t public knowledge.
My point was that the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks double revenue and still have a lower operating profit than BDW. You can dispute the actual numbers….the comparison was against these other teams. Including the last couple years when BDW shot himself in the foot with attendance and TV eyeballs and including covid years obviously brings the avg down……but stil advances the POINT that while the large markets have a large $$$ advantage their ownership groups are putting most of that back into the team. How is it that BDW has 57mil and Dodgers ownership is in the 20’smil
OK, yes that's what the numbers show.
But the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. are not the only points of comparison, and probably not the most relevant points of comparison.
More relevant, IMO, is either the ML average/median or specifically the other mid-market teams most like the Cardinals.
I listed the years back to ‘16, looks like the numbers align better if dropped down 1yr but take out the Covid anomaly and then fans staying home the last couple seasons and it shows a rather consistent income stream. Getting back to the high level point is that having multi billionaire large ownership groups lessens the need to throw off annual income. Those big dog Billionaires or multiple billionaires in those groups didn’t get involved to receive annual income. Either they are invested to WIN or long term Cap Appreciation. If BDW operated around 0….at least one maybe two elite players could be in uniform.
Yes, if they operated around zero.
I, however, don't think operating around zero is necessarily a reasonable expectation, in particular when the Cardinals also have minority owners and there may be some obligations to operate more in the black so that they see some income/profits.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
How do you know the profit margin? I don’t think that’s public info.
Edit. Never mind. I saw your Forbes report. Now, I want to know where Forbes got their information since revenue isn’t public knowledge.
My point was that the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks double revenue and still have a lower operating profit than BDW. You can dispute the actual numbers….the comparison was against these other teams. Including the last couple years when BDW shot himself in the foot with attendance and TV eyeballs and including covid years obviously brings the avg down……but stil advances the POINT that while the large markets have a large $$$ advantage their ownership groups are putting most of that back into the team. How is it that BDW has 57mil and Dodgers ownership is in the 20’smil
OK, yes that's what the numbers show.
But the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. are not the only points of comparison, and probably not the most relevant points of comparison.
More relevant, IMO, is either the ML average/median or specifically the other mid-market teams most like the Cardinals.
I listed the years back to ‘16, looks like the numbers align better if dropped down 1yr but take out the Covid anomaly and then fans staying home the last couple seasons and it shows a rather consistent income stream. Getting back to the high level point is that having multi billionaire large ownership groups lessens the need to throw off annual income. Those big dog Billionaires or multiple billionaires in those groups didn’t get involved to receive annual income. Either they are invested to WIN or long term Cap Appreciation. If BDW operated around 0….at least one maybe two elite players could be in uniform.
Yes, if they operated around zero.
I, however, don't think operating around zero is necessarily a reasonable expectation, in particular when the Cardinals also have minority owners and there may be some obligations to operate more in the black so that they see some income/profits.
If a Guggenheim like group OR a mega Billionaire like Cohn were owners of the Cards we would not be worrying about payroll. Perhaps the evolution of pro sports ownership has gotten to the point where an owner like Dewitt(who has most of family wealth in the team value) is past. Deeper pockets are required to compete.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
How do you know the profit margin? I don’t think that’s public info.
Edit. Never mind. I saw your Forbes report. Now, I want to know where Forbes got their information since revenue isn’t public knowledge.
My point was that the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks double revenue and still have a lower operating profit than BDW. You can dispute the actual numbers….the comparison was against these other teams. Including the last couple years when BDW shot himself in the foot with attendance and TV eyeballs and including covid years obviously brings the avg down……but stil advances the POINT that while the large markets have a large $$$ advantage their ownership groups are putting most of that back into the team. How is it that BDW has 57mil and Dodgers ownership is in the 20’smil
OK, yes that's what the numbers show.
But the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. are not the only points of comparison, and probably not the most relevant points of comparison.
More relevant, IMO, is either the ML average/median or specifically the other mid-market teams most like the Cardinals.
I listed the years back to ‘16, looks like the numbers align better if dropped down 1yr but take out the Covid anomaly and then fans staying home the last couple seasons and it shows a rather consistent income stream. Getting back to the high level point is that having multi billionaire large ownership groups lessens the need to throw off annual income. Those big dog Billionaires or multiple billionaires in those groups didn’t get involved to receive annual income. Either they are invested to WIN or long term Cap Appreciation. If BDW operated around 0….at least one maybe two elite players could be in uniform.
Yes, if they operated around zero.
I, however, don't think operating around zero is necessarily a reasonable expectation, in particular when the Cardinals also have minority owners and there may be some obligations to operate more in the black so that they see some income/profits.
If a Guggenheim like group OR a mega Billionaire like Cohn were owners of the Cards we would not be worrying about payroll. Perhaps the evolution of pro sports ownership has gotten to the point where an owner like Dewitt(who has most of family wealth in the team value) is past. Deeper pockets are required to compete.
As I noted back on page 1, if people are holding out hope expecting the Cardinals to find their "Steve Cohen," I think there are going to be disappointed and waiting a long time.
