FORT MYERS, Fla. --- On Thursday at Fenway Park, for the first time since 2019, a normal Opening Day will take place.
In 2020, the season opener was delayed several months by the pandemic. In 2021, fan attendance was drastically limited by the pandemic. And last year, the season began a week late because of the labor lockout that threatened to blow up the industry.
This week, once again, there will be lots of familiar Opening Day staples -- the bunting around the ballpark, the pre-game flyover and introduction of both teams on the baselines -- serving as reminders that baseball is, as always, rooted in tradition.
But there will also be something new present at the venerable ballpark, too. For the first time, fans in attendance at Fenway will be able to legally place bets -- on their phones, from their seats if they wish -- on the game. And not just who wins or loses. A variety of options will exist: whether the next pitch is a ball or strike; whether a run will be scored in the first inning; the total number of runs scored by both teams, and seemingly tens of other prop bets.
In the past, the home team could be reasonably assured that the vast majority of fans in attendance would be rooting for a victory. Now, however, it's more complicated and nuanced. A segment of the 35,000 or so fans may be more invested in the margin of victory, or the over-under number of total runs scored.
It's a whole new ballgame, alright, and no one completely knows what to expect.
When the Red Sox finished their abysmal 2022 season last fall, sports betting wasn't legal in Massachusetts, though no one should be naive enough to believe that it didn't take place anyway. In the last few months, however, that's changed, with a half-dozen Massachusetts casinos cleared to take bets at the end of January, and earlier this month, betting apps on smartphones were given the green light.
That has some wondering -- and worrying -- how the atmosphere will change at Fenway and, eventually, 29 other big league ballparks.
"That's a good question,'' said outfielder Rob Refsnyder. "I'm not really into gambling. Gambling has always been a big pastime. Granted, it's legalized now. But I don't think it changes our interaction with the fans. But it's an interesting topic.''
"You get some of that already on social media,'' said second baseman Christian Arroyo. "You have fans giving you (grief) if they lose a bet. But hey, sorry, my job is to take care of my team, not take care of your bets. I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens. I'm sure we'll hear more chirps from that standpoint.''
"This has obviously been a front-of-mind topic for the game of baseball for over a century'' said Red Sox chief baseball officer Chaim Bloom, in an obvious reference to the Black Sox betting scandal of 1919, "and we all know there needs to be some firm lines in place. I don't think there's anything that baseball has been as consistently careful about over the decades as this issue. We also need to make sure we're doing everything we can to nurture interest in the sport and there's different ways that people connect to sports. We need to make sure we open up avenues to everybody to be able to do that.
"It's important that those firm lines stay firm and we and everybody in the organization is able to block out that noise and just focus on what we're here to do. Because competitive integrity is everything; without that, we have nothing.''
For decades, baseball -- like every other professional sport -- was careful to keep a safe distance from anything remotely connected to gambling. Retired superstars Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were briefly banned from the sport in 1983 simply for serving as greeters in an Atlantic City casino. And, of course, Pete Rose continues to serve out a lifetime ban from the game for having bet on the game as a player-manager for the Cincinnati Reds.
Now, MLB has sponsorship agreements with sports gambling sites. The Red Sox have one with MGM, which owns a casino in Springfield that features a sports gambling book and offers a betting app for phones. And this season, the Chicago Cubs will introduce a 22,350 square-foot sportsbook within Wrigley Field, so fans can make their bets before or during games.
Major League Baseball used to treat sports gambling like a third rail, not to be touched. Now, the two entities are in business together.
"It's definitely changed and there's a noticeable difference,'' said Red Sox reliever Richard Bleier, who is beginning his eighth major league season. "You hear people talking about it a lot more. I'm not a gambler myself, so I don't really understand the over-under thing, or what any of it means, to be honest with you. But I get messages on Instagram, stuff like that. And talking with players we all have noticed the same thing.''
Bleier isn't blind to the benefits of the burgeoning partnerships. The sponsorship deals bring in new revenue steams, and the chance to bet on games could entice younger fans who have previously evinced little interest in the game.
"Whatever brings them to the ballpark is fine, I guess,'' said Bleier. "I don't know. We'll see how it all plays out. There's been stories of people losing money and going after players in other sports, like in soccer, I guess. You worry about that. I guess it hasn't been around long enough to see how it's going to affect baseball. But I definitely sense a change -- not on the field, obviously. But we've noticed (the atmosphere) being different, without question.
"We hear it in the bullpen, and we see it online, where people are talking about those kinds of things and trying to hold players accountable for poor performance that impacted their bets. That's not good. Everybody I've talked to has experienced some sort of interaction with (gamblers), especially with relievers, because we're in games in the late innings when the score could impact (bets).''
One Red Sox player, who asked not to be named, said he received a Venmo request last season "demanding'' $5,000 because of that player's misplay which resulted in some late runs impacting a wager.
"The guy was like, 'F you, you cost me $5,000,' '' said the player. "And I was like, 'F you, I don't owe you a penny.' ''
Bleier understands the value of giving previously disinterested fans a reason to pay attention. He himself is an avid fantasy football player and readily concedes he watches some NFL games purely for that reason. If the opportunity to win money on a game brings more fans to the ballpark and more eyeballs to TV sets, then the game will prosper.
But there's a risk involved, too.
"How far will it go?'' wonders Bleier. "You can already bet on anything. How many times is this guy going to take his hat off? And so how far do you go? You've got to keep those guardrails up and make sure that it's protected.''
_______________
In an interview with BostonSportsJournal.com last month, Red Sox principal owner John Henry, referring to the current collective bargaining agreement, now just a year old, said: "I believe the vast majority of players, agents and clubs dislike baseball's economic system.. The system needs change.''
This week, Forbes Magazine reported on some profit margins for MLB teams and the information would seem to validate Henry's point.
(For the time being, we'll put aside the news that, according to Forbes, the Red Sox turned $71.6 million in profit the season before failing to make a competitive offer to free agent Xander Bogaerts. For the most part, Henry has largely put his money where his mouth is, as for the first 20 years of ownership, the Sox were third in payroll spending in the game).
More troubling is the revelation that two small-market teams with tiny payrolls for 2023 were fourth and fifth in profit in 2022. The Baltimore Orioles, who made $64.7 million last year, are projected to have a payroll of just $87.7 million (as computed for CBT purposes). Meanwhile, the Oakland A's, which had the smallest payroll in the game last year while clearing $62.2 million. This year, their CBT number stands at $77.1 million.
Though Henry didn't say so publicly, there must be great angst among owners of teams attempting to win, while paying revenue-sharing bills of tens of millions, only to see teams like the A's and Orioles pocket the money rather than invest it in the product, as intended.
Oakland and Baltimore can likely cover their payrolls for 2023 using only national TV money, BAM money (payouts from MLB's digital operation) and revenue sharing. Then, whatever money those franchises take in from ticket revenue, local sponsorship and local media rights serves as pure profit for the skinflint clubs.
Then again, with the Major League Baseball Players Association unwilling to call for a payroll floor for fear that it will indirectly lead to a payroll ceiling -- more commonly known as the dreaded "salary cap'' -- the focus turns to the owners to get their own house in order.
That free-spending teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, Phillies and Giants are freely subsidizing teams who have little demonstrated interest in competing. Why subsidize rivals who are only motivated by the bottom line, instead of focused on winning.
For decades -- from the 1980s into the 2000s -- baseball labor wars were a triangular battle. It wasn't merely owners vs. players, but really, big-market owners vs. small-market owners vs. players. With the owners involved in a circular firing squad approach to each other, is it any wonder that the players won almost every negotiation?
Years later, not much has changed, except the gulf has grown larger. This season, two teams will have CBT payrolls of greater than $275 million, with one team (the Mets) coming in at $375 million. Conversely, three teams will be below $100 million as determined by CBT purposes -- the Orioles, A's and Pittsburgh Pirates.
It's anyone's guess how long big-market teams will willfully subsidize those who aren't the least bit interested in competing. But as long as it continues, figure on listening to a lot of complaints about baseball's broken economic system.