NPB To Hold Single Draft

Prior to the 2005 draft the NPB held a single draft for high school and amateur players. I don't know why they changed the draft format to begin with.

That's a start. Now if they would just stop doing the strange so called "lottery." The only logical way to do it is a draft like the 4 major sports in the States do it, reverse order of record, worst team gets first pick. The best team should be unable to get the best player in my opinion.

Why not do away with the draft entirely? It deprives young players of choice and it removes any incentive for bad teams to improve.

I can't believe you're starting that argument again, or trolling or whatever you want to call it. Haven't you learned anything in all of your years following baseball?

Bad teams can't improve if they don't get good new players. They can't get good new players if there's no draft, because every young talented kid is just going to want to go to the Giants.

Why should the draft necessarily be the best way? Most other sports in the world (particularly the global sports) get by without a draft. This is something to consider as is that this kind of arrangement would be tolerated in no other industry.

Finally, why is this view to be considered trolling? Just because it disagrees with your particular views? If baseball wants to become a global sport it needs to consider such fundamental points. Clinging to outmoded and obsolete ideas is not the way to go.

I don't know where you get your information. In North America, the following have a draft:

• Major League Baseball
• National Football League
• National Basketball Association
• National Hockey League and
• Canadian Football League

Most other sports in the world does not equal North America.

Baseball came from North America. If you don't like North American sports methodology, then I suggest you stop watching baseball!

And uh, actually, the draft came about because people were sick of using the "old and outdated" methods of getting players, which were essentially leading to the Yankees and Cardinals and other such "big" teams snatching up every available prospect and throwing them in their farm system so other teams couldn't get them.

Yes, the Japanese baseball draft is flawed (particularly the lottery), but the concept of the draft itself is not.

I swear we've had this argument every year at this time and you still don't understand it; I'm not sure why I even bothered to reply, aside from utter disbelief. It's sort of like how I felt the other night when Hiyama was intentionally walked.

Baseball was invented in England and was adopted by the United States.

Whilst I understand the intentions of the draft you do not seem to understand the underlying unfairness and wrongness of the principle. Just because it was a solution to a perceived problem does not make it the right solution. As I mentioned the rest of the world gets by without the draft - this is significant. No other industry in America or the world operates on such a principle. It denies people free choice in an area where they should be able to chose. So what if the big teams get the best players? It is up to the others to make themselves more attractive. The draft denies people choice - this is fundamental and you need to be aware of this. It doesn't matter why it was instituted, this is what it does. This is why it is wrong - it is that basic.

Sigh. You really don't get it, I've already explained it many times, and other people have asked you the same exact questions I have about competitive balance. I'll visit your planet again in mid-November, thanks.

Having a closed mind is not conducive to understanding an argument. Your position is very similar to this situation. I am talking about freedom of choice of career and employer - something that is fundamental to western culture. Competitive balance is an illusion created to avoid improving and doing any work. It distorts the reality and forces young people into a kind of indentured servitude (particularly in Japan). It is a throwback to an age when the owners controlled everything and reflective of the attitudes that still pertain in certain sports. You have yet to deal with the essential point - why is competitive balance more important than freedom of choice of career or company? So important that one of the fundamentals of society is denied to a particular group? Your examples suggest an attitude rooted in the 19th century, not the 21st century.

Sorry to interrupt - I'm completely new here but couldn't resist posting on this topic. While I understand the point that freedom of choice is a principle that all aspects of society would generally do well to follow, I do think that some exceptions should be made for professional team sports. Here in Australia, we also have a draft system for Australian Rules Football, as well as salary caps. A few of the teams (including my own) rely on support funds which they receive from the governing body, the AFL, in order to stay competitive. Now you might argue, why should these teams receive support and benefits for basically being cr*p? That's a perfectly valid point, and it's equally valid to argue that a team is merely a business. However, sport has something which business lacks, and excuse the cliche, but it's heart. Nobody cries when a business goes defunct (save for the major shareholders). But think of the scenes when a club with a long tradition, even if it's a losing one, collapses.

And it's true that other competitions in the world often don't have drafts to select their players. But look at what is happening with soccer, especially in Europe. There are 20 clubs in the English Premier League, and as the situation stands, only 4 of them (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) have any hope of winning the title in any given year. Fans of the other 16 clubs don't even entertain the idea of winning a Premiership, instead hoping to grab little morsels like qualification for European competitions and so on. They have virtually become feeder clubs as it is impossible for them to hang on to any serious talent before said talent is poached by bigger clubs. Don't you think there's something wrong when a fan of a team can't even dream of their team winning a major trophy? That would never be the case with sport over here or in the U.S. and Canada. A team that was down on their luck last year can be the surprise packet of this year.

The essence of sport is the uncertainty, the greatest form of live theater there is. That's why we watch it. Having a salary cap and a draft ensures that principle remains intact. A draft may reward a club which does not perform, but I don't believe that this is an incentive for the club to be lazy. Sport is a pretty cutthroat industry and it would be a rare breed of coach or player who would put their job on the line to secure higher draft picks.

Anyways that's my two cents - if I got a bit preachy, I apologize. In any case, I'm for the draft, and salary caps, because although sport is a business (and a big one), the problems come when you start actually treating it like one.

It's an irony isn't it? A business which collapses could possibly devastate a community, but even so is allowed to fail. A sporting enterprise which is in danger of going under will be saved. But as you say, it's the heart even though this may be misplaced.

Whilst the Premiership is dominated by the four clubs you name, this is not as bad as it may seem. Mere membership of the Premiership brings massive financial benefits for a club in terms of sponsorship, merchandising, ticket sales, and television fees. They get to play the big clubs, and even to win. Likewise, a place in Europe is not a little morsel but a valuable contributer to club funds.

Furthermore, the domination of these clubs may have more to do with getting the mix right and having good managers. They are more something for others to aspire to and I would disagree that fans of the other clubs can't dream of winning the trophies or championship. But to be the best, they have to beat the best (also to use a cliche - sorry). It may be a different philosophy in action - one where no one is helped and you have to find the right mix yourself. Who is to say that the situation will be the same in the next ten years? If we look at the 1990s these were dominated by Manchester United. It took time for Liverpool, Arsenal, and Chelsea to reach that level. This they had to do by learning and building successful squads over time (something Ferguson first did at Manchester United).

I would also suggest that "poached" is the wrong word and that you have maybe misunderstood the situation with regard to players. The teams you name are heavily stacked with international stars, so much so that they sometimes play without an Englishman on the field (Manchester United excepted). Football has long been global and you will find similar examples in other leagues. Other clubs are happy to sell to the big clubs because, once again, it brings in revenue. They benefit from the transfer fees and attention.

This I would see as the best way to conduct a sports enterprise. I am not arguing that teams should be soulless machines, but that the best way to become great is to win totally by your own efforts (without the aid of salary caps or drafts). The winner is the one who overcomes the problems and challenges (and note I am not suggesting that this attitude does not exist in sports with salary caps or drafts, just that it doesn't exist to the same extent). If a team overcomes all the challenges then it should be entitled to all the rewards of its efforts, and that includes the pick of the players if they want to go to the team. Just a different philosophy.

Yes, to be the best, you have to beat the best. I do agree that clubs should have to take responsibility for their on-field results without relying on administrative intervention to support them. A league where the success of different teams is entirely cyclical is just as uninspiring as a league where one or a handful of teams dominate, and even worse - it's a cop-out. We, as fans, do want to see clubs rewarded for their own initiative in seeking out the best talent, hiring the best coaching staff and creating the right balance of players. You can't win anything merely by throwing money at a club, as Real Madrid showed in their "Galacticos" era. I agree with you when you say that the best way to become great is to win totally by your own efforts.

However, I think the problem now is that the amount of money in sport these days is beyond a scale that could have ever been imagined as little as, say, 20 years ago. In soccer, the gulf between the rich clubs and the poor clubs is bordering on the ludicrous. Chelsea can casually pay more money for one player than the value of most other EPL teams' entire squads. I said before that throwing money at teams does not guarantee success, and indeed they did not win the title last season, but they don't need to - the money they can make from a half-decent Champions' League run is staggering in itself, and provides revenue enough to keep the club in the top echelon of European clubs.

You are right when you say that European qualification is not a mere morsel but in fact a great source of revenue - ditto that players are not actually "poached" (my misuse of a term) but in fact the clubs are happy to sell them on. That, however, is my point - clubs in European soccer aren't interested in trophies anymore, they just want to make money.

Take the West Ham incident involving Tevez and Mascherano. West Ham had no intention of keeping those players - they were far too talented for a modest club like West Ham to afford to keep. They were brought in for the sole purpose of selling them off at a higher price (it turned out to be a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it). These smaller clubs struggle to keep decent players - like Dwight Yorke, Wayne Rooney, and Shaun Wright-Phillips - because most of the time they eventually want to play for the "big" clubs, because the big clubs are the ones who always win and always play in Europe. That's because they overcome the problems and challenges that the other clubs don't, like you said, but the financial advantages afforded to the big clubs are becoming insurmountable obstacles for smaller clubs. It's getting to the point where being savvy in the trade market and scrapping for every last financial privilege is more important than actually building a stable and winning team. I want to watch football, not a stock market.

Besides, to return to the comparison with business, it's not entirely true that money is the only factor in the dominance of the big businesses. There are laws in place to curtail monopolies in certain industries - media, for one - so why should this not also be true of sport, where the product can be harmed by the financial dominance of a few? Soccer, in my opinion, is going to collapse if it continues without intervention from UEFA. There will probably be a breakaway European league led by the clubs in the G14, which will severely damage the prestige of all existing European competitions and... well, we all know what happens when breakaway leagues are formed. This is nothing but pure speculation on my part, and feel free to rubbish it, but in any case I think that soccer is sliding closer towards a breaking point as more and more money flows into the game.

In short, I do prefer a league which can work without salary caps and drafts, and which can provide genuine competition. But I think practically, with the amount of money in sport these days, it's impossible to prevent a minute handful of teams from totally dominating a major professional league without salary caps at the very least. Money may only be one factor in sporting success, but the more money there is, the bigger the factor it becomes.

Money has certainly changed the face of all sports, and I agree with you that no one really predicted the scale of the changes. The thing about an MLB style draft is that it would probably not have prevented any of the players you mentioned from moving to a bigger club. Only an NPB style draft would have done this (but 9 years is a long time).

A salary cap maybe, but then this would create troubles - you penalize a team for basically being successful, and by its success earning more revenue. A manager wants to prolong his success and to improve his team. He wants the best he can afford. Thus he wants to be able to pay for the best. Smaller clubs who have good players are tempted to sell them because they will get a big payday. There are no easy solutions to the problem. How do you tell a player he cannot go where he wants or that he has to go to a different club because of a salary cap, or a club that they cannot sell a player who wants to leave?

I actually believe that the influx of money was what drove soccer to globalize. With everything becoming so expensive soccer needed to seek out new markets and these were global. Once a sport globalizes, it has to drop things like salary caps and drafts and allow freedom to reign. This, I believe, is the right situation. Whilst you are right about the need for restrictions in business, sport is an area I feel where we can allow a much more laissez-faire approach. It doesn't impact our lives the same way as a business monopoly abuse would.

I do understand what you mean, though, and I felt sad when the amateur era was consigned to history in rugby union. I looked over the history of the FA Cup before writing this and discovered that the last amateur football club to win that trophy did so in 1882. So even then forces of professionalism and money were in play. There used to be a salary cap (the maximum wage - slightly different in form to the MLB salary cap) in soccer, but this disappeared in the sixties after a player's strike.

This hasn't happened yet with baseball, but I can see it happening in the long term. To compete with soccer and other global sports, baseball does have to look to other markets. Fragmentation of interests and competition is also a factor - in America, where do you find an expanding audience given that you have American football, basketball, hockey, and perhaps even soccer? American football failed in its attempts to expand in the nineteen eighties, but baseball has more of a base to build on. To my mind the salary cap and draft can only survive in a closed market. Once it makes it to an open market it has to wither away (and ironically clubs and teams will work to subvert the very restrictions put in place to protect them). I would see any league retaining its salary cap and draft only if it abandons its global ambitions.

Baseball was not invented in England. It may have been invented in Canada, but not England.

Well there are references in England to a game called "base-ball" going back to 1744. I think the Canadian example came later, but whether the games were similar I don't know.

- Well there are references in England to a game called "base-ball" going back to 1744 ...

Christopher, you're forgetting to cite your sources again. I don't suppose you're talking about that poem in the children's book A Little Pretty Pocket Book"?

Yep, that really looks like the modern game of baseball.

Perhaps this should be it's own thread - but looks like the H.S. draft has kicked off and Nichi-Hamu has managed to get Nakata Sho?

Sendai Ikuei's Satoh Yoshinori and Chiba-ken's Karakawa Yuuki were next, to Yakult and Lotte respectively.

I apologize b/c I'm sure this question has been asked before on this site, but how is it that the defending champs ended up with the first overall pick? Is it an evenly-weighted lucky draw situation? When I see the words "kuji wo hiki atatemashita," it makes it sound like they all just pull numbers out of a hat.

Thanks for the draft update.

And to answer your question, the first two rounds are much like pulling a number out of a hat. It's actually pulling sheets of paper out of a cardboard box, where only one sheet of paper says "atari" (like how I won a Halloween mug at Baskin Robins this afternoon).

According to today's (October 3, 2007) Nikkan Sports (paper edition), Satoh was named the number one pick for the Giants, Dragons, BayStars, Swallows, and Eagles. Tanaka was number one for the Tigers, Fighters, Hawks, and Buffaloes. Karakawa was named by the Carp and Marines in the first round. (Seibu was penalized due to draft abuses that came out at the beginning of the season.)

For those teams who fail to get their first choice in their respective drawings, Takahama (infielder from Yokohama High) was named by the Dragons, Tigers, BayStars, and Fighters, while Yamamoto (pitcher from Sakata Minami) was named by the Swallows and Eagles for consolation round potential drawings.

If anyone beats me to it, I'd like to start another thread for the draft results.

All I have to say is that only the Japanese can come up with such an idiotic draft system. A system where the best teams get the best players and the worst teams get the worst players. Nippon Ham gets Nakata Sho and Orix walks away with who? Absolute stupidity.

Yeah, it's sort of messed up. On the other hand, if Nakata manages to put up power numbers as a pro, then we'll have finally replaced Ogasawara - maybe.

What I'm really curious about is why none of the Saga Kita kids were drafted, actually.

- Why should the draft necessarily be the best way? Most other sports in the world (particularly the global sports) get by without a draft. This is something to consider as is that this kind of arrangement would be tolerated in no other industry.

What are some of the global sports that get by without a draft, and what process is used to select players and keep competitive balance?

Soccer, cricket, and rugby. I believe, and others may correct me if I'm wrong, that outside of America basketball does not have a draft either. Teams scout quite extensively and an active and effective network is vital. Some clubs make money by identifying new talent and acting as a feeder for the bigger clubs. The onus is on the player to prove that he has something to offer the club. Clubs also select through trials for interested youngsters at an early age. There is no guarantee that a big club will pick the best talent, and coaching and commitment by the player also have a big role to play.

So you don't think the draft is the best way? Please explain what system works better.

With regard to a team choosing possible prospects or prospects being able to select where they go, I favor a free market in which both parties are able to choose. Scouts identify prospects or prospects contact teams themselves. Negotiations take place between the team and the prospects with the eventual choice being that of the prospect.

I am aware of the arguments which say that in this case you would have everyone going to the best teams and the weaker teams would have the leftovers, but I do not consider them convincing. In a free market the market will compensate for any temporary distortion and the talent pool is such that there will always be players left over. Furthermore, there will always be talented players who do not want to play for the big teams. Contracts between the teams and prospects would have clauses to allow free movement after a short period (no more than 6 months) which would stop big teams keeping talented players in their farm teams. The incentive is on the weaker teams to find ways to improve their performance and so attract better players.

We're over 50 replies here now, and still running around in circles. Why do you people keep going on about this? It's obvious that nothing anyone says will deter Christopher from believing that the draft must go in favor of laissez-faire. I agree with him to a certain extent. But his arguments leave me wanting to scream!

First and foremost, we're referring to the NPB draft. Not the world-wide baseball draft. Yes, baseball is a world sport. Yes, it is a minor sport on the world stage. But this is for the domestic draft. Christopher casually brushes aside the North American sports that use the draft because they're all domestic leagues. Well, so is the NPB!

While the NPB is run by basic rules that govern the sport of baseball worldwide, it does evolve rules on its own for its specific market. These local rules sounds much in tune with the descriptions of the local rules of the AFL, which Christopher keeps trying to push aside as inconsequential. They're no more inconsequential than the business world analogies.

What is important in this debate is the environment in which NPB is run. NPB is not run like a global corporation, recruiting talent from all over the world. (They do so to a certain extent, but more in the form of hiring mercenaries, not potential career company men.) Each team is run by its own king like a fiefdom. How did the various lords get along in medieval Europe and Japan? Could the people trust their kings to "play fair" with recruiting practices?

I could continue with the analogy, but it will be discarded as not applicable to the grand sport of baseball. So I'll stop there. (It would be fun if one of you lurking college students looking for an idea for a paper were to carry it farther, though. And post it here.)

Here are some of the ways that Japanese baseball has evolved over the years with the goal of creating more balance. Please note that each of these moves have seen abuse by the Giants in one form or another.

Before the draft, the Giants got all the best players. Some wanted to challenge the Giants, but for the most part, the Giants gathered the best players. So, the draft came into being.

After the draft, high school players took to going to college and/or the Industrial Leagues if they weren't drafted by the team they wanted. This led to the Igawa Incident. Others can give more details about it, but the result was the gyaku-shimei rule, whereby college and/or Industrial League players could specify the team they wanted to go to.

In the mean time, I'm not sure if it was before or after the Egawa Incident, the lottery came into being. The lottery was combined with the gyaku-shimei so that teams could choose one or the other for drafting kids within the first two rounds. The Giants really liked this system as it allowed them to both get high ranking college picks and still have a chance on drawing a Koshien hero. It was the best of both worlds, but still there was a bit of chance involved.

After a while, though, the Giants pretty much gave up on drafting high schoolers, as they felt it more important to draft seasoned college and/or Industrial League talent in the first two rounds via the gyaku-shimei system. So draft reform was executed in the form of breaking up the high school with other amateur draft. Now the Giants had the chance to still draw high school talent and get the gyaku-shimei (renamed to something else to sound like it was more of a grant of freedom) A-class players. It was the best of both worlds for them.

Can anyone see a repeating theme to all of this? Tweaks have been made in the number of rounds one may do what, depending on what went on in the high school round and/or whether or not one had any gyaku-shimei players. But the results have always been the same. The Giants still get first grabs at the best prospects.

Will elimination of the draft promote a more competitive NPB? Will it promote cooperation between the teams to deliver a better product? I'm sorry, but I don't see how that can be. Tyrannical kings will continue to act they way they always have, even to the detriment of the entire kingdom.

Did I say that I agree with Christopher to an extent? Well, all of his arguments have really had the opposite effect in light of the history of NPB.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Players' Association has been clamoring for draft reform for a number of years. The owners have finally put together an executive board to research it. But, who should happen to make up this board? Why, it's led by a representative from the Giants! So we all know how this is going to turn out, don't we?

- That's a start. Now if they would just stop doing the strange so called "lottery." The only logical way to do it is a draft like the 4 major sports in the States do it, reverse order of record, worst team gets first pick. The best team should be unable to get the best player in my opinion.

The NBA uses a lottery system to select the first three positions out of the 16 teams that don't make the playoffs.

I have one word for Bobby's reaction to getting Karakawa - creeeeeepy! Thanks for making the Marines a contender, but man was that reaction disturbing.

Speaking of Karakawa, is it a coincidence that the two American managers were up there picking for him? Looks like he has a very decent fastball, good break, and his control looks pro level. As nice as Satoh's stuff looks, I really just can't get excited for a high school kid who throws 155 km/h. Too many of them have gone on to become nobodies in NPB. They usually overthrow, which leads to eventually surgery, or they're the Japanese versions of Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn. Same goes with young power hitters like Nakata. Most of the teams have no clue as to how to develop high school kids. I really wish Nakata decided to go for the majors.

- So you don't think the draft is the best way? Please explain what system works better.

I think the main argument here is that generally a draft system is fine, but NPB has major problems. I was also trying to watch it on TV and was just confused. As others have noted, there's something wrong with a draft when Nippon Ham (defending champions and PL champions again) walk away with the first pick. The point of a draft is to give the weaker teams a chance to build, but this obviously never has happened in NPB and isn't happening now.

That is right. The draft is supposed to bring balance, giving weaker teams a chance to compete. If you are a fan of a weaker team in the NPB, this system makes you lose interest in Japanese baseball. The waiver system gives you hope, because you get a chance at a top player. The NPB system gives you hope by hoping. Hoping that the inferior player you get will become good.

I have to say I lean towards eliminating the draft. I do not see the point of having to have a draft. It works well without, so obviously he is not being close minded by wanting to eliminate the draft.

Take football or soccer. The most international sport there is. They have no draft and it seems to be working just fine.

- Take football or soccer. The most international sport there is. They have no draft and it seems to be working just fine.

Well not according to this article [SoccerLens.com].

I'm a firm believer in a draft that's run properly. Or a salary cap. Or revenue sharing. Or some combination of the three. There is no such thing as a pure free market - even in the most avowedly capitalist economies in the world. They all have laws to prevent the concentration of power and money in the hands of a few - creating a level playing field if you will. And that's what a draft does. If it's properly set up.

And BTW, in Australia, both Aussie Rules and Rugby League have salary caps. At various times there have also been limits on the number of "imported" players (from outside the catchment area of each club), so that the clubs had an incentive to develop local talent. Both codes also had drafts, but these were discontinued, not because they were ineffective, but because they were found to be in violation of various employment laws.

My point isn't that all sports are the same, but that all sports have restrictions and incentives to achieve a balance between looking after the interests of the weaker clubs and allowing the wealthier and/or more successful clubs to enjoy the fruits of their efforts. It's not either/or - the key is to find the right balance.

An unfettered free-for-all would not be in the interests of Yakyu I'm afraid.

Incorrect Mijow. The AFL (Aussie Rules) still has a draft system in place.

Yes. I admit the error.

Really a hot topic. Here are 4 assumptions I believe to be true - with a minimum of editorializing.

1. The Japanese draft was not created to create competitive balance, but to deprive amateurs of their right to sell their services to the highest bidder and earn market value for their services (as team's perceive them).
2. Competitive balance is a byproduct of creating more-equal access to amateurs. I suspect the reason for the lottery is to allow top clubs potential access to the absolute best players (this sounds like an invention of the Giants, a group effort along with the Dragons and Tigers).
3. Teams have worked overtime to subvert the draft system through a number of means, under-the-table payments to amateurs, and/or getting them special treatment at high schools and colleges with which the pro team has a special relationship.
   
   The Hawks have very strong ties with lots of schools in Kyushu and Okinawa. This accounts for the drafting of Hiroshi Shibahara (the Dragons wanted him as a gyaku shimei player, but he refused and was drafted third by Daiei), Nagisa Arakaki (4 years of University rather than play for Orix), and Yuta Ohmine (Hawks scared everyone but Lotte away from drafting him, and he initially refused to even meet with Marines officials saying, "Who do they think they are drafting me?").
4. There are other systems. Whether they are better or worse depends on one's point of view. Professional soccer associations (other than in the U.S.) deal with competitive balance by relegating unsuccessful teams, but on-field success is usually limited to a small circle of powerful teams.
The draft, the NPB monopoly (like that of MLB), and the reserve clause would not be tolerated in any other kind of business where workers have freedom to sign and walk out on contracts and companies can seek compensation for damages if they desire.

- Take soccer. The most international sport there is. They have no draft and it seems to be working just fine.

Then why is there a draft for Major League Soccer? Why do NFL teams spend as much time with the draft as they do? What about scouting for various baseball players at colleges? Anybody who says "abolish the draft" is obviously not looking at the big picture.

The one example you need of the draft working is Furuta-kantoku. He was the heart and soul of Yakult for a decade, and without him, Yakult doesn't win those Japan Series in the mid-'90s. The draft system is flawed, and it needs some major tweaking, but it works.

Another example: Ma-Kun for Rakuten. With some more building blocks, the Eagles will contend in another year or so.

America seems to like the draft system, but it doesn't mean that it is necessarily a system for the rest of the world, or even the best system. Major League Soccer is not yet a world force but rather an exception to the general rule.

Furuta actually wanted to play for the Tigers, but was rejected because he wore glasses, so there are other factors involved. (Would the Tigers have drafted him if they ignored the glasses issue? Then maybe you could say the draft wouldn't have worked.)

The draft restricts employment choices for players, and as Mijow pointed out (though I don't think it was his intention to argue against the process) was abandoned in Australian sports because it violated employment laws. To my mind it is more important to ensure that people have the opportunity to choose where they work and this is the over-riding factor. It also strikes me as a throwback to when owners and employers had complete control over their workers.

The American-style draft exists for a reason in the leagues that have it. They are, fundamentally, closed shops, featuring the same teams year-in and year-out. Whereas European soccer leagues, and other similarly-constituted leagues, are ever changing thanks to the promotion-and-relegation scheme they employ. The difference is simple. You have to have all the teams be strong, to a certain extent, because you need those teams to survive! After all, you need multiple teams to play against. A baseball team can't play a game by itself.

Unlike other industries, sports teams in the same league are really only competitors on the field. The are partners off the field. And when it's a closed membership like in MLB, the NFL, or NPB, it becomes even more important.

- The draft restricts employment choices for players, and as Mijow pointed out (though I don't think it was his intention to argue against the process)...

Correct. But what I am saying is something along the lines of what Zanko mentioned - that pro sports is not the usual employment situation (a closed shop, anti-competitive by nature), and ordinary employment laws should not apply. And why should regular employment laws apply when regular anti-trust laws don't?

Indeed - but in soccer the European Commission did not accept that employment laws do not apply to sport (Bosman - free movement of goods and services). Maybe no one has challenged the draft system yet along the lines you mention.

Changing the subject slightly, if baseball wants to become a global sport I would say that eliminating the draft is an essential step.

- ...the European Commission did not accept that employment laws do not apply to sport...

OK, but the European Commission can decide anything it wants - I don't have to agree with them.

For rugby in New South Wales it was actually the principle of "restraint of trade" not employment, strictly speaking. But the players had good representation - a former footballer and old colleague of mine actually. So they won the argument on the day - but not everybody agreed with the ruling.

But it seems that the AFL (Aussie Rules) still has its draft (plus a salary cap), and it appears to be working well. So I was wrong there. For a brief rundown on how a draft can work in a major sport, check out this Wikipedia entry.

- ...if baseball wants to become a global sport I would say that eliminating the draft is an essential step.

And exactly how would the draft stand in the way of baseball becoming a global sport? I daresay there are other much more significant cultural and historic factors that would prevent the rest of the world from adopting baseball in a big way.

Yes, but given the European Commission's influence, it is a major decision which has an impact far outside European borders. Reading the article I did notice that Australian Rules seems to have had to change the regulations quite frequently, and the process seems to come under lots of criticism (because of perceived ways of circumventing the regulations), suggesting that it is not an ideal procedure. We must also note that Australian rules is not a global sport but a local game restricted to one country.

My point about baseball is that to fulfill its global aspirations it has to become more liberal (if I may use that term) in some respects. The rest of the world does not use a draft systems and is not going to accept such restrictions. It is more from the PR point of view (and of course fundamental questions of freedom of choice) that a draft is not acceptable. In this day and age I would say that a global sport has to lose its country specific features to be attractive to other countries and to have any chance of being acceptable. Baseball does have the potential to become a global sport, but would have to change in order to do so.

Why do people assume Baseball has global aspirations? Some people in baseball may claim that globalization is a goal, but that does not make it true. In 2007 MLB set the all time attendance record. I doubt MLB is genuinely concerned if the sport is welcomed or accepted in Libya or Paraguay or any other country unless they will gain financially. MLB International does little to truly gain fan bases abroad in my opinion.

As for the draft, MLB did not originally have a draft and there were very few teams to choose among the country's talent. As more teams came into existence, professional baseball presumably thought that the draft was a good idea. The foundation and original intent of the draft was surely balance and equity not only for the fans, but for the owners' pocketbooks.

- ... given the European Commission's influence, it is a major decision which has an impact far outside European borders ...

Not really. I wouldn't think its rulings on employment in sports would have much relevance to how baseball is administered outside of Europe.

- Australian Rules seems to have had to change the regulations quite frequently...

Ah, not had to but chosen to. It's a matter of being prepared to make incremental changes to the rules to adapt to changing circumstances, and not waiting for some huge scandal or whatever which may bring the system into disrepute. That's why it works so well.

- ... and the process seems to come under lots of criticism (because of perceived ways of circumventing the regulations), suggesting that it is not an ideal procedure.

No, that's just Aussies being Aussies. You should hear what we say about Englishmen. Anyway, if you had read further you would have realized that much of the criticism has been proven unfounded. Such as the accusations of "tanking" for instance. And actually I'm not saying it's ideal. It's just more ideal than having the sport dominated by a handful of clubs. It's fair, transparent, and is generally well received by both the fans and players.

- We must also note that Australian rules is not a global sport but a local game restricted to one country.

Yes, you're certainly on your toes today. But the existence of the AFL draft wouldn't stop leagues being set up around the world if, in fact, anyone else wanted to play the game. They're free to do so, and free to administer it any way they liked. This argument is simply not relevant. Can you name one global sport besides soccer in which the existence of a draft has hindered that sport becoming global? Are there, in fact, any other true global sports? And did soccer become a global sport because it didn't have a draft, or were other factors involved?

- We must also note that Australian rules is not a global sport but a local game restricted to one country.

So your point is? To draft or not to draft should only apply to global sports?

You were wrong in the first place saying that the AFL didn't have a draft. Now you make this excuse?

You obviously have no idea about the AFL draft, so let me educate you. It's widely embraced and favored by Aussie fans. There were contentious issues regarding priority drafting in New South Wales and Queensland for locally based teams, but now you will find there's a level playing field.

It's Australia's largest and, in regards to attendance, one of the world's largest spectator sports, and as I said, the draft is accepted and appreciated by fans far and wide. Looks like it's just you Christopher! "Business vs. the love of the game."

I'm sorry that you don't understand the latter.

- You were wrong in the first place saying that the AFL didn't have a draft.

Actually that was me, Aussie. Sorry - I'm from Sydney, which probably explains it.

No, I was not wrong. I said that the draft did not exist in global sports. I did not mention Australian Rules because it isn't a global sport. Please go back and read the actual post. Whether the draft is used in Australian Rules is a red herring, and please, it is not one of the world's largest spectator sports. It is a minor sport played in one country, rather like hurling in Ireland. I even rather doubt it is the most popular sport in Australia either - I would suspect the rugby league is.

The global sports are sports like soccer, cricket, rugby, and even cycling. Baseball has aspirations to be a global sport (look at the efforts in China) but needs, in my opinion, to make changes before it can become so.

As for the draft, which some you are so comfortable with, ask yourselves this. If you had been told you must work for one company when you leave school and you have no choice, how happy would you have been? It is the same with sport - the only fair and reasonable situation is no draft.

AFL can draw up to 80,000 or 90,000 for a regular home and away game. Their average crowds would rival any world sport and would eclipse English Premier League crowds. Rugby League does not even come close, it's primarily just popular in two states whereas AFL is truly national. Even the Sydney Swans, a team based in a "Rugby League" city, has drawn over 70,000 spectators for home and away games.

So as I said, it's one of the worlds largest spectator sports. The fans go in droves to the games. Christopher, if you don't know anything about Australian Rules, why bother tackling the issue? You just look sillier.

Michael, do please forgive the off topic digression.

However, actual average attendance is actually way down on that (around 36-38,000 - figures available on Wikipedia) so quoting maximum figures is a bit disingenuous. Once one factors in other important considerations, like the number of games played and the number of active clubs, it becomes even more misleading. Add in television viewing and it falls even further behind. It is not even one of the most popular sports in the world. It is dwarfed by soccer, which is the true global sport.

Australian rules is a very popular sport in Australia - that I do not doubt. But it is not a global sport and has no real impact on the global market. At best it is a curiosity outside Australia. I am sorry to be a bit blunt but that is the reality. I understand you are obviously a fan, but you mustn't misinterpret its importance. I love hurling (the Irish sport), but under no circumstances would I consider it a global game. It is the same for Australian Rules.

You said "It was not one of the world's largest spectator sports," yet Wikipedia states it to be "the second highest of any professional sports league in the world."

I'm just sticking to the facts! Do I get an apology?

No you do not. Australian Rules is not one of the world's largest spectator sports. A combined attendance of only 7 million falls well behind other sports without TV viewers factored in. With an average crowd of 36-38,000 and a potential crowd of 80-90,000 the grounds seem to be around 40-50% full. The weakest premiership team can expect around 70% average attendance on smaller grounds. The top teams get over 90%.

Find some real figures and real facts then we can look at them.

- A combined attendance of only 7 million falls well behind other sports without TV viewers factored in. Find some real figures and real facts then we can look at them.

Well where are your figures, Christopher? You always do this. We provide the evidence, and you only ever talk in long winded generalities.

- With an average crowd of 36-38,000 and a potential crowd of 80-90,000 the grounds seem to be around 40-50% full.

But really only a couple grounds have that sort of capacity, so your calculation is wrong. Your own Premier League boasts an average attendance of 34,459, which isn't bad at all, but still below the 38,113 recorded for the AFL.

If you want real figures, take a look at this Wikipedia page, and you will see that soccer is well and truly the number one sport in the world in terms of total attendance. Nobody has ever disputed that. Next is MLB, then NFL (American football). Australian Rules Football is next, with a higher average attendance than every single domestic pro sports competition other than the NFL.

But the really interesting thing is that the AFL as a domestic league trumps many soccer leagues such as Serie A (Italy) the J League (Japan), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil) - both in terms of average and total attendance. Imagine that - Aussie Rules is a bigger spectator sport in Australia than soccer is in Italy, Brazil, or Japan. When you consider that many of these countries have larger populations than Australia, and that the AFL in Australia competes with two codes of rugby at the same time, you'd be an idiot to claim that Aussie Rules is not a major sport. Just because it's not on your radar doesn't mean that it's insignificant.

Take a trip Down Under, go to a game or two, and you'll understand. Otherwise just let it rest - it's painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

(Oh yes, sprout this sort of nonsense in downtown Essendon and see how far you'd get.)

Yes, I looked at the page. So tell me which is the correct figure, the one of 36,000 (which you quote earlier) or the one of 38,000? There are two separate figures on two different pages. For the figures I found, the reference is Football 365 Stats. This is just the Premier League matches, not the European competitions.

I also note that the very page you list does not put Australian Rules in the top 10. You continually do this - present raw figures as if they are gospel and the final answer. Take a look at the page I mentioned then come back with similar figures for the Australian league then maybe I will be able to listen to you. Find accurate attendance rates - just what the two different averages refer to because at the moment you only have raw figures. What is the variation in the size of the grounds? Do the figures include cup competitions? What is the attendance rate compared to ground capacity? What are the TV viewing figures like?

And remember this, my point was about global sports - so how many people watch Australian Rules is really irrelevant. On the global stage Australian Rules is insignificant, and you would do well to remember this.

- You continually do this - present raw figures as if they are gospel and the final answer.

Oh come on, that's twisting it around - that's exactly what you do! At least I try to support my arguments with evidence of some kind, quotes, data, whatever - raw or otherwise, instead of "some guy at NHK who I can't mention because he might get into trouble" type of source.

But look, I'm not going to get into a slanging match over the difference of a thousand or two fans here and there. The point is, Aussie Rules is a major sport, whether you like it or not. Not a global sport, sure, but how many true global team sports are there anyway? Baseball? Nope, you've ruled that out as a true global sport. American football? Nope, Hockey? Nope. Cricket? Rugby? Hurling? No, no, no. Soccer's about the only one I can think of. So what you're really doing is saying, "Well, no sport is significant because it's not soccer." Geeze, how ridiculous is that?

The issue here is whether a draft can work or not. My claim is simply that well managed drafts can work in major sports - and on the raw attendance figures alone, the AFL must be regarded as a major sport - even more so than the main soccer leagues in Italy, Japan, or Brazil.

Global sports - we can consider football, cricket, rugby, tennis, horse racing, boxing, F1, motorcycle racing - all without drafts. American football didn't take off outside of North America (maybe too American). The fact is, for a global sport to be successful there needs to be free movement of players.

Baseball has aspirations in that direction - witness the WBC and the moves to increase its profile in China. However, for it to succeed it needs to internationalize itself. This, to my mind, includes removing the draft. MLB is big enough to survive without it now anyway.

Christopher, I understand the importance you place on the draft as a barrier to internationalization, but you're wrong. Whether or not NPB or MLB have draft systems has no bearing on whether baseball takes off in China or anywhere else. Free movement of players? The MLB draft doesn't prevent a player from going to China to play if they wish. What would stop them? The culture, the money, the fame - not the existence of a draft. Your argument is just plain silly.

As to the sports you mention without drafts, well what can I say? The logic appears fallacious. A case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc [Wikipedia] perhaps?

The draft, though, does act as a restriction. Once you enter the draft you are bound to the team for the duration of the period specified. MLB does not approach players in NPB until the nine year period is finished. It does not make an offer for players in the draft. In reality these players are denied the choice.

Likewise, NPB doesn't approach MLB drafted players and anyone wanting to change needs the permission of their teams. They don't actually have the right to say to their employer "I am not happy, I am going elsewhere" during that period. MLB is better as the period is shorter and less onerous, but it still acts as a restriction.

The secret to successful globalization is as few restrictions as possible. What the MLB and NPB draft does is prevent a player entering a new league within the draft period of his own free will. It also allows the club to set up barriers to leaving by demanding a fee for releasing the player. Of course it is even worse for Japanese players (Koji Uehara is a prime example).

I think on this matter we are not going to convince each other. It might be best if we agreed to differ, otherwise we will continue to go round in circles.

I would say that I am not sure what you mean in your last sentences. The sports I mentioned are all global sports. It would be possible to set up a draft system for all of them without much difficulty. It hasn't happened and that I see as significant.

And of course I forgot the NHL and NBA, which of course enjoy huge attendances as well. Two more major sports with drafts. I can't believe it. Ah, but hockey and basketball are probably not played in England, so they probably don't count.

Again, as the facts state. It is the world's second largest spectator sport. You said it wasn't, you were wrong. Take it on the chin. There are your facts.

What a sad and bitter man you are. Reading through the threads you seem to be an unhappy person coming to terms with a sport you are just learning about. Rather than argue with everyone, why don't you use this forum as a learning experience and thank people like myself for educating you?

- It is the world's second largest spectator sport.

With an attendance of six to seven million? I would suggest learning to understand numbers before making statements like that. Do you have television viewing figures to add in? Quite simply I suspect that it is Australia's no 1 sport, but that is all. It doesn't even equal NPB in popularity let alone MLB.

Work out how many people attend those two sports and remember this - it is more difficult to bring crowds in with more games than less. Each NPB team plays 144 games, each MLB team 160 games. It is far more difficult to bring fans in over that long a season. The top two teams for attendance in MLB (Yankees 4,271,867 and Dodgers 3,856,753 ESPN MLB attendance) alone exceed Australian Rules footballs attendance.

Get your facts straight before throwing insults and then maybe we will be able to take what you say seriously.

Look at average attendances! I can't believe you are comparing total attendance figures between two different sports that have 22 games and 162 games. What a bizarre and skewed way to look at things. Yes that's right Christopher, MLB has 162 games, so when you start telling others to get their facts right, well I'll leave it at that!

Again, consider you're educated.

There's nothing more to say. You've been presented with the facts, chose to ignore them and twist them into some bizarre and irrational argument. It's obvious you can't admit you're wrong so I'll leave you to argue with the other posters on this forum.

You appear to be the common denominator in all arguments on this board. Did it ever occur to you that you might be the one in the wrong? It takes courage to admit it, but try it and you might even get used to it.

Case closed.

Somehow I thought this might be your answer. (Yankees c47,000, Dodgers c38,000, same source). I refer you back to your comment, "It is the world's second largest spectator sport." Can Australian Rules sustain a game program of 162 games? Furthermore the average game total you so lovingly quote includes the finals and special games. These distort the averages. Despite your bluster, you do not understand how to interpret figures - one distorted measure is not a true indicator of reality.

A bizarre and ill informed response. I'm almost beating myself up responding to it, having previously put you in your place. But alas.

So Christopher, have you ever watched Aussie Rules? It's an incredibly physically demanding sport, so how do you suggest they cram 162 games into a season? Considering you thought Rugby League was more popular in Australia (wrong again), I'll assume you know nothing about the sport. By the way, what is a "special game" of Aussie Rules? The fact is, they can't play almost every day as they do in baseball.

So what are we left to analyze? Overall crowd averages! And once again, here you fall flat on your face. You mention the attendances of just 2 large franchises. Poor analysis. How about those Devil Rays or even the Marlins?

You even start to desperately lunge for TV figures when the original statement was regarding "spectators"; i.e. people who go to games!

Sorry Christopher, I don't mean to ridicule you, just educate you. I think I've said enough!

I'll leave you to stew in your anger and rage and call this one all over!

Aussie rules is a curiosity but interesting (and yes I have watched it). Now the reason I mention just two large baseball franchises is to demonstrate just how big other sports actually are and how misleading the figures you rely on actually are. It is wise to retain a sense of perspective in this situation as to just how important something is.

As for analyzing overall averages, the ones you quote are distorted by finals and championship games.

That's actually 162 games a year, dude! I guess the 2007 Mets and Padres would love it if you were the MLB commissioner, they would've made the playoffs! LOL!

Sorry long time lurker here. Who is this Christopher? Is he serious or trolling? Should I respond? I don't want to start something here, but just wondering why he argues (even when he is wrong) with every person on this site.

- I even rather doubt it is the most popular sport in Australia either - I would suspect the rugby league is.

Aussie is right - rugby league is popular in only two states. Aussie Rules attracts the crowds, and is certainly not a minor sport. But don't just take my word for it:

The AFL is the most attended professional sporting league in the country. The previous three AFL Premiership Seasons have had a total regular season attendance of over six million and the average attendance of over 36,000 is the second highest of any professional sports league in the world.

Source: Wikipedia

- If you had been told you must work for one company when you leave school and you have no choice, how happy would you have been?

Now this is a red herring. Aspiring baseball players are not compelled to play baseball. They can always choose to do something else.

But as long as the rules of the draft (and all the other restrictions that exist in baseball) are transparent, then I would be happy enough as a player, because I would realize the rules exist to maintain the overall health of the league (and thus my earning potential in the years to come). There's nothing wrong with a draft per se - but I do take issue with many of the inconsistencies and more onerous aspects of the Japanese version.

Thanks Mijow! Do I get an apology Christopher? It wont hurt you, come on!

Your metaphor doesn't work, Christopher. I still have a choice of profession. If only one company gave me a job offer when I got out of college and I didn't like the company, then I could go apply for jobs in another field, or (whoa, doesn't this sound like the draft?) go back to college for a master's degree and try again in a few years.

Baseball players are choosing to play a child's ball game as their profession. I can't feel too sorry for them not being able to choose which team they are with. They go into this knowing the rules of the draft; if they are really that angry about the lack of choice, then they simply don't have to choose to play pro baseball for a living. They still do, indeed, have a choice.

Seriously, what does it matter which team they play for? Geographical arguments don't apply since you spend half the year or more on the road. "It's the team I grew up watching" - well, then, please grow up. "I want to play with so-and-so" - well, you know, most people don't really get to choose their coworkers, or their bosses for that matter.

Honestly, in America most kids seem to be delighted to be drafted at all. It's not like teams have to draft you just because you have talent. Just ask Kazuhito Tadano.

I think you misunderstood the metaphor. You do not have the choice of anything. You are told to go to that one company. If you don't go you don't have a job. Furthermore you may be misunderstanding the nature of choice. Saying you must go to this club or you don't get to play sport professionally at all isn't really a choice, is it? My point is that choice of employer is a fundamental right - the draft denies this (particularly in Japan and to a lesser degree in America).

Sport is more about dreams than hard headed realism at times, and these often over-ride more prosaic concerns. Thus the team your father played for or playing for your favorite team is a major driver (Have you seen Rudy? It is based on a true story). It is also mistaken to call baseball a child's game - one can define all sports in this way (what sport is mature?), but in reality it is a business with a wide ranging perspective which resonates throughout all layers of society.

Remember, too, that in the employment world you can choose your colleagues and employers. If you wish you can change companies within the same field and you can choose who you start with. It may be that young players do not object to the draft in America (it is certainly less onerous than that of Japan), and it may be that it works well. However, it does not alter the fact that the system denies choice. I think we differ on the importance of this - I consider it a paramount right no matter which field you are in. In certain circumstances you deem it acceptable, but we cannot say that, with the draft, real choice does exist.

Wait, no, why is someone told they have to play baseball and go to a specific team when they get out of college? I'm sure that a guy with talent could easily decide they don't want to play baseball, or could get a job doing something else. Seriously. These high school kids decide whether or not to enter the draft, it's not like they have no choice about playing baseball after high school, or after college. If someone doesn't like their chances of going to the specific team they want to play for, then they don't have to play baseball; they can go become a salary man or do something else. Nobody has to go play baseball after college. Where on earth are you getting that idea?

Also, if you think of it this way: the employer is not the team, it is NPB. They choose to go to the company of Being a Baseball Player. The team you go to just happens to be the division of that company. Suppose you really want to work for Sony, and get a job with them. Great! Except, then they send you to Hokkaido to work with a different group up there, rather than keeping you in Osaka. Is that a terrible thing? Is that any more or less unfair than the draft? Should company relocations also be eliminated?

If you want to play baseball and are not particularly bothered then your example does hold. If you want to play for a particular team then you don't get the choice it doesn't. The kids have a choice go where they are told or don't play baseball. Nobody has to do anything after college, but in the rest of the world they can choose their employer.

The idea that NPB is an employer and the teams are divisions is an interesting one, but not actually born out by actuality. Clubs pay the salaries - these come from the clubs' resources, not from NPB. NPB does not pay anything towards players' salaries and thus does not qualify as an employer. Contracts are between the clubs and the players, and the Japanese ones are a kind of indentured servitude. You cannot leave unless you play nine years for a club or they get tired of you and post you.

With company relocations you still have a choice - you can actually turn down a relocation and any attempt by an employer to sanction you can be challenged and defeated in the courts. You can decide to leave the company and go to work for another company in the same field - many of my friends in business have done just that. Some people are happy with that, some people aren't. The fact is they have the choice whilst in NPB they don't. Remember, more so than MLB, Japanese management is feudal in its attitude towards employees.

- You can decide to leave the company and go to work for another company in the same field ...

Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't - it depends on your contract. And besides, I believe we're talking about young employers fresh out of college aren't we? I wonder how a potential new employer would regard someone who left their previous company in a huff after a few weeks because they didn't like the division they were assigned to.

- Thus the team your father played for or playing for your favorite team is a major driver ...

The AFL draft actually has a father-son rule, so it is possible to address these sort of issues in a draft.

Zanko wrote:

Unlike other industries, sports teams in the same league are really only competitors on the field. They are partners off the field. And when it's a closed membership like in MLB, the NFL, or NPB, it becomes even more important.

This is very true. I would argue that the best thing for the fans would be to demolish the current monopolies and break the existing monoliths into competing leagues - then you would see expansion rather than contraction, competition rather than collusion. Then leagues could decide to draft or sign players freely, because players would have the option of playing in this league or that league.

Right now, it is close to a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for amateur players (take the team that drafts you or work outside baseball and see how far your other skills will take you). Personally, I find this situation repugnant.

As a point of argument, which team sports franchises are the largest/most valuable in the World? Dallas Cowboys, Manchester United, New York Yankees, Hiroshima Carp, Australia Kangaroos, Etc.?

Have they made a decision on if they will do away with drawing names next year? Any minimum/maximum HS/Univ players can be taken? Will NPB screw this up again somehow?