As far as we know, the ball clubs have not been bailed out by the federal government, yet. As for the reason why the pay discrepancy:
1. People, especially kids, want to go to ball games, but apparently not as enthusiastic on the margins for school.
2. Big ads revenue on TV for winning teams. The most effective TV ads are not targeted at smart people who can see through the promotion, but the ads for really dumb and self-destructive products targeted at couch potatoes, who can be swayed by ads one way or another. The more the government pay people to vegge at home and become couch potatoes, the more effective the TV ads for dumb rip-off products become . . . i.e. the higher value the TV ads time slot become and more revenue for winning teams.
3. Big stadium subsidy from local and state governments for winning teams.
4. In the relatively competitive market of ball players, paying more does tend to get better players. In the monopolistic public school and government service in general, raising pay usually does not mean better results. In fact, at issue is not pay per se, but the imposition of union, which is decidedly against performance-based pay. There is actually $500-$1500 a year effective raise in take-home pay for each government worker just by not having to pay union dues if the union is disbanded; union dues (or the substantive equivalent thereof) are not voluntary but mandatory for government employees.
AI
