iortiz

180 country market coverage is irrelevant? Ok. You do not like the global thing? Ok. Let's limit the territory coverage in the US. What is the Nat's market media coverage in the US?

One question. What is the Nats' media market coverage in US? What is the NY/Bos media market coverage in the US? Now... Make the same excerise World Wide? If you can't see that, sorry but I do not know what else to say.

The global market is everything for any business and mostly in global TELCO companies, if you can't see that, your business acumen is poor . Nats' global coverage is 0. You insist in focus the discussion in DC, which media market percentage is very small in the US and few less in a global perspective.

1. There's no big deal to me. The confusion started when I said that I was not surprised that a small market team like the Nats signed Jackson (since I already have said that), then MVP said that DC is not a small market place. A big market place/territory and a big market team are different concepts. You can split your market place/territory (local (DC)/country (US)/globe). Your roll is totally different in every business aspect in those territories (local (DC)/country (US)/globe). A big market team plays in all those scenarios (local (DC)/country (US)/globe) and its business impacts are very significant in every aspect/level. They are often related at least in a country level penetration. Clearly, Nats do not have that kind of penetration. No even in their own home town. Hence they are not a big market team. It is Conclusive. 2. As I said, big/global market teams are a handful in professional sports around the world beyond the sport. Yankees, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Lakers, Cowboys, among others are big market teams. They play in the global market as well. Those teams (Yankees, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Lakers, Cowboys) are in that category (Big market teams). Clearly, the Nats are not in that category. You say that Forbes rate them in the #16? Is that the rank of a big market team?, I don't think so. 3. The size of a market team is correlated with the media market. I already posted the definition. Nats' media market in the US/world wide is small. DC market is not even ranked in the top 5 in the US, but it is still interesting market to explore. On the other hand, What is the DC's media market percentage in the US? World Wide? Insignificant. Make the maths. NY and Bos are world-wide/big market teams since they cover big media markets and large market places/territories (local/country (US)/globe). Trying to pretend that the Nats are in the same level is just insane. 4. MLB is a globalized league. Sportive/business-concerns/strategy/factors play an important roll outside the US. NY, Boston, Philli, among a few others are frequently transmitted on ESPN and Fox Sports in their Latin American networks since they are big market teams. They have a huge fan base in other countries. Nats are not in that position since they are not a big market team. They are rarely transmitted on National TV (US) and far less world wide. One of the few teams that didn't have a Spanish web site version was the Boston Red Sox. Last year, they released their Spanish version. Why did they do that? They want to attend other markets with more strength like NY. Adrian's contract was a key driver, you bet. 180 M payroll teams can not live only with the gate or their local market. They need to expand their horizons. This is a very good way to do it. Expanding to other countries; selling merchandise/Tv rights/ more tickets/ advertising/ etc. In some countries like Venezuela, Dominicana, Nicaragua, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, etc. baseball is the # 1 sport. In other countries like Japon, Canada, Italy, Mexico, Colombia, Netherlands, etc. this sport has a huge fan base. Maybe you do not realize the important of other markets since you live in the US. When you merge all those markets the business/financial impact is significant. Hell, they reach 180 countries. 4. About Jackson, I already emitted my opinion. Worthless discusion at this point since he is not longer a option. BL. The Washington Nationals are not a big market team. That's my point.

So? A Big market place is one thing. A Big market team is a completely different thing. Still you can split the market place (Local/Country/Globe). What percent represent the DC market in the US? world wide? My point is: The Washington Nationals are not a big market team in the US nor worldwide. No even close.

Nobody is disputing that E1, trust me. I said that the Washington Nationals are not a big market team in the US nor worldwide. According with wiki "In the terminology of professional sports in North America, teams are often said to be based not in a city but in a media market. The size of the media market is usually a good indication of the potential viability of a major league team". Look at the definition I already posted. You can split the market media tough; Local (DC) Country (US), World wide (Global). Nats' local market media is arguably big (according with the article that I already posted nobody follows the Nats, even in their home town). Nats' market media in the US is small (e.i. They rarely appear in National TV). World wide? They are nothing. In other words, buy advertising in Nats games is not attractive and/or very cheap, since nobody follows them (US/Worldwide). In big market teams like NY or BOS the things are completely the opposite. Hence they are not a big market team. Not even close.

I used the global term in order to give it a larger perspective. World wide media market. Whats the problem with that?

Agree, so? Probably in NY and arguably in US. Its not my definition. It is the definition. Read it. I already posted it

Yes DC is a big market place in the US (8?.. not even in the top 3? but interesting). They play in the same market but they definitely do not have the same fan-base in their own hometown/US or around the world. Hence, their media market is abysmal local/US/Around the world. Also, DC is nothing if you take a global perspective. Only a handful are big/global market teams in professional sports around the world. (Real Madrid, Barcelona, Dallas Cowboys, Yankees, Manchester Utd. Lakers, etc.). The Nats are not in that category, not even close. The population/density that these teams cover is worldwide (worldwide media market). The Natas are not in that category, not even close. The Nats are not a big market team. First, They have to win loyalty in their own hometown. In order to do that, they have to win championships since they are young franchise. It is going to take time. Let me put this in perspective. Soccer. El Atletico de Madrid plays in the most important spain market (Madrid), they have a lot of money but they are not a global/big market team, not even close. On the other hand, look at El Real Madrid, they are definitely a global/big market team. Between them, theres an abysm. They are not in the same category. The same applies for Nats/Skins. Football. Steelers do not play in a big market city like DC but they are a global market team. They have a huge fan-base world wide (hence world wide media market). Basket. Clippers play in the same city/stadium where Lakers play and they are not even close to be a global market team. Base. Marlins already spent a lot of money. Nobody follow them in FLorida. They are trying to gain loyalty, first, in their hometown. Going to take time. ETc... BTW I asked for the definition of a market team, no big market city. Still no source.

Share yours and source, and probably we can enrich the discussion. Again, No body follows them. My skins? Even in Mexico they have huge fan base. Please do not compare my skins with the f***ing Nats.

Again, Look at the definition. Its not the case with the Nats. Nobody follows them. Look at Marlins, Steelers and Clippers cases among others and probably you find the answers.

Exactly. Hell, Get a fan base is not easy (media market). It takes a lot of time and championships. It is not Nats' position at all even they improved their team the last couple of seasons.

It doesn't matter where you play. It doesn't matter if you have money. if nobody follows you, theres no way you have a big media market. Hence you are not a big market team. As simple as that. I have no problem with my reading comp. Maybe you have wit yours (no offense) .Take a look at the definition.

Are you suggesting that the Washington Nationals is a bigger market team than TEX/PHilli? Really? you are confused with the term dude. Take a look at the definition. Nobody is disputing whether they have money to spend or not. They are not a big market team according with the definition. They are not a big media market team. Nobody gives a s*** about the Washington Nationals; DC/US/Global. Their fan base is limited, even in their hometown. Buy advertising in a Nats game is not attractive since nobody follows them, Hence the broadcasters do not compensate them as they do with NY/BOs or even Philli or Tex. Hence, their media market is limited in both domestic and foreign. Hence they are not a big market team. It is conclusive.

So? Nobody give a s*** about them even in their own market.

yup, and mostly globally. Do you really think that foreign broadcasters are interested in transmit The Washington National games? In DC, they do not even care about their team according with the article. The Nats are not even attractive for their local audience. Said that, I wouldn't grade the Nats as a big market team.

Fixed. The Marlins are in that category (who spent most money) and are below us.

According with wiki "In the terminology of professional sports in North America, teams are often said to be based not in a city but in a media market. The size of the media market is usually a good indication of the potential viability of a major league team" The Washington Nationals' global media market is not as big as big media market teams like Boston or NY. Not even close.

Chevere.

Maybe just stick with saying "I totally agree" to UN? posts.