I am sorry if you are offended but the comparison to car salesmen and gullibility may get to the heart of the matter in a way that less sincere language couldn't. None of the estimates take into account all the financial benefits the owners receive. The history of baseball suggests that you should not give owners the benefit of the doubt that they are telling the truth about their revenues. They have every incentive not to. In 2001, as stated in the first paragraph of the article rluzinski linked, Bud was claiming that only 2 teams were making money. Until collective bargaining owners were able to rely on gullible players to pay entertainment business stars wages that bore little connection to the revenues they brought in; and now gullible citizens pay for lavish stadiums and sympathize with billionaire owners against millionaire players. Owners preying on the gullible is a part of baseball. EDIT: Mark A. and his partners may be taking a loss according one financial perspective. The Yankees, IIRC, will no longer be paying into revenue sharing soon because, as a result of their new stadium, they will no longer be one of baseball's most profitable teams according to the revenue sharing formula. With everything the Brewers touch making money at record rates and the addition of a star player spiking the records the financial risk of the additional salary can be overestimated. The greater risk may be in failing to add another $10 million in salary that can generate more than that to the value of the Brewers brand.