Rather interesting read in the New York Times over the weekend – in our best Seinfeld voice – “so what’s the deal with sports coverage? Like, who owns it?” If you’ve been reading this blog for two years, then this beef does not surprise you – access for the news media has been dwindling at a rapid pace. Money – duh – is ultimately why.

If you ran MLB or the NFL, wouldn’t you limit news media coverage and let your own websites – which can make you more money – get the best access? It’s not right – sort of the same way chinsey baseball owners refuse to spend money to make their teams better, yet still walk away with millions – but for the respective businesses, it makes sense.

If you’re delusional enough to say, ‘why would people want to go and get slanted baseball coverage (it’s going to be 99 percent positive) from MLB.com?’ then we’d like to refer to you to Fox News. Then, we’d like to ask: If cheapskate baseball owners put a shitty product on the field, why do the fans still go to the ballpark? Don’t tell the die-hards – Republicans or baseball fans – what they don’t want to hear.

How close are we to players giving the media a 10-second soundbyte after the game, and then going home to record their own video thoughts to post on their blog, where they sell advertising with the ultimate goal to make some coin on the side? Question: Who broke the story about Tiger’s surgery? He did. On his website.

Who Owns Sports Coverage? (NYT)