The Yankees: Is the Fat Salary Working?

What is the first thought that comes to your head when you hear "New York Yankees"? For some of you, it might be the classic baseball franchise in it's early glory with Babe Ruth. For others, it might be their merchandising power. It might be their exorbitant salary, which makes the news every year. Every new season, it seems like the Yankees are padding their roster with another expensive superstar. Finally, for you Boston fans, it might be the fact that despite their huge salary expense, the Yankees haven't won a World Series in five years.
The first year of defeat, 2001, saw the yankees shelling out over $100 million in player salaries. Since then, infamous owner George Steinbrenner has put up $783,466,307. Do they have any championships to show for all of this cash? The quick and simple answer is no.
This calls to question a basic philosophy in sports economics: the constant debate between profits and winning. Some teams go all out, sparing no expense in pursuit of a ring. The Yankees are obviously such a team. However, as is observed, this strategy doesn't necessarily produce the desired results. This causes one to question a central assumption of the matter: are the players really worth what they're paid? The Yankees pay top dollar for the "top" players, but they remain not on top of the league. With other "regularly" priced players emerging the victors, one has to wonder if superstardom is fact or fiction. Can one player on a baseball team really make such a difference? If so, is it large enough to be worth millions of dollars? I think not.