Do Professional Sports Need Owners?

[improbus]

Really? Do they? I feel like they are a net negative on their sport.

[dougdirt]

The only reason they are professionals is because there are owners who pay them.

So I'm leaning towards, yes.

[KronoRed]

A league owning all the teams could work, would make sure certain owners don't cheat the system.

[Rojo]

Nope.

[Redsfaithful]

Could see cities or public owning the teams (Green Bay), but not going to happen in America.

[bucksfan2]

Could see cities or public owning the teams (Green Bay), but not going to happen in America.

I can't remember exactly how the Packers are owned, but to call it a public owned company really misses the mark. They sell shares, the last one in 2011, but those shares sold for around $250 each, had no voting rights, weren't resalable, and were pretty much a $250 piece of paper. IIRC the vast majority of shares are held by a few individuals. It appears as if they operate like a publicly traded company, not a municipally owned company.

I don't think a local municipality, city, or even state government should get involved in running a professional sports team. I think its beyond their capacities as a government. Heck the local governments had a difficult time doing their job as is, giving them ownership of a professional sports team could become a disaster.

[Redsfaithful]

I think that's fine, and have no problem with it, but then the owners should be paying for their own stadiums.

[Kingspoint]

Have to have owners. No "committee", which is the alternative, would ever get anything done. Trades of significance would be gone.

[Kingspoint]

A league owning all the teams could work, would make sure certain owners don't cheat the system.

There would be more cheating, not less, if power was centralized.

[bucksfan2]

I think that's fine, and have no problem with it, but then the owners should be paying for their own stadiums.

I think owners should pay for a large portion of their stadiums. I also think that the days of the Mike Brown type stadium deal are dead. But I do think anger directed at public financed stadiums often misses the economic and social benefit that sports teams bring to the area.

[westofyou]

http://static.greatbigcanvas.com/images/singlecanvas_thick_none/artehouse/appolohal-russian-hockey-amsterdam-vintage-poster,ah5241-fin.jpg?max=540

[Chip R]

I think owners should pay for a large portion of their stadiums. I also think that the days of the Mike Brown type stadium deal are dead.

Tell that to the citizens of Wisconsin.

[RedTeamGo!]

I think owners should pay for a large portion of their stadiums. I also think that the days of the Mike Brown type stadium deal are dead. But I do think anger directed at public financed stadiums often misses the economic and social benefit that sports teams bring to the area.

Watch the John Oliver clip, might change your stance. I will link it later, I am mobile right now.

[bucksfan2]

Watch the John Oliver clip, might change your stance. I will link it later, I am mobile right now.

I have seen the John Oliver clip.

Look in a billion dollar industry, which all major sports are, the ownership should have to foot a large portion of the bill for a new stadium. But I also think that ignoring the benefit that professional sports teams give a community is wrong. I will admit that a lot of value sports teams have to an area is intrinsic, but there is a real value that sports teams bring to a given area. I think baseball and their 81 games bring more value than football, but its to overlook what kind of impact 60K+ people can bring to the local area on a given Sunday.

IMO the Banks is not what it is without the Reds and Bengals stadiums.

[RedTeamGo!]

I have seen the John Oliver clip.

Look in a billion dollar industry, which all major sports are, the ownership should have to foot a large portion of the bill for a new stadium. But I also think that ignoring the benefit that professional sports teams give a community is wrong. I will admit that a lot of value sports teams have to an area is intrinsic, but there is a real value that sports teams bring to a given area. I think baseball and their 81 games bring more value than football, but its to overlook what kind of impact 60K+ people can bring to the local area on a given Sunday.

IMO the Banks is not what it is without the Reds and Bengals stadiums.

Sure, but at this point the teams are taking advantage of communities.

Miami comes to mind.

[bucksfan2]

Sure, but at this point the teams are taking advantage of communities.

Miami comes to mind.

Sure they take advantage of communities. But ask all your Cleveland neighbors how they felt about the Browns leaving town?

[Redsfaithful]

Yeah, one thing I think the economic benefits studies miss is that there is a positive that is not quantifiable about having professional sports in a city. It is something that gives people roots in a city. And major league cities are thought of differently - people here in Columbus I think would admit that.

There's a benefit to having Monday Night Football showcasing your city - I don't know if a dollar amount can be put on it, but it exists.

[bucksfan2]

Yeah, one thing I think the economic benefits studies miss is that there is a positive that is not quantifiable about having professional sports in a city. It is something that gives people roots in a city. And major league cities are thought of differently - people here in Columbus I think would admit that.

There's a benefit to having Monday Night Football showcasing your city - I don't know if a dollar amount can be put on it, but it exists.

There is a pride in your city being showcased in a nice way. The best way I can describe it was the All Star game in this city. The Reds and this city did a great job with not only the game and the All Star village but they had a couple of buildings decked out in All Star renderings, so much so that many people wanted to keep the buildings like that all the time. They had these mustache statues littered throughout the city that not only look cool, but look to be more permanent. I can't tell you how many times I have taken pictures of my family on or around these statutes. Just this past weekend my daughter and niece were climbing all over one at Findlay Market to pass time. There is a sense of pride when a city is showcased the right way. It may bring people down to an area when they would otherwise go elsewhere. Its had to describe and its hard to put an actual value on that pride, but it is there.

[Yachtzee]

I'm not clear on something. What is the alternative to teams having owners? League ownership? Well the league itself would have investors, who would therefore be owners. So you would just have private ownership with an added layer of corporate bureaucracy. Such an ownership model would also encourage the league to allocate players based on profit maximization rather than providing an equitable level of competition between teams. Not that it doesn't go on now to some degree, but you at least have individual owners who can speak out against league policies and act as somewhat of a check against league power.

If you look at "professional" sports in former communist countries, where political capital replaced financial capital, you see the same teams winning over and over and those teams were the ones associated with power brokers within the government. The best teams were often the team's associated with the Army or the Secret Police. Teams associated with trade unions had less resources and would often be disbanded for political reasons, e.g. the trade union goes on strike or raises vocal opposition to government policy. Players would often be moved from one team to another simply because some power broker within the government wanted his favorite team to be better.

I'd like to see what the alternative to having individual team ownership would be and I ask how it would ensure fair competition between teams for resources, especially when it comes to distribution of talent.

[KronoRed]

There would be more cheating, not less, if power was centralized.

Perhaps, but 30 'every person for themselves' owners leads to more dirty dealing IMO.

[TRF]

Perhaps, but 30 'every person for themselves' owners leads to more dirty dealing IMO.

And?

I don't care a bit if one team fleeces another so long as there isn't collusion. The Reds just fleeced three teams in the last calendar year, KC, Detroit and Miami.

And I'm fine with that. It may not have been dirty dealing, but I guarantee that under a single owner centralized power system, none of those three deals gets made.