I am somewhat confused by the comparison to art. Are serious people even making it? Sports franchises are valuable because they are cultural mainstays which provide tremendous entertainment value; they sell tickets, they get TV broadcasting rights, they are massive on social media, they sell merchandise, they get tons of sponsorship deals… That’s what they are: commoditized entertainment, while art is often way less commoditized, has none of those characteristics from before, and can be much more clearly argued to have “value” in a more ineffable way.
On the oligopoly point, yes, certainly. One can also include the lack of relegation and serious lower leagues in major US professional sports. And also the preferential treatment in draft lotteries given to the worst-performing teams. And all the revenue sharing. Very socialistic in nature.
Funnily enough, in Europe, it’s much more capitalistic. Teams are allowed to fail and go out of business. They are allowed to relegate. They are allowed to build massive academy networks that nab promising players from a young age, instead of having to obtain them through a draft.
On the other hand, in Europe, fan support seems to be far more concentrated on a rather rigid set of high-performing teams. Approximately 57% of Spanish football watchers are fans of either Barca or Real Madrid, for example. It’s not that way for the NBA, or the NFL, or the MLB.
American sports fans really care about “parity.” This was especially prominent in NBA discourse around 2015-2019, when the Warriors and Cavs were going up against each other in the Finals remarkably often. In Europe, “Bayern keeps winning the Bundesliga” is not seen as a problem at all.
I certainly have heard others make the simile. While I can’t peg its genesis, my memory is that it originated in the 1990s when noted art collector Jeffrey Lurie purchased the Eagles. Perhaps it was later, but I do think he was part of the reason that idea emerged.
I’d also add that JPMorgan released a study of billionaires shifting their preference from art (passive) to pro spots (active) investments.
The naked hostage taking is best seen in Tom “El Cheapo” Dundon (to steal from Bill Simmons). It’s yet another example of a public good (what it means to a city to have a team - and I live in Oklahoma City and having a team means something to a significant number of people in the community) being “disrupted” for profit and power.
What does it mean if the Portland Trail Blazers are an asset on a spreadsheet and nothing else? Maybe it’s not that big of a deal. But if everything is just a line item, that is a bad outcome for the health of a society.
I understand that, and I might agree with a lot of it. But I do still think that running it for “profit and power” is incompatible with it being “like art.” Little profit, little power in the latter.
There's a lot of fervor around this deal, but I'm finding it hard to care. I don't watch basketball and I have never paid for tickets to a game. I'll watch it at a bar for the price of other goods I'm buying anyway (like lunch/dinner), but I spend exactly $0 on this part of American society. I don't know who is funding the lucrativeness of these institutions but it's not me. Whether they make a gazillion dollars off it or zero — I feel like there are more important things to figure out.
Related, as I’d call NCAA Division 1 college football professional in all but name. It has a related but slightly different set of issues.
After decades of not paying players (legally), players are now able to get NIL. We’ll see where that goes as more schools express some openness to collective bargaining.
However, colleges are unable to restrain themselves from spending more and more, going as far as to engaged Senators Cantwell and Cruz on the Protect College Sports Act (tabled until September). This trend could ultimately lead to a breakaway of the top programs as a “Super League,” leaving behind dozens of proud, entertaining programs that cannot keep up in spending.
Part of what makes college football entertaining is the unique traditions of many programs, regional rivalries (now threatened by endless conference realignment), and the broader ecosystem. All of those are being ruined by more and more financial optimization of the top programs at the expense of the entire system.
Ideally there is some solution prior to the system gets too far gone.
Excellent points identifying what’s wrong with how owners are allowed to get away with sticking it to the public. As smart and insightful as you are, though, Derek, I was disappointed that you offered no solutions, no matter how “out there” they might be. Here’s one maybe partial solution: make it illegal, or subject to a heavy FEDERAL tax (no way a state would be likely to undertake this on its own), for a local government to finance in whole or in part a stadium or arena used significantly for sports teams
Freakonomics had a great two-part series on if CFB should be a minor league for the NFL and talked about the difference in European soccer and US sports. Much of it is on the same thread as this.
I am somewhat confused by the comparison to art. Are serious people even making it? Sports franchises are valuable because they are cultural mainstays which provide tremendous entertainment value; they sell tickets, they get TV broadcasting rights, they are massive on social media, they sell merchandise, they get tons of sponsorship deals… That’s what they are: commoditized entertainment, while art is often way less commoditized, has none of those characteristics from before, and can be much more clearly argued to have “value” in a more ineffable way.
On the oligopoly point, yes, certainly. One can also include the lack of relegation and serious lower leagues in major US professional sports. And also the preferential treatment in draft lotteries given to the worst-performing teams. And all the revenue sharing. Very socialistic in nature.
Funnily enough, in Europe, it’s much more capitalistic. Teams are allowed to fail and go out of business. They are allowed to relegate. They are allowed to build massive academy networks that nab promising players from a young age, instead of having to obtain them through a draft.
On the other hand, in Europe, fan support seems to be far more concentrated on a rather rigid set of high-performing teams. Approximately 57% of Spanish football watchers are fans of either Barca or Real Madrid, for example. It’s not that way for the NBA, or the NFL, or the MLB.
American sports fans really care about “parity.” This was especially prominent in NBA discourse around 2015-2019, when the Warriors and Cavs were going up against each other in the Finals remarkably often. In Europe, “Bayern keeps winning the Bundesliga” is not seen as a problem at all.
I certainly have heard others make the simile. While I can’t peg its genesis, my memory is that it originated in the 1990s when noted art collector Jeffrey Lurie purchased the Eagles. Perhaps it was later, but I do think he was part of the reason that idea emerged.
I’d also add that JPMorgan released a study of billionaires shifting their preference from art (passive) to pro spots (active) investments.
The naked hostage taking is best seen in Tom “El Cheapo” Dundon (to steal from Bill Simmons). It’s yet another example of a public good (what it means to a city to have a team - and I live in Oklahoma City and having a team means something to a significant number of people in the community) being “disrupted” for profit and power.
What does it mean if the Portland Trail Blazers are an asset on a spreadsheet and nothing else? Maybe it’s not that big of a deal. But if everything is just a line item, that is a bad outcome for the health of a society.
I understand that, and I might agree with a lot of it. But I do still think that running it for “profit and power” is incompatible with it being “like art.” Little profit, little power in the latter.
Right. That’s the shift from passive investment to active investment.
It’s not enough to conspicuously consume. Now you conspicuously consume AND make billions off that consumption.
There's a lot of fervor around this deal, but I'm finding it hard to care. I don't watch basketball and I have never paid for tickets to a game. I'll watch it at a bar for the price of other goods I'm buying anyway (like lunch/dinner), but I spend exactly $0 on this part of American society. I don't know who is funding the lucrativeness of these institutions but it's not me. Whether they make a gazillion dollars off it or zero — I feel like there are more important things to figure out.
Related, as I’d call NCAA Division 1 college football professional in all but name. It has a related but slightly different set of issues.
After decades of not paying players (legally), players are now able to get NIL. We’ll see where that goes as more schools express some openness to collective bargaining.
However, colleges are unable to restrain themselves from spending more and more, going as far as to engaged Senators Cantwell and Cruz on the Protect College Sports Act (tabled until September). This trend could ultimately lead to a breakaway of the top programs as a “Super League,” leaving behind dozens of proud, entertaining programs that cannot keep up in spending.
Part of what makes college football entertaining is the unique traditions of many programs, regional rivalries (now threatened by endless conference realignment), and the broader ecosystem. All of those are being ruined by more and more financial optimization of the top programs at the expense of the entire system.
Ideally there is some solution prior to the system gets too far gone.
Excellent points identifying what’s wrong with how owners are allowed to get away with sticking it to the public. As smart and insightful as you are, though, Derek, I was disappointed that you offered no solutions, no matter how “out there” they might be. Here’s one maybe partial solution: make it illegal, or subject to a heavy FEDERAL tax (no way a state would be likely to undertake this on its own), for a local government to finance in whole or in part a stadium or arena used significantly for sports teams
Freakonomics had a great two-part series on if CFB should be a minor league for the NFL and talked about the difference in European soccer and US sports. Much of it is on the same thread as this.