The Wages of Wins Journal

Fans of the World Unite!!! A Guide to Fan Action in the Socialistic World of American Sports

October 30, 2008 · 16 Comments

The word “socialism” has wandered into the presidential election.  This seems odd, since the two leading candidates for the presidency – Barack Obama and John McCain – would be considered devotees of capitalism.  At least, although both candidates are on record as supporters of the progressive income tax, neither candidate is advocating that we replace the market as our primary mechanism for allocating resources. 

Of course, just because the market dominates the U.S economy, it doesn’t mean that we cannot find pockets of socialism.  For example, there is one specific industry where winners are punished and losers rewarded.  Where an organization can fail year after year and yet never go out of business. Which industry has such anti-capitalistic tendencies?  It’s none other than professional sports.

The Case of Sterling and Ford

Consider the case of the LA Clippers.  According to Wikipedia, Sterling bought the Clippers in 1981 for $12.5 million.  Currently – according to Forbes magazine – this franchise is valued at $294 million.  In other words, this has been a pretty good investment for Sterling. 

On the court, though, Sterling’s team has been a disaster for its fans.  Across the last 27 years the Clippers have

  • won only 34.8% of their regular season contests (about 28 wins per season).
  • never won more than 47 games.
  • lost at least 50 games 19 times.
  • won only one playoff series.
  • only appeared in the playoffs four times.

In sum, Sterling – as the person who is primarily responsible for this team’s direction – has demonstrated a staggering level of incompetence (and for those who wish to give some blame to Elgin Baylor, I recommend what might be the best article I have ever read by Bill Simmons).

Or consider the Detroit Lions.  William Clay Ford took control of this team in 1964. At that point, the Lions had existed for 34 seasons, won 53% of their regular season contests, and four NFL Championships (including three in the 1950s). 

With Ford in charge, though, the story has been quite different.  Across the last 44 season the Lions have

  • won only 43% of their regular season contests (less than seven per season).
  • won more than ten games only once (the 10-4 team in 1970 might have made this twice).
  • lost at least 10 games fifteen times (it will be sixteen after this season).
  • won only one playoff game.

In sum, Ford – as a person who is primarily responsible for this team’s direction – has demonstrated a staggering level of incompetence (and for those who wish to give some blame to Matt Millen, well, I am sort of okay with that).

The story of Sterling and Ford highlight the problem with American sports.  Much to the disappointment of their fans, an owner can oversee a team that fails year after year.  And after all this failure, the value of the franchise only increases and the team is persistently rewarded (with draft picks, revenue sharing, etc…).  In sum, socialism cannot be found in the proposed policies of presidential candidates.  But it can be found in American sports. 

Of course, this is a problem. As a fan of the Lions, it’s difficult to see this team persistently fail. And I am sure the same story would be told by fans of the Clippers.  So what can be done?

Time to Unite!!!

Here is a good first step.  Read the following book by Stephen Ross and Stefan Szymanski: Fans of the World Unite! A (Capitalist) Manifesto for the Sports Consumers.

This book – published by Stanford Press (yes, the same publisher as The Wages of Wins) – offers some suggestions for how American sports could be improved.

Before I get to some of the suggestions, let me introduced the authors.  Stephen Ross is the director of the Penn State Institute for Sports Law, Policy and Research.  Ross is also one of the leading scholars in the field of sports law. 

His co-author – Stefan Szymanski – is the Director of the MBA program at Cass Business School (City University London).  Although there are no official rankings, I think Szymanski is also the most prolific writer in the field of sports and economics.  At least, I don’t think anyone has published more articles in this field. 

So when it comes to “leading scholars”, these two lead the leaders.  And what do they recommend to fans who wish to take American sports away from the “socialists”?  Ross and Szymanski recommend that we look to Europe.  Yes, the continent where “socialism” is not necessarily a bad word; organizes its sports according to a very strict capitalistic philosophy.

Let’s return to the case of the Lions.  This year the Lions are winless.  For fans of this team, we are once again dreaming about the NFL draft.  In other words, we are looking forward to the Lions acquiring one of the top talents in college football.  And why will we get such a talent?  Because the NFL – like the NBA, MLB, and NHL – rewards it losers by giving these teams exclusive bargaining rights (often in spite of the wishes of the players) to the very best non-professional players. 

How would life be different if the Lions were part of a European sports league? These leagues have a system called “promotion and relegation”.  This means that each year the worst teams in the league are demoted to the minors.  And the best minor league teams get promoted to the top tier.  So right now the Lions would not be looking forward to improving through the draft.  No, this team would be looking forward to competing in the minors next year.

Now why is this good for the fans?  After all, wouldn’t this simply mean that owners like Donald Sterling and William Ford would vanish from the league (along with their teams)?  I recently asked Stefan Szymanski about this issue, and here was his explanation:

The point about our proposal is to change the incentives, not necessarily to change the owners. When the Berlin Wall fell Poland went from being a country where you could not find basic consumer goods at any price to one where consumer goods were readily available at competitive prices in the space of just a few years. This was not always because existing managers were replaced – in fact this hardly happened at all- what happened was (a) the incentives of existing managers changed from being directed at pleasing their customers rather than pleasing their bosses or themselves (if they were the boss) and (b) anyone who wanted could rent a retail space and start up a business in competition and (c) outsiders were willing to supply capital to make things happen. The dynamics of this were complex- some new big businesses emerged, but at the same time many existing businesses got much better- in cases where there were easy wins (retailing) change was dramatic; in cases where change required complex reform (electricity supply) the pace of change was slower, but even then the change in culture brought about changes. There were few big collapses, but a lot of concern that collapse could occur, and there a lot effort put into making things better.

It seems to me the consequences of our proposals would be rather similar. I think the biggest effect would be that the incumbent teams would get their act together to the point where their performance was much sharper. Big teams would generally avoid the drop (although I would expect a few high profile losers in the first few years). Some new teams would come in, but I think even more important would be the change in the sporting culture that would end resistance to new ideas and methods (evidenced in Moneyball). Thus crazy owners with zany ideas or negligent attitudes would of necessity sharpen up their acts. After all, in many cases these guys have been very successful at managing businesses in competitive environments.

To summarize, promotion and relegation would force owners and managers to be competitive every season.  So Sterling and Ford could either start making better decisions, or be forced out of the league.  And that means, these two owners would have to act like owners and managers in most other American industries.

I should emphasize, Fans of the World Unite! does more than just talk about promotion and relegation.  The book explains in detail how the current structure of American professional sports results in exploitation of the fans.  It explains how this exploitation could be reduced if MLB, NFL, NBA, and the NHL learned from European sports leagues and NASCAR (yes, NASCAR).  And finally, these authors effectively knock down objections to their proposals.

In sum, I think this book kicks off an important discussion for American sports fans.  Certainly, it should get fans of the Clippers and Lions thinking about how life could be different.

- DJ

For more on Fans of the World Unite! check out the Stanford Press website.

The WoW Journal Comments Policy

Categories: Book Review

16 responses so far ↓

  • Makhtar Ndiaye // October 31, 2008 at 12:17 am

    OK, a few problems here–

    1. Owners still have ample incentive to produce a winning team. Most markets aren’t as big as Detroit and L.A., and have very fairweather fans, such that one year the team can lose copious amounts of money and the next be in the black, solely because of their won-loss record (see: the New Orleans Hornets, Tampa Bay Rays). Attendance and merchandising, for example, slip enormously when a team loses.

    2. Perhaps the best metric is not the rise in value of these franchises, which could not necessarily have been predicted ex ante (who can predict whether an owner will ultimately be successful at convincing politicians to build a new stadium, a crucial component in these valuations? Who in 1964 could have predicted that football would overtake baseball as America’s favorite sport?) and which simply reflects inflation to some degree. Perhaps the better metric would be the profit generated by the franchise as a perennial loser versus the profit generated by the franchise as a winner. When viewed that way, Sterling and Ford have lost millions of dollars due to their poor management.

    3. If fans are loyal enough to show up to watch bad teams like the Lions or buy their t-shirts, then perhaps this shows that they don’t really value wins and losses as much as the mere presence of a familiar team, or that they value having a winning team comparatively less than fans in other cities.

  • Rodney Fort // October 31, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Thanks for the thoughts, Dave.

    Just what minor league would the Lions drop down to? And which minor league team would rise up to the NFL level to replace them?

    Or, more generally, which billionaire would buy an NFL franchise agreement where demotion is a possibility?

    You know I’m a big Steve/Stef fan, but there remain so many questions.

  • Alex // October 31, 2008 at 8:04 am

    I am a big soccer fan, and have thought a lot about this issue (luckily, my favorite team, Chelsea, has a Russian billionaire owner who spend money like George Steinbrenner, so relegation is not an issue). As you may know, unlike European leagues, American soccer (MLS) does not have promotion/relegation, and a lot of American soccer fans talk about how much they would like to see that system implemented for US soccer. But, given the starting point with owners here in America, I can’t see it happening here even in soccer, much less in other sports which don’t have a viable example of promotion/relegation systems in other countries. Here are several problems:

    1. As noted above by Rodney Fort, you need a viable minor league. Football and basketball don’t have that right now. Baseball does, but its teams are not independent, so that doesn’t work either (what if the KC Royals’ AAA team is the best in AAA – does it get promoted and the Royals get demoted?). At least in US soccer, there is a viable independent minor league.

    2. US leagues use a draft system to acquire players. I can’t see how this would work with teams that are demoted/promoted. Who gets the #1 pick in the draft – a newly promoted team? A demoted team? If a demoted team, do we want future LeBron’s playing in a minor league? European soccer doesn’t have a draft, so that’s not an issue.

    3. The biggest issue is, how do you convince owners who already have a team that is guaranteed to stay in the major league to accept a chance to be demoted? Why should they give up their guarantee? You need to give the owners something in exchange for giving up that guarantee, and I don’t see what that might be. Would Don Sterling vote to accept a relegation system when he knows that, absent relegation his team will be in the NBA every year, whereas with relegation his team very well may go to the minors (thereby causing a tremendous drop in the value of his team).

    If I were an owner of an NBA or NFL team, I would not accept a chance at demotion in exchange for nothing. What do you propose to give me, David Berri, to get me to vote for that?

  • Alex // October 31, 2008 at 8:12 am

    Rodney Fort writes: “Or, more generally, which billionaire would buy an NFL franchise agreement where demotion is a possibility?”

    If the NFL where to magically change from the current system to a promotion/relegation system, I see no reason that billionaires wouldn’t continue to be interested in buying teams. After all, plenty of billionaires invest in European soccer teams that have a chance at being relegated.

    The problem is, as I indicated above, you already have *current* owners who are guaranteed places in the major league and who have no chance at being demoted. There is no magic that would change the NFL or NBA system to promotion/relegation – you would need to convince the current owners to give up that guarantee. And I don’t see how anyone does that, even if you (a) accept (as I do) that promotion/relegation would be better for fans and (b) could solve the problems of a lack of viable minor league and problematic player allocation system.

    In other words, even if “there” (a promotion/relegation system) is better than “here” (guaranteed permanent spots in the major league) – you just can’t get there from here.

  • mrparker // October 31, 2008 at 9:54 am

    Its not like Berri said this is going to happen. He’s saying the leauge would be much better off if this magically happened. It won’t. We all know it.

    I’m not so sure this is a better system. Sure you would get owners who tried harder, but the product would still be the same. You would still have teams who tried hard but failed. Fans in Detroit might reap the benefits, while fans in Chicago might get stuck with a relegated team. Would we want a minor league team in Chicago.

    My minimal research done into the world of soccer shows a stagnant growth rate in the European leagues. Meanwhile all of our leagues are showing tremendous growth. In a capitalist society this is what we are ultimately looking to see.

  • Sqot Sqeele // October 31, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    > How would life be different if the Lions were part of a European sports league? These leagues have a system called “promotion and relegation”. This means that each year the worst teams in the league are demoted to the minors. And the best minor league teams get promoted to the top tier. So right now the Lions would not be looking forward to improving through the draft. No, this team would be looking forward to competing in the minors next year.

    This is such a good idea for MLB it’s not even funny.

    MLB needs to capture some of the essence of its heyday (WW2 to 1961 expansion) in order to become more popular. It needs to get rid of the DH, play more day games especially at World Series times, reduce its schedule back to 154 games and play more doubleheaders so we aren’t playing midnight baseball in the snow during World Series times. All of that can be accomplished with the help of reducing the majors down to 16 teams and having the rest of the teams be AAA.

    I wish this would happen, but I know it probably won’t, because the owners just aren’t going to give up that money. – S.

  • Ravenred // October 31, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    Not entirely convinced. A European model ensures that the same two or three teams (generally from large population centres) compete for the championship decade in and decade out. I think you’re understating the distorting power of a team operating in a large market. You can point to your Blackburn Rovers (or Green Bay) as much as you like, but they are exceptions which prove the rule.

    The FAN’S incentive is not always to support a winning team in any case, but a LOCAL team. The closure of teams can have a significantly negative effect on a city’s (hello Sonic fans!) regard for a sport as a whole.

    To ensure maximisation of the population’s attention to and interest in basketball, credible ON-COURT competition is essential. Unfortunately, given the nature of the beast, this is not a always possible with a maximum of off-court competition.

    Personally, I’ve no inherent opposition to measures to ensure at least conditional parity. The draft? Well I think that can be significantly tweaked to reduce the benefits of of tanking, but don’t see restraint of trade WITHIN THE NBA as being a persuasive enough argument to abolish it.

    But it’s certainly an argument worth having…

  • Lior // November 1, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    The NFL, MLB, NHL and MLS are best described as cartels: the various teams in the league have joined forces to form a closed system rather than compete with each other. New York City and Los Angeles could easily support more than two NBA teams each, but of course such an idea would be vetoed by the existing owners.

    The existing leagues will never adopt the promotion-relegation model. It’s not in their interest. However, there is nothing stopping other, smaller, leagues from starting up and eventually joining in a pyramid. Baseball seems to be the most natural place for this, since there are already many local baseball teams in the minors.

  • John W. Davis // November 2, 2008 at 4:18 am

    Our lions are always on the table.

  • Alain // November 3, 2008 at 6:35 am

    All the points made in these comments are in line with the article.
    True that growth rates in European soccer are not as high as US sports ; but precisely, th epoint being made is that US fans are being exploited by billionnaire owners.
    Also, there are billionaire owners investing in Europe, but actually much fewer than in the US. That is because the promotion / relagation system rewards the bigger teams. No more draft. It gives more power to bigger markets to attract the biggest young stars, thus making it more difficult for a newcomer to rise up the standings.
    Capitalism in US sports is actually the possibility the launch an alternate league, such as USFL or CBA. Not an easy proposition…

  • Harold Almonte // November 3, 2008 at 7:38 am

    Socialism? Not yet, but one of the top stages of capitalism, that is cartels. When the number of competitors, the offer, or the prize, are forced limited to avoid devaluations and loses, and investments are so expensive that can’t let the market to be free at all.

  • Harold Almonte // November 3, 2008 at 8:14 am

    A kind of socialism would be wether the teams were “obligued” to offer sharing or bonus papers. Even though the rookies drafting philosophy might be considered in this mold, it’s just a justification for not to lose cost level for the tickets.

  • Robert Macdonald // November 11, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    Fans of the World Unite is a really interesting book. Steve aned Stefan are smart cookies and write well about difficult ideas, but the argument they have not addressed thoroughly is “who shoudl own the independent competition organiser?”

    Why is it that clubs and (in their model) independent competition organisers should be owned by companies or people who can hold more than one vote in the election of the board of directors of that club or independent competition organiser?

    Fans of the world should indeed unite and throw off the tyranny of private club and competition ownership!

    Introduce a not-for-profit structure instead!

    As long as there is competition for slots in either a closed league or division 1 of a promotion-relegation system there will be incentives sufficient to allow clubs to seek subsidies from stadiums and cities, so surely it would be more palatable (a second or third best outcome in reality I guess) if the entities extracting those subsidies from taxpayers were not-for-profit entities rather than clubs owned by billionaire individuals or corporations.

  • Cam // November 14, 2008 at 8:22 am

    The American leagues are MUCH better organized than European soccer. Just look at the standings in the English Premiership over the past 5 years.

    1st 2nd 3rd 4th
    2008 Man U Chelsea Arsenal Liverpool
    2007 Man U Chelsea Liverpool Arsenal
    2006 Chelsea Man U Liverpool Arsenal
    2005 Chelsea Arsenal Man U Everton (Liverpool 5th)
    2004 Arsenal Chelsea Man U Liverpool

    Real exciting, eh? The Premiership CEO responded to the total lack of competitive balance by saying “There are a lot of different tussles that go on in the Premier League depending on whether you’re at the top, in the middle or at the bottom that make it interesting.” I’m sure fans of Fulham (17th, 16th, 12th, 13th, and 9th over the past 5 years) would agree.

    The socialist model allows Cleveland to draft Lebron James and Green Bay to keep Brett Favre for 16 years. Look at the league finals in each league last year. Pittsburgh, Tampa, and Detroit have all made a league final in the past year. New Orleans has one of the best NBA teams. Nashville is undefeated in the NFL. No one wants to watch New York versus LA dominate every sport every year. The socialist model certainly isn’t perfect, but it’s the best I’ve seen.

  • Robert Macdonald // November 17, 2008 at 5:56 am

    excellent point Cam. Great for fans of the big 4 and furthermore, most of the other battles depend upon the existence of a competition external to the EPL.

    Implement a Finals Series (where you might finish 8th of 16 yet get to contest a Grand Final – as in the Australian Football League; or win an NFC Wildcard yet playoff in the Super Bowl).That creates the level of uncertainty as the battles for euro qualification, but also gives fans something to cheer about (the chance of ultimate success) in their own competiton. This leaves a smaller rump of sides in the ‘relegation zone’ as the only element of the soccer P&R competitions where games might have greater legitimate interest than in a closed league, but Stefan has been telling us for some time that adequate prizemoney should be a sufficient incentive to motivate clubs to play hard when their hope of ultimate success is gone for the season. As noted above, the proposition that P&R will eliminate stadium subsidies can also be legitimately challenged.

  • An Assortment of Links on Football, Baseball, the Top Sports Economist, and a Wikipedia Page « The Wages of Wins Journal // December 9, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    [...] the end of October, I wrote a brief comment on the following book by Steve Ross and Stefan Szymanski: Fans of the World Unite! A (Capitalist) [...]

Leave a Comment