Money shot of sensibility comes from the following quote:
Labor deals, LeBron, the Zombie-Sonics, these things show us that in the subsidized world of sports, we have supported owners rather than supporting sports. Although the subsidization seems completely unnecessary, if we are going to subsidize, we need to subsidize the sport, not the owners. And like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach strings, meaning we get to set rules so that there are no work stoppages, and so that the sport is fair to the fans, since we ultimately spend the money that makes the owners and players rich (the contempt they show for fans is another subject). (Emphasis added).
I feel like this point is not emphasized, either in the previous NFL collective bargaining agreement fiasco or now with the NBA, nearly enough. There is tons of coverage of whether the owners or the players are greedy/getting screwed/et al. and coverage about how the fans are getting the short end of the stick because the are not games, but not nearly enough on the fact that these sports are, in nearly all cases, subsidized by the tax payer. The fans should have part ownership of the direction of these leagues because, as the author of the letter notes, "[...] like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach the strings [...]."
Well, 'cept on Wall Street. Because Wall Street needs to be internally regulated. Imagine what could happen if they had regulations...
Unfortunately our panicky local governments will always bend over and take it from pro teams - recession-minded individuals would point out that they should stop allocating tax money for seemingly non-essential items, but we've seen teams pack up and move when the city wouldn't spend outrageously on their behalf, and you've also got people and businesses crying over the loss of jobs and revenue in stadiums/bars/etc. Hazarding a guess that public subsidies aren't going away soon, nor will their strings get attached.
ReplyDeleteY'know?
I agree that the owners do have power when it comes to moving, but that is where the strings come in. There is no reasons the subsidies have to come free of any stipulations. Such as, if you move the team within X years without completely paying back any and all tax breaks, you must pay X penalty. I believe this is, essentially, what happened in the Seattle/OKC deal. 'Cept Seattle still got basically screwed. Anything can be written into a contract and stipulations should be added in the realm of sports so that owners don't act with impunity.
ReplyDelete