Ownership, Duty, and Market Size

WHEN A PERSON (OR CORPORATION) BUYS A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAM WHAT OBLIGATION TO THEIR PARTICULAR URBAN AREA DOES HE ALSO ACQUIRE?

Let’s start off with the premise that some sort of public trust is assumed by the owner of a professional team.  After all, he has also purchased the right to use a large urban area’s name for that franchise (i.e. Pittsburgh, Chicago).  And yet, at the same time, he is ultimately running a business which must show a profit in order to stay in existence.  How can the owner possibly reconcile meeting his obligation (wins) to his urban constituency (fans) if he owns a small market team?  In what way can we differentiate the importance of entertainment from that of winning?  Does your favorite team’s ownership act as if they are the custodians of a civic trust or are you expected “to bow down” in thanks because they are so benevolent to reside in your city?

With some of the enormous salaries being paid to players today and the wide disparity in revenue potential between large market and small market teams, is the performance criteria different for ownership?  Is it “fair” (a word I actually hesitate to use because it is one of the most abused words in politics today) for the owner of a small market team to be held to a lower standard of performance (wins) when in a lower revenue market?  Who deserves the most credit?  Has the upper management of a team with a budget of $50 million dollars for player payroll which barely misses the playoffs done a better job than a team with a payroll of  $130 million which loses in the first round of the playoffs?  Or does the fact that a team has a budget of $50 million for payroll simply mean that ownership should not have paid so much for the team?  Once he decided to “jump in the water” he accepted the burden of having his team’s performance (wins) judged on a parity with all other teams regardless of whether he is in a large or small market?

Let’s throw one more piece of meat into the stew.  Here is the philosophy under which Bill Veeck ran the three professional teams he owned during the 1940-1960 era:  “The best way to tell you what we did to draw these crowds is to tell you what we did not do.  We did not open the ticket windows and expect the citizenry to come rushing up with their money in their fists.  {I} have never operated on the theory that a city owes anything to the owner of a baseball franchise, out of civic pride, patriotic fervor or compelling national interest.  Baseball has sold itself as a civic monument for so long that is has come to believe its own propaganda.  There is nothing owed to you.  A baseball team is a commercial venture, operating for a profit.  The idea that you don’t have to package your product . . . attractively . . . is baseball’s most pernicious enemy.”

Veeck is undoubtedly the all-time best baseball promoter and innovator with regards to packaging entertainment to go along with the game on the field.  He has eloquently stated what a city does not owe a pro franchise.  This leaves begging for discussion today’s “Pastor Paul’s Ponderous Posing”:  WHAT DOES A TEAM OWE THE CITY WHEREIN IT RESIDES?  IF IT DOES OWE SOMETHING, WHAT IS IT, AND BY WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD IT BE JUDGED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF IT HAS MET ITS OBLIGATION?  Begin to weigh in with your comments.

P.S.  For further “Pastor Paul”  comments surrounding this issue read my forthcoming Sunday sermon “Econometrics and Stewardship” ( also READ & learn the hypothesis for “Brother Ben’s” Econometrics MLB Standings) and my follow-up Wednesday vesper service, titled “Prepare For a Wreck – Here Comes Mr. Veeck”.

Pastor Paul – “seeking for knowledge of the truth.”