Above is a billboard placed in San Antonio ahead of this year's NBA Finals between the Miami Heat and the San Antonio Spurs. The advertisement is meant to poke fun at the Heat "Big Three" coming together via free agency in 2010, and in subsequent years adding veteran players to round out the roster. The billboard juxtaposed the Heat approach against the Spurs process as a team that was "built" through drafting and re-signing those players long term, rather than signing big name free agents in the offseason. These are two different strategies that have netted tremendous success for both organizations. That much is undeniable.
However, that billboards harkens back to an argument we hear from fans of every sport year after year. Fans of small market teams, teams who don't win championships, or just teams who miss out on the top free agents each year are certain to recite this mantra in some form. Here's how it sounds:
"The _____ aren't that great of an organization they just buy their championships. If my team had that kind of money we would be winning too!"
Sound familiar? Let's face it sports fans, we all have that friend or collection of friends who have used this argument to try and feel better about their team's shortcomings. It is easy to understand why these people fall prey to this school of thought. These dejected fans feel as though the deck is stacked against their favorite team and this is an excuse they can use to find solace. Well if you know the Chief Operating Officer of the "Built vs. Bought" coalition or you subscribe to this fallacy, I'm directing this article at you.
There are a few concepts fans need to be made aware of that utilize the argument of buying championships as an tactical advantage rather than a mandatory business practice. The first concept being that every player in every professional sport makes money. Nobody plays for free. So pretending your team was built rather than bought is nonsense because every player is picking up a paycheck, and a hefty one at that. Regardless of where your team finished, ownership paid for tat result. When a team like the Spurs elects to re-sign a player such as Tim Duncan or Tony Parker they are essentially paying them not to become a free agent. So those men were re-signed and chose not to exercise their free agent right which was collectively bargained by the owners and the player's association years ago. Looks like the Spurs were bought too.
The second concept I'd like to make fans aware of is the massive revenue stream all teams experience. You don't need to be a genius to recognize that professional sports in this country are big business. Most owners, if not all, are taking in profits hand over fist. If they weren't making so much money you wouldn't see someone like Donald Sterling feverishly trying to maintain ownership of his franchise after he was removed as owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. Furthermore, you wouldn't see millionaires placing bids on his team as if they are at the OTB for the Kentucky Derby. Even if a team is struggling and/or poorly managed, the owners will still generate a profit. Especially when we add revenue sharing to the mix.
Revenue sharing takes certain segments of revenue and divides it evenly amongst the teams. In short, that means the most successful organizations are obligated to help out the floundering ones. Revenue sharing exists in all four of our major sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) in some capacity, with the NHL being the last to implement such a policy in 2013. This dispels any disdain fans might have about a financial discrepancy-- all owners have money. Whether they choose to spend it on the franchise or not is their own choice. A choice some fans cannot wrap their head around. This neatly introduces the third concept novice fans might have missed.
Anybody who has succeeded in business will tell you that in order to make money you must spend money. So when the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox choose to spend truckloads of cash every offseason you shouldn't downgrade them. Those teams do everything they can to try and win championships. The Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics try to exhaust all options to win each and every year. Those owners care about winning more than money, because winning creates more money, and they know that. When an owner elects to spend less on and give less to the franchise, realize it's a business decision. Every owner is a millionaire who is profiting. Let's not forget this team isn't their only source of income either. These owners made money doing something else, and are probably still making money off of it.
We love sports because of the competition. It gives us all a chance to measure up. Your team against mine and let's see who wins. Can your team take home the title? We can't get enough of it. So look at this from a different perspective. When you play a sport/game of any kind, you are playing to win. As a player in that contest you are trying to do all that you can within the rules to win right? (Well, in the case of Monopoly you may grab an extra 500 dollar bill or try and slip past Boardwalk but that's another story.) When fans speak negatively about a team that does everything it can to win, remember this example. Why wouldn't you root for a team that does all it can to win? Isn't that how we run our own lives? I'm fairly confident we don't wake up and say, "I'd love to lose at poker night with the guys." or, "You know, I'd be thrilled if I could lose my tennis match this afternoon." or "I'm really hoping I don't get that promotion I've been working towards." That isn't how we think, so it is silly to defend owners who act that way. We can't ignore the entertainment sports provides and I'm not saying we shouldn't enjoy the ride. However, the purpose is to compete for a chance to be the best. That is why sports fans watch their teams each and every year.
These concepts soundly defeat the argument of built vs. bought. Those people who contend that teams buy championships have a point. Every franchise buys their championships. Every franchise also pays for wherever they finish amongst their competitors.
No comments:
Post a Comment