July 11, 2004

• i'm in no way at all involved in sports (either watching or playing), but i have to admit that is pretty interesting.
• i'm in no way at all involved in sports (either watching or playing), but i have to admit that is pretty interesting.
• Well, in this regard, the US sports industry closely resembles the "socialist" US farming and defense industries.
• Peter Ridsdale as Ken Lay? Hmmm, interesting... (I have to say, though, the more apropriate characterisation for the structure of American sport is probably feudal, as opposed to socialist. But it's a minor quibble, as that's not the real focus of the article.) I remember that I once wrote an article in which I noted that in Europe, we generally like our sport to feature fast, continuous action, instinctive gut reactions, and sudden-death, all-or-nothing risks; in America, however, the emphasis is on tactical planning and forward-thinking, repeated breaks to reconsider and adjust, and long, drawn-out series in which the opportunity for recovery always presents itself. Snidely, I remarked that opposite appeared to be true in the fields of politics, economics and philosophy. Tongue-in-cheek anti-Americanism aside, it has always struck me as odd that American Football and Baseball (and to a lesser extent Basketball) do seem to have something about them which appears as entirely opposite to standard American characteristics and ideals - Americans don't take timeouts! Even things like the offense/defense line-ups in AF... there's something about having an entirely different team for different parts of the match which seems more likely to have come from the mind of a Swedish town planner than a combative American sports coach. It is also odd that, by the crieria which actually do apply, cricket is the most American game in the world.
• On that front Flashboy I read in the last few days (but can't for the life of me remember where) an article which said that up to WW1 America was a leading cricket nation ...
• Well, apparently the Canada v USA cricketing rivalry goes all the way back to 1844, making it the oldest international cricket contest. And if Wisden says so, it must be true.
• Although Green Bay is the smallest market in professional sports, many would argue that the Packers owe much of their success to the fact that it's the only quasi-socialist football team in the NFL. The Green Bay Packers have no owner. They are the last remaining publicly owned pro sports team; they are literally owned by the fans, with 111,507 stockholders. [Shares of stock include voting rights, but the shares cannot be re-sold, except back to the team for a fraction of the original price. Limited transfer of shares (ie., to heirs and relatives) is permissible. No dividends are ever paid, and the stock cannot appreciate in value, as they are non-profit]. Yet, the Packers have had eight playoff appearances in last 10 years, and won most NFL titles (12). And with season-ticket holders from 47 states and D.C. (all except Vermont, Rhode Island and West Virginia), the team has a ~30 year waiting list(!) Only two other pro sports venues have been in continuous use longer than Lambeau Field -- Boston's Fenway Park and Chicago's Wrigley Field. As a non-profit shareholding corporation, it illustrates how restrictions on ownership transfers can keep control local and prevent runaway corporations. With a population of only ~100,000 people, Green Bay, Wisconsin has kept an NFL franchise in its community when any other privately-owned team would have moved to a larger market to make more money. The Packers could have used the threat of moving to blackmail the city into building them a new stadium. Instead, people in Green Bay, not a profit-seeking owner, control the Packers. All the Packers need under this ownership structure is a positive rate of return, not a maximum rate. There's a tornado coming, so I'm not going to proofread this.
• I suppose this is true to some extent... but they glossed over the fact that baseball is the least "socialist" of American major sports. While the NFL and NBA have instituted salary caps, luxury tax, etc to ensure that no team spends too much more on talent than any other, the Yankees continue to buy pretty much every good player they can find and have a payroll that dwarfs other teams. Here in America (are most people here not American? I just joined) baseball is seen as by far the most mismanaged of the major sports- the basketball and (American) football leagues clearly "work" while baseball is a running joke. Also, all that stuff about baseball being our "national pastime" is so passe. Realistically, to anyone under 30 at least, it's basketball. The saying should be amended to "if a man wants to understand America c. 1910, he must understand baseball."
• Also, all that stuff about baseball being our "national pastime" is so passe. Realistically, to anyone under 30 at least, it's basketball. Huh? Here's the data* from the most recent Harris Poll: FAVORITE SPORTS "If you had to choose, which ONE of these sports would you say is your favorite?" [Base: All adults who follow a sport] 29% Pro football 13% Baseball 10% Men
• Of course, the major inaccuracy in this is the conflation of "free market" and "capitalism"; in many ways baseball is the logical end point of command capitalism, where the rich guys get together and run things as a club for their own benefit, and lock out newcomers. British soccer is closer to a laissez-faire model with some light regulation, but generally a devil takes the hind most (there are measures like golden parachutes for teams dumped from the Premier division). So in some ways baseball does represent US style capitalism, after all. But soccer does rather deviate from the normal levels of regulation in Europe.