OTish Why Arent NFL NBA MLB Teams Publically Held/TradedCorporations (and should they be)

[Kurt Heimlich]

Thread is the title. These leagues are worth who knows how many billions of dollars. And support nepotistc, monopolistic, oligarch type family wealth at the detriment of cities like ours, Chicago. Why are they so closely held like infinate wealth making baseball cards of the billionaire oligarchs?

[League Circles]

Umm, cause the owners don't want to sell them. Because they are reliable appreciating cash cows that are fun as hell to be in control of.

[dougthonus]

The Celtics were publicly traded for awhile.

I'd imagine that private owners are willing to pay more than the stock market because the value of the franchise for a small group of owners who get all the special access and other things probably goes well beyond the value of it purely from an investment perspective.

[Kurt Heimlich]

Umm, cause the owners don't want to sell them. Because they are reliable appreciating cash cows that are fun as hell to be in control of.

So yes, of course they don't. Is the question then when do City/regional sports become regulated utilities like ComEd or People's or Nicor Gas? They are monopolies, they are the live sports of our region and there are all sorts of rule blacking out various options accordingly. They fight tooth and nail to avoid monopoly/anti-trust designation as its a death sentence for their Oligarchical ownership of these sporting regions. But it's such an obviously real thing.

That said, I haven't watched a Bulls (or NBA) game this year. They've lost me as a once very devout fan/follower/revenue contributor. The Bears and the NFL are the creme of the crop in 2024 American sports so they have more runway than the Bulls and the NBA do as the Bulls and NBA have already eroded plenty of fanshare. But...slowly the creep of value gained vs time/money spent will catch with their revenue base too. Though with the NFL that revenue/follower decay is far less projectable compared to the NBA, for me at least.

[dougthonus]

So yes, of course they don't. Is the question then when do City/regional sports become regulated utilities like ComEd or People's or Nicor Gas? They are monopolies, they are the live sports of our region and there are all sorts of rule blacking out various options accordingly. They fight tooth and nail to avoid monopoly/anti-trust designation as its a death sentence for their Oligarchical ownership of these sporting regions. But it's such an obviously real thing.

I don't think the anti-trust designation is really all that deeply meaningful, because there is a collective bargaining agreement and a union, those rules take precedence for contract and over anti-trust regulation anyway. I'm not sure what you think would change if this designation was removed.

Maybe there could be some type of law suit over games not being able to be viewed nationally? I'm not sure, but the NFL was already sued for that with DTV, so I'm not sure if anti-trust status is helping them in that area or not? Possibly?

From a purely practical standpoint, there is never going to be a competitive market for other leagues.

Maybe you could put in some protections for price gauging and lower the cost of live events due to lack of competition? Not sure how likely that is or if there is any reasonable precedent of that.

[Kurt Heimlich]

So yes, of course they don't. Is the question then when do City/regional sports become regulated utilities like ComEd or People's or Nicor Gas? They are monopolies, they are the live sports of our region and there are all sorts of rule blacking out various options accordingly. They fight tooth and nail to avoid monopoly/anti-trust designation as its a death sentence for their Oligarchical ownership of these sporting regions. But it's such an obviously real thing.

I don't think the anti-trust designation is really all that deeply meaningful, because there is a collective bargaining agreement and a union, those rules take precedence for contract and over anti-trust regulation anyway. I'm not sure what you think would change if this designation was removed.

Maybe there could be some type of law suit over games not being able to be viewed nationally? I'm not sure, but the NFL was already sued for that with DTV, so I'm not sure if anti-trust status is helping them in that area or not? Possibly?

From a purely practical standpoint, there is never going to be a competitive market for other leagues.

Maybe you could put in some protections for price gauging and lower the cost of live events due to lack of competition? Not sure how likely that is or if there is any reasonable precedent of that.

ComEd, Peoples and Nicor all have Union contracts amongst their workforce, I guess I don't understand why having union workers would preclude a business from being a Monopoly? Anti-Trust/Monopolies, from my perview, are simply functions of our demoracy/republic that inherently lack competition based on their function. And stadiums and television deals feel VERY MUCH monopolistic in that very same way. Do we need them to survived like we do Electric, Heat, Water etc? No. But do they exert a ridiculously noncompetitive share of a market which destroys others ability to enter? Absolutely.

[dougthonus]

ComEd, Peoples and Nicor all have Union contracts amongst their workforce, I guess I don't understand why having union workers would preclude a business from being a Monopoly? Anti-Trust/Monopolies, from my perview, are simply functions of our demoracy/republic that inherently lack competition based on their function. And stadiums and television deals feel VERY MUCH monopolistic in that very same way. Do we need them to survived like we do Electric, Heat, Water etc? No. But do they exert a ridiculously noncompetitive share of a market which destroys others ability to enter? Absolutely.

I think you are missing my point (don't mean this negatively, but just literally). I'm not arguing that that they aren't regional monopolies, I'm asking what do you think would change by removing their anti-trust exemptions?

The most common thing anti-trust stuff does is ensure that there is a competitive market place and that companies can't leverage their monopoly status against competitors or laborers. The laborers are a moot point due to the CBA. The reasons there are no competitors are due to start up costs and likelihood of failure and not anything the leagues themselves are doing and likely wouldn't change even with anti-trust stuff.

From what I can tell, it wouldn't change anything with TV contract status, there are already law suits over RSN models. I don't know if the teams are prohibiting anyone from purchasing CHSN and broadcasting games? Maybe the league stops the Arizona market from showing chicago regional games on CHSN in Arizona, but the Chicago market can't get regional providers to carry the station let alone national ones, so how much difference does that make?

It gets into a weird debate because generally _everything_ that is on TV has exclusive broadcast rights, so seems like a stretch to say a sports league has to sell the same game to multiple providers, that isn't the way it works for movies or TV shows. So if they sell to ESPN, ESPN is available on many platforms, its your job to choose one that has it.

I don't know what you think happens if this goes away. Clearly the leagues are gaining some protections with this, but I'm not sure your experience as a fan would be cheaper or better or meaningfully different at all if this changed.

[Kurt Heimlich]

ComEd, Peoples and Nicor all have Union contracts amongst their workforce, I guess I don't understand why having union workers would preclude a business from being a Monopoly? Anti-Trust/Monopolies, from my perview, are simply functions of our demoracy/republic that inherently lack competition based on their function. And stadiums and television deals feel VERY MUCH monopolistic in that very same way. Do we need them to survived like we do Electric, Heat, Water etc? No. But do they exert a ridiculously noncompetitive share of a market which destroys others ability to enter? Absolutely.

I think you are missing my point (don't mean this negatively, but just literally). I'm not arguing that that they aren't regional monopolies, I'm asking what do you think would change by removing their anti-trust exemptions?

The most common thing anti-trust stuff does is ensure that there is a competitive market place and that companies can't leverage their monopoly status against competitors or laborers. The laborers are a moot point due to the CBA. The reasons there are no competitors are due to start up costs and likelihood of failure and not anything the leagues themselves are doing and likely wouldn't change even with anti-trust stuff.

From what I can tell, it wouldn't change anything with TV contract status, there are already law suits over RSN models.

I don't know what you think happens if this goes away. Clearly the leagues are gaining some protections with this, but I'm not sure your experience as a fan would be cheaper or better or meaningfully different at all if this changed.

For me the change would be the absolutey different ability of change in critical decision makers. Right now the bulls and bears have nepotisticly impowered old dudes deciding (terribly, predictably) for our regions teams (bulls and bears). In a capitalistic manner higher level decision makers would have replaced the reinsforfs and mccarkseys long ago via broader stockholder voting rights. Thats the thing. The reinsdorfs and mccakseys serve nepotiscially and monopolistically with immunity. And we meager regional fans are all the left to suffer.

[dougthonus]

For me the change would be the absolutey different ability of change in critical decision makers. Right now the bulls and bears have nepotisticly impowered old dudes deciding (terribly, predictably) for our regions teams (bulls and bears). In a capitalistic manner higher level decision makers would have replaced the reinsforfs and mccarkseys long ago via broader stockholder voting rights. Thats the thing. The reinsdorfs and mccakseys serve nepotiscially and monopolistically with immunity. And we meager regional fans are all the left to suffer.

Removing anti-trust exemption wouldn't change the owners of the teams any.

But to your point, if we envision a world where they are run by capitalists (and thus pursuing profit) then how is that different than what you are complaining about now? You could have bad owners from a decision making standpoint regardless of the mechanism the people got into power, and if you flip all teams to be primarily focused on maximizing shareholder value, I'm not sure that creates a better (or worse) experience for anyone.

That said, again, losing the anti-trust exemption wouldn't turn the teams into more capitalist enterprises, it would just allow people to sue them in areas they violate anti-trust laws.

[Kurt Heimlich]

For me the change would be the absolutey different ability of change in critical decision makers. Right now the bulls and bears have nepotisticly impowered old dudes deciding (terribly, predictably) for our regions teams (bulls and bears). In a capitalistic manner higher level decision makers would have replaced the reinsforfs and mccarkseys long ago via broader stockholder voting rights. Thats the thing. The reinsdorfs and mccakseys serve nepotiscially and monopolistically with immunity. And we meager regional fans are all the left to suffer.

Removing anti-trust exemption wouldn't change the owners of the teams any.

But to your point, if we envision a world where they are run by capitalists (and thus pursuing profit) then how is that different than what you are complaining about now? You could have bad owners from a decision making standpoint regardless of the mechanism the people got into power, and if you flip all teams to be primarily focused on maximizing shareholder value, I'm not sure that creates a better (or worse) experience for anyone.

That said, again, losing the anti-trust exemption wouldn't turn the teams into more capitalist enterprises, it would just allow people to sue them in areas they violate anti-trust laws.

Capital markets (Stock market) is a market open to anyone and everyone. The NFL and NBA are small familial (Oligarchical) markets controlled locally in our Chicagoland market by the Reinsdorfs/McCaskeys as they gradually erode our Bulls/Sox/Bears with their diluted family bloodline abilities.

Imagine if fresh minds could continuously buy/trade/own deciding shares in the Bears or Bulls? Imagine that natural, organic injection of talent and ability instead of stagnant cesspool of nepotism?

These old boys are just playing old boys money games. They're not the voice of the people and they are not part of our market and we are suffering for it as fans of these old sports.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

professional sports is a welfare program for rich people. every major professional sports team in the United States outperforms the S&P 500, it doesn't matter how poorly its managed. Morningstar provided some data a couple years ago, the average team has grown at least twice as much in the last 20 years. for the NBA, the average franchise grew at a three-times faster rate than the S&P 500. remember Donald Sterling? that guy was rewarded $2 billion for failing at his job and for being a disgusting individual. wonder what the city of Los Angeles could have done with that revenue.

as every municipality in the country struggles to find revenue sources outside of raising property taxes (practically, the only mechanism to raise funds), one should ask the question why professional sports teams are not just publicly owned outright. imagine if all the profits being taken by Reinsdorf (he's clearly not re-investing revenue) from the Bulls was a revenue source for the city of Chicago, or the county or the state. suddenly there's money to do stuff.

the public already pays for all of the infrastructure, the leagues are 'legal' monopolies. the Green Bay Packers begin to offer a model for successful implementation, though there is certainly a better system. the conditions are perfect for municipalization. ya know, why can we municipalize Commonwealth Edison but not the Chicago Bulls? the fanbase just loves Jerry that much and thinks he's entitled to the money?

[DuckIII]

Thread is the title. These leagues are worth who knows how many billions of dollars. And support nepotistc, monopolistic, oligarch type family wealth at the detriment of cities like ours, Chicago. Why are they so closely held like infinate wealth making baseball cards of the billionaire oligarchs?

The owners don’t want to take the corporation public.

Edit: nevermind, you have all moved well beyond that elementary point.

[Kurt Heimlich]

Thread is the title. These leagues are worth who knows how many billions of dollars. And support nepotistc, monopolistic, oligarch type family wealth at the detriment of cities like ours, Chicago. Why are they so closely held like infinate wealth making baseball cards of the billionaire oligarchs?

The owners don’t want to take the corporation public.

Why don't they, would you suppose Mr Duck? Anything rhyming with Bonopoly? Mayhaps?

I know you work in Law maybe as a Bar guy so I don't expect much insight but would love to read it if you did have some.

[League Circles]

For me the change would be the absolutey different ability of change in critical decision makers. Right now the bulls and bears have nepotisticly impowered old dudes deciding (terribly, predictably) for our regions teams (bulls and bears). In a capitalistic manner higher level decision makers would have replaced the reinsforfs and mccarkseys long ago via broader stockholder voting rights. Thats the thing. The reinsdorfs and mccakseys serve nepotiscially and monopolistically with immunity. And we meager regional fans are all the left to suffer.

Removing anti-trust exemption wouldn't change the owners of the teams any.

But to your point, if we envision a world where they are run by capitalists (and thus pursuing profit) then how is that different than what you are complaining about now? You could have bad owners from a decision making standpoint regardless of the mechanism the people got into power, and if you flip all teams to be primarily focused on maximizing shareholder value, I'm not sure that creates a better (or worse) experience for anyone.

That said, again, losing the anti-trust exemption wouldn't turn the teams into more capitalist enterprises, it would just allow people to sue them in areas they violate anti-trust laws.

Capital markets (Stock market) is a market open to anyone and everyone. The NFL and NBA are small familial (Oligarchical) markets controlled locally in our Chicagoland market by the Reinsdorfs/McCaskeys as they gradually erode our Bulls/Sox/Bears with their diluted family bloodline abilities.

Imagine if fresh minds could continuously buy/trade/own deciding shares in the Bears or Bulls? Imagine that natural, organic injection of talent and ability instead of stagnant cesspool of nepotism?

These old boys are just playing old boys money games. They're not the voice of the people and they are not part of our market and we are suffering for it as fans of these old sports.

AKME are offended.

[dougthonus]

Capital markets (Stock market) is a market open to anyone and everyone. The NFL and NBA are small familial (Oligarchical) markets controlled locally in our Chicagoland market by the Reinsdorfs/McCaskeys as they gradually erode our Bulls/Sox/Bears with their diluted family bloodline abilities.

Imagine if fresh minds could continuously buy/trade/own deciding shares in the Bears or Bulls? Imagine that natural, organic injection of talent and ability instead of stagnant cesspool of nepotism?

These old boys are just playing old boys money games. They're not the voice of the people and they are not part of our market and we are suffering for it as fans of these old sports.

Again, losing anti-trust wouldn't turn the companies into publicly traded ones or change owneship.

Also, for publicly traded companies, the power is in the hands of a relatively small number of shareholders who have enough voting power to pick the board (and thus the leadership) which also isn't likely meaningfully different from today's circumstances.

It's a zero sum game in the end, for every successful franchise, there is an unsuccessful franchise.

You seem to just want Reinsdorf to sell and think he's a terrible owner, but the anti-trust exemption isn't the problem there or at least to the extent it might be, you haven't described any reason why. Removing it doesn't remove Reinsdorf from power, it doesn't make the company publicly traded, if a company is publicly traded it doesn't mean you are going to get better owners or necessarily even have a larger number of group selecting owners.

[Kurt Heimlich]

Capital markets (Stock market) is a market open to anyone and everyone. The NFL and NBA are small familial (Oligarchical) markets controlled locally in our Chicagoland market by the Reinsdorfs/McCaskeys as they gradually erode our Bulls/Sox/Bears with their diluted family bloodline abilities.

Imagine if fresh minds could continuously buy/trade/own deciding shares in the Bears or Bulls? Imagine that natural, organic injection of talent and ability instead of stagnant cesspool of nepotism?

These old boys are just playing old boys money games. They're not the voice of the people and they are not part of our market and we are suffering for it as fans of these old sports.

Again, losing anti-trust wouldn't turn the companies into publicly traded ones or change owneship.

Also, for publicly traded companies, the power is in the hands of a relatively small number of shareholders who have enough voting power to pick the board (and thus the leadership) which also isn't likely meaningfully different from today's circumstances.

It's a zero sum game in the end, for every successful franchise, there is an unsuccessful franchise.

You seem to just want Reinsdorf to sell and think he's a terrible owner, but the anti-trust exemption isn't the problem there or at least to the extent it might be, you haven't described any reason why. Removing it doesn't remove Reinsdorf from power, it doesn't make the company publicly traded, if a company is publicly traded it doesn't mean you are going to get better owners or necessarily even have a larger number of group selecting owners.

Ok i guess from your perspective mayhaps I'm speaking dreams and wishes of a world better than which we currently live. Specifically with these billionaire oligarchs sports team owners, in America and Illinois and Chicago with which i also reside and hold allegiance and whom continue to operate in the way i havr previously
notee as offensive.

Slightly consequential, do you still have bulls locker room access doug? What a nightmare is this CHISM media attempt, right?

[DropStep]

the public already pays for all of the infrastructure, the leagues are 'legal' monopolies. the Green Bay Packers begin to offer a model for successful implementation, though there is certainly a better system. the conditions are perfect for municipalization. ya know, why can we municipalize Commonwealth Edison but not the Chicago Bulls? the fanbase just loves Jerry that much and thinks he's entitled to the money?

Is it a coincidence that, from what I can see, the Packers are among the best-run organizations in football? They seem to have a longer-term view than most teams, for some reason. Not trying to ask a loaded question, just wondering if those who know more about the inner workings than I do share my impression, or have opinions as to how their structure affects the product, if at all.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

You take a company public to raise money while selling a portion of your ownership. Team owners don't need to raise money, and it usually doesn't make a lot of sense to sell a portion of your business to someone else. Although there are a lot of examples of rich people buying a piece of a team.

On the other hand, if you're asking should they be publicly held organizations, good luck prying them from the cold, dead hands of those owners.

[dougthonus]

Ok i guess from your perspective mayhaps I'm speaking dreams and wishes of a world better than which we currently live. Specifically with these billionaire oligarchs sports team owners, in America and Illinois and Chicago with which i also reside and hold allegiance and whom continue to operate in the way i havr previously
notee as offensive.

Certainly I'm not telling you to love the current owners, only that anti-trust exemption isn't what keeps them in power.

Slightly consequential, do you still have bulls locker room access doug? What a nightmare is this CHISM media attempt, right?

No, I lost locker room access when I stopped signing up for it when I stopped writing for ChicagoNow probably around 2014. I'd guess they would have let me keep it for my podcast if I had kept signing up, but being gone 10 years, I'm probably out now even if I try

My experience with sports media is that its just a rough career. I had a few opportunities to attempt to do it professionally and make a living off of it, but it just always seemed like too big a risk and too little upside, so I had stopped largely to focus instead on putting my time into my tech career.

On the whole that seems like it was a good choice, though I do feel a bit jealous of some of my close contemporaries that made it work.

[dougthonus]

Is it a coincidence that, from what I can see, the Packers are among the best-run organizations in football? They seem to have a longer-term view than most teams, for some reason. Not trying to ask a loaded question, just wondering if those who know more about the inner workings than I do share my impression, or have opinions as to how their structure affects the product, if at all.

I'd guess it is coincidence. I do think they are run well, and I do think they consistently have good football people. However, I don't think the structure is how they arrive at those things, nor does the structure guarantee a team 3 generational quality QBs in a row (Starr, Favre, Rodgers).

As I said, in the end, it's a zero sum game, the overall quality is going to add up to the exact same in the league no matter what you do.