View Single Post
11-13-2012, 02:06 AM
Registered User
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 11,079
vCash: 500
It can be a rational decision to spend more than your income, in fact it is almost inevitable especially in the establishing phase of your business but there is also the reality that in ordinary business it is an extremely risky process (one which hits many small businesses pretty severely, a disturbingly large % of restaurant owners never recoups their initial investment).

Meanwhile in the NHL and other pro sports we have business owners whose main pre-occupation is to skew the economics of the whole industry in such a way as to essentially remove entrepreneurial risk entirely. The NHL stands out as particularly craven because its economics are simply more dysfunctional than those of the other leagues. But you see this general push in arena financing and you see it in CBAs.

But then pro sports are a unique oddity in the world of business, not really comparable to any regular industry (not even entertainment, an industry it technically could be considered part of) or other franchise systems (McDonald's franchises have an entirely different position and outlook toward each other and HQ than sports franchises).

In a pure business sense the position of the league makes perfect sense within the odd sphere that is pro sport economics, but at the same time the more the economics are 'rigged' and collectively arranged in favor of a more stable and safer businss environment the further you move away from the ethos of sport itself. In fact, one might argue *why* play games when the best way of guaranteeing interest and financial reward for all participants would be fixed storylines making sure that success and failure are distributed equally or rather tailored toward each team's needs at a given time. Sure, the fans wouldn't have it, one might say but then we already accept various and ever-increasing measures to "fix" the playing field toward that end.

Personally, I just think it stinks. It goes against the principle that draws me to sport more than anything: competition. What's the point of winning a championship if you win it with full awareness that the league went through a series of rule changes and adjustments to make sure it happned, that in fact they sacrificed two entire seasons to get it? But that's not how it's perceived, is it? Every team is entitled to compete for a championship, after all why else bother with it? Isn't that the very attitude that threatens our society overall?

TheMoreYouKnow is offline   Reply With Quote