I think meddlesome sports owners are a good example of why capitalism and private property are bad.

[Educational Post]
Tell me, friend what are your leadership credentials that make you so wise as to the finer aspects of leadership?

 

A sports team isn't society's resource, it is the owner's.

And were it not for capitalism...sports teams like the Rockets wouldn't exist at all.

So, the argument is flawed, no matter which way you look at it.

There is a very simple solution to inept ownership. Stop watching their games.

Having the merits to buy the team doesn't guarantee the merits to running it successfully. Usually not, in fact, as none of the owners got their wealth through sports management.

But, again, capitalism offers the solution. Stop buying their product, and ownership will change.

Which is why people work at those companies. For their own benefit. If they could work somewhere else, they would, and should. Again, problem solved.

I don't. So, the question then is...why do you? If you don't like your job, quite and get another. If you don't like your team's ownership...stop buying their product. The solution is readily apparent, yet you fail to grasp it.

 

I have seen many successful companies destroyed by leaders and poor decision making that was done to maximize profits but failed to understand what had made the company successful.

This is not a function of capitalism but one of ego and human fallacy.

 

Unless of course the team is owned by the city. I think there are some NFL teams that are like that.

But citizens do pay for the stadiums and venues where the teams' games are located. Les doesn't own Toyota center. Minute Maid park is paid for in part by the hotel/rental car taxes etc.

The owner is powerless to have a team unless citizens help fund a location to play the games.

Your solution is drastic and unrealistic. Your solution punishes the GM, managers, players, people who produce and deliver concessions, the folks that sell the concessions, Houston's local television and cable markets, the people who do maintenance at the stadiums, the folks who run the parking, etc.

Furthermore you provide incentive for local sports networks and cable stations to not want to broadcast the games when there is always the option that all the fans will abandon the team because of an owner's stupid mistake.

It will hurt the team further down the road than just for the duration of the bad coach's stay.

 

Every human has the right to a local sports team that does exactly what he/she wants. Obama better address this immediately.

 

I'm pretty sure the only pro sports team in the big 4 leagues that is publicly owned is Green Bay.

 

capitalism and private property are about freedom and free exchange

meritocracies may exist within that environment, but not always

 

I agree. We should let the government regulate how private companies maximize their profits and how they spend this money.

 

Well I have seen estimates that the Rockets franchise is worth 1.5 billion. Approximately 500 million of which is due to the attractive lease on the Toyota Center which we the tax payers have paid for.

As to whether a city or the fans could own a team. See the Green Bay Packers.

The Packers are certainly a major sports franchise which competes with the billionaire owners of other major sports franchises.

 

that would run counter to notions of freedom and free markets

and pro sports are so heavily subsidized/regulated, they can hardly be held up as an example of capitalism

 

Personally, I think this should be a more common model. Green Bay is the one example I know of, and a good thing too, or Green Bay would likely have lost its team a long time ago.

Yes, and no. Generally, these stadiums and venues are paid for with revenue streams set up to tax everyone BUT the citizens there (hotels, rental cars, etc). Which violates the most fundamental principle of our country...the very reason we broke off from England---no taxation without representation. The people being taxed are excluded from being able to vote on said tax.

Is it? Other than refusing to fund the efforts of an owner one despises, what other, or more effective, recourse is there? Fans have complained, vociferously, about ownership as long as there have been sports teams. Yet the problem remains. Clearly, no other solution works.

Yes, this is true. although after the ownership changes, or the ownership changes its actions...and it absolutely would, all this business returns. So, again, what better option is there?

.

That option has always existed. Fans are just too stubborn to exercise it. Even for a few minutes. Then they complain, like here, that the ownership doesn't pay attention to them. Duh...why should they, if everyone keeps going?

If you really think this is true, then be content with the status quo.

 

Capitalism,like, well ANY -ism, or basically anything in life. tends to reward luck and randomness as much as it rewards skill.

The problem is that those who are the beneficiaries of it (who are undoubteldy skillful much of the time) tend to over-attribute their success to their own skill, rather than luck, and frequently tend to overreach when taking on situations where they aren't as lucky.

That's why expert forecasting, for example, is probably some of the very worst forecasting there is in terms of accuracy.

 

Pretty sure that was exactly SpaceGhosts point.

Actually, those are examples OF capitalism in action. Seeking those subsidies...is that not ownership trying to maximize its profits?

Which does open up another avenue of protest.
1). Don't vote for the subsidies. Houston did these before, because they hated the owner, and the owner took the team and left.
2). Let the local politiicans know that THEY will be voted out of office if they don't fix it. Not sure the politicians can really do much after the fact (owner can just tell them bugger off), but still an option.

But, still, by far the best way for fans to protest is don't go. You don't think an empty stadium, even for just the beginning of the game, wouldn't get the owner's attention? And that of the media? But fans have attempted this, and it never works out. We apparently will eat whatever crap the owner gives us, and do so quite willingly. So, who is the idiot in this scenario...the ownership, or the consumers?

 

The NBA isn't very "capitalist" if you look at the structure.

America isn't very "capitalist" either.

 

And the fans/owners of the Packers have no say so in the every day running of the club. Also, their 'stock' in the team is essentially worthless.

 

I am fairly certain, with the vast number of times I have rented a car and/or stayed in a hotel while I have been in Houston, I have paid more towards the Astros, Rockets and Texans stadium than most citizens of Harris county and most of the posters on this board.

 

That's because "capitalism" itself (much like socialism) is a term that means whatever people want it to mean.

Usually it means a regulatory system most favorable to my preferred group of winners.

 

D'Antonism will soon be coming to the Toyota Center