Should Cities Own MLB Teams Instead Of People? The Media's Latest Terrible Idea
There's little argument to be made that sports team owners don't buy and keep their franchises for civic benefit. Unsurprisingly, like most wealthy individuals, their chief motivation for owning a sports team is because they're lucrative businesses.
Though fans often view their teams as institutions that are permanently associated with their cities, like, say, airports, in reality they're almost always privately owned companies. That means relocation can be used as a form of extortion for public funding. This scenario just recently played out with the Oakland A's, where owner John Fisher announced he'd move the team to Las Vegas after not receiving a handout to his liking.
And in classic Fisher fashion, there's already an exit clause for the team to leave Vegas earlier than its 30-year commitment.
READ: The A’s Already Have A Built-In Exit Clause To Leave Las Vegas
So does that mean teams should be owned by the public, instead of private individuals? That's exactly what one sportswriter for CBS, R.J. Anderson, suggested in a recent column. The piece, titled "Public ownership works for some of world's best sports teams -- is there a future for the idea in America?"
It's not new; this concept has been used in other countries and, to some extent, with the Green Bay Packers. It's also a terrible idea.
Dec 31, 2023; East Rutherford, New Jersey, USA; Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke on the field before a game against the New York Giants at MetLife Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports
Public Ownership Is Bad, Because The Government Is Bad At Owning Things
One lawyer, Stephen R. Keeney, told Anderson that Americans inaccurately believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.
"I think the idea is so foreign to the average American sports fan that there aren't necessarily well-developed arguments against it, at least not that I'm aware of," Keeney said to CBS Sports. "I think the biggest misconception is just the false, big-picture idea that the private sector is always more efficient than the public sector which is constantly hammered into Americans. It's a notion that fails the most basic level of scrutiny."
What fails the most basic level of scrutiny is believing that the public sector is capable of any level of efficiency.
While criticism has justifiably been leveled at Fisher for taking handouts from the public despite being a billionaire, the city, Oakland, that prompted him to leave is, to put it nicely, a dumpster fire. Oakland's become a national laughingstock, with crime, urban decay and business closures.
In-N-Out, the most popular business in every city in which it operates, closed its own location in Oakland in 2024 because of the unsafe environment for its customers and employees.
READ: Oakland's Only In-N-Out Is Closing Because Oakland Is A Hellhole Dump Full Of Crime & Scumbags
And media commentators want to give cities control over sports teams too?
There's something to be said for the democratization of sports ownership. Obviously, private ownership creates different incentives, often some that don't align with those of the fans who pay the entry fees. But comparing Real Madrid to say, the Tampa Bay Rays, is unrealistic. And given how poorly New York, LA, San Francisco and other cities are doing, do we really want to give them control over more institutions?