The Sports Dynasty
For those who can use a break from massive hurricanes, devastating earthquakes, and threats of complete nuclear annihilation, I take on the considerably lighter issue of the sports dynasty.
The term sports “dynasty” presumably derives from the powerful empires that have ruled the world for long stretches of time, often with more than a touch of ruthlessness. Some of the biggies have included the Russian Empire that lasted nearly 200 years, the Han Dynasty that controlled China for close to 400 years and, of course, the Roman Empire which lasted over 2000 years.
So I say to you gloating Patriots, Warriors, and, especially, Cubs fans who act as if they “own” their sport because they have been the best team for all of one year or two: “You aint done nothin’ yet! I have read about dynasties and your team sir is no dynasty!”
But even putting the dynasty term in a sports context, the current dominant teams bear no comparison to the great teams in sports history. The Montreal Canadians of the 1950’s won 5 straight Stanley Cups! The New York Yankees of the 40’s and 50’s similarly won 5 World Series in a row and from 1947 through 1958 appeared in 9 World Series, winning 8 of them! The Boston Celtics of the late 1950’s and 60’s won 8 consecutive NBA Championships and 10 of 11 from 1959-1969!
In fairness, it is far more difficult today to become a sports dynasty. The only major pro sport that currently has a repeat champion is the Pittsburgh Penguins in hockey and I would bet a case of Molson and a dead octupus from Detroit that they won’t win it again this year. The New England Patriots and Golden State Warriors look like promising candidates to win a second consecutive championship this year- both are heavily favored to do so- but they have a long way to go to achieve dynasty status. The Warriors undoubtedly have the best chance of any current pro sports team to dominate for several years, given the embarrassment of riches of having three of the best basketball players in the world on a single team- in a sport where only five play at a time. Nevertheless, the likelihood of even the Warriors winning 5 championships in a row is, I suspect, at least 25-1.
One reason for the diminution of the sports dynasty is that there are more great players to spread around. No doubt this is due to our nation’s obsession with sports and the inducement of fame and wildly lucrative financial returns to the chosen few who actually make it to the Promised Land. Accordingly, there are hoards of parents of coordinated young progeny who spend oodles of $ and time in the hopes that little Joey and now Janice will become a superstar athlete, earn a Division 1 college scholarship, and then perhaps millions in the pro ranks.
Of course, these dreams are unrealistic for all but a few but they are fueled by the rare remarkable story of success – none more so than that of Richard Willaims who decided when his daughters were 4 1/2 that they would be pro tennis players and that he, an average tennis player at best, would train them. Naturally, that absurd proposition and formula produced not just one but two of the greatest tennis players ever to play the game.
While the vast majority falls short, the early and concentrated instruction to child prodigies through “select” leagues, combined with a massive infusion of money into training, coaching and nutriton, has produced faster, stronger and more gifted athletes. Witness the explosion of young adults in recent years who can throw a baseball over 95 mph when that used to be considered a freak of nature. Or the number of 6 foot 10 guys who can hit long range 3s when that shot used to be largely reserved to the small point guard. The plethora of talent has to a some degree leveled the playing field.
But the demise of the sports dynasty is primarily because leagues have set up barriers designed to deter domination – it’s just not good business to have one or even a few teams be far superior to the others. When one team completely dominates like the Canadians, Yankees and Celtics did in the 50’s all a team could realistically shoot for was second place. Why would fans elsewhere want to spend the huge sums it costs these days to go to a professional sporting event (or bother to watch on TV) if one team was a virtual lock to win every year?
Sports leagues have attempted to equalize the teams with the draft (allowing the teams with the worse records the previous year to draft before teams with a better record) and with unbalanced schedules (the NFL). But the biggest attempt to legislate equality among teams is the team salary cap which prevents teams from spending more than specified amount in any given year. It would clearly constitite an antitrust violation were it not for the fact that the players have agreed to it in their Collective Bargaining Agreements.
Three of the four major pro sports leagues in the U.S. now have some version of a salary cap: the NHL ($74 Million), the NBA ($99 Million with some exceptions) and the NFL ($167 Million). Although MLB has no salary cap, it imposes a heavy “luxury tax” on teams who spend more than the established threshold ($189 Million in 2016), which serves to deter most teams from doing so (though the richest teams – Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox- routinely exceed the amount anyway).
Although owners conceived the salary cap primarily as an attempt to limit the growth of player salaries, it was marketed and justified primarily as a necessity to ensure that smaller markets had a legitimate chance to compete with larger market teams. The salary cap has, in fact, helped deter the prospects for a dynasty team in my view. There is nothing quite like winning a championship to drive up their players’ value (or at least their agents’ assessment of their value) and thus increase the likelihood that some of the players will have to leave for another team with more cap space.
But what about the purported justification for the salary cap- trying to ensure that the smaller market teams have an equal chance to compete? How well has that worked? Not well based on the last decade of evidence.
Of the last 10 World Series Champions, 8 were large market teams (New York, Philly, SF (x3), and Boston (x2)). Indeed all of theses cities are among the top 10 TV markets in the country. Only the Missouri teams – St. Louis (the 21st largest market)) and Kansas City (#33) were smaller market teams who have won a World Series in the last decade. Similarly in the NBA, 8 of the last 10 Champions were from large markets (LA (x2), Dallas, SF (x2), Boston, and Miami (x2)). Only Cleveland (19) and San Antonio (31) could be considered smaller markets. In the NHL all of the last 10 Stanley Cup winners have come from the largest markets (LA (x2), Chicago (X3), Boston, and Detroit) with the exception of Pittsburgh (23), which has won three times in the decade.
Even if you just talk about making the playoffs, the teams from larger markets consistently fare much better than smaller markets. In this year’s upcoming baseball’s playoffs, for example, almost every team will be from a large market, including a representative from each of the nation’s three largest markets. While a couple smaller market teams may manage to squeak in as a wildcard (the Minnesota Twins or Milwaukee Brewers or even the St. Louis Cardinals), their playoff run will likely last no more than one game. If the bean counters at MLB could have selected the 10 teams to compete for a championship from a purely financial standpoint they would be hard-pressed to come up with a much better group of teams. It almost makes you think the outcome was fixed.
Indeed, if the Leagues could craft the ideal competitive balance to maximize their own profits- which only the most naïve believe is not their primary objective- it would likely involve having rotating champions (so that there was no team dynasty) but only among the large market teams. And that is pretty much what they seem to have achieved in the NBA, NHL, and MLB- if they could only just get rid of those pesky San Antonio Spurs and St. Louis Cardinals types who manage to compete year after year despite numerous economic disadvantages.
The one exception in all of this, oddly enough, is the NFL. The key difference between the NFL and the other major pro sports leagues is that the NFL splits all of its massive TV revenue equally among the teams- tiny Green Bay gets the same revenue share as New York- apparently more than $400 Million each in 2017. Who would have thought that a bunch of billionaires who preach capitalism, demand tax relief and subsidies to build stadiums, and are mostly die hard Republicans would employ an economic system that is, frankly, so socialistic?
Sure the larger market teams still have some significant revenue advantages in the NFL – more expensive luxury boxes, more expensive tickets, more expensive advertising and more expensive stadium naming deals. The St. Louis Rams’ value instantly doubled according to Forbes the day they became the Los Angeles Rams (and it was not due to attendance or fan interest). But the decision to equally divide the League’s largest source of revenue has had an unmistakable impact on the equality of teams.
The NFL is the only league where smaller market teams have had as much success at winning the Super Bowl as the larger market teams. Of the last 10 Super Bowl Champs, 5 have been from larger markets ( New York, Boston/New England (x2), Seattle, and Denver) and 5 have been from smaller markets ( Pittsburgh (23), Baltimore (26), Indianapolis (27), Green Bay/Milwaukee (35) and New Orleans (50)).
There is also far more parity in the NFL than in any of the other pro sports. It is the only league where there has been only one repeat champion in the last decade. Moreover, the NFL has never had a dynasty team in the 50+ years since the 1966 merger of the NFC and AFC. There have been many excellent teams over the past half-century but their dominance has been relatively short lived. Seven teams have repeated as champions- Green Bay, Miami, San Francisco, Dallas, Denver, New England, and Pittsburgh (twice)- but no team has ever three-peated.
Which brings us to the question: Do we sports fans prefer a league where one team is phenomenal but so outstanding that no other team has a realistic chance to win? Or having a league where the championship trophy hops from town to town indiscriminately each year with no team having sustained superiority ( or as some critics might say, sustained mediocrity)?
Those who support the dynasty concept argue that we should reward success and the highest possible performance. It’s the American spirit, the free market system and the survival of the fittest. It’s “good for the game” that the best teams are consistently from the biggest markets. Having the cream of the crop rise and stay at the top for a while is also a good thing. It encourages other teams to get better and work harder. And only in the dynasty scenario is there a true underdog, a David and Goliath, to root for or against.
A good buddy is a Golden State Warrior fan who spends a significant chunk of money to regularly attend games of his beloved team. The Warriors have only lost something like 6 home games in the last two years out of nearly 100 played, and they did not lose a single home game in the playoffs last year in 9 home games. And yet my very astute friend seems to be just as excited to attend a Warriors home game as a Cubs fan witnessing their first World Series in 107 years. I have asked him how this is possible when he knows beforehand that his team will undoubtedly win the game, the only question is by how much? Doesn’t the game lose some of its appeal because his team is simply too good? He insists that his interest is not diminished, and that the athletic performance of his team is pure artistry- an amazing and beautiful thing to watch. Surely anyone who has watched Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant play can appreciate that.
But at the same time, doesn’t the game cease to be a sport without real competition? Doesn’t it instead become more like a performance- an opera or a musical or, in sports terms, like watching the Harlem Globetrotters – impressive talent to be sure but akin to an exhibition? Once you’ve seen Meadowlark Lemon’s act a few times, however incredible, it loses some of its luster.
At the end of the day, I think the uncertainty of the outcome is an essential component of sport from a fan’s perspective. If the outcome is a virtual lock, the only thing that can salvage broad fan interest, frankly, is gambling.
In any case, I doubt we’ll ever see another true sports dynasty.
Photo Copyright: nejron, 123 rf.com
