The Generation Gap in Soccer

Soccer is still in diapers in America. It is not played on the street, in every park, or in every playground around the country, like it is in almost every other country. Kids don't grow up exposed to the game on a daily basis – it's not in the media, in politics or in recreation. We are making progress, but I believe we are still a generation or two away from challenging for a World Cup title. Professional soccer is sparsely televised on TV, unless you purchase Fox Soccer Channel, Setanta, or GolTV. There just isn't a market for it yet. It is growing, but in America, soccer is growing at a limited level. We don't see children playing pick-up games, in the ghettos, in gyms or on the streets, like it is everywhere else in the world. Everywhere you look around the world, you see soccer being played, talked about and worshiped. More importantly, the generation gap between our youth and elders has developed a conflicting interest for the sport. The older generation in America lacks the love, passion and support for soccer. This is due to the fact that most people over 30 have never played, watched or even understand the game. Yet, for our youth it is the most growing and popular sport. In other words, soccer in America is like a developing 3^rd world country (the U.S.) compared to a developed 1^st world country (the rest of the world). Conversely, on a global level there is not a generation gap, explaining why soccer is the most "popular" game in the rest of the world, but not in the US.

In the States, soccer is un-American, viewed as boring and soft. The older generations are typically critics of soccer in America, opposing the game because of nationalistic, Americanization and traditionalist views. Most view it as a friendly game, minority exhibition, and recreational activity – an inferior sport. Football, baseball and basketball were all invented in the US, whereas soccer was invented in Europe. This fact makes people very jealous, resentful and wary about the beautiful game. Many see soccer as a transcending sport, embracing a foreign culture and a new outlook on sports.

The older generation's current attitude of our soccer can best be illustrated with the acquisition of David Beckham, and it begs a question of manliness of soccer players. These anti-soccer generations of sports fans are disappointed by Beckham because he failed to play in the much of this MLS season due to injury. In his debut he failed to start despite the hoopla surrounding his debut. In the eyes of critics, he didn't "tough it out" or "play through" his injury, thus tarnishing his reputation from the beginning and further diminishing soccer's value in their eyes. It is unfortunate that he was hobbled, yet most of our youth who understand the game realize his skill level and his needed recovery time. But for the average sports fan, his inability to make an immediate impact and persevere with all of America watching doesn't help soccer. The hard hitting in the sport goes unnoticed because most have never played the game and don't understand that getting flogged in the ankles, legs and feet takes a tremendous toll on the body. Slide tackles, trips, and the constant pushing and shoving without pads is not respected in America, especially since our adults and elders ages 30 and up have grown up with balls in their hands and not at their feet.

The generation gap is an issue that we must face in terms of our nation's achievement in the World Cup and on an international level. In terms of soccer in America, I am a firm believer that we are still a generation away from being able to compete. I think it will be the kids born in 2010 and beyond that will make the most impact on the success for soccer in America. Until soccer reaches the inner cities and kids everywhere are introduced to a more knowledgeable and experienced older generation of coaches, fans and experiences, we will continue to be a lower tiered country in soccer. After all the passion for soccer in America is lacking because we don't have the support system, knowledge, or soccer players of an older generation. Soccer really has just begun here, and unfortunately, we are just initiating our soccer tradition. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a dramatic change in American soccer. It moved out of our ethnic communities and was adopted by suburban families across the country. Soccer became the sport of choice for many suburban parents, who gave the sport a unique character. The NASL began and disappeared despite some of the greatest players competing in the 80's and with the creation of the MLS in the 90's we are the ugly duckling of the of the soccer world. Hopefully, we don't let the tortoise get away! Soccer pioneers in developing American soccer will be our current enthusiasts and our younger generations should be in the best position to take advantage of the United States soccer market once its consumers begin taking a more active interest in the sport. Given the increased scope of television and the internet, the time line for this conversion is shortening and the age gap is diminishing, slowly but surely.

 

 

 

 

A Goal or Not A Goal: Official Assisted Technology Systems (OATS)

Uncertainty, controversy and ambivalence continue to surround professional soccer. An appointed FIFA referee, enforces the laws of the game in cooperation with assistant referees. Despite their professionalism, good faith, and honest judgments, one cannot ignore the subjectivity, human error, and poor perceptions that coincide with a prompt decision. Having studied, mastered and applied the rules, we presume it is the duty and responsibility of officials calls to be made in the best interests of soccer. Yet, we aren't perfect. Even the best, most informed, and well intentioned people make decisions that, in hindsight, are hasty. As much as we loathe and scrutinize officials for not getting it right all the time, our criticism is warranted. Officials should be held to a higher standard and need to be publically censured for their errors in judgment because it is their professional opinions that rule in a soccer match. It keeps them on their toes! However, that is not to say we shouldn't make their job easier. While it is reasonable check to criticize imperfect referees' judgments, a fair balance would be rewarding them use of official assisted technology systems (OATS).

 

We expect matches to be managed according to the rules, in a fair, unbiased manner. Putting soccer officials under a microscope reveals matches aren't always properly governed. Team administration, players, coaches, fans, owners, gamblers, and all others that have an interest in the outcome on the pitch, rely on officials to do their jobs correctly. Yet, referees continue to endorse unwarranted penalty kicks, offside calls and goals. These mistakes have a tremendous impact on the result of a game because they create monetary losses for fans, teams, players, coaches, and all related parties. Wins and losses, player performance and competitive balance are all affected by referee injustice. When this equity is jeopardized due to a faulty verdict, catastrophic losses accrue. According to UEFA, in the 2006 Champions League Final, a significant $5 million in earnings difference exists, - $13 million for the winner, compared to $8 million for the loser. As you can see, a single bad call, like awarding a penalty kick (PK) for a "dive," could have a substantial impact on the amount of total revenues that would go to the winning and losing clubs. This money offsets expenses in the form of players' salaries, team equipment, youth development, etc. An unfair judgment also negatively impacts fan equity and disgruntles soccer supporters, owners, bettors, merchants, advertisers, fanatics, sponsors, media, etc. whom all have investments in the match. And the most noteworthy loser is FIFA, whom suffers ultimately from lost value in terms of customers, fairness, respect, reputation, etc. The consequences are mind-boggling. Referee mistreatment due to a missed offside call, a "hand of god" goal, or a tally awarded where the ball has never actually crossed the goal line, could cost a team an enormous sum.

 

Without change, erroneous decisions will continue to lead to questionable tournament winners, goals that never were, and history changing calls. When officials make errors, they are often significant to the game and apparent to those watching it. Look at some of these examples. Cannobio's "goal" to upset Real Madrid, Hurst's "goal" in the 1966 World Cup Final (a different angle), a true Berti goal disallowed, Adriano scoring from an offside position, Fowler is called "offside" and Viera's "header." As we deal with these faulty determinations, it is very apparent we should look at alternatives to solve and prevent future occurrences. It is resolved that FIFA implement new technologies to improve officiating accuracy during matches.

Looking back at these calamities, OATS development is necessary for the future of soccer. Advances in technology have not only allowed referees to officiate more accurately, but OATS now provide additional information for an official to consider in making their determination. With OATS, a referee still acts on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the decision made was in accordance with the rules of the game and in the best interests of the sport. OATS rest on the assumptions of objectivity and accuracy. This evidentiary model reveals the "scientific truth" to the referee, showing, plainly and objectively, what happened on the play to the nearest millimeter.

 

Virtually every major professional sports league in America has adopted some form of OATS, whether it is instant replay in the NBA, Hawk Eye at U.S. Open, or the "challenge review" in the NFL. OATS are now, more than ever, in the public eye. To compete in America, soccer must enhance the accuracy of their officiating. For example, a controversial issue in American eyes is deciding whether a striker was "tripped" and fouled, or merely "flopped," diving to attempt to draw a penalty. We have seen highly skilled, experienced, and well positioned referees make the wrong decision on such a play that would be convincingly refuted by OATS. However, since OATS has not been adopted, the referee would not have been able to see a replay and correct the error. Furthermore, by supporting officials, rather than exposing them to a bevy of criticism, OATS would encourage making the proper, even if unpopular, decisions.

 

OATS would be a combination of replay review and computer generated line imagery (CGLI). First, replay review would occur strictly after a goal, much like that initiated in the NBA, where only a last second shot is reviewable. Here, OATS would be triggered automatically following a signaled goal to determine, if in fact, a goal was actually scored. The officials would judge the legality of the goal in these situations based on evidence to determine the following issues: (1) Whether the ball completely crossed the goal line. (2) Prior to the goal, whether the ball or player(s) committed a violation (i.e. offside, out of bounds, handling of the ball, goalkeeper possession, etc.). (3) Whether a called foul, committed by a player in 18-yard box, is indeed a PK. If it is determined that no foul was committed, the called PK should be overturned, and possession forfeited to the opposing team. (4) All replay reviews would be conducted by the officials gathering as much information as possible. With conflict, the center official would make the final decision. (5) The call made by the game officials during play would be reversed only when OATS provide the officials with "clear and conclusive" evidence to do so. NOTE: The officials would be permitted to utilize instant replay to determine how much time should be added on for the review as well.

 

Overall, OATS does not attempt to assure a perfectly officiated contest. Instead, we recognize the vast number of plays in the sport requiring judgment calls by on-field officials to allow the game to flow naturally, thereby restricting the use of OATS to coincide only with soccer's most crucial plays. Consequently, soccer provides a salient example of balancing concerns over integrity of the game versus the introduction of new technology. Second, for purposes of this reform, CGLI would be implemented, similar to the "yellow line/first down" marker in the NFL. CGLI would show the exact position of the last defender in comparison to the attacker(s) for accurately determining offside calls. This electronic line judging system, would flawlessly detect the offside position the moment the ball was played, perfecting these often disparaged decisions by referees.

 

Critics of OATS will argue its emergence threatens soccer's foundation. They believe in the status quo and deem OATS a disruptive force that will alter the fabric of the game. Yet, in America, soccer is one of the only sports not to use OATS. Empowering OATS would give soccer a competitive advantage in terms of media advertising. Determinations based on instant replay video footage are afforded some time for consideration and depend on the images and viewpoints captured. By allotting a short commercial break, soccer molds into the American sports television landscape, generating additional profits and boosting popularity. FIFA's president, Sepp Blatter, continues to rule out the use of video review during games, in part because there would be no cost effective way to implement it throughout the world. Yet, establishing this "quick intermission" would allow teams to generate more advertising revenue to cover these one-time setup expenses. Suspending the game does foster delay, increases game length, and disrupts momentum, but more importantly the benefits OATS create in terms of value outweigh these costs - preserving the integrity of the game is priceless. The increased quality of on-field officiating, the increased accuracy that replays provide, and the increased safety net that OATS would encompass is well worth the price to alleviate the detriment caused by poor refereeing decisions. Sepp Blatter, comments in an article, "Not a day goes by without technology making progress, and we, therefore, have a duty to at least examine whether new technology can be used for the good of the game." FIFA agreed to use the microchip technology in 2005, but has not embraced the technology revolution. Combining OATS with FIFA's already established ball with an embedded microchip, that signals to the referee whether it has crossed the goal line, could revolutionize the sport and instantly aid in referees' performance.

 

Proponents of OATS believe it provides a unique vantage point, crucial for increased accuracy and encouraging integrity in the game. Adversaries urge that prompt and fair decisions are best achieved by allowing officials closer to the action, on the field, and able to perceive the characters and circumstances present at the time, make the call. This doesn't account for human error; therefore we need a system in place to offset individual faults. An incorrect ruling by the referee can alter the outcome of the game and deprive a team - players, coaches, and supporters of victory and the subsequent spoils. OATS would significantly reduce the number of incorrect and embarrassing decisions made by referees and will additionally heighten the duty of officials to make the correct calls. This resonates with fans who gain deeper trust as participants in the game, while OATS protects all parties from unfair losses. And because a referee's ability to commit error is well established, this aptitude to err is not something that should be cultivated since OATS assures better officiating.

 

Another argument is that OATS promote hesitation in judgment because a referee's initial decision is being deferred to technology, causing the game to suffer. Referees working in a high-pressure environment are accustomed to making instantaneous rulings in order to allow the game to flow smoothly, to protect the safety of players, and to avoid being perceived as uncertain in their judgments. OATS aren't negating referees' autonomy in this respect, but are enforcing higher standards of competition rules, which promote more accurate officiating and purer competition. It preserves the integrity, fairness, and trust in the game because OATS assist referees' competitive judgments in promoting fair play. Moreover, OATS focus officials' judgments by enforcing responsibility for making the right call, resulting in more efficiency and fewer errors.

 

OATS may serve as a blessing and a curse for officials as FIFA considers its use. The unique nature and culture of the sport plays an integral role in the scope and method of adoption. While it provides a means for referees to correct their mistakes, technology also produces unwanted reform. Introducing OATS as a tool for referees to utilize, the fundamental nature of officiating remains unchanged. Referees' reasoning, analysis of the facts of a play, and application of game rules in reaching a decision are only enhanced. Whether assisted by technology or relying solely on their own senses, referees are in the business of making better competitive judgments. There have been a number of plays over the years that have caused soccer players, teams, and fans to call for the league to adopt OATS. As such, the technology debate in soccer is a critical issue. Sports leagues, teams and players want qualified officials to regulate their games and make correct, even if unpopular, calls based on the best information available. You be the ref!

Athletes' Value Across Sports

Here is the article from Forbes regarding the highest valued teams, brands, athletes, and sporting events. Below is the full summation of the photo and article combination in regards to the highest paid athletes. It is good to finally see that soccer players around the globe are getting there justification in worth. Maybe this will entice some of lower class, uneducated athletes in America to pursue a soccer career instead of one with the BIG 4 – baseball, basketball, football and hockey, where money is more prevalent and there is greater American noteriety because of our coverage, nationalistic views, and power structure. Hopefully, the trend will move into the US marketplace. It’s definitely what we need as a nation to compete for a World Cup. The following comes from Forbes and is a list of player values – something I am very passionate about, especially for the US to make an impact in soccer on the international stage.

“While not in the same earnings league as Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, top-paid soccer players are getting within touching distance of the better-paid U.S. pro sports stars. Money from TV rights is pouring straight through to star players' paychecks, and $200,000 a week base salaries in the English Premier League look set to become more commonplace as a new three-year, $3.3 billion (£1.7 billion) TV deal kicks in for the 2007-08 season. The missing piece? Endorsement deals in the lucrative U.S. market, beyond sporting goods makers like Nike and Adidas. Even there, though, David Beckham is paving the way. Here follows the 10 highest-paid soccer players.

1. Ronaldinho, Barcelona, $29.5 million, £16 million, €23.5 million

The impish Barcelona play-maker is not enjoying the best of seasons by his own standards. Like many of the stars of the last World Cup, a long club and international season has taken its physical toll. But he has leapfrogged David Beckham to become soccer's top-earning player thanks to endorsement deals with Nike and the likes of consumer electronics giant Sony.

2. David Beckham, Real Madrid/Los Angeles Galaxy, $29.1 million, £15.8 million, €23.2 million

No one can shift soccer merchandise like Beckham. He did it for Manchester United during his pomp and for Real Madrid over the past four years, where he won over the fans if not the critics. Now coming to America on the back of a potential $250 million marketing and playing deal with the Los Angeles Galaxy, he has proved he has the marketing savvy to put him in the elite of sports commercial superstars who outlast their playing days.

3. Ronaldo, AC Milan, $23.4 million, £12.7 million, €18.6 million

Injury has reduced the buck-toothed Brazilian striker to a super-sized shadow of the player who is one of only two people to be named FIFA's World Footballer of the Year three times. Offloaded by Real Madrid in a clear-out of its galacticos to AC Milan, Ronaldo seems destined for America, where his playboy lifestyle will sustain marketing appeal that is going nowhere in Europe.

4. Wayne Rooney, Manchester United, $17.2 million, £9.3 million, €13.7 million

The epitome of the sports star who wears his brains in his boots, Rooney's on-field goal-scoring partnership this season with Cristiano Ronaldo, cemented by Paul Scholes' Indian summer, has made Manchester United the English Premiership's unexpected top dogs. The barely 20-something's commercial challenge is to turn raw soccer talent into polished marketing power.

5. Michael Ballack, Chelsea, $16.8 million, £9.1 million, €13.4 million

The switch from being Bayern Munich's superstar to just another highly paid midfielder in Chelsea's glittering firmament of world-class stars has proved a challenge for the German on the pitch. But not when it comes to his bank account. Chelsea is reported to pay him a base salary of $240,000 (£121,000) a week, which would make him--for now--the top-paid player in the game.

6. Thierry Henry, Arsenal, $15.8 million, £8.6 million, €12.6 million

One of Europe's most feared strikers has suffered more than most in 2006-2007 from a punishing 2005-2006 season that culminated in France's defeat in the World Cup Final. But the Arsenal captain's elegance and glamour on and off the pitch--he is married to model Nicole Merry--keeps him a marketeers' favorite--while his Arselal contract of $220,000 (£112,000) a week keeps his bank manager merry, too.

7. Zinedine Zidane, Real Madrid, $15.6 million, £8.5 million, €12.4 million

An inglorious end to a glorious career--that head butt in the 2006 World Cup Final--has not diminished the Frenchman's cult status at home now that he is retired. Famously shy for a superstar, he always made more from his playing than his pitching abilities. His earnings power is eroding now that his feet no longer do his talking.

8. Fabio Cannavaro, Real Madrid, $14.6 million, £7.9 million, €11.6 million

Leading Italy to the 2006 World Cup catapulted this Italian defender into the ranks of soccer's best paid thanks to a move to Real Madrid from scandal- tainted Juventus. In Spain, he is not quite the consistent force he was in Italy, but the 32-year-old is still in fine enough form to strip down to his underwear for Dolce & Gabbana ads.

9. John Terry, Chelsea, $14.3 million, £7.7 million, €11.4 million

A hard-driving muscular center half for club and country, Chelsea's iconic captain makes our list thanks to billionaire owner Ramon Abramovich's largesse and a lucrative endorsement deal with kit maker Umbro, even though he is no clothes-hanger. Terry is likely to move up the earnings league next year as his contract is up for renewal.

10. Steven Gerrard, Liverpool, $14.2 million, £7.7 million, €11.3 million

Liverpool's heart and soul, local boy Gerrard provides box-to-box English drive to a midfield of European flair. He's inspirational on the field, and handsomely paid by Liverpool for being so, but has yet to break through to the highest level of marketing superstardom.”

And that is the list of the TOP 10 highest paid soccer players according to Forbes. I would like to know how much Essien, Drogba, Berbatov, and Christiano Ronaldo merit. I think that enticing players of their caliber would be advantageous for US soccer, if the costs are reasonable.

It is also interesting to cross-reference this data with the Forbes Top 10 Athletes…

1. Tiger Woods, $64 million

Woods may capitalize on his brand by signing a $100 million deal with Gatorade that includes royalties from a new drink named after him.

2. David Beckham, $18 million

Beckham's L.A. Galaxy debut garnered more viewers than games 1 and 2 of this year's NHL Stanley Cup Final combined.

3. Phil Mickelson, $16 million

Lefty has proved to be the corporate alternative to Tiger Woods, attracting $39 million in endorsements last year.

4. Roger Federer, $13 million

Just two Grand Slam titles shy of the record, Federer's global appeal continues to grow with each trophy presentation.

5. LeBron James, $11 million

The NBA's most marketable player earns 85% of his income through commercial endorsements.

6. Maria Sharapova, $10 million

At $19 million, the former Wimbledon champ earned more in '06 endorsements than any other female athlete.

7. Ronaldinho, $9 million

The two-time World Player of the Year trails only Beckham in endorsements among soccer players.

7. Dale Earnhardt Jr., $9 million

Sponsorship deals with Wrangler Jeans, Chevrolet and Adidas made Earnhardt NASCAR's highest-earning spokesman last year.

9. Peyton Manning, $7 million

NBC's Saturday Night Live guest host takes home double the endorsement income of football's next-highest earner, New Orleans' Reggie Bush.

9. Jeff Gordon, $7 million

In addition to endorsement earnings and royalties, Gordon maintains an ownership stake in his No. 24 DuPont Chevrolet.

and Yahoo’s The Hottest Numbers: Top 20 Jerseys, which measured the hottest jersey searches on the net. Most intriguing were the number of hits U.S. Women's team goalie Hope Solo. I wonder how many hits OJ has racked up over his entire criminal stint? Anyways here’s the list…

1. David Beckham Jersey

2. Marion Barber Jersey

3. Tony Romo Jersey

4. Walter Payton Jersey

5. Tim Tebow Jersey

6. Brett Favre Jersey

7. Michael Vick Jersey

8. Hope Solo Jersey

9. Devin Hester Jersey

10. Vince Young Jersey

11. Randy Moss Jersey

12. Patrick Willis Jersey

13. Reggie Bush Jersey

14. Tom Brady Jersey

15. Peyton Manning Jersey

16. Larry Bird Jersey

17. Joe Montana Jersey

18. Craig Biggio Jersey

19. Steve Nash Jersey

20. Mia Hamm Jersey

A few final notes…It was surprising to see that the only player who was in the top 10 on both lists was David Beckham. The only other player to make into the top 20 in jersey searches and the top 10 in value was Peyton Manning. No Lebron James, no Michael Jordan, no OJ Simpson, no Barry Bonds, no A-Rod…interesting!

NCAA Hires LVSC to Flag Gamblers, Preserves Fan Equity

In relation to the fan equity post I made earlier, I turn your attention to a relevant article today on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. It is nice to see that the NCAA is making efforts to preserve the interests and passion of the fans. It is a double-edged sword in these gambling cases because fans have cognitive equity differences in their relation to sports. This diversity allows many sports seekers to enjoy sports in a variety of ways. For example with sport and gambling, the typical March Madness bracket-filler-outer may only put money in his/her office pool, or it could be the gentlemen betting, more regularly, on point spreads every Sunday, or even the heavy gambler whose only tie to sports is their love of wagering, which keeps them interested. Some may like to moderately gamble or not gamble at all. These diverse gambling types aren't the issue of focus and shouldn't be. The issue involves the "sports insiders" who should not be allowed to gamble because of their information, position and power. I believe it is necessary for leagues to hire organizations like the LVSC in order to preserve the value of the game in the eyes of fans.

Sports Cartels and Competition

Professional sports leagues are supposed to be organized for purposes of scheduling games, preserving the rules of the game, establishing organizational administration, judging critical issues, and maintaining competitive balance. However, as cash hippos, they continually collect enormous revenues. Pro sports leagues, with this wealth can create their own agenda, distort the rules, fix competition, and allocate resources for their benefit. In this sense sports leagues are cartels organizing, implementing and inflicting rules on the business activities of the owners, policies that are executed to maximize cartel profits. Mirriam Websters defines cartel as a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices. Team owners fit this mold, collectively assembling at league meetings to exercise their granted power. This monopoly power is what restricts competition and thwarts entry into their respective leagues. Paul Tagliabue, commissioner of the NFL, said in Sports Illustrated, Sept. 16, 1996, "Free market economics is the process of driving enterprises out of business. Sports leagues economics is the process of keeping enterprises in business."

The best example I can give of the monopoly power exerted by sports leagues is from my own experience in Wisconsin. Just moving here from Ohio, in mid-August I began pursuing a start-up amateur soccer club for high school males, ages U-15, U-16, and U-17 in East/Central Wisconsin. Being that it was August, all high schools currently play soccer in the fall, and it was our goal to host try-outs in November of 2007 after the state tournament due to conflict of seasons and a would be small talent pool. Our plan was then to begin play outdoors starting in the spring (Just to note, the spring season does not officially start until the last week in April or the first week in May and applications for new teams isn't due until Jan. 1^st, 2008). I had just moved to the area and applied to the Wisconsin Youth Soccer Association (WYSA) for approval to be recognized as an official registered club within Wisconsin in late August. I was turned down after being contacted by the president because the cartel's rule is that new club applications must be filed before August 1 on that calendar year to be admitted for acceptance. I filed for admission in mid-August, unaware of the rule, and totally irritated by my rejection. Yes, there is always next year, and we can wait another 335 days to get accepted, but it's just wrong. It is wrong because it is detrimental to the sport, to the betterment of the kids who would be playing, and to competition as a whole. Maybe this is why we are so far behind other countries in the "beautiful game." I question our sports structures in America, especially our youth soccer design. We are not only being shackled by not being allowed to form a new soccer club, but I think it is unreasonable and a violation of our civil rights and values to do so. If we want to start a soccer club, we should be able to start a soccer club, anytime, anywhere – no questions asked. Yes, I think to play in a league, there should be a deadline, due to scheduling and enrollment issues. I think 90 days notice is reasonable time (statute of frauds), approximately 3 months, but why do I need my application in the hands of the WYSA, 8 months in advance. It is foolish, unreasonable and unjustifiable. The rules need to change, especially if America ever wants to win a World Cup. This is on a small scale, but can be applied to similar pro sports cartels, like the NCAA, NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and MLS whom consistently control everything from entry in leagues to competition to franchise location. Contrast this with our successful system of small businesses in the United States, which allows for free enterprise, capitalism and entrepreneurship.

When you are starting a new business, you may apply and be accepted on a rolling basis, as applications come in by the Secretary of State. Colleges use the too, for example, to accept the best students, while breeding competition. Unlike sports league cartels, most colleges and the entire Small Business Administration make their leagues extremely open, providing access to all entrants and fostering all competitors. The independence that comes with owning a team or business remains our country's distinct sustainable competitive advantage over other nations. It helps explain why millions of people seek to immigrate to America every year. It provides opportunity. Our government's U.S. Chamber of Commerce, explicitly notes, "Governments (i.e. sports leagues, the American Bar Association, the Board of Education) at all levels must shape laws and regulations that provide workers and businesses with maximum flexibility to meet the changes and realities of 21^st century economy and craft rules that help all succeed." And further says, "Workers and companies must be free to create and select from a wide range of business solutions and working arrangements to meet the demands of today's market."

I whole heartedly believe that sports leagues and all leagues in general, a priori, should be non-profit organizations designed to preserve the values of competition, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, common good, justice, equality, liberty, diversity, truth, sovereignty, and patriotism. We should have the opportunity to improve the well being of our athletes and of society. Cartels, like the WYSA, NCAA, and any other sports league warrant their immoral character, and it is expected that owners in cartels emphasize their advantageous arrangement. The purpose of these cartels is not in the fans best interest or it could be, as long as it is congruent with the profit maximization efforts of the league. Geoffrey Rapp's article on Sports Law Blog, strikes at the heart of this issue. Rapp explains, "The NCAA, a cartel if I ever saw one, has long argued that competitive balance justified its various restrictive trade arrangements, including limitations on broadcasts of television games as well as all manner of eligibility rules." He goes on to explain how the NCAA uses its authority to the detriment of competitive balance and questions its impact it has on fan equity. I know I definitely favor great competition, which explains my love for sports, but when cartel leagues and sports monopolies exert their force unreasonably it hurts the integrity of the game and sets us back in terms of development. I think most sports fans do have tremendous equity invested in sports teams and especially with competitive balance because without it, there would be no reason to keep playing or watching games. It becomes too predictable, plain and boring. This "sameness" would inevitably lead to disinterest for the fans, loss of revenues, and league shutdown as more and more people become skeptical and lose interest.

Bear In the Air - Awesome Test of Strength!!! Check it Out.

A Bear Attempting Suicide!!!

Fan Equity in Sports

Over the past several months three major legal events have affected fan equity in sports. A class action lawsuit involving the New England Patriots and coach Bill Belichick for customer deception, a former NBA referee Tim Donaghy plead guilty in federal court to charges that he bet on games he officiated, and quarterback Michael Vick was indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the alleged dog fighting ring, all of which contributed to the degradation of fan equity in sports through racketeering or organized crime.

Before I continue, what is fan equity? How is it incorporated in sports? When and where is it an issue today? And most importantly, why is it being affected and diminished? A sports fan, or aficionado, or supporter is someone who has developed an intense, liking and appreciation for a sporting club, person, group of persons, company, product, artistry, idea, or trend (Wikipedia). Sports fans of a particular discipline constitute its fan base. These people in turn invest devoted time, energy and resources to the following of this entity. Equity, in this case, is the financial value of someone's property, investment, and asset allocation to sports. Combining these concepts, and fan equity is simply the price of individual, tangible and intangible possessions, committed to a particular sports entity.

From owners to the average reasonable person, everyone involved in sports has an interest in individual athletes and team performance. Sports enthusiasts track the standings of teams, the performance of superstar athletes, and the decisions of team administrators much as traders track markets, stocks, and companies. The role of publics, in terms of fan equity is critical because it affects and is affected by performance, competitive balance, and earnings. Leagues must monitor these factors because they are central to their profits and the publicity generated from sports fans. But can we begin to put a price on fan equity? I can't even begin to recall the countless number of games, media interaction, and hours of support and I have devoted to the Detroit Pistons and Tottenham Hotspurs. The time, money and energy fans put towards teams are incredible. Not to mention the pain and suffering from the agony of defeat or the feelings of love, joy and passion that were invoked from winning a championship. The number of total hours fans consume with regards to sports, including fantasy drafts, news reports and regular season games, including their value in terms of time, energy and money spent is invaluable. There isn't a dollar figure that can be placed on that loyalty or fan equity. This is why fan equity is so important to sports.

Fan equity is an issue we need to address because it is being affected across all sports. We need to look at the modern era of technology as well as the cognitive and identity diversity. Today and in the future both leagues and publics are organized, not to follow a local team, but to follow competition. This means that a game attracts a much larger, more diverse audience as opposed to merely the local, partisan followings. As this audience develops internationally, diverse fans will combine into an enormous herd of fan equity and revenue sponge, providing unlimited new market potential. Fan equity is driven by expectations, passions and desires to celebrate winners. People want to see the best combination of the most entertaining, electrifying and dazzling players compete and win. However, with the incidents involving the Patriots, Vick, and Donaghy, and even the Italian soccer scandal of last year, fan equity is being tarnished, thus threatening the status quo. Cheating by teams, betting on games, and tainting of team and individual identities are all significant reasons damaging fan equity. It is undermining to fans because it destroys their love, devotion and hard work put forth into sponsoring teams and athletes. I am sick to my stomach that I possibly won't get to see the talented, mesmerizing Michael Vick in professional football again after being glued to his every move in year past. Yes, my equity in the sport dropped because of his poor judgment and consequently by not being able to see him play. I can't even imagine how a tried and true Atlanta Falcons fan feels.

Take the Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., which is a general law against bribery and racketeering, and normally involving organized crime); conspiracy to commit sports bribery (under 18 U.S.C. § 224); and interstate travel with the intent to commit bribery (under 18 U.S.C. § 1952) and apply it to fan equity. Here, an individual, Michael Vick, a team, the New England Patriots, and an official, Tim Donoghy engaged in unlawful activities that leave fans less interested, heartbroken, and sour tongued. The language of RICO makes it a crime for those with a significant role in operating any business, government office, labor union, social or political organization, or informal grouping to commit a series of crimes in furtherance of that organization's goals or by using the organization's resources. And conversely, fans are subjected to unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise and misrepresentation. Who is going to want to attend a game if the outcome is rigged or if the value of fair competition is stained? Fan equity in sports is harmed more and more by each one of these blemishes.

Caveat emptor means "let the buyer beware." The average sports consumer, customer, or fan in these instances pays the ultimate price. We are deceived, lied to, provided false promises of fair competition, misled, and cheated. This misrepresentation by to league to its customers is the greatest sin. We buy jerseys, pay for tickets, provide stadium rents, and most importantly provide fan equity to sports. It is a slap in the face that fans' obligations are manipulated in this way. Leagues must do whatever is necessary to prevent this type of behavior for the public good or maintaining the strong bonds shared between fans and sports.