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.

U.S. Soccer Coaching Better or Worse?

Once every four years, teams from all nations fight for the top spot in FIFA's Women's World Cup. We know magnificent Marta and Brazil, along with Germany, are staying for the Women's World Cup Final. And we also know that the U.S. will be playing Norway in the 3^rd place game. What is uncertain, besides the outcomes, is the fate of U.S. coach Greg Ryan. It is justifiable that the media has ripped Ryan for his controversial call for benching Hope Solo and replacing her with Briana Scurry in net. Mentally, the deplorable decision was excruciating to Solo and left the team divided in the most crucial of times. Yet, I don't think goaltending was to blame for the loss. Although, Scurry could have done better on the second and fourth goals, especially touching the ball on both shots, the Brazilians outclassed the U.S. all over the field. Kristine Lilly and Lori Chalupny expended tremendous energy to combat the feisty Brazilians, the uselessness of Abby Wambach, and the poor U.S. defensive play.

From the start, the game was a nightmare. A yellow card was initially given to Shannon Boxx just fourteen minutes into the game followed by an own goal six minutes later. Marta then added a second goal seven minutes later. But most demoralizing was seeing midfielder Shannon Boxx ejected; and here lies my biggest concern for American soccer. Have we learned anything from watching the men who were playing an important World Cup match against Italy? Rewind to the US vs. Italy game in the 2006 Cup, when we had a man advantage, Bruce Arena should have pulled Eddie Pope and not risked a second yellow card. Although, Eddie must know the situation and control himself, Bruce could have negated the situation and inserted a fresh, un-carded player. Coaching blunders like these are unforgiveable. Instead, Eddie played and was red carded and we lost the upper hand. The scenario is similar here…Boxx is carded early and in this situation Coach Ryan has the opportunity to pull her out and try something different, especially being down two goals. Unfortunately, Ryan takes a major risk by leaving her on the field for the rest of the half and she picks up her second card, putting the U.S. in a very compromising position. Chalupny could have been subbed off based on the same criteria. The U.S. was forced to chase the rest of the game against a savvy Brazil. How many times are we going to put ourselves in these positions? A good solution would be for the U.S.S.F. or the N.S.C.A.A. to incorporate risk management or conflict resolution courses for our national team coaches to determine the costs and benefits in these crucial game situations. Ryan made a major mistake by refusing to adjust and make any strategic substitution to tactically try and compensate after being down two goals. We were obviously down and needed to attack to get goals back to have a chance. Subbing in fresh legs would have been a viable alternative.

The bottom line is that soccer is a sport that requires playing offense and defense – two things the American women lacked in this game. Watching the Brazilian buildups, artistry and creativity prevail were heartbreaking and exhilarating at the same. You can't take anything away from Brazil as they continued to electrify, play after play, by continually attacking offensively and defensively. So who is going to leave on top, Germany or Brazil? It will be exciting to see. Brazil was spectacular in their match against the U.S. and Germany is coming off some amazing wins. Both teams are strong defensively and have the unique ability to control the ball and create scoring opportunities. Also, both teams have superstar players all over the pitch. It should make for a great story line. Another great article about the game can be found here.