I don’t think this has a factual answer (at least not without experimentation), so I ask for your opinions.
How much influence does the public (or at least sport’s fans) have on the decisions made by the sports’ big-wigs?
If there was a basketball player who wasn’t NBA material, but very popular with basketball fans, could the fans throw their weight around to get him a contract?
If there was a very unpopular pitcher, that the fans did not want signed to a new contract, would threatening to boycott influence the team’s owner’s decision? Even if this pitcher was the team’s MVP?
How much money would a team lose without any hometown support? Would it be enough to make a difference?
Well, i suppose you first need to ask yourself whether the fans would really stop supporting a team if management failed to follow their directions. In my experience, if a team’s winning then it’s highly unlikely that the fans will abandon it, even if they lose a favorite player, or hate an incoming player.
Look at the NY Yankees this year. I think it would be fair to say that very few Yankees fans had any time for Roger Clemens before he came to the Bronx. Now that he’s there, they still haven’t really warmed to him, but they’ll take him as long as he keeps performing.
Well considering that most of the yaboos who call into Sports radio Talk shows and bleat about (insert name of team/player here) sucks and that they, the caller have the only possible way to fix this, know virtually nothing about how things actually work and are run in professional sports I’d say it’s pretty clear that the fan’s voice is ignored, at least when it comes to personel moves.
And that’s how it should be.
Also, it would be impossible to get the fans of any team to come to a consensus on anything.
Look at Pete Rose. AssHat so called “fans of the game” have been screeching for years that Rose should be re-instated and should go into the Hall of Fame, this in spite of the fact that 98% of them have never even read the Dowd Report in which uneqivocable evidence of Rose’s betting on baseball games is documented. And Commisioner Selig has rightly ignored them.
I don’t think fan opinion has one iota of influence on an owner signing or not signing a player, but to answer the question above, I think there is one large area where the public influences an owner’s decision. That area would be public funding of a new stadium. Granted, the new stadium idea is floated initially by the owner. But, public financing requires extra taxation, which requires a vote on a referendum or amendment.
The public goes for the tax, the owner/team stays. They dismiss the stadium, the owner then probably puts some serious effort into finding a new city or a buyer for the team.
While this may not be quite as true today as it was a decade ago, the large number of white players on the end of most NBA teams benches (guys who never played until junk time of in case of injury) was a not too subtle concession to the largely white fan base.
That is my opinion only, but certainly many of the guys were not the best players a team could have had.
Here in St. Louis there was the infamous example of Gary Tempelton, who the fans booed when they felt he was dogging it. Tempelton responded with a one-finger salute. I think it’s safe to say ownership was responding to fan reaction when they traded him at the end of the season.
There was also a St. Louis Blues player who was accused of accosting his teenage baby sitter. He was quickly traded, not just to another city, but to a Canadian team.
Fans don’t have a lot of influence. At times, an owner might trade away a player because of fan reaction, but usually that ties in with the player not producing (which, of course, can tie in with the fans booing him – you often don’t play well under those conditions and it’s better for everyone if you move on).
And fans are fickle. Not so long ago, Latrell Sprewell was the most reviled man in basketball. So he gets traded to the Knicks and becomes a fan favorite.
Ultimately, though, the owners make more money if the fans are happy. And their happiest when the team is winning. There are some things that might raise fan ire (if, say, Baltimore traded Cal Ripkin, Jr. during his streak), but if the result was a pennant, then the fans would quickly forgive.
If a player can put butts in the seats then they are a valuable commodity. Whether they can play or not they are making the owners money and earning their salary. A few years back the Detroit Pistons drafted Mateen Cleaves out of Michigan State in the first round rather than risk him going somewhere else even though he didn’t have first round talent. They needed to boost their lagging attendance so they took the local hero. I don’t know how the attendance situation worked out but Cleaves didn’t. He got shipped off to Sacramento after just one year.
Lets also remember that there is a lot more to winning than just what you see during a game. Those players on the end of the bench tend to be “character guys”, players that have a great attitude and work ethic. They do their jobs mostly in practice helping the starters get better. At the games they are mostly cheerleaders but that doesn’t mean they can’t make a difference. Steve Kerr came off the bench this year to put the dagger in the heart of the Mavs in the NBA Finals… er, the Western Conferance Finals, I mean. Of course, Kerr has stated that it’s easier to hold down a seat on the end of the bench when you are white.
I honestly can’t see an NBA team hiring people because of their “race”. The Lakers fielded an almost entirely “black” team in the 80s, and they were the darlings of the entire metro area, because they were winning.
The Celtics were accused of hiring based on race, but when the players in question are Bird, Ainge, and McHale, it’s hard to really argue.
“Almost entirely black”? So far as I know there has never been an entirely black team in the NBA. There is always at least one white guy sitting on the end of the bench.
Why would you think that race doesn’t matter? Are you surprised to see more oriental faces in the crowd when Chinese phenom Yao Ming and the Houston Rockets come to town? Or how would you explain the trade of Jason Williams ( AKA “White Chocolate” ) from Sacramento to the Grizzlies for Mike Bibby? Bibby is an up and coming star who a lot of people thought should have made the All Star roster this season. The year before the trade he averaged 15.9 points and 8.4 assists per game. Williams ( 9.4 PPG, 5.4 APG ) has great passing skills and that is about it. Few who aren’t Grizzlies fans think he will ever lead a team to a championship.
If race doesn’t matter it’s hard to understand why a team would trade a black player for an inferior white player. To me the trade only makes sense when you consider that the Grizzlies moved from Vancouver to Memphis and had no chance of a winning season no matter who was playing point guard. Needing an incentive to put butts in the seats they brought in the Great White Hope.
And the perrenial All-Stars Rick Carlisle (lifetime stats 2.2 ppg average, 0.8 rpg), Greg Kite (2.5, 3.8), Jerry Sichting (6.9, 1.4), Wayne Kreklow (1.2, 0.5), Eric Fernsten (2.4, 1.7).
The 1980’s Lakers had an all black starting lineup, but at the end of the bench were guys like Frank Brickowski, Mike Smrek, Mark Landsburger, and Jeff Lamp.
Of course, Kerr has stated that it’s easier to hold down a seat on the end of the bench when you are white.