the sport doesn’t actually but let’s use the white sox’s current season which is not that far from being the worst ever that happens for say the next 5-10 years and management and ownership don’t do much to change it for the best example
Wouldn’t it be in the beneficial interest of the league to tell the owners "Look you don’t give a damn apparently … let’s find someone who does and we can voluntarily or not "
Absolutely, but the owners would have to approve this change and that is a stumbling block.
And if the owners acted as a bloc to try to force the recalcitrant one out, they’d get hit with Congressional inquiries and talk of revoking their anti-trust exemptions. Besides, that just means there’s a bunch of “easy” wins on the schedule.
As @What_Exit notes, in the big North American pro sports leagues, it could happen, but it’d likely be a manner of getting a majority (maybe even a super-majority) of owners to vote to strip the franchise from the current ownership, and/or force a sale.
It’s easier to picture this happening if there’s financial malfeasance, or employee harassment, going on (and this is essentially what happened to former Redskins/Commanders owner Dan Snyder, and former 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo).
Even if everyone in the league is legitimately trying their best, someone is inevitably going to end up the worst team in the league.
True, but I think the OP is asking about a situation in which a team is historically bad, for an extended period of time. Imagine the White Sox losing 110+ games every year for a decade, the Browns never winning more than 2 games in a season for years, etc.
i think you’d also have to add on things like the team consistently spending at the bottom of their league’s payroll, not really trying to upgrade via free agency or trades, routinely trading away any player who develops into anything of value, not shaking up the front office or the coaching staff, etc.
Does a race organization like NASCAR kick people out? I don’t think they’ll kick a team out for consistently finishing poorly, but what would they do to a team who had a charter but only raced occasionally or not at all?
Such teams exist in NASCAR: small teams, often with only one car and one driver, which often don’t qualify for races (and when they do qualify, they usually finish in the bottom half). I suspect that, as long as as such a team is meeting minimum qualifications, and paying their fees, NASCAR is happy to have them. If nothing else, “underdog” teams and drivers generate some fan interest, especially on the rare occasions when they perform well in a race.
An example would be Wood Brothers Racing, which has the distinction of being NASCAR’s longest-running team (since 1950). They’ve had a lot of lean times in the last 20 years, and frequently had years when they only qualified for a race or two.
Wins and losses aren’t the most important thing. The only way a league would consider action would be if the team was losing money, affecting the bottom line ofthe other owners. In that case, they would most likely try to force the owner to sell and probably move the team.
Has it ever happened, as described by the OP, where a team is White-Sox-terrible for a 5 or 10 year stretch? I’m too lazy to do any research right now, but I can’t think of any team being that bad for that long of a time.
My Royals had a 28-year postseason drought. They had a 9-year stretch where they didn’t have a .500 record. But even that stretch of mediocrity isn’t close to what the OP is describing.
yes, this … thanks for explaining it better
Maybe back in the early years of pro sports, but I don’t think anything like that has happened in more modern times, and certainly not in the past 50-ish years.
Even looking at a team like the NBA’s San Diego / Los Angeles Clippers, who were a perpetually bad team (with a terrible owner) in the '80s and '90s, they didn’t even finish last in their division every year, and even made a couple of playoff appearances.
But performance from one year to the next will naturally be correlated. First of all, most of the team will be the same from year to year. Second, you can get positive feedback effects: A team being bad will usually result in them having less money, and a team having less money will usually mean that they have a harder time recruiting top talent.
I’m not prepared to look it up, but I think the St. Louis Browns likely might come close.
Apropos of nothing, what is the problem with the Sox this season? Has their owner simply run out of fucks to give? Are they in a “rebuilding” year (whatever that even means)?
Isn’t this how the British soccer leagues work? The worst-performing team in the season gets demoted to the 2nd tier, and the best-performing team in the 2nd tier gets promoted?
Of course, that’s based on tiers of leagues, which don’t have cost in NorthAmerican football. But it could be done for hockey and baseball, given the second tier leagues.
By the way, this Red-Blooded American (cue eagle screech and guitar riff) who has gotten into European soccer of late and who now sees the value in promotion/relegation, notes that the Sox would definitely be demoted to AAA this season if we had such a season. Welcome to the AL Cenral in 2025 the … Sugar Land Space Cowboys!
Yes, it is; it’s called relegation and promotion (though it’s often several teams which move up and down each year).
Not for baseball, really, since the teams playing at the higher minor levels (AAA and AA) are all owned and controlled by the MLB teams, and serve as farm teams for development of their prospects. In other words, a AAA team, for example, is made up of players which are under the control of their MLB parent organization.
Another issue is that minor-league teams typically play in far smaller (and often, less well-developed) stadiums than major-league teams, and such a team would struggle to meet the major league’s requirements for minimum statdium size and features.
The problem with a relegation/promotion system is that, while it might sometimes be the right move, it won’t always be. Even if you have a situation where all of the teams are correctly sorted, such that the worst League 1 team is better than the best League 2 team, they’ll still end up swapping places. And then probably swap right back, next year.
It’s three teams each season that move up and three teams that move down.
And, as @kenobi_65 described, the teams in British soccer are all independent entities, from the lowest-level club/town team up to the best Premier League teams.
Whole lot of stuff, but in summary:
And, yeah, the sentiment here in Chicago is that Reinsdorf is, at a minimum, out of fucks to give. It may be worth noting that his other team – the Bulls – has also been mediocre-to-awful for the past decade, and it’s generally believed that he’d like to move the Sox to another market.