The need for strong commissioners in sports

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm a racing enthusiast, and I completely agree with this view. The states holding the main sway in the sport need to step forward right away and ban all steroids, and I think they would be well served to come up with something else as well -- like a fund to help promote proper training, research or something else that at least suggests a visible commitment to horse well-being. Just sitting back and complaining that the critics "don't get it" or that this will just blow over would be really unwise.

This quote got me thinking. When you look at sports that have fallen from grace (i.e. the big TV money) in the United States, you think of boxing and horse racing. Someone in the Big Brown thread also mentioned bicycle racing. In all of these sports, you lack a strong central governing authority with the power to pass and enforce rules. You also lack a strong central governing authority to negotiate on behalf of the sport with stadiums, sponsors, networks, etc.

Racing seems to be governed by the state legislatures in the states where racing is legal. Not a good system. Basic issues of safety and competitiveness cannot be enforced because you don't have one authority to which everyone must answer.

Boxing is run by promoters, state gaming commissions, and multiple major organizations that sanction titles. And we see where that has got us.

I don't know enough about biking to know how that is managed. But from the perspective of the outsider, from what I can tell it seems to be run by groups from various countries who all accuse riders from other countries of doping.

In contrast, the NFL, FIBA, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, and NHL all have a strong central authority that works to keep athletes safe and the games competitive (and, more importantly, projects the public image of doing these things). And they thrive.

Indeed, from what I can tell, when sports run into trouble in the public eye (large v. small markets in the NFL. Revenue sharing in MLB. Lottery tanking in the NBA), it almost always involves teams operating in their own self interest in some manner that makes us say "[Fill in the blank commissioner] really needs to step in and fix this problem."

I would also note that, psychologically, having one person as the commisioner adds to the public confidence in the system. When David Stern was asked after the Ron Artest suspension whether he put the decision to suspend up to a vote and he said, "Yes, and he lost 1-0" it was taken as a joke. But it was also a very savy way, IMO, of indicating to the public "Don't worry. I will protect the sport. There is no chance of any necessary action being bogged down in committee."

Anyway, I am sure that this post does not point out anything that you guys don't know. But it had never really occured to me in these terms until reading Quik's post and noting that a bunch of states would all have to get together and do something for the good of horse racing. And how impossible that will be.

So, I guess the next question is whether it will even be possible for sports like boxing and racing to ever have a dictator-commish structure. And whether it is possible for a sport to succeed and maintain public confidence without it. And whether I have forgotten about some examples that disprove my hypothesis.

[QuikSand]

I would think that the obvious difference is that between a "league" and a "sport." When you have a league that governs team organizations, revenues, and scheduling -- then you control the sport. It's not inconceivable for individual-driven sports like racing or boxing to adopt such a structure, but it's not natural, either. As long as you have six or eight owners/trainers willing to run in a race, and someone willing to bet on it, then you have a race... regardless of whether a committee in Kentucky agrees with it.

As far as racing goes, the biggest natural hammer is the series of multi-state wagering agreements that states have with one another. If Kentucky, New York, California and Florida all agreed to enforce their will on the rest of the country and not share their signal or wagering pools with states that didn't adopt a specific set of standards, then it would happen. Hell, it's possible that just *one* state could do this to substantial effect.

I agree that in general, consolidated leadership looking out for the sport serves the whole enterprise better than a disparate series of participants.

[Logan]

Very good post overall, and to be honest, I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on all of it...

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I would also note that, psychologically, having one person as the commisioner adds to the public confidence in the system. When David Stern was asked after the Ron Artest suspension whether he put the decision to suspend up to a vote and he said, "Yes, and he lost 1-0" it was taken as a joke. But it was also a very savy way, IMO, of indicating to the public "Don't worry. I will protect the sport. There is no chance of any necessary action being bogged down in committee."

...but this, while it's true, is very much a downside too, no? You could add just two words to make the statement read, "I would also note that, psychologically, having one person as the commisioner adds to the lack of public confidence in the system," and I don't think you would get much of an argument. Look at Stern specifically and what's going on with the referees. He's a powerful guy with a lot to protect and legitimate questions about the integrity of his game.