The Business of Losing
They did it—the San Diego Chargers finally
went a week without losing. Of course, this
happened to be their week off, so I guess they got
lucky. I'm sure next Sunday they'll return to
business as usual—the business of losing, that
is. And after reading news reports and editorials
about the latest proposals from the Chargers
organization and leaders of local business and
labor about a new football stadium, I can't help
but wonder if that's what it really is: a business
of losing.
The Chargers have not had a winning season since
they signed their current lease back in 1995.
Coincidence? The organization has certainly lacked
a strong fiscal incentive to perform well. As any
mediocre football team knows, poor performance
leads to poor attendance. Poor attendance in turn
leads to poor ticket receipts for the owner—a
strong incentive to acquire, train and field the
best team possible. But what if the organization
gets paid the same amount whether 20,000 or 60,000
fans attend a game? In such a scenario, why spend
money on star players? Why spend money on marketing
initiatives? Why spend money, period?
The Chargers have long had such a sweetheart
deal. Their 1995 contract with the city guarantees
them 60,000 tickets sold for each game. Any unsold
tickets short of that number are purchased by the
city—or, more accurately, by city taxpayers.
But this is old news. Now the organization wants a
new stadium, and is dangling the controversial
ticket guarantee over the City Council's head like
a piñata. Only, if the City Council takes a
swing and destroys the ticket guarantee, it'll be
the Chargers, not the city, who gobble up all the
candy that spills out.
Under a new proposal put forth by business and
labor leaders, fully endorsed by the Chargers, the
ticket guarantee would be eliminated for the next
two years and the organization would pay $1 million
in rent for both years. Of course, in exchange for
this "concession," the Charger's right to trigger
their "out" clause would be submitted to binding
arbitration, rather than be subject to litigation
in the courts.
This is the same team that has taken millions
from the city over the course of their lopsided
contract. The only way they'd give up money up
front would be for a lot more on the back end. My
theory: they know they can't trigger their "out"
clause, so they don't want to risk litigation. They
know the current stadium development proposal (by
which the Chargers would pay the full cost of
building a new stadium in exchange for the right to
develop the surrounding high-value land) favors
them as much as their current contract does, so
they'll do anything to improve their chances of
pushing the proposal through. They know they have
to keep this issue in the spotlight, or the miasma
of the team's on-the-field performance will destroy
whatever public sentiment still exists in their
favor.
Which brings me to my point; namely, that this
team is in the business of losing. The worse the
team plays, the fewer tickets they'll sell, and the
more tickets the taxpayers will have to buy.
Ergo, the worse the team plays, the more
urgent will become the desire in the public's mind
to eliminate the ticket guarantee. The Chargers not
only realize this, they're brazenly playing that
card like an ace in the hole. "We are willing to
give up the ticket guarantee next year, when we
could be in a literal free fall (on the field),"
said Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' legal eagle in an
editorial in yesterday's Union-Tribune. Sure, he's
the organization's legal counsel, not the head
coach, but you'd think any Chargers
representative would want to express more optimism
about a team that's currently 0-5. But a losing
team works to their advantage in the effort to get
a new stadium in San Diego, so they're willing to
milk their failures for maximum value.
With such off-the-field scrimmages, is it any
wonder this team's vying for the bottom spot in the
league?
©2003 Michael
Strickland ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
|
|
