May 20, 2007
Bennett: I'd love to stay, I must be going
Seattle Sonics owner Clay Bennett gave his first press interview since the Washington state legislature killed his half-billion-dollar arena plan last month, and all signs are that he plans to continue his love-hate relationship with the Seattle region.
Bennett told the Seattle Times: "I am absolutely committed to the teams and committed to keeping them in the Seattle region. But I'm pessimistic to finding a solution to those chances." He added that he's doing his "homework" on other markets. As for his dropping of Las Vegas as a potential relocation target and subsequent slapdown by NBA commissioner David Stern, Bennett said: "No. 1, there was miscommunication relative to my comments and perhaps I misspoke. I'm completely in tune with the commissioner relative to Las Vegas. What I wanted to say was that while Oklahoma City is a viable market, it's not the only market."
As for what it would take for the Sonics to build a new arena in the Seattle area (presumably in suburban Renton), Bennett was clear: public money, and lots of it. "It gets down to a fairly simple notion," he told the Times. "A private investment demands a return, and this investment will not provide a return."
There you have it, sports fans: Basketball arenas don't make money. Now there's a tempting prospectus for public investment. It's enough to make you wonder why sports team owners go through all the trouble of putting up lots of steel and concrete instead of just asking state legislatures for suitcases full of small bills - though I suppose they've occassionally done that, too.
I'm just really glad to see Seattle sticking to their guns. They passed their measure last November requiring these public venues to make money, and now that push has come to shove, the owners of the Sonics and Storm cannot show that.
(Wow, I didn't expect that result. *Sarcasm alert*.)
In all this, I still can't see how the NBA can prevent a team from moving to Vegas. What is the legal basis for this? Does the NBA have jurisdiction over commerce in this country that it can allow some businesses in parts of this country, and prevent it in others? I don't think so!
The NBA knows that if a team wants to move, it can, and without the approval of owners. This is in Federal antitrust laws; MLB is the only exempt sports business. They cannot stop a team from moving to Vegas for any reason, even gambling.
Roseville (where most Kings players live) is just 90 minutes away from legal Reno gambling. That's shorter than a lot of commutes.
I think this is merely a race between the Kings and Sonics to see who can get to Vegas first. Sonics may have a head-start now, but the Maloofs have better connections. This race isn't over by a long shot.
Wanna bet on it?
Posted by: MikeM on May 21, 2007 08:06 PM
So if the local McDonalds owner in Seattle decides he's closing shop and wants to build a new one in Vegas (and pretend Vegas didn't have one nearby his new site), does McDonalds have to let him change location? If Bennett wanted to start a new basketball team in Vegas, sure the NBA can't stop him. Maybe he gets to take his contracted players with him (though I doubt that). I don't thinnk the NBA has to let that new team into their league. I'm not sure about the NBA but I think most leagues give franchises "territories" with some associatied rights.
Posted by: Ric on May 21, 2007 11:26 PM
Actually the only sport that can stop a franchise from moving is baseball since it has a specific anti-trust exception written into the law books. The NBA can poo-poo moving the franchise to another city like Las Vegas, but it'd lose in a protracted court battle. It's also why Cleveland lost it's team to Baltimore (and Baltimore losing theirs to Indianapolis) even though both those moves most likely would of been stopped by the NFL if they had any power over the team owners.
Also, I think Major League Soccer can stop a team from moving as well since all teams are actually owned by the league and just operated by the "owners" who get a share of the entire league.
Posted by: jmauro on May 22, 2007 01:13 AM
I guess that's the consensus, but I'm not entirely convinced the courts would rule for the team. A little research and I see that Al Davis won a lawsuit 25 years ago. What if the Sonics wanted to move to New York? San Francisco? Baltimore?
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/econ352jpw/readme/Baseball%20Prospectus%20-%20Ending%20Baseball's%20Antitrust%20Exemption.htm
The opinion here is that the league would have to "show that preventing the move would be better for competition".
You're right about MLS, it's one company. And the NFL players union funded a lawsuit (through the MLS players) and lost. The courts upheld MLS's structure, though MLS was able to argue that the existence of high paying foreign teams was part of why they aren't set up as a monopoly.
Maybe this is why large market teams outside baseball can live with a salary cap. I wonder how the law applies in Canada. Shouldn't the Phoenix Coyotes head for Toronto ASAP?
Posted by: Ric on May 22, 2007 05:25 AM
So you believe basketball owners when they agree with you, and call them shmucks when they don't. This site would be better if every once in a while you sheath the axe you have to grind.
Posted by: john on June 16, 2007 11:33 AM
