With the ownership change in my recently woeful Dodgers (we’ll always have ’88), I got to thinking about how professional sports teams, of all things, illustrate some of Chang’s points about the limits of shareholder-run corporations. As we’ve mentioned before, Chang sees strong benefits and overall economic stability in more localized ownership, with shareholders who aren’t trying to extract the maximum amount of money in short-term gains. Sports teams are a unique industry; some people don’t believe they’re even meant to be run for much of a profit at all. But in what other industry is there such a clamor for local, invested ownership that doesn’t forsake longterm benefits for short-term profits? And whose customers exert such a shared sense of claim over the business?
Los Angeles Mayor Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recently spoke of the Dodgers in terms that would perhaps be considered the norm for many types of businesses in, say, Sweden, but in America, this type of rhetoric is reserved only for hallowed sports teams.
“The Dodgers are an asset, they’re a community asset,” Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said about the sale. “The Dodger brand, like the Laker, Clipper brand, like the Trojans and the Bruins, like the Galaxy and Chivas, are a brand associated with the city. But particularly the Dodger brand is something that people feel very, very connected to. My hope is that these new owners … see the Dodgers as part of the heart and soul of the town.”
In trying to get details about the future of the Dodgers and the potentially lucrative Chavez Ravine area, I came across fascinating tidbits about sports ownership in different leagues. In contrast to baseball’s more loose ownership rules, the National Football League forbids corporate ownership and mandates one principal owner control at least 30 percent of the club. Debt levels are capped at $150 million for prospective buyers. Chang might see this as the triumph of regulation, though several other factors, including the overwhelming popularity of the on-field product, might also do a lot to encourage stability and conservative business tendencies.
Hydrogen Economy 
Sorry I hadn’t read this posting when I was in Los Angeles… then we really would have had something to discuss regarding the new Dodger ownership group.
One thing is for sure—and many sources (including this one: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/a-costly-toy-subsidized-by-others) agree—the numbers don’t quite add up. Of course, as with a lot of things, we’re dealing with some unknowns. Maybe not “unknown unknowns,” as Donald Rumsfeld would tell you, but certainly I’m waiting for more information that will clarify the sale. “The King of Los Angeles”-type prestige? Sky-high cable TV deal or development deal in the works? Like the midseason trade deals or draft picks, you have to wait some time to see if it’s a great deal or a case of drastic overpayment for a historic asset.