While professional sports is the least of just about everyone’s concerns when it comes to what’s happening with the economy right now, I couldn’t help but find Dave Zirin’s thinking in this True Hoop post intriguing:
First and foremost, the NBA, with its high level of casual fans, is very susceptible to fluctuations in the economy. Second, the NBA doesn’t have the diverse revenue streams of baseball or certainly football. Not even close. The absence of personal cable television contracts or massive network agreements means that the NBA has always been more reliant on ticket sales and merchandise to fill its coffers. Its non-guaranteed revenue is tied to the disposable income of the typical fan. It will be interesting to see how this affects free agent positioning, the attractiveness of Europe, and the beginnings of serious saber rattling in advance of the next collective bargaining agreement.
A few things pop out to me here. The first is a lack of data on any of these points, which I don’t blame on Zirin, he was just answering a question. But I don’t see how “the attractiveness of Europe” is going to increase at all, since the problems in the economy are now obviously global.
But he makes a good point about the television contracts. I’ve never understood why the NBA hasn’t pushed this harder. They have the NBA on ABC on Sundays, but that doesn’t start up until the second half of the season (basically, when the NFL relinquishes the holy day). And even then, the NBA doesn’t allow itself the flexibility of scheduling the way the NFL does, so we were treated to the Kasib Powell–led Heat instead of, say, more than one Celtics game. This year’s schedule is the same deal. It’s no stretch to say that the most exciting team to watch this year will be the Hornets, who almost won the Western Conference last year, and they’re in for one game. Dallas, who probably won’t even make the playoffs this year, are in for five.
The NBA is stuck in a Jordan-era mindset: The only way fans will connect with the sport is to show superstars over and over (And, I guess, Nowitzki’s a superstar?). The NFL knows better, and gives its prime time slots to big-time match-ups. Great games will convert those casual fans, not a couple of pretty Kobe turn-around Js. I’ve believed this, basically since I stopped collecting cards: Sports is about the script, not the actors. Drama is what gets people to invest in sports. Admittedly, superstar personalities play into that, but the NBA relies to heavily on branding its players and not its game.
Ticket sales do seem to be an issue, and I can’t help but think the Bulls will finally see a marked downturn this year, despite drafting Derrick Rose. To my mind, the Bulls need to implement the sort of fanbase-building programs the White Sox have created, like half-price Mondays. I’ve steadily watched a large sector of my pals—who weren’t even big sports fans—gravitate toward the Sox because of half-price Mondays (and while the Cubs persistently raise ticket prices and add more “premium” games to the schedule). If the Sox can foster a base in a city still enthralled with the Cubs (despite the org’s anti-fan, classist ways), the Bulls could/should use the same methods to elevate its standing.
I just called the Cubs classist and anti-fan. I’ll just let that one sit, unsupported. It’s what blogs do!