The relationship dynamic between a league and its teams traditionally has been respectful and delicate but can be bumpy at times. Conventional wisdom says a league operates to support its teams, and the two should be in lockstep. But that’s too simplistic, as the goals are not always aligned and the mindsets can vary. There has been the familiar “they don’t know what it’s like to be in our shoes” from both sides, and recent conversations indicate little has changed. That’s not really surprising, or necessarily a bad thing.
When David Stern launched the NBA’s team market and business operations division — TMBO — in 2000, he significantly shifted the relationship to have the league help make each club’s business stronger — i.e., the league assisting its teams. Other leagues followed suit, in some form, and for years, a team services division would spend a lot of time in a market to understand fan/business/corporate trends; assess staff; and develop strategies and execution, among other things. Today, there are fewer market visits, as leagues focus on data and analytical trends to suggest what teams should do.
Many argue today that leagues are less focused on their respective teams’ business and more on leaguewide revenue and their overarching goals. That’s not bad, and many would say that’s how it should be. But it does affect relationships and alignment. Many believe there hasn’t been enough cross-pollination that would drive respect and trust — not enough team people have worked at the league office, and not enough league executives have worked for a team.
Team leaders bemoan, “Sure, the league has a ton of alums from Bain, McKinsey or other top consulting firms, but none of them have worked in a local market.” They argue that consulting/MBA experience doesn’t provide an understanding of the day-to-day challenges at a franchise; that understanding numbers, trends and data doesn’t mean one understands the levers that drive those numbers or how to get to those goals. There are the territory battles in which teams feel the league office is driving so much revenue at the expense of the teams being able to generate their own.
There are information and knowledge gaps. Team leaders — from the VP level and higher — are constantly seeking insight about league-office dynamics and power structure: Who is in the commissioner’s inner circle? Who has influence? Who is being boxed out? Who is on the rise? Teams want to be heard and supported, and want to feel as if the central office understands what they’re dealing with. Specifically, when it comes to MLB team executives I’ve spoken with recently, they are seeking real transparency as they try to be fully up to speed when it comes to the sensitive upcoming labor talks. Teams want to hear from MLB about the various scenarios and considerations related to labor negotiations, while the league office is understandably staying optimistic, positive and not portraying any gloom of a disturbance.
When you step back, does any of this really matter or prevent success, or is it just the insecurities of not being in the room? I push back on team complaints, feeling that sports for too long have suffered from the same approach undertaken by people with the same background, skill set and playbook. I’ve argued that fresh eyes are additive and likely beneficial.
League executives are less pointed about their relationship with teams. They stress that anyone sitting in the central office must think about the greater good while responding to the needs of a larger group of owners who have different agendas and financial resources, but who are all aggressively pushing for growth. They admit they are focused on competing across the entire sports landscape and argue that teams aren’t forced to think bigger and more globally. Many concede that they are focused internally, and on what their boss — the commissioner — wants, not externally on local operators.
When I want insight into which teams are executing well from top to bottom, or which are some of the best-operated organizations, I ask other teams, not league officials. League executives know the teams that deliver top-line revenue or may be active in the community, but they are less familiar with who runs a well-operated organization with strong talent, versus those fortunate to having winning teams that support any efforts.
There is a lot here: Teams believe a league should be working on their behalf, but they chafe when it offers recommendations. Leagues get frustrated when teams underperform on talent, execution and operations, as it brings down the entire sport. A team certainly knows its market best, but teams do not have a monopoly on great ideas. Leagues deliver a tremendous amount of financial and expert resources, but not every league “best practice” will work in every market.
Everyone has a side — “league first” or “team first.” There’s no right answer, but it’s a debate and challenge that continues to exist.
Abraham Madkour can be reached at amadkour@sportsbusinessjournal.com.
