Would sports be better if it was 1 owner per city?

[Chitownhero14]

I couldn't find anywhere else to put this but i've been having this discussion for years now with my dad and friends and other sports posters at times.


Would sports be better if each city had just 1 owner for all its teams? Say Reinsdorf owned Cubs, Sox, Bulls, Bears, Blackhawks. Jerry Buss owned Lakers, Clippers, Kings, Dodgers, Angels? And so on...

Granted in this theory each city only gets 1 team per sport to make it work out better...

But you could see a lot more of the fans being stictly home based now. And with guys like Mark Cuban owning the Dallas Mavericks and making plays in baseball for the Chicago Cubs/LA Dodgers it'd be easier for him if it was all in Dallas.

Then you could see cities get more pride in their sports and it could leak trades between leagues at this point, say LA trades with Chicago in football and it makes LA better, then LA trades with Chicago in basketball and it makes Chicago basketball...

You could see things like this:

Chicago trades:
Alphonzo Soriano
Carlos Pena
CJ Watson
Bulls 2011 1st round pick

Las Angelas trades:
Casey Blake
Tony Gwynn Jr.
Steve Blake

It'd be cool to see multisport trades right?

[AyronTheGreat]

No. Owners would go broke FAST and the ones who thrive and have success could also hold cities hostage when they want things. Would be too easy for greedy owners to move their franchises outta town if they don't get their way.

[MilwaukeeBaller]

No offense but this is kind of a horrible idea imo. Well, it would be sort of cool at first, but it would never work.

[Chitownhero14]

It wasnt my idea but i've heard it talked about a lot. Multi sport owners seem to piss off fans alot from what i see. Like Cub fans didnt want Cuban at all.

[MilwaukeeBaller]

It wasnt my idea but i've heard it talked about a lot. Multi sport owners seem to piss off fans alot from what i see. Like Cub fans didnt want Cuban at all.

Well it would be weird in Cuban's case, owning a Chicago team and a Dallas team. Like he would literally be with the Mavs 24/7 til mid June every year.

[Daye-N-Knight57]

is that even financially possible for all these owners? You have your Paul Allen's then you have your Donald Sterlings. This would just create more greedy owners.

Plus, that would create a local monopoly the owners of these teams would get all the money with really anything sports related outside of companies like Nike. I think it is still legal, but if they have all of these sports teams and their making money, what's the point of working to make a team better when you pretty much control most of the local sporting economy? At the end of the day, their still going to make money. So some teams like the Clippers would just get neglected I think and it would hurt their fan base and end up in the teams downfall into being out of the league.

It just creates so much unneeded chaos, the fact that the NFL is in a lock out and the NBA is only 6 days away from a lockout makes it extremely unlikely. I will say though, it would create less disputes between some owners right now (at least from the NBA perspective, not sure about the NFL) and maybe, both of these leagues would be out of the lock out by now. It's still extremely unlikely I think.

[Chitownhero14]

^Very good point. I just think it'd be a fun thing to watch because we do have multisport owners already but they're almost never in the same city its too hard to get that.

[celticfan]

yeah there is no way this works

[Johnnydollaz89]

this is a dumb idea sorry

[Chitownhero14]

Ok so everyone keeps saying its dumb and wouldnt work but no one is actually reading i guess...because A) its not my idea and B) the question asks would things be better if it was 1 owner per city no one has yet to answer the question

Me personally i dont think it would ever work, but i do believe it'd make sports more interesting, you could see multisport trades and more productive fans for cities.