Book review about sport journalism

EAC 955 NBA NBB Week 10

The Business of Sports I:

(Yup. Part 1. Business Is So Important That You Just Can’t Cover Its Many Topics In One Lecture).

Introduction

Did you know that in 1925, the National Football League’s New York Giants were originally purchased by a man named Tim Wellington for a paltry $500?! That’s right. Five hundred dollars!!! We did not skip any zeroes here. 500 bucks. Currently, the NFL is a $10 billion a year industry. By 2027, this league is projected to make more than $25 billion a year.

Times have dramatically changed. A typical NFL franchise is now worth something in the area of $1-3 billion. Similar astronomically large valuations exist for basketball. For example, former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer paid $2B to purchase the L.A. Clippers in 2014. Even in the “small” Major League Soccer (MLS) team values have skyrocketed. In 2005, the franchise fee for the Toronto FC for $10M. By 2017, it was valued at over $100 M.

Back in 2001, two brothers named Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta bought the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) for $2 million. In July of 2016, it was sold for $4 billion to the media consortium WME-IMG. (Roberts, “UFC deal reflects”)

How hot are a commodity are sports? The same WME-IMG that purchased UFC bought the Professional Bull Riders (PBR), the world’s leading bull-riding entity for $100 million! Giddy up. (Roberts, “UFC deal reflects”)

So how did all of this happen? Principally though lucrative television contracts and unparalleled marketing opportunities. Gone are the days when teams are basically “trophies” purchased by wealthy business men for their inflated egos- Maverick Mark Cuban aside.

Sports is a BIG business. In 2005, scholars Humphreys and Humphreys estimated that in North America alone, estimates of the size of the sports industry based on aggregate demand and aggregate supply ranged from $44 to $73 billion per year. (Humphreys and Humphreys, “The Size and”)

In this unit, we will be looking at the complex issues concerning:

· Team ownership

· Broadcast television rights and their affects on franchise costs

· Revenue sharing

· Salary caps

· Government subsidies and taxation,

· Government investments in the Olympic Games, and

· Media convergence

Many sports franchises would not exist without government assistance- namely in the form of tax write-offs and subsidies. Sports franchises in North America receive billions of dollars in government aid and are further assisted by tax breaks for their corporate sponsors. In the U.S. for instance, sports teams generate something in the area of $5B a year in luxury box sales. The government allows the corporations that lease these boxes to write-off 50% of the costs. (Isodore, “Paying for the fat cats”) A similar policy exists here in Canada. One can see why critics liken this form of assistance as “corporate welfare” pure and simple.

Both the television networks and their sponsors also receive tax breaks for the sports programs that they produce and the commercials that they air. Most people view their spending in these areas as being outrageously high. The opposite is true. In relative terms, sports programming and the commercials contained within them are very economical.

We will also be discussing the issues of censored media coverage in sports due to media convergence. That is, oftentimes shady sports stories seldom covered in the mainstream media and explore why this happens more often than we can imagine. I know that you will find this hard to believe but sometimes, our supposedly democratic governments “legally” provide secret deals with sports teams.

As you can see, we will be examining a considerable number of topics in this unit but this should be expected. Business has and will continue to alter the sporting landscape. Understanding these key areas will help clarify why teams make the decisions that they do. There is a whole lot more to signing, drafting or trading a player than merely his skills, attitude and stats. As important as all of these elements may be, they are now secondary to ownership’s “bottom line” business considerations.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

· Identify and articulate additional key issues related to the business of sports including:

· Whether revenue sharing amongst franchises works.

· The economic impact of franchise relocations on communities.

· The incredible costs on taxpayers for hosting the Olympic and Pan Am Games

· The at times, cozy relationship between governments and sports team owners and their backroom dealings.

· How sports franchises tax dodge.

· The examination of censored media coverage including sports stories seldom covered in the mainstream media.

· The role that concentrated media ownership plays in this censored coverage. And,

· How team ownership also interferes with media coverage.

Glossary

· Sticky Eye Balls

· Small Market Franchises

· Revenue Sharing

· Pig Skin Socialism

· Salary Caps

· Hard Caps

· Soft Caps

· Luxury Tax

· Revenue Sharing

· Parity

· Canadian Assistance Plan

· Franchise Free Agency

· Antitrust Exemption Laws

· Monopolies

· Corporate Welfare

· The Substitution Effect

· Collective Bargaining

· Order in Council

· Noam Chomsky

· Tax Dodgers

· Creative Accounting

· Luxury Boxes

· “Black Sox”

· Mainstream Media

· Concentrated Media Ownership

· Branding

· Content

· Platforms

· Media Chill

· Convergence

· Cross Ownership

Once again, this is just a reminder that whenever you see words that are capitalized, in big letters, have been bolded, coloured, underlined, or highlighted, I am simply trying to emphasize something. Please don’t assume that I’m writing in anger here. Thanks.

Watch The Following Videos

If your computer is capable of processing online video, please watch the following videos. If your computer can’t, again, don’t worry about it, simply read the text portion of this online lecture.

Comedian John Oliver hilarious take on cities that spend massive amounts of public money on privately-owned stadiums. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs&app=desktop

If you know of any other links that would be appropriate for this unit, please forward them to me by e-mail. I would be most appreciative.

Invest in $ports!

The financial growth of major league sports has been nothing less than staggering. How staggering? Consider the following:

In 1960, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was around 500; today it hovers around 20,000- a 40-fold increase. This increase though is peanuts when compared to the rise in value of National Football League franchises and their profits.

According to sports-law specialist and Harvard Law School professor Paul Weiler, in 1962 the National Football League (NFL) saw its annual television revenues reach $3 million. By 1998, this figure was $2.2 billion- more than a 700-fold increase! (qtd. in Lambert)

Team values have spiked even more dramatically. In 1960, the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys had to pay an expansion franchise fee of $600,000 to enter this league. By 1998, the Houston Oilers were sold for $700 million, and the Cowboys were valued at about $1 billion--nearly 1,700 times the original investment! (qtd. in Lambert) The numbers today are even more staggering.

According to Forbes Magazine back in August of 2013, Dallas’ worth had jumped to $2.3 billion. In the same article, it mentioned that,

“The NFL’s 32 teams are worth, on average, $1.17 billion, 5% more than last year. The Cleveland Browns, a lousy team for years in a midsize market, sold for almost $1 billion last year.

In contrast, the world’s top 20 soccer teams have a mean value of $968 million.

The average worth of Major League Baseball’s 30 teams is $744 million.

And average values for the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League, also each with 30 teams, are $509 million and $282 million, respectively.” (Forbes, “Most Valuable NFL Teams”)

During the summer of 2011, the prestigious Manchester United Football Club was floating an IPO offering on the Singapore Exchange for $1B. Controlling interests would remain with the Glazer family that owns this club.

Blame It on TV

How can such franchise be worth so much? One word: Television.

The sports world was forever changed in the 1950’s when television began airing its contests. Games were now accessible to a vast captive audience for advertisers to promote their goods and services. Where there is a vast audience, there are large amounts of advertising dollars to reach viewers. And where there are large advertising dollars, there are huge profits to be reaped in the sales of broadcast rights. With the advent of cable and satellite delivery services these sales grew exponentially.

The broadcast rights for some sporting events is simply mind boggling. The I.O.C. in Sydney alone generated $2.6 billion. GE & NBC’s acquisition of the U.S. TV rights for 2010 & 2012 Olympic Games was $2.201 billion. Remember, this amount of money is being spent for programming that fills-up air time for a mere 12 week period over 2 years.

In 2016, the NBA's annual revenue from television deals increased from $930 million to more than $2.66 billion. (CBC Sports, “NBA TV deal”) The contracts with the various networks will run through the 2024-25 season.

As a result, NBA’s salary cap dramatically increased and over all player salaries leapt into the stratosphere.

Here's a comparison of how the NBA deal stacks up against the other North American pro sports:

League	Broadcaster	Length	Contract
NBA	ABC, ESPN, TNT	To 2024-25	$24 billion
NHL	Rogers (Canada) NBC, Versus (U.S.)	To 2025 To 2023	$5.2 billion $2 billion
NFL	Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN	To 2022	$27 billion
MLB	Fox, TBS, ESPN	To 2012	$12.4 billion
MLS	TSN (Canada) ESPN, Fox Sports (U.S.)	To 2016 To 2022	Not published $600 million
CFL	TSN, RDS	To 2018	$150-180 million

(CBC Sports, “NBA TV deal”)

Networks do not pay out this much money unless they know that they will turn a profit through advertising revenues. And remarkably, they do.

Sticky Eye Balls

Sports draws viewers- specific viewers. It attracts an18 to 50 year old male demographic- with the critical 18-35 subgroup. The Olympics is an even better drawing card in that it attracts viewers from all ages and both sexes.

Attracting the attention of viewers through television programming is the means of creating a “captive audience” ready to see and hear advertisements. The more people are drawn to a telecast, the higher the advertising rate a network can charge its sponsors.

Sports- especially high profile events, keep people glued to their seats. The main reason for this is that such events carry with them a high level of emotional appeal, tension and unpredictability. Indeed, the unpredictable nature of the games that we love to watch often keep us from even running to the bathroom during a commercial break because we fear that we might miss a “key play.”

Some sports bars recognize this obsessive behaviour by installing televisions in their bathrooms! From an advertising perspective, a sport fan’s commitment to controlling his or her bladder guarantees that he or she will watch the sponsor’s commercials.

"It's about sticky eyeballs--where can we make them stick?" say Peter Carfagna, chief legal officer and general counsel for IMG- the firm that pioneered the field of sports marketing. (qtd. in Lambert) So long as a program will keep viewer’s eye balls focused on the program that is being broadcast, the likelihood of a sponsor’s advertisements being watched and processed dramatically increases.

Cheap Programming

The amount of money that networks dish-out in television broadcast rights is staggeringly high. However, we need to view this spending in “relative” terms. In the multi-billion dollar world of the entertainment industry, these “insane” figures are actually economically sound.

Broadcasters love sport because dollar-for-dollar, it gives them more “blast” for their production buck. A typical sporting event is three hours in length and seldom costs more than several hundred thousand dollars to produce since the purchase of broadcast facilities and equipment is a one time capital allotment. Sporting events are not like producing half hour comedies or dramas than can cost as much as $15M a half hour episode. Relative to these types of programs, a sporting contest is “dirt cheap” to produce.

Now throw in the revenues from advertising against the production costs and broadcast rights, and a hefty chunk of change can be generated for a network.

Get Ready For Bigger TV Deals

I predicted the following years ago, and guess what, I was right. The television industry is suffering huge losses due to personal video recorder (PVR) technologies. People are skipping commercials with these devices on a massive scale. This is not good news for producers of regular TV programs. For their live sports counterparts though, this is incredibly good news. How many people can patiently wait for a game to be played and then fast forward through all of the commercials? It’s like a kid being told to carefully remove the tape from all of your Christmas paper wrappings rather than rip them apart. So if people tend to not fast forward commercials from televised live sports contests, then advertisers will see such programs as being premium places to reach their targeted audiences. As such then, they will pay top, top, top dollar here. So my prediction is that TV rights for sports events will continue to increase for years to come.

Rogers’ SportsNet 12Year, $5.2-Billion Agreement With The NHL

In late November 2013, Rogers Communications struck a 12 year $5.2B deal with the National Hockey League to carry games nationally. As a side deal, the CBC would continue to carry its iconic Hockey Night in Canada broadcasts on Saturday night but all revenues received would go back to Rogers.

It will take several years before we know the full impact of the Rogers’ TV deal. The revenues from this deal were distributed to the NHL’s 31 teams and thus impacted the salary cap. More revenues lead to higher franchise values- hence the expansion fee price of $500 million for the Las Vegas Golden Knights.

Insanely Smart And “Cheap” $2M Super Bowl Ads

Sport programming is also an inexpensive way for advertisers to reach consumers- especially in such “crazy” circumstances such as the Super Bowl where they spend $2M for a mere 30 second commercial.

On the surface, this amount of money also appears to be obscene. And for us regular folk, it is! However, you need to keep in mind that the Super Bowl reaches 200M viewers. If you divide $2M by the number of viewers, the cost of reaching this audience boils down to a penny per person. Could you find any cheaper way to reach this many people? If anything, one could argue that the price of the commercials should be higher!

One can make a similar argument to Nike’s “insane” $100M endorsement contract with basketball’s Lebron James who was signed prior to playing a single game of professional basketball. But was this really an insane deal?

In the regular world, $100M is enough money to end poverty in some countries for a decade or two. In the sports shoe business though, this amount is a drop in the bucket. Through this extremely controversial deal, Nike generated enormous media attention- attention that would have cost this corporation significantly more money if it were to (and does) purchase the equivalent in advertising time through the broadcast networks.

In the first week of this deal alone, Nike had made its money back in terms of generating awareness of its products. And for years to come, it will continue to reap the benefits as people will continue to talk about this “crazy” business decision.

The “Faceless” New Face of Ownership

With big advertising money and multi-billion dollar broadcast deals, ownership began to reconfigure. The values of franchises were too high for most billionaires to purchase. This was not the case in the past where teams were often side hobbies or “trophies” for businessmen to flash their wealth. Some franchises were bought for next to nothing.

Because of changes in estate taxes, the soaring values of teams made it difficult for families to keep control of them.

"The estate taxes became ridiculous--the old-style owners' families couldn't afford to keep the teams," explains player agent Gary Woolf. (qtd. in Lambert)

Increasingly, then, teams are now being bought by large corporations that have deep enough pockets to pay both for sky high player salaries and the capital needed for a franchise’s marketing and infrastructure ventures.

This shift in corporate ownership has created new frustrations for fans. In the past, if a team was underperforming, fans could focus their anger at a single individual. Now they are butting heads with a faceless corporation. What’s even more frustrating is that many of these corporations have products or services that fans can’t boycott. For instance, what pressure could Toronto Maple Leaf fans exert on the Ontario Teacher’s Pension plan or its part owner, developer Larry Tannenbaum? Now what can they do to the new owners Rogers and Bell?

This was not the case with Molson Breweries that once owned the Montreal Canadiens. In order to keep its taps flowing, this brewer had to appease fans of rival teams- particularly in Quebec where Carling O’Keefe Breweries once owned the Quebec Nordiques. By the late 1980’s Molson realized that it no longer made good business sense to get caught in the crossfire of irate beer drinking hockey fans and began, as we will see below, its slow but well calculated divestment of the Canadiens.

Green Bay Packers As An Alternative Ownership Model

The NFL’s Green Bay Packers have a different face in front of their organization: their fans. In a unique twist of fate that has never been repeated in any other North American professional sports league, the Packers have over 100,000 share holders. This community owned NFL franchise, is one of the most accountable in all of sports. At shareholders meetings, these people are allowed to ask tough and pointed questions to the team’s GM and President.

Sometimes as many 20,000 shareholders gatherer at Lambeau Field, some wearing team jerseys and their patented “cheese head” hats, to either praise or reprimand management. Fan accountability reigns in this small city. With the Green Bay Packers, arrogance by ownership is strictly forbidden. Full disclosure is unquestioned. What a concept!

In many respects, the bottom line becomes secondary to the local fan’s desire to see a winning product. The team is the community’s property and is respected as such.

Flat Footed Corporate Wheeling and Dealing

Players and their agents find dealing with corporations more difficult than with individual owners since they have to go through various layers of decision making management. Former Toronto Blue Jay and now player agent Jeff Musselman argues:

"Dealing with large organizations can get complicated," he says. "Some players in baseball don't know who the owner actually is." (qtd. in Lambert)

It was through Mussleman that then Texas Rangers shortstop Alex Rodriguez signed a staggeringly high $252-million contract- a sum exceeding the price paid for the Rangers’ franchise. At the time, Musselman commented that the Rangers' owner, multibillionaire Tom Hicks was able to speed up the negotiations by bringing in a “personal touch.” (qtd. in Lambert)

Revenue Sharing: Make the Rich Pay?

One of the greatest problems that North American small market franchises have to confront is having less financial resources than their competitors from large markets such as New York, Chicago, Boston and Los Angles. The main reason for this is that they have smaller populations with weaker television broadcast revenues and fewer potential corporate sponsors.

In the National Football League, revenues are shared in a form known as “pigskin socialism” where almost all revenue derived from the clubs is thrown into a pot and divided equally among the franchises- regardless of their location. At the same time, this league has what is known as a “hard salary cap” in which team payroll budgets are fixed. This means that no franchise can spend more than its allotted budget and thus- championships cannot be “bought” as they are in other sports such as baseball.

Revenue sharing is the best method to ensure team “parity.” If salaries are no longer a barrier to a team’s success, then NFL fans across the States can realistically cling to the hope that one day, their team will win a Super Bowl- Buffalo excepted ;-)

The NBA and MLB also have salary caps but these are not “hard caps.” Teams can go over their team budgets but when they do, they have to pay a financial penalty for doing so in the form of what is known as a “luxury tax.” Since budgets are not set at an absolute limit, salaries in these leagues are based on a “soft cap.” That is, salaries are not as tightly fixed as those in the NHL and NFL.

Some teams, especially those in very lucrative MLB markets such as New York and Boston, essentially ignore the soft cap and pay their additional luxury taxes. The New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox have team payrolls sometimes five times higher than those of some in small market franchises. In 2009, for example, the World Series Champs from New York had a payroll of $226.2M.

Salary Caps: Blessings or Curses?

Salary caps can be a blessing and a curse. They provide “cost certainty” for franchises. They also level the playing field between teams. It does not matter if you are New York or Green Bay, your payrolls are identical. If a team’s management is very good, it will be able to deliver a championship without having to “buy” one. This parity also helps with attendance figures and TV ratings as the better any team is, the more seats it will draw into its stadiums and the more eyeballs it will attract on television. Through this economic model, television broadcasters are thus assured that all the markets that they are trying to reach will be reached. Throw in the important element of gambling in this sport and one can see why so many people dedicate their Sunday’s and Monday’s on the outcomes of contests in remote places such as New Orleans and Tennessee.

One very serious aspect of salary caps is that they do not take into account the unfair advantage given to American teams due to tax breaks. Players can save millions of dollars each year in salary depending on what city they play for- this is particularly true with Florida based franchises. For parity’s sake then, Canadian teams (and some American ones) should be allowed to offset this unfair advantage by spending above the current number in order to put them on equal footing.

Conversely, if you have lousy management- or you locked a player into a long term deal and he does not perform to expectations, it is extremely hard to trade him to another club.

I personally find the cap to be a bit useless in basketball where the franchise that lands three of the best players in the league tends to win the championship- hello super teams Miami and San Antonio.

Mediocrity

Another problem with caps concerns the vulnerability of teams. Caps create parity. The only thing separating a first and last place team is 2-3 superstars. So long as your team is healthy, your squad appears amazing. The thing is, in sports like basketball, you might be able to keep your top paid players healthy for a full season. In a sport like hockey though, players get hit hard all the time- and not by picks. If your team loses its 2-3 superstars to injury, then the rest of your roster (with AHL calibre players making the league minimum to meet the cap) just can’t take you very far.

No More Dynasties

Salary caps have also put an end to the NHL having dynasty teams. That is, it’s almost virtually impossible for a club to win a back-to back championship- let alone multiple ones like the Montreal Canadiens, New York Islanders and Edmonton Oilers. For Canadian fans, this will not stop them from watching the NHL. For their American cousin’s though, that’s another story.

Usually teams build through the draft and free agency for that one season where they hope to hoist the Stanley Cup. During the trade deadline, they tend to roll the dice and go for the championship while their young talented players are in the last year of their cheaper salaries. Thereafter, they have to “blow-up” their rosters in order to stay within the cap. Teams end-up protecting their core star players but they have to let go their equally important supporting cast members. As a result, their depth of talent becomes very shallow and two to three injuries later, they can’t compete. For American fans who are just starting to get interested in hockey because their team has won a Stanley Cup, they tend to get a much weaker roster the following season (if not few years later) giving them little reason to want to come back and watch more of this game. The salary cap therefore undermines years of marketing efforts for fragile U.S. based teams.

Bought Championships?

Of course having big payroll teams does not guarantee a championship. There are many factors involved in the making of a winning franchise. Team chemistry and unity is essential. In general, championship clubs need players to work with each other like soldiers in the field of battle. Individualism in football, basketball or hockey is often viewed as cancerous. The only partial exception to this rule is in baseball.

In this sport, each play more or less boils down to a single player competing with another- for instance, a pitcher against a batter. Whether the pitcher gets along with his team mates or not, matters less in this sport than say a quarterback in football or a star forward in hockey. In baseball, it is not uncommon for many successful teams to have a terrible clubhouse atmosphere. In the other main sports leagues, poor social cohesion is a recipe for disaster.

Does Revenue Sharing Work?

Green Bay is a perfect example of how a small market franchises can not only survive but thrive in professional sport. This team’s success boils down to quality management and the power of revenue sharing. Can this system work in the other major leagues?

Probably not.

Revenue sharing works so well in the National Football League because this league makes more than enough money to be able to redistribute it. This might not be the case with the NHL where only a handful of teams are making significant profits. According to the Globe and Mail’s David Naylor,

"Moving around some revenue from the Toronto Maple Leafs and Rangers doesn't solve anything. There's not enough of it, and all you've done is make Toronto and New York weaker. It's not a cure. I don't even think it's a Band-aid." (Naylor, “To share or”)

Similar arguments can be made for MLB where one can see why the New York Yankees would be reluctant to share their revenues with the Minnesota’s of this world.

Other critics of this economic model are concerned that revenue sharing can be a reward for clubs that don't manage their businesses well. Look at how bad the Pittsburgh Pirates have traditionally been because ownership just relied on luxury cap payouts from MLB. This was enough to keep this franchise afloat for years while ownership saw its investment rise in terms of purchasing price. This is analogous to someone buying a broken down house in a very good neighbourhood, renting it out to students and waiting a few years to sell it off at a handsome profit.

Unfair Advantages

Dallas’ $1.15B retractable roof “Cowboy’s Stadium”

Canadian teams have traditionally been at a competitive disadvantage with their American counterparts. They have had to contend with a lower dollar that is anywhere between 25-45% less than the United States’. Players get paid in U.S. dollars. American government handouts in the area of building arenas or venues- like Dallas’ $1.15B “Cowboy Stadium;” major tax breaks and financial hand-outs also tip the balances in terms of parity. Local television deals for U.S. franchises are often better than what their Canadian counterparts can secure.

Indeed, the situation was so bad around 2002 that some people were calling for the Government of Canada to take this issue to the North American Free Trade Tribunal Court since it can be argued that many of these actions can be deemed “unfair subsidies.”

Franchise Free Agency

As discussed in the previous unit, through expansion and antitrust exemption laws, sports leagues tend to operate like monopolies. In 30 team leagues, it is very difficult for new upstart ones to significantly challenge them. Player talent pools are all ready too thin for a second competitor to come in with a product that is of equal calibre. MLB has even greater monopoly protections with its antitrust exemptions that prevent the formation of a new rival baseball league.

Sports leagues do not operate in the same way as say, Esso and Shell do- in which they set-up gas stations at every busy intersection from coast to coast. In baseball, franchises in Sacramento, New Orleans, and Portland would have teams if the American and National leagues were in competition with one another. Other cities like New York might have four or five viable franchises. Hamilton would certainly have a hockey franchise if the NHL did not comply with the wishes of the Toronto Maple Leafs and Buffalo Sabres.

As virtual monopolies, professional sports league teams also have power to extract taxpayer money from the cities that they reside in through the threat of moving to another location. For example, since 1923, 68% of NFL stadium construction costs came from taxpayer money.

A classic example of a tax payer showdown happened in Arlington, Texas by a group of investors for the Texas Rangers baseball team- including then future president George W. Bush. The group acquired the Rangers in 1989 for $86 million. Within a year, the new Rangers ownership threatened to move the team away from Arlington unless they were given a new ballpark.

Bush's connections helped convince the city of Arlington to put up 85 to 90 percent of the funds to build the ballpark, via bonds paid mostly through an increased sales tax. Four years later, Tom Hicks bought this club for $250 million. Bush received $15 million, but the taxpayers who invested $135 million in the stadium alone got no proceeds from the sale. (Lambert, “The Dow of”)

Such manoeuvres would never be allowed to happen in Green Bay. A community owned franchise can’t be moved because some owner “can no longer compete” and “is forced” to get a better deal down the road.

The amount of government funding of sports stadiums is incredible. The stupidity shown by local, provincial and state governments is equally incredible.

Miami Marlin’s owner Jeffrey Loria conned this municipality into building a state of the art baseball stadium with the promise of having a team stacked with quality players. He kept his side of the bargain by holding onto the roster for a year then traded away the expensive core to the Toronto Blue Jays.

In economically ravaged Detroit, where it had to declare bankruptcy after accumulating $18B in debt- so high, that it cannot afford to fully pay the pensions of retired firefighters, police officers, and teachers; the Ilitch family was still able to get funding for a new hockey stadium.

The Ontario Teachers Pension Fund got access to BMO Field and Ricoh Coliseum, built by the city of Toronto for a song. Quebec City received ridiculous funding for its NHL quality hockey rink courtesy of the various levels of governments.

The same thing happened in Edmonton where owner Daryl Katz squeezed- out tons of public funds. BC Stadium received funding for a new roof British Columbia taxpayers that was over $500 million. That’s a lot of firefighters, teachers and police that could have been hired.

Worst of the Worst

Do you want to know some of the worst deals cities have negotiated with local professional sports franchises? Read: https://www.minnpost.com/political-agenda/2015/07/vikings-stadium-makes-marketwatch-list-worst-deals-sports-teams

Look, I get why we like sports. But when there are so many ESSENTIAL needs and services that people have with government, and these franchises are making money hand over fist, how can we be so stupid and give them up for a weekly or bi-weekly entertaining event? It’s just plain crazy.

Government Investments In The Olympic Games

“The Montreal Olympics can no more have a deficit, than a man can have a baby.”

These infamous words were uttered by Montreal's mayor in the 1970s Jean Drapeau. It took 30 years for the city of Montreal to pay off its $1.5-billion debt from the 1976 Summer Games. Most host countries have since tried to avoid becoming another “Montreal”- a city name now synonymous with poor Olympic Games cost management.

There is a Scottish expression that goes as follows:

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

34 years after “the big Owe,” organizers in British Columbia also had a large bill to take care of- a whopping $6B plus of a bill.

According to a research paper from Oxford University, “every single Olympic Games held in the last 50 years [has] had overrun initial cost estimates. The average cost overrun was an eye-watering 179%’’ (Jorge. "If the World”). So NEVER, EVER, EVER, believe a politician who says that the Games will be on budget. This would be a flat out lie. 

At least the people of British Columbia, and Canada in general, were not as badly out of pocket as those living across the pond in the United Kingdom. The Brits had to pay a staggering $15 billion to host the 2012 Olympic Games. Original estimates were just $4B! The rule of thumb is, anytime a government estimates a cost, triple the amount and you will come closer to what it will really amount to.

Personally, I am glad that Toronto did not win the bid for these games. As you will see below, the costs to host them are stratospheric. Beijing alone forked-out $43B US!

Murphy’s Law And The Brazil Olympics

Murphy’s Law states: “What can go wrong, will go wrong.” This basically summarizes the Rio Olympic Games. The nation was in deep financial crisis due to the drop in oil prices. It was already deep into the red by hosting the 2014 World Cup.

How bad were things economically? Brazil was in its worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s which led to massive government cutbacks.

Its political system was quickly crumbling as a result of a series of serious corruption scandals.

The nation was also wrought in a health crisis with the widespread of the zika virus. Oh, yeah, it also agreed to host the ridiculously expensive Olympic Games.

Back in January of 2016, Bloomberg News reported that the Rio Games would cost $9.8B U.S. The original estimate was $1B. The electrical bills alone would be a staggering $100M.

The financial situation in Brazil was so bad that less than two months prior to hosting the Olympic Games, the acting governor of Rio de Janeiro state was forced to declare a state of financial disaster so he could get $900M more in funding. (“Rio declares 'financial disaster'”)

If you think the Greek financial crisis, in large part brought on by the incredible costs of hosting the Olympics was huge, well you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Of course there are some very valid counter arguments that need to be mentioned. First, hosting the Olympic Games tend to promote national pride and unity. When people feel good about their country, the idea of separation in a divided country such as Canada weakens.

Could you imagine the costs of Quebec leaving our union? The damage to our dollar; potential military strife; the relocation of “refugees”; not to mention the squabbles that would take place on pensions and government benefits would be immense. Throwing a big party that gets us all together singing “combaya” reduces this possibility. So in these respects, one could successfully argue that these very expensive games act as necessary “social programs” that keep us from ruining some of the good things that Canadians cherish.

Second, if done right, the games act as an impetus for long sought infrastructure programs like building better roads, subways and housing complexes. These projects get goods and people moving more efficiently thereby making us more attractive in terms of foreign investment. This can translate into future jobs and a larger tax base.

Some cities have been nicely transformed through the Olympics. The best example would have to be Barcelona. I had visited it about a decade before the Games were held there. Let me tell you, it was sketchyville. I revisited it just a few years ago and my jaw dropped at how beautiful it had become. It is a first rate city that should be a must visit to any student taking urban planning and architecture.

Likewise, Vancouver is one of the nicest “new” cities in North America. Athens, which is the least pretty of all places in Greece, definitely looked a lot better than it ever did as a result of hosting the Olympics. The highway improvements and mass tree planting program there alone positively transformed this city’s once unbearable air quality. At the same time, the country is now teetering on bankruptcy and may take down the entire European Union with it.

Finally, one can make a valid argument that the Olympic Games put a country on the map. If done well, this recognition can lead to more investment and trade. It could also stimulate tourism as people who watch the games may now be intrigued to visit this “beautiful and welcoming” place that has been promoted through the international media. All this is true but economist Andrew Rose and Mark Spiegel, a vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco point out that by simply making a bid does the same thing. They found a 30% increase in trade for countries that have hosted the Olympics as well as countries with cities that had unsuccessful but close bids to host this event. It’s sort of like American Idol, X Factor or The Voice. Oftentimes, the runners up have as successful if not more successful recording careers as the actual winner.

“You don’t have to be the host,” says Spiegel. “If you’re just one of the finalists, you get the same impact – without the expense of hosting the Games.” (Sandburn, “London’s Loss? Why”)

Toronto’s 2015 Pan-Am Games

In 2015, Toronto will be hosting the Pan-Am Games. Here are a few feel good videos on this topic.

Toronto 2015 Video - "Your Moment is Here" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNatjoHMjBY

Toronto 2015 PAN-AM Games Bid - The Dream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfRH_epedKI

A Waste Of Tax Payer’s Money

Given the fiscal debacle in BC for hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics, why on earth did Toronto want to host the second rate Pan-Am games in 2015? This event was ESTIMATED to cost $1.5B. The actual costs were about $4.5B for an event that no one except the parents of these unknown athletes cared about. The Province of Ontario in 2009 was massively in debt. Today, it has the highest “non-sovereign” debt on the planet. That is, it owes more money than any state, province or territory on earth. If I had to spend $4.5 billion, I could use it to lower your tuition; get more MRI’s in hospitals or build a subway in Toronto. I have attached several articles on this topic below if you are interested in reading more about it.

Government Handouts: Corporate Welfare In Sports

In early October, it was reported that Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment received $500,000 from the Government of Ontario as part of its bid to secure the 2016 NBA All Star Game. Seriously?!

This is such an egregious act of “corporate welfare.”

Here’s what the Toronto Sun’s Steve Simmons had to say on this matter on the TSN show, “The Reporters.”

“My thumb is down to the cozy relationship between taxpayer money and the multi-billion dollar business, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. It's easy to be offended that the Ontario government will provide MLSE with $500,000, an apparent incentive to bring the NBA All-Star Game to Toronto, as if it weren't doing it anyhow, with or without a government handout. It's just MLSE has this way about them - their soccer team plays in a stadium they operate, paid for with taxpayer dollars. Their AHL hockey team plays in an arena they operate, again paid for with taxpayer dollars..”

Did I get your blood curdled? Good. Then we’re ready for our next topic: Government Handouts And Corporate Welfare In Sports.

It is often argued by sports teams that they play a vital role in the local economy. As such, it is in the best interest of governments to subsidize them so that they can stay “competitive.” According to Walter Robinson, Director of the Canadian Tax Payer’s Federation, this is simply not true. He likens government handouts or tax breaks as being nothing more than a form of “corporate welfare.”

Robinson argues that

“…the money that you and I spend on hockey is disposable income. If we don’t spend it buying tickets to the game or beers in the stands, we won’t throw the money into the fireplace. We will spend it elsewhere and it will find its way into revenues and taxes. It’s a simple economic principle called the ‘substitution’ effect.” (Robinson, “Industry specific tax breaks won’t fly”)

He backs his views from a variety of studies from “respected” think-tanks that consistently come to the same conclusion. Namely that: Professional sports franchises and sports stadiums have a negligible economic impact on the local economy.

The most compelling of these studies was carried out in 1994 by Professor Robert Baade from Lake Forest College who examined 48 cities with professional sports team franchises over a 30-year period. Of the 32 cities that saw a change in the number of sports teams, 30 saw no change in per capita income while only one saw a slight rise and the other, a small decrease. (Robinson, “Industry specific tax breaks won’t fly”)

But what about the argument that other industries receive favourable tax treatment? Shouldn’t professional sports teams be treated equally?

Sparing no punches, Robinson argues that,

“This is the ‘all my friends are jumping off the bridge so I should too’ approach to public policy…

Collectively, our governments have a brutal record in industrial policy and always pick more losers than winners. We have already flushed billions down the drain in industry specific relief and credit programs; we don’t need to repeat our abysmal record of government playing financier and venture capitalist.” (Robinson, “Industry specific tax breaks won’t fly”)

He also has no time for the “cultural significance” arguments that some franchises like to bandy-out. Namely, that hockey is “our game” and that we should be prepared to step off the bench and protect it with taxpayer dollars.

“Taxpayers are already doing their fair share! All those corporate boxes and company-owned season’s tickets are nice business development tax write-offs, partly courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. And in Ottawa at the Corel Centre, the Government of Canada has logos on the inside and outside of the building. Then there’s the taxpayer-funded advertising by Canada Post, Via Rail, and the Royal Canadian Mint. Finally, let’s not forget the [government owned] CBC television revenues paid to teams … courtesy of Joe and Jane Q. Taxpayer… If MPs buy into the flawed arguments for justifying government help then we should give them a game misconduct and bench them for interfering with our tax dollars.” (Robinson, “Industry specific tax breaks won’t fly”)

It’s very hard to argue with Robinson’s reasoning but you may want to give it a try in the Discussion Forum.

Government and Business Backroom Dealing

Here in Canada, public support for such initiatives is generally not strong. In the summer of 2010, the provincial government of Quebec doled-out over $400M for a new hockey rink in Quebec City. The federal Conservative government- looking for votes from this province- was also going to help but backed-out once it started receiving heat from voters from the rest of Canada. This rink will eventually house the yet to be determined expansion/relocated Quebec Nordiques owned by the highly influential billionaire media baron Pierre Karl Peladeau.

Back in January of 2000, then Federal Industry Minster John Manley called for a "temporary, modest package" of aid that would help out Canadian NHL teams to survive until a new collective-bargaining agreement between the league and its players could be struck in 2004. $3M would go to the then struggling Ottawa Senators under the ownership of Rob Bryden- a long time Liberal Party supporter. Hmm.

Both the public’s and the media’s reaction to this package was quick and fierce. One day after announcing this initiative, the government backed down and withdrew its proposal.

The public’s reaction may help to explain why governments sometime provide support to sport franchises in more subtle or “secretive” ways- including lucrative government advertising contracts and/or backdoor legislation.

In October of 2002, for example, the new Ontario Provincial Government headed by then Premier Ernie Eves was caught with egg on its face after it was disclosed that outgoing Premier Mike Harris had quietly provided a $10M tax break to major league sport franchises in Ontario through an “order in council.” This handout was done without the knowledge of most of his cabinet or the legislature.

Finance Minister Janet Ecker told the Legislature that details of how the order actually was signed are “protected by cabinet confidentiality,” and insisted no laws were broken.

"That is a common process that happens many, many times [my emphasis] in the absence of one minister or another minister," she said. (“MPP”)

One has to ask what other decisions are secretly overridden “many, many times” in our parliamentary democracy?

In the U.S., there is a free for all on these types of matters. In 2014, it was revealed in the media that the NFL was able to obtain a special claims tax-exempt status- putting itself in the same class as business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade. The league managed to get this through help in high places by spending $16-17 million on political lobbying. Commissioner Roger Goodell took home a $44 million in 2013 alone. Executive Vice President for Media Steve Bornstein netted $26 million. Jeff Pash, the league’s general counsel, brought home just under $8 million. That’s a pretty good investment in lobbying.

Political Reality

While we tend to agree with most of Robinson’s arguments, the reality is that voters would likely turf-out politicians who would not keep some of their beloved franchises around.

Imagine what life would be like for the average citizen in Toronto (and many parts of Canada) if his or her Leafs were to relocate to an American city? Many political heads would roll if this were ever to happen. Keeping franchises afloat is often a political rather than economical decision.

Social critics such as Noam Chomsky argue that professional sport is one vehicle that the governing political and economical elite use to divert attention away from their self-serving activities. (qtd. in “Manufacturing Consent”) Remove sports and people just might start paying attention to what their leaders are up to.

Solutions

This though is not going to happen. For many people, sports matters way too much. If politicians have to work with this reality then could they at least make smart decisions?

For instance, if a government is going to assist a franchise in staying in a city, province or state, it must negotiate with the owners under very tight terms and conditions.

They should tell team owners threatening to relocate the following:

“O.K. We want you here. You say that you want to stay here. If you really are serious in staying, we’ll give you $X million but if you decide to re-locate you will have to pay us back a twenty-five percent interest charge for all subsidies that we have provided.”

Our elected officials though, seldom play hardball with owners- especially those who support their political party. The same can be said about teams now owned by large sized corporations. Indeed, the extent to which governments allow corporations to tax dodge through sports teams by the practice of creative accounting is astonishing.

How Corporations Avoid Taxes Through Sport

Did you also know that corporations like Rogers have a corporate tax rate of just 20% while our income taxes alone are anywhere in the range of 20-50%? Did you also know that the majority of the top 200 corporations in our country paid zero to close to no federal income taxes due to brilliant accounting practices?

There is something called “tax freedom day.” For the average Canadian, the government takes enough money from your pay check to be the equivalent of working every day from January 1st to July 1st. In Australia, it’s April 24th. In the U.S. it’s April 30th.

Some of your taxable income goes towards corporations entertaining clients at sporting venues. If a luxury box costs Bell Canada $200,000 a year to maintain at the Air Canada Centre and this same company expenses another $100,000 in food and drink, the government allows Bell to write-off $150,000. And who pays for this? We do through our pay stubs.

For every $150 dollar ticket that you and I pay to see a sporting event, it only costs a large corporation $75. They get a two for one deal!

Now the excuse that corporations and our government will use on this issue is that business is all about “relationships.” As such, deals are solidified when clients and a corporation’s staff get to better know one another in more relaxed settings- like a hot tub in a football stadium.

Now don’t get me wrong. I like capitalism- it’s the best economic system out there; especially when there is full on competition- but shouldn’t these get togethers be a part of the risk associated with drawing-in business deals? That is, if a corporation believes that it can “close deals” by taking clients out to games and expensive dinners, then it should not be afraid to pay these costs. Of course, when the government will subsidize these activities, the risk becomes 50% smaller and this opens the door to corporations taking advantage of our tax dollars for their own entertainment purposes.

The Roger’s Centre

Corporations love to take advantage of lousy government decisions. Very rarely do you find governments that make wise decisions with our tax dollars. Take for instance the Rogers Centre.

Back in 2004, the former SkyDome was purchased by Rogers Communications for a mere $25M. Ontario Tax payers paid a whopping $600M to have it built. The $25M purchase at the time was worth the land value alone. To help pay for stadium, the Jays simply unloaded star player Carlos Delgado. That is, they did not bother to counter the four-year $52 million offer provided by the Florida Marlins for this first baseman. The Jays got rid of one all star player and received a stadium. Sweet deal.

Concentrated Media Ownership and Censorship:

Media Interference From Team Ownership

While EAC 955 is not a media course, I have to tell you at least one major issue that relates to sports but the very lifeblood of our democracy: concentrated media ownership. Did you know that here in Canada, 3 companies basically own 90% of all of our media- that’s radio, TV, print and the main news websites. They are Rogers Communications, Bell Enterprises and Shaw Communications. That’s not a lot of voices offering a variety of viewpoints. Want to know why you pay the highest priced cell phone, cable and internet fees? Guess who decides what stories should and shouldn’t get on the news? These 3 companies can literally decide who becomes Prime Minister. In the U.S., there are 5 major communications companies that virtually own everything.

In sports, these same companies decide what should and should not be discussed. The only solution to this very serious problem is to break-up these monopolies. They are too big and pose a serious threat to our democracy. Likewise, they pose a major risk in terms of corrupting sport. The problem is few people know these facts and the politicians, not wanting to annoy their media masters, will do nothing unless our society demands them to.

Bell Canada Enterprises’ major sports television properties are CTV, TSN, TSN 2 and Large Shares of the NHL Network. They also own the Toronto Maple Leafs, Raptors and FC.

Rogers in addition to owning a large chunk of MLSE, it also owns the Toronto Blue Jays; a number of sports radio stations such as The Fan 590 here in Toronto; Rogers Sports Net and Sport Net 360- plus its network of City TV stations.

This high level of concentrated media ownership means that there are fewer and fewer independent media outlets available on conventional media to provide alternative viewpoints. Talk 640 (owned by Shaw Communications) radio host Bill Watters was banned from entering the ACC because of his constant attacks concerning MLSE’s then big wig Richard Peddie. The FAN’s Mike Wilner was suspended without pay for a few days because he upset former Jay manager Cito Gaston with some comments that were critical of his running of the team’s roster. Criticizing a team, especially its ownership, is increasingly becoming a bad idea.

Likewise, all of this convergence is making all reporters run increasingly scared. After all, criticizing in one medium might come back to haunt you. Many years ago, it was at all not common for a newspaper chain to be owned by a television network. Now communications companies have converged their ownership in a variety of media such a print, radio, television and the Internet. The television network that a reporter may criticize today may one day be a part of a consortium that purchased his or her magazine/newspaper. If this new ownership group has a long memory, such a person is literally toast.

Reporters also have a fear of access. If they get out of line, they are often denied essential locker room interviews. The players will simply remain silent in front of them. Sometimes, irate ownership will play a game of hardball and deny reporters access to their games. Unless you are a very important media personality like Bob McCowan and Don Cherry, don’t get in the way of “truculent” people like former Leafs GM Brian Burke- just ask former Hockey Night in Canada Hot Stove analyst Al Strachan.

Because of these realities, media outlets tend to hire “safe” reporters who will not bite the hand that feeds them. Many of them impose within themselves a form of self-censorship. They also tend to pump the tires of the teams that their corporations own.

The main casualty here is investigative journalism- particularly in television where it is virtually frowned upon.

This is not just a Canadian problem. The Golf Network was last to cover Tiger Wood’s scandals from a few years ago. So too was ESPN. Indeed, according to the New York Times, ESPN did not report the civil lawsuit filed in 2005 by a woman who accused NFLer Michael Vick of infecting her with herpes through unprotected sex. It did the same thing when Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault. The sports-media giant had banned virtually all its TV, radio and online properties from covering this story. ESPN’s refusal to report on the Steelers’ QB gave rise to criticism that it was not only protecting Roethlisberger’s reputation, but it was also shielding its TV partner, the NFL. (Sandomir, “Football Star Is”)

Back in August of 2013, ESPN stopped working with PBS in the production of League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis — which is based on reporting/an upcoming book by ESPN’s own Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru. This documentary explores how “the NFL is under assault as thousands of former players and a host of scientists claim the league has covered up how football inflicted long-term brain injuries on many players.” (Mittovich, “ESPN Pulls Out”)

Why did ESPN back away from this project? The most likely reason is pressure from the NFL whom ESPN has paid billions of dollars in broadcast rights.

Another reason that the media avoids producing investigative reports of sports teams is its legitimate fear of law suits. Very rich and powerful multi-billion dollar companies are involved here.

The bottom line then is the bottom line and truth often is a casualty.

Cross Ownership

The concentration of media ownership is also being paralleled in professional sports. Sports franchises are increasingly being “cross owned.” In New York for instance, the Nicks and Rangers are owned by the same company. Likewise in Toronto, the Maple Leafs and Raptors are principally owned by Rogers and Bell Canada. In Dallas, the Stars, Texas Rangers and Mavericks are all part of the same ownership.

Cross ownership of teams allows owners greater bargaining power when it comes to selling their broadcast rights.

Deals are negotiated involving packages. In Toronto, for instance, the broadcast rights for the highly rated Leafs are paired with those of the lower rated Raptors.

Media Owned Teams

Some teams are owned by media companies. These companies can exercise pressure internally to keep criticism under control. For example, in Toronto the Fan 590 was purchased by Rogers Communications from Telemedia. Shortly thereafter, severe criticism of the Blue Jays (a division of Rogers) and its president Paul Godfrey literally ceased over night.

Then, there’s the Leafs.

Take for example, the very sleazy hiring in late November 2008 of GM Brian Burke and his assistant Dave Nonis. The Anaheim Ducks should have received compensation from the Toronto Maple Leafs as compensation for tampering. Name any other league that would allow a franchise to lose by almost mid-season its two front office personnel with nothing in return?

The whole thing made a huge joke of the NHL. Radio call-in shows for months were discussing this inevitable deal. His hiring was the worst kept secret in hockey.

This is the third incident in recent memory where this type of shenanigan has taken place.

Anaheim did it earlier when it signed Pierre Gautier from Ottawa in 1998. The New York Rangers did it when Glen Sather was pried away from Edmonton in 2000. (I’ll give you the specifics on these two stories in another lecture).

The common thread here involves media influence. The Ducks at the time were owned by Disney. Disney owns ESPN- and at that time, the NHL was beholden to this company through its TV contract.

As for New York, the NHL, desperately needed to prop-up the then faltering New York Rangers as its poor performance was leading to drastically reduced TV ratings. Further, it’s critical for a lower tiered sport like hockey to showcase its product to the media capital of the U.S.

Comcast, which now owns NBC and the Philadelphia Flyers will now have significant pull in the internal workings of the NHL given its $2B contract with this league. As a result, they will wield the same degree of influence that Disney did.

As for the Leafs, its parent company through MLSE had major holdings at the time in The Sports Network and runs NHL Centre Ice.

Even the CBC, which is no friend to big business, kept its mouth shut. Why?

Hockey Night in Canada (HNIC) ratings have taken a beating since the Leafs failed to make the playoffs over the last five seasons. HNIC is an important source of revenues for this network. Aside from a $1B a year in government funding, Leaf games are the cash cows that help keep the rest of their mediocre programs on the air.

The news media has ignored this very large elephant I the room. No one spoke out on this. And that is why the NHL could pinch its nose and allow these signings to take place. Thank goodness for blogs and unfiltered fan forums. Without these outlets, we would be stuck hearing the spin delivered by the corporate run “mainstream” sports media. The TSNs, Sports Nets and ESPNs of this world refuse to bite the hand that feeds them.

I’m sure that many of you Leaf fans don’t care about this matter. If it benefits the buds, then so be it. You do have to admit though, that this media influence makes the NHL look a bit bush league. In many ways, Toronto’s influence on hockey is very reminiscent of the United States’ on the Olympics. As you will see in a future lecture, there are reasons why U.S. drug cheats seldom get revealed. Media money talks. Media money also hushes.

Finally, is it just me or does Kate Flannery from the TV show The Office look like she’s related to Brian Burke? ;-)

Summary

There are many complicated facets to the sports industry. The most significant agent that changed it from simple form of entertainment to a multibillion dollar behemoth was television. This medium is principally responsible for raising franchise fees, salaries and ticket prices. How television revenues and team profits should be shared amongst both franchises and players is also a multibillion dollar question.

As with any other major industry, where big money is to be made, power and influence followed. Governments are now clearly connected with professional sports leagues in ways that appear to be conflict of interest breeches. Some times, governments also get involved to garner favourable voter attention.

Some of the stories concerning the questionable relations between governments and sports franchises appear to be either ignored or buried in the back pages of newspapers. Considering how many of these franchises affect our pocket books through “corporate welfare,” perhaps we should pay closer attention to these issues. It’s in the public’s- not corporate sector’s- best interests to do so.

Works Cited

“Eves cancels tax breaks for pro sports teams.” CBC News Online 9 Oct. 2002 <http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/10/09/eves_tax021009>.

“Heavy Criticism Greets Liberal Aid Package.” The Globe and Mail 19 Jan. 2000 <http://www.globetechnology.com/archive/20000119/UHOCKN.html>.

“Most Valuable NFL Teams.” Forbes Magazine. August 8, 2013.

< http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/08/14/the-most-valuable-nfl-teams/ >.

“NBA TV deal: How the new $24B contract stacks up against other leagues.” CBC Sports. October 7, 2014.

<http://www.cbc.ca/sports/basketball/nba/nba-tv-deal-how-the-new-24b-contract-stacks-up-against-other-leagues-1.2790143>.

Isodore, Chris. “Paying for the fat cats in the front row: Businesses see their taxes cut by more than $1B a year by deducting their sports purchases.” CNN Online11 Apr. 2003 < http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/11/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/>.

Lambert, Craig “The Dow of Professional Sports: Has winning on the field become simply a corporate triumph?” September-October 2001: Volume 104, Number 1, Page 38

<http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/09014.html>.

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. Videotape. Dirs. Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick. National Film Board of Canada. 1992.

Matt Webb Mittovich. “ESPN Pulls Out of PBS Docu on NFL Concussions.” TV Line.com. August 23, 2013

<http://tvline.com/2013/08/23/espn-pulls-out-of-pbs-documentary-on-nfl-concussions/>.

“MPP cries foul on teams' $10M tax break approval; 'It appears some official lied,' charges Liberal” Toronto Star 11 Oct. 2002 <http://www.gerryphillips.com/Frames/News/2002/20021011.htm>.

Naylor, David. “To share or not to share.” Globe and Mail 20 Jan. 2003

<http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/sports/RTGAM/20030120/wxnhll0120/Sports/sportsBN/breakingnews-sports>.

“Ontario reconsiders pro clubs' tax breaks.” The Globe and Mail 9 Oct. 2002 <http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021009/wtaxx1009/Front/homeBN/breakingnews>.

Pitts, Gordon. “What’s brewed in the bone.” The Globe and Mail 29 May. 2009

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/whats-brewed-in-the-bone/article1159083/ >.

Roberts, Daniel. “UFC deal reflects the growing sports power of WME-IMG.” Yahoo Finance. July 12, 2016.

Robinson, Walter. “Industry specific tax breaks won’t fly.” Ottawa Business Journal Online 10 May, 1999

<http://www.taxpayer.ca/op-eds/Ottawabusinessjournal/May10-99.htm>.

Sandomir, Richard. “Football Star Is Accused, but ESPN Plays It Cautious.” New York Times. July 22, 2009.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/sports/football/23espn.html>.

“Tax Breaks for Senators.” Canoe.ca 29 Apr. 2000

<http://www.canoe.ca/StateOfHockey/apr29_2.html>.

Wanagas, Don. “Asleep at the Deal: City council gives Mel's friends keys to Union Station.” NOW Magazine Online Edition 8 Aug. 2002

<http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2002-08-08/news_story7.php>.

Top of Form

Did you:

· Read the online materials for this unit?

Are you now able to:

Identify and articulate:

· The at times, cozy relationship between governments and sports team owners and their backroom dealings?

· How sports franchises tax dodge?

· Sports stories that have either been censored or seldom covered in the mainstream media? And, articulate:

· The role that concentrated media ownership plays in this censored coverage?

· How team ownership also interferes with media coverage? And,

· Whether revenue sharing amongst franchises works?

If so, you are now ready to proceed to the next unit.