It's interesting that Cuban takes this position, when he's the owner who likely treats his team like more of a business than any other owner in the NBA. Cuban, unlike Donald Sterling and many other owners, actually tries to deliver a good product and good service to his customers. That's what businesses do, and that's how they remain successful. Just because you have passionate fans doesn't make the business different (and in fact, teams have passionate fans because they run good businesses). Sports fans aren't any different than the fans who camp out for the latest iphone or playstation, run message boards for their favorite bands or celebrities, or plaster "MOPAR SUCKS" stickers all over their Fords.

Many other franchise owners don't act like Cuban precisely because the government has created an environment where sports teams don't need to operate like other businesses. The leagues are granted state-sanctioned monopolies and, due to Americans' abundant free time and income, many teams get to coast by on revenue generated by other teams. Owners like Donald Sterling got to print money for two decades despite the dreadful fan experience or the team's record. That's what makes owning a franchise a business unlike any other.

tl;dr - "No city has ever thrown a parade for a local company that has had a great quarter or year."

Wasn't occupy wall street a very long parade?

I am not from the US but from what I understand "Occupy Wall Street" was a parade against, and not for, something. Am I wrong?

You are entirely correct. I was making a joke.

Sports is a funny business - depending on the market, you could lose every game and still make tons of money. Some teams just have huge demand for tickets + tv and wont ever stop.

Case in point: Cowboys are worth as much as the Yankees, and are worth more than the Patriots and NY Giants.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-valuable-sports-teams-ma...

Example: Chicago Cubs

Second example: The Golden State Warriors. Go Dubs!

Not really on topic but an interesting point given he mentioned the fan experience. Going to Mavs games used to be fun. But the level of police presents has ratched up very quickly over the last few years and has detracted from the fun of going so a lot of people I know no longer go. At the rate it is going you will need to be water boarded to get into the arena as part of the "security check".

Interesting, I don't go to many Mavs games, but was there about a month ago (the day before NYE) and didn't experience that at all. I haven't noticed a worsening trend at Stars games at AAC, either -- I remember about five years ago having an annoying security experience, complete with a line at some metal detectors, but in the past few years it's seemed to get quicker, if anything, for the Stars.

It wasn't exactly "fun" anyway, though, cause they couldn't buy a basket and got blown out by the Spurs... but that's a different issue!

I went to Mavs vs. Trail Blazers last Wednesday and only received a simple wanding after removing items from my pocket. I don't know anyone who is deterred by the police presence.

The unique role that sports teams play in their communities makes it all the more sad when they sell their fans out to advertisers, by doing things like selling naming rights to a stadium or plastering ads on players' uniforms.

I disagree. I think the vast majority of sports fans don't really care that their stadium is the SunLife Stadium, or that their uniforms have a Microsoft logo plastered on.

It varies. Baseball fans I think would look at advertising on uniforms as distasteful if not disrespectful, but soccer fans don't seem to mind. Context matters, and that goes for stadium naming rights. In Newcastle, efforts to rename a stadium ran into significant opposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Park#Renaming_of_the_s...

Your link is incorrect, it should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James%27_Park#Renaming_of_th...

Japanese baseball teams are based around corporate sponsorship.

They don't care enough to riot, no, but I'm certain that given the choice they would rather not have advertising blasted at them. And they don't have a choice, since most major professional sports are not subject to ordinary anti-trust restrictions.

"Given the choice" would include paying (likely significantly) more for their tickets. With that in mind, I'm very inclined to agree with the GP that the vast majority of sports fans just don't care.

> And they don't have a choice, since most major professional sports are not subject to ordinary anti-trust restrictions.

You seem to imply there are monopolies in professional sports? You get that they literally compete against each other? And there are plenty of valid substitute products (other sports).

I'm not implying there are monopolies, it's a fact. Literal intra-league competition is irrelevant; aside from a few major markets with multiple franchises, teams in a league generally don't compete directly with each other for fans. It's unlikely that fans are going to switch to a remote competitor, that's why they call it the home team. People generally root for the teams where they grew up, or that their family has some connection to. And suggesting that other sports are commercially equivalent alternatives is like saying a monopoly in the automotive market is OK because there are trains.

It'll always be Joe Robbie Stadium to me.

Or--ask them in Brooklyn, Baltimore, Cleveland, etc.--when they pick up stakes and move the franchise.

(Free trivia tip: both of Baltimore's major teams used to be called the Browns.)