| ▲ | 1970-01-01 a day ago |
| Seems like between the lines there is a little success jealousy. Only a billionaire can own one of these major teams, and you get all of the problems this carries. It doesn't seem unique, and if anything its an anti-climatic use of wealth that could be spent on a million other problems. That's all I took away. |
|
| ▲ | twoodfin a day ago | parent [-] |
| Actually, it’s the anti-trust exemptions / lack of enforcement that allows the leagues (owned by the billionaire team owners) to decide who can and can’t own a team. Otherwise teams could and probably would be purchased by publicly-owned corporations. |
| |
| ▲ | rjrjrjrj 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The NFL ownership rules prohibit public corporate ownership, although that is not due to the antitrust exemption. There are numerous current and historic examples of corporate ownership in the other 3 leagues. Toronto's teams are all owned by Rogers. The Angels and Ducks were once owned by Disney. Comcast owns the Flyers and once owned the 76ers. CBS owned the Yankees. | |
| ▲ | 1970-01-01 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not a hard rule; there are several counterexamples. I found the Knicks, Braves, Blue Jays, Rangers, and Canadiens are publicly-owned. The billionaires will play their money games, but they don't have full control on the entire league. | | |
| ▲ | twoodfin a day ago | parent [-] | | Right but those instances only happened because the existing owners approved the sales. |
|
|
