Declining status when Oakland loses three pro sports teams in less than 10 years?

Professional sports teams in the United States can and do move from place to place. But how often does a city lose three teams in less than 10 years? Here is what happened in Oakland:

Photo by Albee K on Pexels.com

Oakland appeared to be on solid sports footing several decades ago, with the NFL’s Raiders back in town, the A’s approaching their “Moneyball” greatness and the Golden State Warriors enjoying a renovated state-of-the-art arena.

The A’s will be the last of those three to leave a city that once inspired a young Gertude Stein, played a key distribution role in World War II and gave rise to the Black Panthers.

The Raiders left for Los Angeles in 1982, came back to Oakland in 1995 and then uprooted for Las Vegas 2020.

The Golden State Warriors moved across the bay to San Francisco’s Chase Center starting in the 2019-20 season after having played in Oakland since 1971.

Oakland even briefly had an NHL team: the California Golden Seals, which entered as an expansion franchise in 1967 and played nine seasons in Oakland before moving to become the Cleveland Barons, which ceased operations after two seasons.

What might this signal about Oakland? Pro sports teams can be a status symbol, indicating a particular population size and reputation. Losing a team can be viewed as a loss to a different place.

At the same time, there seem to be some unique factors at work. Oakland is across the bay from San Francisco and is close to San Jose, two other big cities that also have pro sports teams. One team, the Warriors, went across the bay. Additionally, the rise of Las Vegas meant teams could move without going all the way across the country from Oakland. Two teams went there. Finally, all three of these teams were in other cities before leaving Oakland: the Raiders spent time in Los Angeles (though started in Oakland), the A’s came from Philadelphia and Kansas City, and the Warriors started in Philadelphia and played in San Francisco before playing in Oakland for several decades.

The A’s leaving means this big city has no pro teams within city limits. The region still has pro teams – the 49ers, Giants, Warriors, and Sharks – but none are located in a city that had teams in each of the four major leagues.

A championship football game played in a suburban shopping mall = peak American Dream?

The Arena Football League recently played their championship in a New Jersey shopping mall:

As shopping malls seek to add more entertainment options, why not add sports? It could be at the professional level or amateur level. Imagine a high school basketball tournament hosted inside a mall with space for sports. Or a kids baseball tournament. Or a tour pickleball tournament. Sports could help bring in more visitors. It puts more people in proximity to the shops and restaurants.

Even though malls are big, many may not be big enough to do this. The American Dream Meadowlands in East Rutherford Mall, New Jersey is the second-largest mall in the United States and has plenty of entertainment options – a ski slope, a hockey rink, an amusement park, an aquarium, and more – in addition to 450 stores and lots of food options. This complex has sports already in mind. Many malls would need to reconfigure space or add facilities.

Given how much Americans like football and shopping malls (even with their decline), how many events can get more American than this? And held at a place named American Dream?

What if a significant portion of residents and leaders want to provide lots of public money for stadiums?

Plenty of professional sports teams owners have been in the news recently asking for public money to fund sports stadiums. I am against such funding (see examples here and here) as the benefits tend to primarily go to the owners.

Photo by Robert Hernandez Villalta on Pexels.com

But, what if plenty of people want to give this money to teams for stadiums? What if they value sports? What if they see this as a good use of public resources?

Those who argue against stadiums may pitch it another way. Here is an example looking at the recent request by the Kansas City Chiefs for public money. How is the Chiefs’ owner thinking about the fans?

The Chiefs are hoping, it seems, that voters are either very dumb or very scared.

This is an easy story to go with: the wealthy team owner is threatening the people. Out of fear or not knowing the full situation (the team has limited options, the money tends to enrich owners, etc.), residents and leaders will go along with it. If fear can be reduced or ignorance limited, people would oppose these proposals.

Is there another possibility? Some people like the Chiefs, think they are good for the community, and want to give them public money. They hear the opposing point of view and disagree with it. They would rather spend public money this way. Americans tend to like sports and spectacles.

In many ways, this is not just about sports and wealthy owners. These are civic questions about the public good, how money should be spent, and how we collectively make these decisions. People with all sorts of perspectives will try to persuade each other. And the fate of future sports stadiums and communities depends on these processes.

Stopping (Illinois legislative) time to get a sports team owner their taxpayer funded stadium package

As the Chicago White Sox and Chicago Bears argue for public money or lower taxes, I was reminded of the 1988 legislative deal that made sure taxpayers helped the White Sox stay in Chicago:

The White Sox stadium plan was resurrected seconds before midnight Friday, thanks to House Speaker Michael Madigan`s watch and an animated display of political arm-twisting by legislative leaders and Gov. James Thompson…

Minutes before House and Senate members walked into their chambers late Thursday, leaders from both parties predicted that the $150 million Sox stadium bill would fail, leaving the Sox no choice but to leave the South Side for St. Petersburg, Fla.

House Republicans left their caucuses, saying they had only five votes for the package. Their Democratic counterparts said only 50 votes could be mustered. And Senate Democrats said they had only 10 votes in favor of the deal.

But a few minutes before midnight, Senate Democrats ratified the measure by gathering 30 votes. In the House, after many observers saw their watches read past midnight, the constitutionally mandated adjournment time, the House passed the measure by a 60-55 vote. The published roll call read 12:03 a.m. Friday, which normally would mandate any bill passing by a three-fifths majority, or 71 votes…

”By my watch, it was 11:59,” Madigan said. ”I didnt know this would pass. The Republicans told me they had seven votes when we went in, but the governor and I and all the members took risks and passed this bill to keep the White Sox in Chicago. Now its up to them. We took them at their word.”

Clocks stopped, votes changing, foregoing other legislative priorities all to get a sports stadium paid for. As I have argued before, few political leaders want to be the ones who let the local major team get away. What this tends to mean is that local residents end up paying for the stadium while the team owners become even wealthier.

Another reminder: this threatened move of the White Sox to St. Petersburg, Florida led to the construction of another stadium where the Tampa Rays now play:

Who wins in these deals? The owners. For their tax monies, the fans may get to watch games in person or pay attention through local media.

Making the sacred profane and the profane sacred at the Super Bowl

The Super Bowl itself may qualify as a religious event given all of its pageantry and symbolism. But, yesterday’s game included at least a few more explicit mentions of religion beyond the patriotism, American consumerism, and big audience already there.

Photo by Shelagh Murphy on Pexels.com

The Super Bowl advertisements from “He Gets Us.”

The ad for prayer app Hallow.

The ad from the Church of Scientology. And see their past ads here.

From Super Bowl MVP Patrick Mahomes: “I give God the glory. He challenged us to make us better. I am proud of my guys. They did awesome. Legendary.”

In early sociological work, theorists discussed the boundaries between sacred and profane. In the Super Bowl, these lines can get very blurry. Is this just an athletic event or is it about our collective lives together and supernatural forces? Can advertising for religious groups and beliefs break through the noise of food and football? Should all of these forces be mixed or is there a time and place for each?

This is not new but it does highlight the ongoing interactions in American society between religion and other spheres. Similar things can and have been said about politics. A football game is not just a football game; it is an opportunity for numerous actors to put their own stamp on what we are doing together.

The most important sporting event in the world will take place…in an American suburb

The World Cup final in 2026 will be played in East Rutherford, New Jersey:

Photo by Riccardo on Pexels.com

The 2026 World Cup final will be held at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, on July 19, world soccer governing body FIFA announced on Sunday…

“It’s going to be a special World Cup,” Berhalter said after the announcement was made. “To have the final in New York, New Jersey is a dream come true for me. Being from that area, and I’m sure for most people from that area, it’s an area with a rich tradition of soccer and producing players.

“To think about when I was little, going to watch the [New York] Cosmos and them selling out Giants Stadium, and now this stadium is going to host a World Cup final. It’s really special.”

MetLife Stadium is home to the New York Giants and Jets who play in suburban New Jersey. The stadium is about 9 miles northwest of Times Square and about 13 miles northwest of Wall Street. When the Super Bowl was played here in early 2014, I assume more TV shots and attention was paid to New York City rather than the New Jersey suburbs.

It might also be worth noting that the 1994 World Cup final, the only one in the United States thus far, also occurred in the suburbs:

In 1994, the United States played two of its group-stage matches at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, and the other at the Silverdome in Detroit. The Rose Bowl also hosted the final that year — with Brazil topping Italy in a penalty shootout — and again in 1999 for the Women’s World Cup, when the United States beat China, also on penalties.

Set in Pasadena, the Rose Bowl is roughly 11 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. This region is famously sprawling – and the 2028 Summer Olympics will take advantage of the full region for all of the events.

All the talk of soccer taking off among kids in the American suburbs may find its peak in this experience.

Baseball stadiums in relation to downtowns

The Chicago White Sox have had recent talks about the possibility of a new stadium closer to Chicago’s downtown. This would move them closer to the Loop and downtown activity. How does this compare to other baseball teams?

According to this map, most stadiums are pretty close to downtown. Some are further away – Texas, Kansas City – while others are close to ten miles away but still in the city (both New York teams).

My suspicion – without looking hard at the data – it that this may not be true of all of the major sports leagues in the United States. Baseball stadiums are often close to downtown but this may not hold across other sports. At least a few NFL stadiums are in the suburbs.

Do cities believe baseball stadiums are economic engines? Do teams closer to downtowns draw more fans? Do team owners see locations closer to downtown as more desirable, particularly with the trend to make money on developing land around the stadium?

Highlighting “suburbanites” at a Bulls game

I could not tell exactly what was happening because I caught this recently on TV but I was still interested to see what was on the scoreboard at the United Center during a Bulls game:

Was this a cheering contest between Chicago residents and suburbanites? Some camera shots on the big screen? A trivia contest?

Given the population of the Chicago region, there were probably a lot of suburbanites at the game. In 2020, Chicago had 2.74 million residents and the region had 9.61 million residents. This puts the suburban population at 6.87 million. This means over 71% of people in the region live in the suburbs.

The Chicago Bulls tend to have good attendance, even if the team is not doing great. This year, the team is under .500 and the team is second in the league in home attendance. (They also have one of the largest arenas.)

Suburbanites have ideas about Chicago and its residents and vice versa. Does identifying the two groups at a Bulls game exacerbate these differences or help bring them together around their common Bulls fandom? (I am guessing it is the second as Bulls games usually are good experiences, even if the home team is not great.)

Who can use space in the United States? FOIAed emails and pickleball

One journalist finds in emails that there is a lot of reaction to pickleball in American communities as well as concerted efforts by pickleball enthusiasts to play:

Photo by Mason Tuttle on Pexels.com

“I live near a paddle tennis court, which is basically tennis but on a small court. And at these courts, I saw this big sign that said, ‘Pickleball players, go home’ or ‘Pickleball was not welcome here.’ And I was like, What is going on? What happened was that pickleball players were sneaking onto the courts when they were open and playing pickleball when this was supposed to be a court for paddle tennis only,” Koebler said. “When I saw that sign, I was like, I bet these people are complaining to the government about the pickleball people.”

It turns out that these people were complaining. A lot. And not just in Koebler’s neighborhood. The city of Dallas told him that it had more than 100,000 emails mentioning the word pickleball. They couldn’t even begin to forward them all. The city of Fort Lauderdale said it would need $10,000 to produce all of its pickleball discourse.

These emails are about who can take up public space, and whether pickleballers are taking up too much of it. And if you’re thinking, Who cares?, Koebler says that the fight over who can take up space in this country—it’s kind of at the heart of the whole American project…

I’m going to generalize here and stereotype. But pickleball players are far more organized than other players of other sports, based on thousands of emails that I read. There are these people in city after city who are “pickleball ambassadors.” And they are given a tool kit from this group called USA Pickleball about how to talk to local government to gain access to more public spaces. And USA Pickleball’s strategy is to try to convince city council or the parks department or your local politician to build new pickleball courts. But because of this NIMBY aspect where homeowners don’t want pickleball in their backyard, it’s really hard to build new pickleball courts in certain places. And so what is happening is pickleball players have to use already-existing public infrastructure. This means basketball courts, hockey courts, tennis courts, of course. And if there’s a permitting system, they’re organized and they make sure to book out all of the permits. If there is not a permitting system, I saw emails where it’s like, I will bring my net for crack of dawn to the tennis court and set up my pickleball net. And then we will play in shifts all day so that we keep the court and the tennis players can’t get on here.

I am not surprised property values are mentioned in this interview. The sound and activity on pickleball courts can be a threat to a quiet residential existence.

I am surprised that taxes did not come up in the conversation. Americans pay property taxes to local government bodies that, among other things, build and maintain parks and public spaces. Homeowners, renters, and businesses contribute these taxes. They can all make requests or demands about how this public space is used. In this case, there is a limited public good – courts where people can play tennis or pickleball or in engage in other activity – and people could claim they are paying to provide space for the activity they want to pursue.

Given how American space is used, is this a zero-sum game: if pickleball players play, does that mean other sports must lose? Can tennis courts and pickleball courts stand side by side and be available to players of each sport? Will private pickleball facilities or clubs help alleviate these issues?

Naperville is the equivalent of 4th and 29 for a Bears opponent

Naperville is a highly-ranked suburb but is rarely described in sports terms. On the Fox broadcast of Bears-Lions yesterday, play-by-play announcer Adam Amin invoked Naperville in a difficult late-game situation for the Lions:

Why Naperville? Two quick theories. First, Amin announces a lot of games in Chicago due to being the play-by-play guy for the Chicago Bulls. He would be more familiar with the region and local communities. The Bulls do not have many ties to Naperville but it is the third largest community in the region (after Chicago and Aurora).

Second, Naperville is sufficiently far from Chicago and Soldier Field to be the distance equivalent of needing 29 yards for a first down. Naperville is roughly 30 miles southwest of downtown. Fourth and 40 might get you to Elgin and Fourth and 45 might get you to Joliet. I am up for more yard-to-mileage comparisons in Bears broadcasts though it might work better on a local radio call than a national broadcast.

And if the Bears end up in Arlington Heights or Naperville or another suburb, then can the fourth down distance go the other direction? “It’s fourth-and-Bronzeville” or “fourth-and-Logan Square”.