Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Eh - I think MOST owners care more about football than you give them credit for.
It's hubris and pride more than anything. These guys are among a handful of billionaires in the nations ultimate zero-sum competition. They don't want to go to the owners meetings with other billionaires and have to acknowledge that their team sucks.
It's not necessarily that they care about football specifically, it's that they care about supremacy. Arrogance and pride.
I mean yeah, football makes a lot of money, but so do land investment trusts. But they don't get to be on TV by plowing billions into Blackrock.
I think the guys who care more about money than winning are the outliers. I mean look at Lamar -- did you think he didn't care about winning? I don't -- I think he BADLY wanted to win the trophy with his name on it. He just wasn't quite sure how. And he trusted the wrong people (person -- Carl Peterson). But on its face, 'being mediocre and selling tickets' is what the Chiefs did best through the 90s.
I don't think that's because he cared more about money than winning.
|
There’s a difference between wanting to win for ego vs having actual skin in the game. That’s the problem. The reason most of these owners pump money into their team is because of a salary floor. Without it, they wouldn’t. We see in other sports way way too many owners who won’t spend money they have into their team. I think it’s a matter of… if we’re required to spend money anyway, might as well try to win.
When you fail in an investment you lose your ass. When you fail in the nfl, you still make a shitload of money… it’s just less than your earnings potential. So the incentive is really different. I would agree it’s not just purely money driven. You have notorious cheapskates like mike brown and the mccaskeys. You also have guys like Dan Snyder and irsay where there is an utter lack of accountability. If you’re talking other sports like mlb… there are way more owners where money is more important than winning.