Top

blog

Stories

 

Dodger Dilemma: A (Mild) Defense of Public Ownership

Categories: Sports
Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for stanleystalford.jpg
Stanley Stalford is leading a quixotic bid for public ownership of the Dodgers
Not much needs to be said about Wednesday's L.A. City Council vote in support of public ownership of the Dodgers, other than that it was a naked grab for headlines which will have all the impact of a press release.

But one can call out the council's shamelessness without excluding public ownership from the sphere of legitimate debate. Sure, it's unlikely, impractical and a little wacky. But people are interested, which means it's also news.

It's news that the paper of record chose to ignore. Beat writer Bill Shaikin got enough questions about it that he responded on Twitter, where he called the idea a "total non-starter." (As opposed to the bid of chronic deadbeat Steve Garvey?) Elaborating, Shaikin pointed to this post from October, which is headlined "Bud Selig on community ownership: 'I don't think it works.'"

Case closed, evidently. The pope has spoken.

As we reported back in April, developer Stanley Stalford is trying to build support for a public bid for the Dodgers. He's aware of Selig's opposition, but is hoping to change his mind through old-fashioned activism. We noted the many obstacles in his path and called the idea a little nuts. But readers were interested anyway.

After seven grueling years of Frank McCourt's ownership, it turns out that some fans don't simply want to swap him for another wealthy jackass. The Dodgers are a business, sure, but they are more than a business. They are a civic treasure. Why -- the thinking goes -- should fans have to sit and watch as robber barons suck it dry when there's at least the potential for an alternative ownership model?

So public ownership is against baseball's rules. The rules are not stone tablets handed down from Kenesaw Mountain Landis. They can be changed, and they are often selectively enforced. (Baseball also has rules against excessive debt, which nine teams including the Dodgers are violating right now.)

As to the practical concerns: If baseball and the L.A. community each have a will to do it, it seems like it can work. It works not only for the Green Bay Packers -- a success story which Selig waved away -- but also for the most popular sports team on the planet, F.C. Barcelona.

Selig is powerful but not infallible. (The proof of that is Frank McCourt.) If Dodger fans want to argue that he's wrong about public ownership, that's a debate worth having. To ignore it is to police the debate on Selig's behalf.

My Voice Nation Help
1 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Evan G.
Evan G.

"But one can call out the council's shamelessness without excluding public ownership from the sphere of legitimate debate. Sure, it's unlikely, impractical and a little wacky."

Green Bay Packers shareholders would be surprised to know that their ownership model is impractical and wacky. Just because it isn't common in the US doesn't mean the idea should be dismissed.  Plenty of examples here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

©2013 LA Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places Los Angeles

    Voice Places

    Find everything you're looking for in your city

  • Happy Hour App

    Happy Hour App

    Find the best happy hour deals in your city

  • Daily Deals

    Daily Deals

    Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city