Welcome to the SportsBiz Conversation
I also do not understand why Stern is so eager to see the team leave Seattle in favor of OKC. While a great lease deal surely figures into the equation, I can’t imagine there will be a strong enough fan base to bring in the type of revenue the city and state desire from this deal. There will certainly be an increase in revenue by local businesses and such from the fans and players just existing there, but the area is not a booming metropolitan and I don’t expect many people will want to make the trip to watch a team play in Oklahoma City. Maybe I underestimate the NBA fans, but if any are in the area, I would think they would take the time to travel to San Antonio or Dallas to see high quality basketball and teams that have established themselves among the elite in the recent past.
Additionally, being a native of the Kansas City area, I think it would be much more conducive to a professional sports team. Kansas City is close St. Louis, Omaha, Lincoln, Chicago, and other metropolitan areas and can draw fans from both Kansas and Missouri. While the Kansas City Chiefs are not a good football team by any stretch of the imagination, they have some of the most loyal fans in the NFL. These fans bring a lot of money to the local community. With its demonstrated interest and loyalty to the Chiefs, I think Kansas City would be a great alternative for the Sonics if the deal in OKC falls through.
I agree that on the surface Kansas City is a better market than OKC, however the Sonics ownership group is all from OKC and bought the team with a clear purpose of moving it there. When the Hornets are ready to leave New Orleans after next season, I think that it will be between Kansas City and Seattle for their new home.
I think that Stern is trying to use this situation to gather more leverage for the NBA as a whole and for NBA owners that want to negotiate for better arena deals in the future. I think he is trying to send a message to NBA cities and make an example out of Seattle. Essentially, his message is that if cities do not provide their teams with sweet arena deals, the city's team will almost certainly be backed by the NBA in any relocation efforts. The fact that Stern has indicated that Seattle will not get an expansion team also furthers this view. Just like the fact that players (and players union) prosper financially from free-agency, franchises will also prosper financially from free-agency and that in turn should help the NBA as a whole. Unfortunately, this benefit to the NBA comes at the expense of the fans.
Oh, there is little doubt that Stern is playing that game and perhaps with Sacramento in mind. Nevertheless, why allow the move to Oklahoma City of all places? The last two franchise moves to second tier markets have not exactly worked out too well for Stern. It's not as if New Orleans and Memphis, even with sweet arena deals, are leading the league in attendance or making good money. The Grizzlies have been on the market for two years with no legitimate buyers and the Hornets are destined for relocation and would have been even without Katrina. Not exactly ringing endorsements for OKC.
Commenting by HaloScan
