It’s the latest of a series of public relations disasters for Dolan, the most unpopular personality in the NBA. Until recently, I wondered why a rich guy like that would endure the criticism. The Knicks are valued at $4.6 billion; why not just sell the team?
Eventually I realized: well, I wouldn’t sell. I think back to 2014, when NBA Commissioner Adam Silver forced the sale of the L.A. Clippers over the resistance of the owner, Donald Sterling. Steve Ballmer eventually bought it for $2 billion, a record price for an NBA team at the time, but Sterling still contested the sale. While Sterling loved his lavish lifestyle, the Clippers were at the center of his identity.
A major-league sports franchise isn’t like real estate or stock. While the majority owner certainly wants to make an operating profit on the team, it’s not an investment so much as a prized possession.
And unlike mansions, private jets, yachts, and other possessions a billionaire enjoys, a sports team is an instrument of power. Tens of thousands of fans purchase game tickets hoping for no return on their investment except happy memories. The civic pride of countless more are tied to it. While the games are seemingly fleeting, the emotions tied to sports run deep.
After all, what do you think of first when you hear “Buffalo, New York?” Probably the Bills, and either snow or the Sabres next. Compare that to what you think of when you hear, “Virginia Beach, Virginia?” Because it has no team, I know nothing about the city, except I surmise by the name that it’s on the coast.
These sports teams are rare, and owning one gives you a lot of power.
And if I had one, I’d hang on to it, even if the team kept losing and I disappointed fans year after year. Who’s to say they’d be better under new ownership? I’d want to be there and oversee the reversal of the team’s fortunes. I’d be the one to bring the city a championship.
That must be one of the lures of power: when so many people have to depend on your decision-making, you get the credit when things go right.
You see it in philanthropy. It’s why the rich put their own names on the foundations they create. And, it means they get to decide exactly how their money will be spent on their noble causes. They get to decide which hoops others will have to jump through to get the money.
Politics is another way billionaires try to exercise power. While it’s self-evident that many rich people donate to campaigns and spend money on lobbying to further their own financial and business interests, I do believe many also do so for ideological reasons. Sheldon Adelson, Charles Koch, and George Soros do have deeply-held convictions, and their contributions to campaigns, causes, and think tanks is, in their own mind, a way of “giving back” to the society in which they prospered so tremendously.
But, this “giving back” is really the purchase of influence. Like owning a sports team or founding a charity, it’s a way to wield power. And as we know, some “self-made” billionaires from Ross Perot to Michael Bloomberg, have tried to purchase the Presidency itself, believing the country and all the world should be blessed with their hands-on managerial brilliance.
I don’t always agree with author and commentator James True, but I heard him say, “Millionaires collect assets, billionaires collect people.” And he’s on to something.
It’s one thing to desire to be so rich that every desire is fulfilled instantaneously. If you want 37 Rolls Royces at your 37 mansions, that’s your fantasy. I see nothing wrong with it.
But there’s a word for the desire to be so rich that you control other people: greed. It’s one thing to want more money for the greater freedom to do or have what you want, but greed comes in when you use it as leverage against others.
I had once thought the only reason I’d want to be a billionaire would be to own a sports team. But I now realize that it’s just an exercise of power in the service of fame.
I likewise dismiss the ambition of becoming a philanthropist. I’d rather my charitable giving be ad hoc, without a bureaucracy. Help a person, not the abstraction called “society.” My political activism would more likely be donations to legal defense teams instead of think tanks and campaigns. Serve the cause of individual justice, not the abstraction called “the people.”
I believe that having good time is the best thing one can do to “change” the world and “improve” society. Letting go of the sense of obligation to “give back” means you’re actually relating to others as equals, not as poor souls whose lives could be greatly improved with your “generosity” and instruction. Desiring the gratitude of other people is the vainest of all vanities.
Earn and receive as much as you can, spend and give as much as you want. Just be yourself. But forego the temptation to power that comes with great wealth. You won’t be happier with power, and nobody else will be either.
James Leroy Wilson writes from Nebraska. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. If you find value in his articles, your support through Paypal helps keep him going. Permission to reprint is granted with attribution. You may contact him for your writing, editing, and research needs: jamesleroywilson-at-gmail.com.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment