(Part 4)
Past Disconsolations and Future Deconstructions of a Kansas City Chiefs Fan

Size matters.

As in market size, that is.

It seems to me that most people shrug off the idea that larger metropolitan markets offer their teams distinct competitive advantages in professional sports leagues, but as an Economic instructor for twenty years I also know that most people are economically illiterate. I do not say this with any antipathy toward anyone, it is just a fact of life—most people just don’t know enough about basic fundamental economic truths to really understand. Many of them are seasoned sports pundits who make grand pronouncements of what’s really happening economically in professional sports, when they really don’t know. They offer terrific insights as to why a batter is hitting .450 or how well a given linebacker rushes the passer, but when they pontificate about the economics of big-time sports, far too often they just sound foolish.

They’ll frequently put up some numbers, feebly trying to claim that market-size does not matter by pointing at the few small market teams that have occasional success and the few big market teams that don’t have a whole lot of it. “See!” they blab, “Markets don’t matter!”

But they do. The reason is simple. The more revenues an organization can gather from whatever source as a direct result of having more fans, and the more latitude they have to translate that into spending the required amounts of money to hire the best personnel on or off the field, the better advantage the team will have to win games. Just because some big market teams do poorly with this largesse or some small market teams do well with what they have does not obviate that fact.

I have even posited in the past that the game is manipulated to the extent that media-favored teams are given advantages as well. The purpose of this is also elementary: A professional sports league cannot survive with revenues it expects to get if small-market or media-disfavored teams are regularly showing up in championship games.

I will confess that this distinction is much more pronounced in other leagues than the NFL, as a general rule, only because the NFL works industriously to ensure each team has some equal chance of success by strictly regulating player entrance into the league with the draft and significant reserve constraints, and by evenly distributing television revenue among all the teams no matter how big the markets are. A Pittsburgh-Seattle matchup for the whole enchilada, say, would make league execs cringe, therefore you will never see a Pirates-Mariners World Series. You will, on the other hand, occasionally see a Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl (as we did in 2006).

What does this have to do with the Kansas City Chiefs?

Obviously the answer to the trivia question at the end of the last post is our cherished city. You can look at the post to see the question, or should be able to figure it out just by looking at the following information.

City, Combined Years, NFL Team (Last Playoff Win), MLB Team (Last Playoff Appearance)
Kansas City, 38, Chiefs (1993), Royals (1985)
Cincinnati, 31, Bengals (1990), Reds (1995)
Dallas, 21, Cowboys (1996), Rangers (1999)
Detroit, 19, Lions (1991), Tigers (2006)
Houston, 19, Oilers (1991), Astros (2005),
Pittsburgh, 16, Steelers (2008), Pirates (1992)
Cleveland, 15, Browns (1994), Indians (2007)
Miami, 13, Dolphins (2000), Marlins (2003)
Baltimore, 11, Ravens (2008), Orioles (1997)
San Francisco, 11, 49ers (2002), Giants (2003)
Seattle, 10, Seahawks (2007), Mariners (2000)
Oakland, 8, Raiders (2002), A’s (2006)
Atlanta, 7, Falcons (2004), Braves (2005)
Minneapolis/St. Paul, 6, Vikings (2004), Twins (2006)
New York (1), 6, Jets (2004), Mets (2006)
St. Louis, 6, Rams (2004), Cardinals (2006)
Tampa/St. Petersburg, 6, Buccaneers (2002), Rays (2008)
Denver, 4, Broncos (2005), Rockies (2007)
Chicago, 2, Bears (2006), Cubs and White Sox (2008)
New York (2), 2, Giants (2007), Yankees (2007)
San Diego, 2, Chargers (2008), Padres (2006)
Boston, 1, Patriots (2007), Red Sox (2008)
Milwaukee/Green Bay, 1, Packers (2007), Brewers (2008)
Phoenix, 1, Cardinals (2008), Diamondbacks (2007)
Philadelphia, 0, Eagles (2008), Phillies (2008)

(Just some brief notes: For baseball, mere appearance in the playoffs is considered here because it is harder to get in to begin with and easier to win at least one game in a series. For football, at least one playoff win is considered because it is easier to squeak in but harder to win at least one playoff game. Also, Houston's NFL team is now the Texans, Washington is not on the list because the baseball Nationals have been in D.C. for such a short time, and the New York teams were divided into two pairs.)

With these criteria you can see that Kansas City has a longer combined playoff drought for its baseball and football teams, and what’s so notable is that it is twice as long as every other city except Cincinnati and Dallas.

What do baseball’s Kansas City Royals have to do with any of this?

The Royals were probably the best overall team from the early 1970’s through the 1980’s. Before free agency and other big-market, media-favoring disadvantages eviscerated their competitiveness, they ran a remarkable operation under the leadership of Ewing Kauffman. But as Kauffman aged and had to consider a successor, he insisted on handing the team over to someone who would keep the team in Kansas City.

I won’t say here categorically what’s what regarding who could have bought the team but didn’t because a prospective owner would want to move it from Kansas City, but the fact is since 1993 when Kauffman passed away, the team has been under the thumb of David Glass, and it is no secret that his management has been widely considered to be one of the worst ever in sports history.

I do not disagree that Glass’ ineptitude is greatly responsible for the Royals failure for so many years. But I do honestly believe Glass would never for two seconds have been the owner if Kansas City was a more viable market.

Yes, this breaks my heart. But I just don’t think this is lost on insightful Kansas City fans.

Even Chiefs fans.

The Royals have to do with the Chiefs because, even though the draft and revenue-sharing allow the Chiefs reasonable contention every once in while, the team is still crippled by being in a small market not necessarily favored by the media that generates the league revenues that all teams enjoy.

Please make sure you know what I’m saying here. Kansas City is one of the most awesome places in the world. I am enamored with it any time I visit. It has an endearing quality that goes far beyond its renown as the Midwest railway hub, its spectacular fountains, and its barbeque eateries. It isn’t just lyrics in the song from the classic musical Oklahoma that tell of people traveling from states all around just to be there. It actually happens.

I am not mincing words here. It is not even that I believe these things about Kansas City subjectively, I know it is an objective truth. Funny, I even happened to hear a morning radio talk show guy just the other day say, “I’d never been to Kansas City but it is great! I loved Kansas City! It is a wonderful city!” I did not know the context for which he said that, but it seemed to come out of nowhere. He was about as effusively sincere as I could ever hear one be.

Make no mistake about it, I love Kansas City, I love the Chiefs, and I always will, period.

But it is also true that as much as the NFL portrays itself as the big-market-numbing, insist-on-parity king of the pro sports leagues, it cannot deny that it has had an ace up its sleeve to keep its teams viable in their locations. It has been holding that card up there for 14 years now and it is there exclusively to ensure that markets are able to support their teams for the entire league’s financial profitability. That card is...

Los Angeles.

(Part 5 sorts all this out. Stay tuned.)
_