Your Seattle (and New York, and Philadelphia, and Los Angeles) Assets

I haven't been able to get out of my mind the fact that, in this talk with reporters, David Stern refers to the Sonics as an "asset."

Specifically, he says, referring to the Sonics, "Clay Bennett has an asset that he paid good money for."

What frustrates me is how the NBA, and, really, all pro sports leagues, get to claim they are a business when it suits them, and something entirely different when it doesn't.

When they are trying to get into the pockets of taxpayers, they are a cultural icon, a community rallying point, a source of pride and revenue.

The NBA claims that its special status requires the league to have a salary cap, requires it to keep its franchises from playing outside the NBA-approved schedule, requires it to assert exclusive and draconian rights on news coverage of games.

But when business needs dictate it--nope, an NBA team is just an asset, like a factory, a couch or a stapler, and whoever owns it can take it wherever they want.

You'd think at this point that the hypocritical and monopolistic machinations of pro sports owners would have pissed off enough people in enough cities to get some sort of consensus in the U.S. Congress to investigate these practices--specifically, the near outright extortion of hopelessly befuddled local governments--and put a stop to them.

You'd figure that Washington's own senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, could join with legislators from other similarly aggrieved places--Los Angeles (NFL), North Carolina (NBA), Minnesota (MLB and NHL), Florida (MLB), Connecticut (NHL).

Honestly, the NBA demanding taxpayer money at the same time one of its teams is paying Keith Van Horne $4.3 million for nothing, just to make a trade work? As Sports Guy pointed out, if you're looking only at the sports world, it's just a little more important, I'd think, than figuring out if Roger Clemens took a syringe in his ass.