It's been awhile and I apologize for that. I have been dealing with some health stuff. Enough about me, let's get to some football talk. Specifically, this post is going to get into league/team ownership structures. Why has the current model lasted so long when it only benefits the few? What changes can be made to fix the current model? Lastly, are their other models that are vastly superior that aren't used.
To answer the first question, the current model of team/league ownership has lasted so long because that is what works for the very few people wealthy enough to own professional sports teams. The owners own the teams and the teams own the league is the simplest way of explaining how the current model works. Each league has its own by-laws regarding majority ownership, voting on league matters, so on and so forth. However, who really wins in this model? It's the owners of the teams, that's it. The few make all the decisions the many have to live by. Players only really get paid at the highest levels of professional sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL). The fans continually get asked to pay more and more so owners can maximize profits and then when new stadiums get built, the taxpayers are on the hook for usually a portion of it as well. Everything revolves around the owners when you really look at it, and to me, that is simply not the way it should be done.
To answer the second question, can the current model be fixed? Honestly, I don't think so because that would require accountability by the people who reap the benefits of the current model. There could be some league level by-law tweaks here and there to make things a little bit better if we're being honest, but they won't fix the real problem, which is the structure itself. No matter how much certain owners complain, the current landscape of major professional sports solely benefits the owners and maybe a few players with extremely large contracts.
To answer the third question, yes, there are other ways to do this. A single ownership model is my personal favorite because it puts the teams all under one umbrella instead of different entities with competing interests all trying to outdo each other. It is also much easier to set standards that equally apply to everyone when using a single ownership model. It has been tried in the US to varying degrees if we're being honest, but it hasn't worked because of implementation (see the current issues with the UFL). So, how can a single ownership model work? It takes putting the right entity together from the start. It then takes putting teams in strategic markets (which is where I believe the USFL/XFL/UFL failed). Essentially, instead of repeating the same few cities over and over again in sports, let's try to do some much better market research and see what alternative locations could really work. Instead of creating just another league, create the “Major League For Everybody Else”.
This is one of the reasons why I strongly believe the indoor route is the way to go. The venues are in place even in these lesser explored markets because they have some type of hockey team or basketball team or a vacant building that with some updating could very well work. By using existing infrastructure, you're lowering the costs of operation, which will keep the costs down for the fan. You combine lower operating costs with proper media rights/distribution, you can create a situation that is a win for the fans, players, and league alike. Of course, there's a whole lot of math that goes into this and of course some expectation management as well. No, we can't pay NFL salaries, but if we can't pay in the range of what many basketball players in Europe make or even some CFL salaries, then the Brand New Shield shouldn't exist. The players deserve good compensation and benefits, the fans deserve value for their hard earned money, and if these both happen, everyone wins.