NBA Owners: Fan loyalty has its limits

NBA owners and front offices need to prove their competency to ensure they do not drive away fans the same way they have scared off potential free agents

Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver is a member of a very exclusive club. He is the owner of a team in the National Basketball Association. This club only has 29 other members. The Suns have not been a very good team as of late but his perspective should still carry weight. As a member of that prestigious fraternity, his opinion may be consistent with some of his peers.

In 2016, Sarver told Dan Bickley of the Arizona Republic that millennials have a tough time dealing with adversity. He pointed to the fact that former Suns forward Markieff Morris:

"“had a setback with his brother in the off-season and he can’t seem to recover from it.”"

More from Sir Charles In Charge

He seemed to apply this logic to fans by saying:

"“The only thing people put online are good things that happen to them, or things they make up. And it creates unrealistic expectations.”"

This left many Suns fans wondering, is having a halfway decent team to root for an unrealistic expectation? Wanting that does not mean that fans are acting entitled. After all, it is not the fans’ fault that the Suns are bad, it’s Sarver’s. These seem like the comments of an out-of-touch millionaire who does not realize that NBA franchises need fans to have value. More specifically, they need millennial fans.

Upon, re-reading these comments by Sarver, I cannot help but wonder if this is the same opinion other owners have of their own fan bases. For example, does Ted Leonsis also see Washington Wizards fans as a bunch of complainers who can’t handle adversity?

Were Wizards fans creating unrealistic expectations when they clamored for a general manager who didn’t give away draft picks like they were exotic dancer trading cards on Las Vegas Boulevard? Are they currently just being whiners when voicing their displeasure over the way fan-favorite broadcaster Steve Buckhantz was unceremoniously let go?

If you’ve been following what’s going on with Charlotte this summer it’s hard not to wonder if owner Michael Jordan is totally apathetic to his fan base. And don’t get me started on James Dolan and his team.

The key part of that sentence, however, is “his team” because the New York Knicks are just that. James Dolan owns the New York Knicks. Robert Sarver owns the Phoenix Suns. They are their franchises to do with as they please. But this brings to mind a larger question, does ownership of an NBA franchise carry with it some responsibility or obligation to make decisions that appease fans?

Put more simply, do they need to earn, or earn back, the loyalty of their fan base? If the answer to that is no, then why do fans of lackluster franchises need to feel obligated to still root for a team that is indifferent to their feelings?

If Twitter reactions are any indication, Knicks fans were not imploring their front office to trade Kristaps Porzingis and end up with a half dozen lesser post players this off-season. And I would have to assume most Hornets fans would prefer Kemba Walker over Terry Rozier.

There are plenty of Wizards fans using team-related Twitter hashtags (#DCFamily feels particularly ironic these days) to question their previously unflinching allegiance to a franchise known for ineptitude. Obviously, there have been a few fun rosters and successful years along the way (the Hibachi-era Gilbert Arenas teams come to mind) but more times than not the franchise has come up empty.

Firing a general manager with a sub .500 record after 16 years was definitely a start and Tommy Sheppard’s tenure thus far at least lends hope that he wasn’t just the Dwight Schrute to Grunfeld’s Michael Scott.

But as a fan, why even risk years of continued disappointment when the likelihood of that seems so high? Should geography alone be enough to make fans beholden to a team no matter how much it frustrates them?

NBA aficionado and self-proclaimed Boston Celtics homer Bill Simmons has expressed on his podcast multiple times that he believes millennials root for their favorite individual players instead of blindly following the team in closest proximity to them. The prevalence of streaming options and wealth of internet-based content allows fans to connect with players outside of their geographical region like never before.

Roberto Ferdman addressed this growing trend in an article for The Washington Post back in 2015. “Basketball has also proved to be popular on newer platforms like Vine and Snapchat, where short clips and highlights are shared, in a way other sports have not. At the very least, people have been more eager to post basketball videos and view them.

A cursory search on Vine shows that just under 100,000 videos have been posted with the tag NBA, while fewer than 50,000 have been posted with the tag NFL, and fewer than 15,000 with the tag MLB,” said Ferdman. Vine may no longer be around but the larger point remains valid.

The NBA and its stars have figured out how to exploit their mass popularity on social media. As of this writing, MLB star Mike Trout had 2.6 million Twitter followers. That sounds like a lot for arguably baseball’s biggest star until you compare it with Russell Westbrook’s 6.1 million or James Harden’s 6.3 million. How many of those six million people are fans of Westbrook or Harden’s teams or strictly fans of Westbrook and Harden?

This all goes back to the premise of fan attachment no longer being rooted in geography. Thanks to the internet and social media, fans are able to consume seemingly endless content related to their favorite players. And because it’s a world wide web, favorite players no longer have to be based out of the same city as fans.

If you live in Memphis but like watching Steph Curry, what’s wrong with recording all of the Warriors national TV games on your DVR? If you’re a DC native but are titillated by this young Hawks core, why not buy a Kevin Huerter jersey? Would it be so terrible to just scroll through NBA League Pass until you found the most appealing, random match-up on any given night?

This new style of NBA-fandom seems like it would be liberating compared to what Suns and Hornets die-hards have long endured. When you think about it, it’s actually a bit hard to rationalize that rooting for the teams that simply bring you the most joy is still frowned upon. The point of this is not to advocate for “front-running” or “band-wagon-ing”…but maybe that shouldn’t even be so taboo anymore?

If NBA owners do not feel obligated to put out a product that is enjoyable to their fans then those fans should not feel guilty looking elsewhere for their entertainment. People seemingly have less and less free time these days so it almost seems irresponsible to spend it on something that often makes them miserable.

For any owners who find this notion far-fetched, they would be wise to remember that this a league where 20 years ago there was very little player movement. Now, the players seeming play a yearly game of musical chairs. In fact, many free agency decisions are also based on the perceived competence of the team’s front offices.

Do not rule out a world where there are yearly fan-base free-agency and fans decide which team to root for that year based on how many of their favorite players that franchise was able to add during the off-season. Just ask “Clippers Nation” about that.

Agatha Christie, an author made famous by her best-selling murder mysteries, once said, “I always think loyalty’s such a tiresome virtue.” NBA owners would be wise to heed Christie’s message because if they do not begin to value their fans’ loyalty more, then what killed their fan bases will not be much of a mystery.