Or should I make that Tomahawks and Flaming Arrows?
Today I ponder the notion of whether where a team owner happens to live has anything to do whether or not that team is successful. So everybody is clear on this, I do not know the answer to that question and I do not have anything more than anecdotal evidence to contribute to the discussion. More importantly, I am not coming at this with any axe to grind against the Chiefs current ownership.
Consider the following:
The Patriots are owned by Bob Kraft, native of Brookline, Mass.
For generations, the Steelers have been owned by Pittsburg denizens, the Rooneys.
The Packers are owned by their fans.
Since Jerry Jones acquired the Cowboys, I think it’s fair to say that he has pretty much made his life and his team all about Dallas.
Steinbrenner, the Yankees.
The Royals, during their heyday, were owned by Ewing Kaufmann.
These are just a handful of examples of successful home-owned professional franchises that I can name off the top of my head. With a little research, I’m sure I could name several more similar examples with storied histories of success.
The Chiefs, as everyone knows, are owned by out-of-towners, the Hunts. The Chiefs, as everyone knows, have not won an AFC Championship, much less the Super Bowl, since the upstart AFL merged into the NFL.
Now for the questions.
Does local ownership contribute anything to the success of a professional sports franchise? Can that be demonstrated in any meaningful way? Does it even matter? If it does, would it make any sense or serve any good for us Chiefs fans to pressure the Hunts, through non-attendance (the most direct weapon we have) and/or other means, into selling the team to local ownership? And if that were to happen, then who might be some viable locals with the means and interest to make it happen?
I open the floor to debate…