Sports is the only industry in which a majority of the customers think it's admirable to support a bad product. People throw around the term fair weather fan like it's an insult, but fair weather fans aren't despicable, they're smart customers.
Mar 22, 2011 - Last week, GQ released a list of the worst fans in sports. Clocking in at No. 15 were the fans of the Los Angeles Lakers, the only NBA team to make the list. Whereas all the other teams listed achieved their villainy through a combination of rowdiness and excessive vitriol, Lakers fans are apparently guilty of the exact opposite: they aren't devoted enough to the cause.
GQ calls the Lakers' fanbase the fairest of fair weather fans, citing two separate instances (after the retirement of Magic Johnson, and again after the trade of Shaquille O'Neal) in which Laker Nation suddenly shrank, only to grow again a few years later once the Lakers managed to rebuild. Also referenced was the environment of your average Lakers game, in which a fair number of the "fans" close to the court are more interested in their phones and the people sitting courtside than in the game itself.
As a card-carrying member of Lakers Nation, I took about as much offense to GQ's article as I do my chores: mild annoyance followed by complete disregard. Laker fans have been called celebrity hounds and bandwagon riders since the day the internet was invented. For all I know, that might be why the internet was invented.
And it also happens to be absolutely, positively true. The atmosphere in Staples Center is tragic for all but the most important occasions, because the people who care most about the team are not the people who can afford most to drop thousands of dollars on seats which aren't a mile high. This fact bothers Laker fans far more than it bothers you.
But I'm not here to defend my brethren. I'm here to talk about the fair weather fans.
That part is true, too. The Los Angeles Lakers certainly do have a ton of fair weather fans. Whether its because the Lakers are one of the most successful franchises in the NBA's history, or because they exist in the nation's second-largest media market, or whether it really is a failing of L.A.'s Hollywood atmosphere, there can be no doubt that Laker Nation is filled with people who won't be there if and when the team starts to fold. When Kobe Bryant is cryogenically frozen until scientists can find a cure for old age, when Pau Gasol retires to open a ballet company, when the team finally falls out of fortune, support for the Lakers will dwindle dramatically.
So here's the question: Why exactly is being a fair weather fan such an insult?
You know what they call fair weather fans outside the sports world? Smart customers. Think about it. If McDonalds starts making crappy food, do you stick it out with Mickey D's in the hopes things will improve? Or do you decide to stop going, or go to Burger King instead? Unless you are an idiot, it's an easy choice to make. If your dishwashing soap leaves lots of streaks on your dishes, you change soap. You don't sit around lamenting about how you thought this was the bottle of soap that was going to turn things around. Fair weather fandom isn't despicable behavior, it's a market correction for a bad product.
Before we go any further, it needs to be pointed out that there are two different kinds of fair weather fans.
One kind is quite deserving of your ire: the front-runner, the win-chaser, the turncoat. You know exactly who I'm talking about, that guy who mystically seems to have affiliations with teams that have nothing in common except that they win a lot. This guy roots for the Los Angeles Lakers, the New York Yankees, the New England Patriots, Duke Basketball, and Florida Gators football. He also enjoys Brazilian soccer, Kenyan distance running and Canadian curling. In truth, said person isn't really a fan of any of these teams. He's not even a fan of sports at all. He is a fan of being right, and nine times out of 10, he roots for these teams so he can rub it in your face.
Nobody likes that guy, and nobody should. Being a know-it-all is annoying even when it actually indicates a certain level of intellect, but choosing a bunch of winning teams to cheer for isn't exactly rocket science. So, by all means, please hate that guy.
But the other kind of fair weather fans, the ones who's level of engagement changes in accordance with the team's success? What is so wrong about that? As fans, we are constantly reminded that this game we love is a business. When a star skips town over a few million dollars, or when your favorite player gets traded, or when a group of 30 millionaires decide they need a lockout in order to drive down player salaries because those same 30 guys can't control themselves individually, we are the innocent bystanders that get caught in the crossfire, and the excuse is always the same. This game is a business.
Well, this game is a business, the business of entertainment. And if the entertainment isn't up to snuff, why should we as fans be expected to maintain the same level of support?
Let's say you were a Robert DeNiro fan because of the excellence of his early work like Raging Bull, The Godfather and Goodfellas. Based on that excellence, you watched every DeNiro movie. Would that attitude survive the entire Meet the Parents trilogy, Hide and Seek, or Showtime? For your sake, I sure hope not. There's a reason why all but the greatest television shows rarely enjoy a run lasting more than 2-3 years. When entertainment isn't entertaining enough, people tend to ignore it, and that is as it should be.
There are a couple of other sides to this card. The first is an unfortunate consequence of supply and demand. A professional basketball team, even a really bad one, is a hot commodity. So, if support for a team does dwindle, said team can just pack their bags and move to greener pastures, even if the dwindling support is completely justified by a crappy product. It happened in Seattle, and it now appears to be happening in Sacramento. In those situations, the choice is very different. Instead of "I am choosing not to support this team right now because they haven't done a good job creating a good product", small market fans are left with "I am choosing to potentially lose the ability to support this team forever because they haven't done a good job creating a good product."
Since basketball is often one of the only games in town, there is no doubt that owners have small market fans by the balls. It's akin to the only movie theater in a small town. It doesn't matter if that theater plays Battle: Los Angeles for six straight weeks, you'll still go to that theater twice a month because there's nothing else to do, and if you don't, the movie theater might just go out of business. It's the sad price the small market pays to try and play with the big boys.
The other, other side is loyalty. Loyalty is an admirable quality, in friendship and in fandom. Its place in the business world is an ideological debate that I want no part of, but loyalty certainly plays a role in determining how much of a bad product you are willing to put up with before you throw in the towel.
Going back to the DeNiro example, how many bad movies did it take before you realized DeNiro had jumped the shark? If you jumped ship after one bad movie, loyalty probably isn't your strong suit. In sports, loyalty is about sticking with your guys through thick and thin, and that loyalty makes the team's success taste much, much sweeter, because you suffered through all the bad stuff to get there.
But loyalty, as admirable as it is, has to be a two-way street. If you show constant loyalty to someone or something despite consistent evidence they don't deserve it, you are either stupid or related. And your loyalty doesn't just hurt you, it actually does harm to the very thing you are being loyal to.
Undying loyalty which flies in the face of bad behavior/product removes accountability from the object of your devotion. If you'll be there no matter what, it enables the object of your affections to find the depths of exactly what "no matter what" means. Just look at a couple of the league's perennial doormats, the Golden State Warriors and the Los Angeles Clippers.
The W's have one of most loyal fanbases on the planet. The crowd at Oracle Arena is always lively, their attendance has been in the upper half of the league since the O opened up, and they are the only group of fans that I can honestly say completely changed the course of a playoff series all by themselves. All this, despite the fact that the Warriors have made the playoffs exactly once since 1995.
The Clippers are an entirely different situation. Until they lucked into the most watchable player in basketball in Blake Griffin, the Clippers were regularly towards the bottom of the league in attendance and support. But, as the second team in Los Angeles, support for the Clippers will always have a certain baseline, comprised mainly of people who can't stand the thought of rooting for the Lakers, or else can't afford to. It seems unlikely that either fanbase will dwindle below current levels, no matter how bad the teams get.
Considering those circumstances, is it any surprise that those teams have been the worst-run franchises in the sport over the last 20 years? Golden State's has been a failure of ineptitude. A simple formula of bad personnel decisions, bad contracts and bad coaching hires made it impossible for the team to gain any traction, driven by an owner who didn't seem to understand the game.
In the real world, that owner goes out of business. In the sports world, Chris Cohan sold the team for a record $450 million dollars, a return on investment of more than 350 percent over the $119 million he paid more than 15 years ago. Do you think the team would be worth that much, that Cohan would have remained the owner for that long, if W's fans had been a bit more willing to speak with their wallets?
The Clippers are even worse. Whereas the Warriors are mired in perennial suck because of hubris and ineptitude, the Clippers are there by design. Owner Donald Sterling hasn't tried to create a good product, because he can make more money by putting out a cut-rate loser and keeping his overhead low. The Clippers are probably one of the most profitable teams in the league over the past 20 years, despite being terrible the entire time, and the reason is because a certain number of people will continue to support the franchise no matter how bad the team is.
The Clippers are the real life Springtime for Hitler. If that devoted fanbase, loyal to a product which has shown not just to be unworthy of that loyalty, but actively taking advantage of it, were to disappear, so would the Clippers business model.
Which brings us back to the Lakers. The Lakers have the most fair weather fans in all of sports. Why? Because Los Angeles is one of the entertainment capitals of the world. If the Lakers suck, fans have a myriad of other fine options to more suitably distract themselves with. As such, when the Lakers struggle, support for the team dwindles dramatically. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the team has missed the playoffs only five times in the 62 year history of the franchise, could it?
The Lakers have reached the NBA finals a staggering 31 times, averaging a Finals trip every two years. They've won roughly 25 percent of the league's championships. There are a whole bunch of reasons why, and a fair number of inherent advantages that allow it to be so, but a Laker fanbase which has made it clear that winning is important has to be part of the equation. Jerry Buss is keenly aware of the price he will pay if the Lakers ever have a prolonged period of poor play, and it drives him to ensure the team reloads quickly.
So, the next time you accuse someone of being a fair weather fan, take a second to think about exactly what that means. The Los Angeles Lakers might be the most fair weather fanbase on the planet, and I for one am proud to be one of them. I don't suffer bad food, bad dish soap, or bad movies, so why in the hell would I suffer bad basketball?
25 comments
Comments
Depends on definition
Fair-weather fandom goes beyond paying for a ticket. If there’s not a good product on the floor, I’m less likely to pay for tickets to go to a game. That’s business, and you’re absolutely correct. Being a fan, though, is more than attending a game or buying a jersey. It’s about caring for a team, reading about your team on SBN, or any of the many other ways you can support your team without shelling out cash.
Lakers fans as a whole are often cast as a whole with the worst representation. There are true Lakers fans who are loyal, passionate, and knowledgeable, but they are often drowned out by the fair-weather fans who don’t actually care about the team.
Luckily, the fine citizens of LA need not worry. It seems they’ll likely have a third team in the region very soon, giving them one more bandwagon to jump to when the ebb and flow of the NBA runs its course.
Never forget, I'm an idiot.
Follow me on Twitter
Author of Inside-Out Game
by Exhibit G on Mar 22, 2011 10:29 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
This is a great point
when i think about fan loyalty, I don’t think about who’s buying tickets. Instinctivley I know that the big 3 pro leagues are making obscene amounts of money, so it doesn’t bother me if you don’t buy a ticket or go to games, it’s all about how much energy you put into following the team. If you buy season tickets every year (let’s say you’re rich) but only go to games or keep up with the team when they’re good, that’s still being a fair weather fan.
It seems to be about being part of the “fan community”. It’s really annoying when someone who hasn’t suffered through the bad times, all of a sudden starts putting “Go Team!” as their status update on facebook.
Also this can’t be stated enough, in a country where cities are dying to have a pro sports franchise, the city that’s “the entertainment capital of the world” and has too many fun things to do for people to devote themselves to a mediocre team, they’re about to have 3 nba teams.
by Mark Mandingo on Mar 22, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
My only problem with the GQ article
is that this sort of “bandwagon” behavior is in no way exclusive to Los Angeles. You can check the attendance records and see the exact same behavior in Boston, Portland, and now Detroit. Those fan bases never get called out for being bandwagon. It happens everywhere in in just about every sport with just a few exceptions.
I think people just like to paint Los Angeles in general as a “fair weather” town. I have no idea why this is except for the actual fair weather.
by CerroGordo on Mar 22, 2011 11:13 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think part of it has to do with LA's reputation
First off, I’ve never been to LA, but there’s a reputation out there that the city is full of self obsessed phonys (again, i’ve never been there, but that’s the reputation), so when people see courtside celebrities (other than jack) or trendy looking people, it tends to fit into that stereotype. If the staples center was filled with unattractive nobodys, you wouldn’t be hammered as bad. Not saying it’s fair, but that’s the reason why the Lakers get hammered for having fair weather fans more than any other team that has em.
by Mark Mandingo on Mar 22, 2011 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I lived there for years
and it IS filled with self obsessed phoneys.
The need to be ‘seen’ goes way down the ladder of celebrity and business and would make many, many of them do a photo shoot with Manson if given the opportunity.
My disgust for the Lakers is tied closely to my intimate knowledge of the residents and fans of LA.
"But screw your courage to the sticking place - and we'll not fail"
Macbeth Act I, Sc VII
by lietothegirls on Mar 22, 2011 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha well there you go I guess
It’s a metropolitan area with around 13 million people. You have everything from the super rich to the super poor and everything in between. I’ve lived there almost my entire life and it IS filled with bus drivers, plumbers, nurses, bums, stock brokers and millions of other people who could care less if they’re ever ‘seen’ doing anything. Letting Hollywood phonies define LA is about as lazy as it gets.
by CerroGordo on Mar 23, 2011 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Depends on senario.
If you’re the Lakers being a fair weather fan is no big deal, like you said, most real fans can’t afford the high prices. Similar to me and the Yankees.
However if you’re the Pittsburgh Penguins that’s a problem. Because they’re such fair weather fans that the Penguins literally almost headed somewhere else twice because nobody went before Mario (before) and Crosby and Malkin now.
Guitar or die.
by Gelatin on Mar 22, 2011 11:28 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Good stuff, Chris.
Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates
To be great is to be misunderstood. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Tweetness: @SoCalGal64
by SoCalGal on Mar 22, 2011 12:12 PM EDT reply actions
Indeed.
"Phil Jackson seems to enjoy his status as 'NBA grand philosopher' and uses that platform to lob verbal hand grenades into other franchises or the league offices for fun." - Kurt Helin
Stalk, err, Follow me on Twitter: @bluefalcon916
by bluexfalcon on Mar 22, 2011 12:34 PM EDT reply actions
interesting take Chris
IMO if that brand/management has a reputation for consistently building a good product, you gotta give them some leadway during a rough patch.
"What doesn't kill you might injure you, or just kill you later." -Czheck Proverb
"Pluto’s not even a planet no more, which I’m very disturbed about. I grew up when Pluto was a planet. Now, I’m 25, I turn around and Pluto’s no longer a planet. I’m going to elbow that guy in the nose." -Ron Artest
twitter
by shaqfor3 on Mar 22, 2011 1:16 PM EDT reply actions
What exactly do you mean here by “if”? They do make crappy foods. If they’re selling burgers for as little as a dollar on some days, they probably aren’t putting very good meat in those. I’d pay the extra 10 bucks to go to a real restaurant and enjoy a burger made with good beef.
Follow me on twitter @CoolJ90 or add me to XBox Live - CoolJ90
Donate to Movember and the PPP team at http://ca.movember.com/mospace/731868/
by CoolJ90 on Mar 22, 2011 1:52 PM EDT reply actions
And that is relevant to the point he was making… how?
If you don’t like the fact that he chose McDonald’s and Burger King, then just swap in a company whose product you like and one of its competitors. The analogy still works.
"Prepare your bladder for imminent release!" — Invader Zim
by DougX on Mar 25, 2011 6:37 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
exactly
by thewiz06 on Mar 25, 2011 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, saying that loyal fanbases make for bad teams is putting the cart before the horse. The most important thing in business is growth. If your team is constantly missing the playoffs, you won’t be able to grow the product much because you won’t be able to increase ticket prices unless you have a seemingly endless supply of customers. As an owner, you always want the team to make the playoffs (exception to the rule being Donal Sterling, noted sub-human being social disease) because that leads to better TV deals, more jersey and merchandise sales and the ability to increase ticket prices. Also, playoff home games = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. If you don’t want any part of that, then I don’t know why you own a team. Heck, even Dan Snyder wants to make the playoffs, he’s just to inept to be able to do it.
Follow me on twitter @CoolJ90 or add me to XBox Live - CoolJ90
Donate to Movember and the PPP team at http://ca.movember.com/mospace/731868/
by CoolJ90 on Mar 22, 2011 2:01 PM EDT reply actions
This assumption only holds if the owner cares about winning
You don’t need growth if your model is sustainable via no significant overhead. Sure, you could assuredly increase your overall margin if your team is good, but that requires an element of risk, as you have to spend one way or another, whether you develop through the draft or signing big free agents, both of which require a competent front office staff that a penny-pinching owner won’t pay for. If your profit margin is significant enough to keep the club running every year, pad your back account, and pay for your expenses, then an owner who doesn’t care about winning — and they exist — and more about the bottom of his wallet can run his team as such. It gets worse if you have significant revenue sharing and that owner can sit upon his laurels while receiving big dividends from owners who give a shit every year.
@brosales12
To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. -- Sun Tzu
by Ben R on Mar 22, 2011 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
And what the Clippers seem to have is the ability to generate enough profit to satisfy Donald Sterling. Hence, he doesn’t need revenue or market share growth any more than a landlord who is already making enough money off of the tenants he has needs to acquire more apartment buildings.
Growth is important to publicly held companies because shareholders want to know that their stock will increase in value. A privately-held business (like many, if not most sports teams) doesn’t have to grow at all if its directors are satisfied with the current financial performance.
"Prepare your bladder for imminent release!" — Invader Zim
by DougX on Mar 25, 2011 6:40 AM EDT up reply actions
One possible reason why the Clippers don't have to focus on winning when filling up Staples Center
is because the Lakers season tickets are prohibitively expensive plus they have a waiting list. Clippers season tickets are more reasonably priced, and at least some of the guys who are waiting to get Lakers season tickets will get Clippers ones instead, and the demand for NBA season tickets is large enough so a decent amount of LA area folks with the money will buy Clippers season tickets, and still get a full season of NBA action.
With the Kings moving to LA, maybe the demand for NBA tickets is really high enough for three teams.
by thewiz06 on Mar 25, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
If Dan Snyder owned an NBA or an MLB team,
he’d likely be winning a lot more games in the regular season at least and he may have won a championship in 10 years. The hard salary cap, higher amount of players on an NFL roster, and higher scale revenue sharing encourage teams to build through the draft, while soft cap systems (NBA) and a lack of a cap (MLB) encourage the signing of free agents or trades in order to get teams to compete for a championship. During Snyder’s time owning the Redskins, the team has tried to build teams primarily through free agency or trades, and they have blown up in his face.
I don’t think every NBA team is trying to make the playoffs every year like it is in the NHL where the season is competitive from start to finish and the Stanley Cup Playoffs will often feature “upsets” where an 8 seed beats a 1 seed, like last year, the Washington Capitals who had the NHL’s best regular season record lost to the Montreal Canadiens. Back to the point, for example, the Washington Wizards aren’t really fighting to make the playoffs this season, as they’re a clearly rebuilding team, and the owner Ted Leonsis has been clear about it.
However, Ted is one of the most vocal owners for the hard cap (and was fined for it), which would be the first step in making the NBA more competitive from top to bottom. Sterling is probably on Ted’s side on this issue, though he may just want to keep costs down. No one in DC thinks that Ted is a sports owner who wants to cut costs just to make more money. Agood number of the NBA’s owners also own NHL teams too, like the Wizards (as I mentioned), the Knicks, and the Hawks, so they do know the benefits of a hard cap and how competitive the NHL has become especially during the playoffs where any team can win and go tot he Finals.
If we fail to get a hard cap in the CBA, then Ted may have to pull off Dan Snyder moves to start winning.
by thewiz06 on Mar 25, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
GO WARRIORS
by RACE!! on Mar 22, 2011 2:29 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
annnnd you used Springtime for Hitler as an example
BRILLIANT JOURNALISM.
Managing Editor of MavsMoneyball.com
by Lisa Rotter on Mar 22, 2011 8:00 PM EDT reply actions
Don't know if you've read "Sportcasting" yet...
but they make a similar argument that the Chicago Cubs have no incentive to improve their team, since they’ll sell the same number of tickets regardless of record. I don’t know if they looked at the elasticity of ticket sales in LA, but it’s worth checking out.
"Your classless organization in your unholy city accused our Team of an unspeakable act. It was baseless, the Giants are classless, and I have no sympathy for your eternal damnation."
by RdRnnr on Mar 22, 2011 10:14 PM EDT reply actions
Sorry, the book is "Scorecasting", not Sportcasting.
"Your classless organization in your unholy city accused our Team of an unspeakable act. It was baseless, the Giants are classless, and I have no sympathy for your eternal damnation."
by RdRnnr on Mar 22, 2011 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
My Dad is a Yankees,Cowboys, Lakers, and Islanders fan.
Do I call him a bandwagoner? No. Do I think he is? No. Why? Well he likes these teams because his era. Favorite players were Nettles, Magic, Kareem, and for the Cowboys he didn’t have a team until he say Aikman play. The Islanders he loved Bossy.
Follow me on twitter
by Jeterian 2 on Mar 23, 2011 2:47 PM EDT reply actions
He can't be a bandwagoner if he likes the Islanders
a/k/a the Clippers of the NHL, even after a hard cap and revenue sharing (which they unfortunately don’t qualify for because they play in the NYC area).
by thewiz06 on Mar 25, 2011 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed