Posts Tagged ‘wealth’
“It’s very hard to buy a sports team and lose money.”*…
Just 14 months after agreeing to buy the controlling interest in the L.A. Lakers at a valuation of $10 billion, Mark Walter found himself in a spot of trouble and needed to sell. Joshua Kushner (who recently tried to buy a big stake in the World Cup) and Bob Iger stepped right up, and agreed to buy his share at a valuation of @$12.5 billion. Kushner is a bona fide billionaire; Iger is an almost-billionaire; together, their net worth is something like $6 billion. Under the NBA’s rules, Mr, Kushner’s investment vehicle, Thrive Eternal, cannot invest more than 20 percent in the Lakers; so, unless they get a waiver, it’s likely that Kushner and Iger will finance the balance of their purchase personally (and/or with funds from rich friends).
As Eben Novy-Williams observes, this transaction is just the latest in a long line of folks with relatively fresh fortunes buying into the big leagues…
Sports team sales tend to reflect what’s happening in the broader economy. During the dot-com boom, many of those newly-minted millionaires found their way to sports (Ted Leonsis, Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, Henry Samueli and John Moores). That gave way to the real estate boom, and those buyers followed (Stephen Ross, Stan Kroenke, Jimmy Haslam, the Lerners, the Wilfs). More recently, it’s been the finance, private equity and hedge fund titans (Josh Harris, Wes Edens, Marc Lasry, Tony Ressler, David Tepper, Tom Gores, the list goes on and on)… – source
And as the title quote (from Carlyle [and here] co-founder and Baltimore Orioles co-owner David Rubenstein) suggests, this make a very straightforward kind of mercenary sense– major professional sports franchises have historically outperformed traditional indexes like the S&P 500 over the long term. And it stands to reason: scarcity value, legal local monopolies, and lucrative media rights make for a heady brew.
In a recent Substack post, Derek Thompson takes stock of the situation. After his own review of the Lakers deal, he puts it into context…
… In an age of surging wealth inequality, where stock market valuations routinely outpace median income growth by surreal factors, there is a live debate over whether billionaires should exist at all. The strongest argument for their rightfulness is that some people amass ten-figure wealth by building companies; by working within free markets to invent new technologies that millions or billions of people choose to use; and by managing complex enterprises that create billions or trillions of dollars in consumer welfare and investor value. But even this steelman case for billionaires presents as a kind of taunting insult to what often passes for sports ownership today. Professional-sports ownership offers the already-impossibly-rich a unique opportunity to become vastly richer, not necessarily by working, building, inventing, or doing anything positive at all, but rather by merely sitting on top of an asset that American law has conspired to make absurdly scarce and luridly profitable.
A thought experiment. Imagine if a diabolical oligarchic elite wanted to build an efficient and low-risk machine for turning their already-elevated wealth into exospherically extreme wealth. What might such a devious group of self-serving plutocrats want?
- Unleash the forces of capitalism! you might think. But no, absolutely not. Capitalism is markets, and markets are ruthless. What you should want is legal permission to create a monopoly that builds a moat deep enough to keep all competition out. That way, you’ve got something much better than capitalism: artificial scarcity and pricing power without the risk of unwanted rivals.
- Get the government off your back! you might say. Wrong again. You know what’s nicer than getting the government off your back? Getting the government on your side. You should crave dependable government subsidies to pad your profits.
So say, for example, that you wanted to set up this money machine in American professional sports. Your devious plan: shield leagues from antitrust law so owners can enjoy monopoly profits; use that market power to extract money from local governments; and rewrite the tax code to hand sports owners special advantages.
Lo and behold, all of this exists…
[Thompson unpacks the particulars: sports leagues are basically legal oligopolies; labor law makes sports ownership even sweeter; sports stadiums have become legal ransom; and team-owner tax benefits put the cherry on top. He concludes…]
… People sometimes compare buying sports franchises to buying works of fine art—say, a Monet, a Calder, or a Rodin. In both cases, the simplest answer to the common question “Why is that thing worth so much?” is always “Because someone rich was willing to pay it.”
But there is an important difference between the factors that push up the value of Monet paintings and those of sports franchises. Think about why a Monet painting is so valuable. Setting aside the irresolvable debate about the ineffable nature of beauty and quality and artistic pleasure, the underlying fact is that a Monet painting is valuable because it was painted by Claude Monet, a famous individual who once lived, and is now dead. The finality and scarcity of the Impressionist oeuvre—the fact that one can buy a painting from Monet’s Rouen Cathedral series and not worry that he will paint 100 more tomorrow—is a function of his mortality. There is no scientific or technological means by which anyone can exhume and reanimate Monet’s skeleton, sit the zombie upright in a chair, hand him a paintbrush, an easel, and a cup of tea, and say, “Now that you’re all settled, I’d like 500 additions to the Rouen Cathedral series.”
But the scarcity of sports franchises emerges from the laws of mankind, not the laws of nature. It benefits from a set of rules, laws, and customs that we made up and that can be redrawn in a way that Rouen’s facade never will be.
I am not a fan of conspiracies, and I am not a socialist. But nothing makes me feel more socialist than the public, out-in-the-open conspiracy to buttress the value of sports assets, whose lush beneficiaries tend to be impossibly rich already. Solutions here are hard. Many fans like the weird, market-warping rules of professional sports, which often promote parity and competition and keep favorite players on long contracts; plus, I don’t think doubling the number of NBA or NFL teams is particularly desirable among most fans. But ameliorations are possible. Tax law could further restrict the ability to team owners to amortize. And honestly, I don’t know why some local governments shouldn’t own stakes in the professional sports teams that they often directly finance. I’m not sure exactly how this would work, and I’m sure that there would be some negative side effects of literally socializing the already-kinda-socialist dynamic of professional sports. But the status quo is vile enough to justify some experiments. What we have today is a handful of lucky, franchise-owning billionaires who get to sit at a poker table where every card they turn over has a face or an ace. I wouldn’t call it cheating. I wouldn’t call the legal structure of American sports cheating or corrupt. I would call it … the law. But the law is bad.
An out-in-the-open conspiracy to help a lucky few billionaires get much, much richer: “The American Sports Plutocracy Is Bullshit,” from @dkthomp.bsky.social.
For a peek at an Lakers ownership sideshow, see Giri Nathan‘s “The Buss Children Are Squabbling Over Their Remaining Lakers Stake.”
And for a different kind of context, see the source of the pull quote in the intro, “The Lakers Are a Massive Bet on AI Disruption,” in which Novy-Williams suggests that Kushner is “buying the Lakers because sports are relatively insulated from the economic havoc looming from the rest of his portfolio. That’s not a hedge against AI, it’s a doubling down.”
###
As we play ball, we might recall that it was on this date in 1920 that the owners of the Canton Bulldogs, Akron Pros, Cleveland Indians, and Dayton Triangles met in Canton, Ohio, and formed the American Professional Football Association– which proceeded to add teams and, in 1922, renamed itself the National Football League– the NFL.
At the outset, the APFA/NFL was very different from the behemoth it would become:
This new organization did not resemble a league as we would know it today, but was more like a professional association whose sole functions were membership and articulation of some general principles. Perhaps the best modern-day analogy would be a weak form of the NCAA. As can be imagined, the league office had no influence on anybody. It set no schedules, leaving each team to arrange its own slate. – Pro Football: The Early Years: An Encyclopedic History, 1895–1959
Still, there were hints even then of what was to come. The owners who created the “league” agreed to introduce a salary cap for the teams, to refrain from signing players under contract with another team, and to hold a league championship competition.
“Always create more value than you capture”*…
There are, of course, myriad ways to rank people. Increasingly these days, the preferred scale seems to be one’s wealth. The Forbes 400, which ranks the richest Americans by their wealth, has become the scorecard of our zeitgeist. But one of its denizens (currently #4), Jeff Bezos, suggested in 2024, “somebody needs to make a list where they rank people by how much wealth they’ve created for other people.”
Sakshyam Patro has obliged…
… this is that list: [It ranks] founders by Wealth Created For Others (WCFO): the dollar value their companies generated for shareholders other than themselves…. every number traceable to an SEC filing, an academic dataset, or a named data source — refreshed every fifteen minutes while markets are open. Each figure is the shareholder wealth a founder’s company created, now held by index funds, pensions, employees and co-founders, minus what the founder kept. It’s not a claim that one person built the company alone…
See the list here. (Teaser: as of this writing, Bezos moves up one slot, from #4 to #3); the current Forbes #1, Elon Musk, drops to #28 (his wealth is $798B; his investors have lost $243B). And see the details of the methodology here.
Patro adds some important context– the first point especially:
- It is the Forbes billionaires list, re-sorted — not a ranking of humanity’s benefactors. The universe is living billionaires with a trackable public company. Norman Borlaug, Linus Torvalds, vaccine developers, and public-sector reformers created enormous value and belong at the top of a different list; they are absent here because they are not billionaires with public equity, not because the metric judges them small. This list answers exactly one question Bezos posed: among the people Forbes already ranks by personal wealth, who created the most for others versus kept for themselves?
- Not a measure of consumer surplus, wages, or societal value beyond shareholders (those are larger still — Nordhaus [see here] estimates innovators capture only ~2.2% of the social surplus they create — but they are not reliably measurable per person, so we do not headline them).
- Not a moral scoreboard. It measures one thing: dollars of shareholder wealth created beyond a risk-free benchmark, minus dollars kept.
- Not affiliated with Forbes or with any prior ranking site.
Ranked by the wealth they built for other investors: “The Anti‑Forbes List.”
To observe the obvious, the numbers at play here are big… so big as to be hard to understand. Amanda Shendruk urges us to make the effort and offers some helpful tips: “Understanding large values: It’s our ethical duty.”
###
As we re-evaluate, we might recall that it was on this date in 1598 that Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice was entered on the Stationers’ Register. By decree of Queen Elizabeth, the Stationers’ Register licensed printed works, giving the Crown tight control over all published material. In those days, “copyright” mainly meant “the right to make copies”; secondarily, it conferred intellectual property rights (though in those days, mainly to the guild printers who got the permissions).
In some cases, the companies of actors appear to have registered plays through co-operative stationers, with the express purpose of forestalling the publication of a play when publication was not in their interest. This seems to have been the case with The Merchant of Venice and Shakespeare’s company, The Lord Chamberlain’s Men: the copyright was granted to James Roberts, who printed the company’s playbills and held copyrights on five of their plays (two by Shakespeare). But Roberts transferred the copyright to fellow stationer Thomas Heyes in 1600, and Hayes published first quarto edition of the play before the end of the year.
“It’s the economy, stupid”*…
Many Americans take pride in having the largest economy in the world… which, per the chart above, by one measure we do.
But then, if we adjust for population– calculate per capita– the picture changes…
And we note both that, on a PP basis, the U.S. would be lower and, more fundamentally, that the standing of the U.S. is slipping over time.
If we dive more deeply still, the picture complicates further…
This last chart illustrates the wealth inequality in the U.S., which drops from 2nd to 28th when wealth is measured by the median instead of the average… a wealth gap that has been growing since 1985 (and that is combined with an income gap that has been growing since 1980). For more, see World Inequality Database.
* James Carville
###
As we search for the source of that smell, we might recall that it was on this date in 1549 that Robert Kett agreed to head a group of rebels in the English county of Norfolk during the reign of Tudor king Edward VI. The rebels were incensed by enclosure (the fencing off of common lands by wealthy landlords, as a product of which many peasants lost access to grazing, fuel, and small plots they had long used), along with rising rents, inflation, unemployment, and declining wages; as a response, they began destroying fences. One of their early targets was yeoman Robert Kett who, instead of resisting the rebels, agreed to their demands and offered to lead them.
Kett and his forces, joined by recruits from the city of Norwich and the surrounding countryside and numbering some 16,000, stormed Norwich and took the city at the end of July. They were besieged by, then routed, a Royal Army detachment led by the Marquess of Northampton who had been sent by the government to suppress the uprising.
But what became known as “Kett’s Rebellion” ended on August 27, when the rebels were defeated by an army under the leadership of the Earl of Warwick at the Battle of Dussindale. Kett was captured, held in the Tower of London, tried for treason, and hanged from the walls of Norwich Castle on December 7.
“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money”
See how the amount donated by Americans to charity per year compares to the size of outstanding student debt. Or how Walmart’s revenue measures up against Elon Musk’s wealth. Or how the U.S. military budget stacks up against China’s… and so much more.
From the estimable David McCandless and his wonderful site Information is Beautiful, an illustration of how expenses and wealth that run to over a billion dollars compare.
Then peruse “$Trillions.”
###
As we ponder the pecuniary, we might recall that on this date in 1989, Exxon Valdez, an oil supertanker owned by Exxon Shipping Company, bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound‘s Bligh Reef, 6 mi west of Tatitlek, Alaska. The tanker spilled more than 10 million US gallons of crude oil over the next few days.
The Exxon Valdez spill is the second largest in U.S. waters, after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume of oil released. It is the costliest disaster ever with no direct human fatalities. The oil, extracted from the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, eventually affected 1,300 miles of coastline, of which 200 miles were heavily or moderately oiled; and it wreaked havoc with the habitats salmon, sea otters, seals, and seabirds in its path.
Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill and a further $1 billion to settle related civil and criminal charges. Exxon was also assessed another $2.5 billion in punitive damages in a suit (Exxon v. Baker)… but that was reduced by the Supreme Court to roughly $500 million. Exxon remained hugely profitable– the process of payment was drawn out over decades and long term damage continues and is not funded by Exxon. Hence, the Exxon spill is often cited as shorthand in conversations about corporate responsibility as a case of accountability for societal damage inadequately enforced.
“An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics”*…
The rich in the U.S. just keep getting richer. Over the five decades, incomes have risen materially faster at the very top than anywhere below, and similarly, wealth has accumulated much more quickly at the top than anywhere below. A report from the Stone Center On Socio-Economic Inequality (at CUNY) looks at the mutually-reinforcing relationship between these two dynamics…
Homoploutia describes the situation in which the same people (homo) are wealthy (ploutia) in the space of capital and labor income in some countries. It can be quantified by the share of capital income rich who are also labor income rich. In this paper, we combine several datasets covering different time periods to document the evolution of homoploutia in the United States from 1950 to 2020. We find that homoploutia was low after World War II, has increased by the early 1960s, and then decreased until the mid-1980s. Since 1985 it has been sharply increasing: In 1985, about 17% of adults in the top decile of capital income earners were also in the top decile of labor-income earners. In 2018 this indicator was about 30%. This makes the traditional division between capitalists and laborers less relevant today. It makes periods characterized by high interpersonal inequality, high capital-income ratio, and high capital share of income in the past fundamentally different from the current situation. High homoploutia has far-reaching implications for social mobility and equality of opportunity. We also study how homoploutia is related to total income inequality. We find that rising homoploutia accounts for about 20% of the increase in total income inequality in the United States since 1986…
Note that the report was written in the 2020 (and published in The Review of Income and Wealth in 2023). The dynamic has continued since; the polarizing impact has grown.
“Homoploutia: Top Labor and Capital Incomes in the United States, 1950–2020,” from @stone-lis.bsky.social. (Read the full report here.)
[image above: source]
* Plutarch
###
As we evaluate equity, we might recall that it was on this date in 1970 that The Oregon Highway Division attempted to destroy a rotting beached Sperm whale with explosives, leading to the now infamous “exploding whale” incident.
You must be logged in to post a comment.