A vision of the future of the Alliance...
As the (Acting) President of the Alliance Council, I’ve heard plenty of skepticism about the Alliance, whether it truly represents "Democracy in Sports" or not, and whether or not it is - or can be - a true voice for fans and a way for them to take some control in the operation of the Sounders.
I share some skepticism. Back in March, in an interview with the Tacoma News Tribune, I said "My sense is that there has been some disillusionment among some of the people because they feel like it’s more a slogan than anything real. I know that I personally have felt like that at times."
The Council and the Alliance are in a weird spot, because it's important to get it right the first time out. Something like this is pretty revolutionary for an American sports franchise.
A bit of education might be in order here. In most of the rest of the world, entry into the uppermost league for soccer in a given nation is not for sale; instead, a team gets placed into the top flight by winning promotion from lower divisions.
In some nations, the teams are tied even more to their communities by the fact that the teams are partially or wholly owned by the local community through a non-profit association of fans. Both cases give local fans a feeling of "ownership", either figurative or literal. Team don't move and they aren't "awarded"; they simply are, in each community, and if you said "whose team is it" the answer would be (from that local community) "ours".
In the USA, on the other hand, top sports leagues operate more like an exclusive cartel. If you want to own and operate a team in those leagues, you have to get the already existing teams to agree to let you join. This naturally entails a wanna-be owner paying the league a bunch of money as a "franchise fee" (or buying an existing team).
The practical effect of this is that here, when we think of who "owns" a local team, the answer is the owners are the few folks who plunked down millions or tens of millions of dollars to buy either an existing team or a "franchise" to start and operate a team in a given market. This is entirely natural, because those guys put up their money.
As a result of this system, the owners of franchises in American sports think of a team as being THEIRS, and the fans of a team are not stakeholders in the system; they’re customers, buyers, people to whom the owner is selling entertainment.
Those owners are loath to give up control and decision-making power regarding those teams to anyone who doesn’t actually own a share of the team - particularly local fans, supporters, or communities. In my opinion, you can't really blame these guys for thinking like this; they're the ones who ponied up money (millions, in most cases) to buy the team in the first place.
Here in Seattle, though, we are lucky and blessed with an ownership group who truly understands the passion that sports fans feel. More importantly, they are willing to voluntarily share some "ownership" and power when it comes to the team. They are recognizing us as stakeholders, if not shareholders.
(I find it particularly ironic that the accusation that Sounders fans are mere "customers" is often slung around by other MLS fans. The reality is that our franchise is going further to make the opposite true than every other sports franchise in North America, with the possible exception of the Green Bay Packers.)
The creation of the Alliance and proposing to give it true power (even if fairly limited in scope) is probably seen as a form of heresy among other North American sports franchise owners. Granted, the Sounders aren’t going to allow the Alliance to, say, set ticket prices or negotiate TV contracts or sign sponsorship deals.
But the very fact that they’re encouraging an organization to form, with an independent deliberative executive body (the Council), that’s democratically elected by the members of the alliance, and willingly giving that organization power to decide ANYTHING is a pretty amazing development indeed. Beyond that, the Council and the Alliance at large can express themselves on ANY subject they see fit - including criticism of business decisions that the Club makes.
In my opinion, it’s important for Sounders fans and supporters to recognize how revolutionary this is in American sports.
We are also challenged here. We are challenged with making this work, and work in a responsible, reasonable manner. If we fail, it will affect the future willingness of sports franchises to undertake this kind of project in the future.
Our challenge is to make this work - so that later we, and our Club’s owners, can point to it and say "look, engaging fans is a vital part of our Club's overall success".
We need to make it work so well that when the day comes for an ownership change at the Sounders they can honestly tell the new buyers that the Alliance having influence on the direction and operation of the Club is something that adds value to the club, not detracts from it.
Many prospective owners would look at this and see a negative situation. They would decide that it's simply going to be easier to buy, own, manage, market, and run a more typical American sports franchise - without any messy interference from the fans and supporters.
After all, that sports franchise model makes a lot of people a lot of money, and has for decades.
As a member of the Council, and honored to be its first Presiding officer, I'm trying to consider all of this. It would be a lot easier to just pound the table and be strictly a vehement advocate of whatever cause I see fit today. As fans of our team, we tend to take a short-term viewpoint - we want to win everything now.
But.... if this is to succeed, we cannot do that. We have to understand the Club's viewpoint and take the long view into account. If we can make this work, and work well, and have it actually add value to the team in the long run, it will benefit us and also show our owners (and others!) that this sort of thing is a good idea.
We are, in effect, pioneers. The Alliance can be a leader into a new paradigm of thinking about how to get fans involved in their Clubs.
So when people say "yeah, this Democracy in Sports thing is a bunch of BS, it’s just a marketing slogan", my answer to them is "look - we have a golden opportunity to make it into something much, much more than that."
The first, biggest step towards doing that is for the proposed constitution and charter to be ratified.
We - the members of the committee the Council created to draft the constitution, and the Council itself - come from all sectors of the Sounders community. Some of us are soccer moms, some of us are independent fans, and sure, many of us are (like me) members of the various supporter groups.
Each and every one of us, though, is dedicated to doing what we can to make Democracy in Sports a very real thing. We ask you, the folks who elected us, to join us. We’re doing it not just for our local team, but to try and develop a new paradigm for a sports franchise in North America. A model team where it is more than entertainment, where it is part of our lives, and something that we have every bit as much a feeling of ownership as Paul Allen, Adrian Hanauer, Drew Carey, and Joe Roth.
My belief is that by doing so, we move closer to a vision of a packed-to-the-rafters stadium, vibrating with the songs lifted to the heavens by almost 70,000 people, all of whom are tied together by the common love of our city, our region and our club.
Everyone playing a part:
- supporters chanting and singing while doing a massive pogo that spreads and shakes the entire Brougham End and their counterparts answering from the North End;
- the fans throughout the rest of the stadium joining in on their favorite songs;
- the players giving everything they have, going the full 90 in every game;
- people watching games at home, listening to them on the radio, or gathering together in pubs and bars to communally watch games;
- even the guys in the suites understanding that while their surroundings might be more comfortable than folks in the upper deck...
all of these people, as one community, would share the same desire - to see our Club dominate and succeed.
That sense of community - celebrating together when we win, sharing our sorrow when we lose, and laughing when we slaughter the Timbers - is my vision for the Sounders and the Alliance. I ask you to join me in the building of this - it might take years, or decades - but we have a chance to ratify a foundation for that, right here and now.
In my dream, some day the fans and supporters of the Sounders could actually truly own a piece of the team - to lay out some money and buy a share in a partial ownership stake. To get there, we need an independent, healthy, responsible organization that represents all of these people coming together with a strong foundation.
That might not ever be possible. The single-entity structure of MLS, the reluctance of the other owners, a whole host of other factors make it unlikely. But I know it will be completely impossible unlesss we build our Alliance in a strong, healthy way right now.
Please be sure to vote "yes" on the proposed constitution and charter for the Sounders FC Alliance.
Paul Cox (Acting) Alliance Council President
FanPosts only represent the opinions of the poster, not of Sounder at Heart.
16 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
sense of ownership
If someone were to ask me what i thought it means to be a Supporter I would tell them it is about forming a community that takes a sense of “ownership” to their team.
As the book “Soccernomics” puts it, soccer-football clubs really ought not to be considered “businesses” but rather community spirit organizations, like art museums.
Very well said BEB
...and you will hear us scream
Like the Packers.
I met a possum.
by s0merand0mdude on Dec 4, 2011 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thing about the Packers...
is that they are truly community owned- and that will be nearly impossible in any American sports league, for decades, if ever. The Pack are grandfathered, but the NFL has banned it from now on.
BUT- if it is ever going to happen, it would have to be started out like this, with a widespread community effort, a hopefully stable organization at the base, and dedicated fans.
We have tried to lay a foundation. It is up to the bigger community to take it further now.
by Blue Eyed Buddhist on Dec 4, 2011 11:48 PM PST via iPhone app reply actions
"impossible"?
you hear people say that a lot of political or economic see-changes, but it is only “impossible” given the current paradigm. Things change, that what was once “impossible” often one day become common-place.
It’s not always revolution, but more often evolution…
...and you will hear us scream
by malcontentjake on Dec 5, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Reason to vote NO...
With due respect for all the hard and good work BEB and others have done on these documents, they suffer from one huge problem that should be fixed before they’re approved.
In the proposed Charter, this language appears:
“Supporter Groups have a unique relationship with the Club that exists outside of the Alliance. The Alliance recognizes this and shall not interfere with it.”
In the proposed Constitution, this appears:
“The relationship between supporter groups, the Alliance, and the Club, has a unique nature. As such, it benefits all of these parties to have a set of minimum standards for groups to attain, demonstrating their commitment.”
It appears to this layperson that the Council, which is primarily composed of ECS members like BEB/Paul, has decided that only existing groups are “not to be interfered with.” When it comes to new groups, the Council is very willing to set up the precise hoops a new group should jump through. And in fact those hoops, especially the “paid membership” clause, would disqualify many current MLS supporter groups.
I can’t approve these documents in good conscience until either the Charter spells out the role the Alliance would actually take in coming between the Club and supporter groups, or remove/reduce the “standards” so that they come closer to actual “non-interference.”
In other words, this document tries to have it both ways. I recommend sending it back to be revised with a “no” vote, then approve the fixed version. There’s no shame or harm in that, nor should there be any insult inferred – making the best, most consistent document possible is what this process should be about.
The foundation of your argument is false in two areas
- ECS is only 40% of the membership of the Council
- existing groups are not grandfathered with acceptance
Can you list which existing MLS supporters groups do not have 25 paid members?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Dec 5, 2011 7:24 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Independents make up a plurality, if not a majority of the US population
but rarely get elected to congress. You know why? Because an organized group will always be more represented in any actual democracy. The only way to avoid that is to put representation quotas in ala Lebanon or Yugoslavia. It never works.
If more independents want to be on the Council, get elected. It isn’t easy (took my about 8 months during 2009), but I’ve found it worthwhile. By going out to people one-on-one I explained the early versions of democracy offered by the team and talked complete strangers into voting for me. Some were ECS, some were in my section, some were guys I met in pre-game bars.
But the easiest way to “correct” for representation is to actually try.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Dec 5, 2011 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
so what are you worried about?
you know the thoughtful and well-spoken person who wrote the above article is one of those incorrigible ECS drunkards, right?
Fact is, a lot of ECS wouldn’t touch the council with a 10-foot pole, the people who are running are the ones who want to, not people hand-picked by ECS leadership to push some extreme agenda
...and you will hear us scream
by malcontentjake on Dec 5, 2011 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think you are missing the point.
You are entirely too defensive about this. I am not calling anyone an incorrigible drunkard, I do not want you to put your flags down, and I am most certainly not being anti-ECS. I am just saying that to have 40% representation in the alliance when ECS only makes up approximately 10% of season ticket holders (and this is assuming that all 3,400 paid members of the ECS are actually STHs) is a bit much. Most people have varied expectations of their matchday experience, and as such we should have equally varied representation.
However, Dave’s point is completely valid, and this will be difficult to accomplish unless some more people with STs throughout the stadium take the initiative and attempt to join the alliance. So I encourage everyone with some sort of interest in this thing; talk to people throughout your section and petition to join the Alliance!
Sometime soon the Sounders will have a webpage with everyone who is running.
It should show a short account of why they think they should be elected, where they have season tickets, and how many more votes they need to be elected. This in conjunction with letting everyone who has a seat vote should provide the organization and total voting to make the council fairly large. Quickly supporter groups should become a smaller minority of the council.
This is a great idea!
And it would help to get a more correct cross-section of STHs sitting on the Council.
There's been nothing to prevent a candidate from using the Supporters Blog at their site
Nor from using the FanPost here.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Dec 6, 2011 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for a thoughtful post...
…but a couple of things.
First, you’re confusing the bylaws with the constitution a bit. It’s the constitution, and the accompanying charter from the Club, that are up for a vote here. The bylaws are posted just to give an idea of what kinds of things the Council will set up so that the principles in the constitution are able to be put into practice.
As such… the bylaws aren’t perfect.
Anyway, let’s take a look at your particular objection. (For what it’s worth, this bylaw was actually one that took us quite a while to grind out, because of the balance problem- how do you make it so that any 6 doofuses calling themselves an SG aren’t given that level of respect while still making it reasonably attainable for future groups?)
First of all, existing groups as well as any prospective new groups must meet the criteria. So it’s not like the Council has exempted them from anything new groups are asked to meet.
Secondly, you’re missing a point… non-recognized groups ARE perfectly entitled to exist and do whatever they want. If they can get the Club’s front office to agree, they can deal directly with the FO on their own.
Now, personally I think the odds are that the FO will change their own criteria in the future and only deal directly with groups that have achieved Alliance recognition, and I think that’s wise, but again- out of the Alliance’s control.
What’s more, you don’t lay out what criteria are so tough that a group wouldn’t be able to attain it other than the “25 paid members” criteria. What you are missing is that there is no requirement on how MUCH that membership has to cost. It could be $1.00 for a five-year membership.
Put bluntly, if a group cannot get 25 members willing to put up a buck, or even 5 bucks, they don’t deserve the special status that goes with being a supporter group. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s the case.
Still, let’s say that you’re right and the requirements are too high. That is not a reason to vote “no” on the constitution. It is a reason to approve the constitution and then get the bylaw itself changed.
Voting no means back to the drawing board, and the entire idea of the Alliance (which is much bigger in membership and scope in some ways than supporter groups are) has to start from scratch.
My own take on it is this: I’ll worry about supporter groups failing to meet the criteria if and when groups who have their stuff together are failing to achieve recognition. Starting and running an SG is way, way harder than it looks and a lot of people seem to think there’s nothing to it. Well, one reason these criteria are there is to weed out those who are serious about it and those who’re just screwing around and using it as a way to get that special relationship.
by Blue Eyed Buddhist on Dec 5, 2011 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs

by 
















