Blackballing the McCourts: Is It Logical for Dodgers Fans To Boycott Games?
The Los Angeles Dodgers' fan faithful is represented very well by people of different ages, races, lifestyles, and personal beliefs.
And among all the fans, there are various levels of allegiance and devotion—some folks have the ability to recall any imaginable statistic in the history of the franchise, while others may simply enjoy a gorgeous day at the Ravine with friends and family.
Yet one thing that all Dodgers supporters have in common is a similar perception towards current owner and chairman Frank McCourt.
After taking into account that virtually every single business transaction Frank made over the last several years has negatively affected the health and welfare of the organization, it's agreeable among all fans that the Dodgers require new ownership—and it needs to come immediately.
At this stage of the divorce trial, it's difficult to render which party has the upper hand, but if Frank emerges as the victor, he has absolutely every intention of moving forward as owner and chairman.
Clearly, Frank has no respect for the hopes and desires of the fans, and it's tough to imagine how he has the will to continue his involvement with the club considering the disdain and disgust of the Dodger community.
If there was indeed a simple method to ostracize or blackball Jamie and Frank McCourt from the Los Angeles Dodgers franchise, it probably would have happened already. Perhaps the only options are to be patient, have faith in the court, and hope that justice prevails in the end.
As a fan, is it logical to boycott Dodgers' home games in an effort to get rid of the McCourts?
However, after the McCourt divorce became a matter of public record last fall, there are quite a few Dodgers fans who decided to boycott the 2010 season entirely.
Thinking along those same lines, what if most, if not all of the Dodgers' fan base withheld their patronage from all Dodgers home games? Is this sensible or even logical? Would it work?
From a logistics or theoretical standpoint, it would shut down a good portion of the cash flow. Outside of television, radio, and revenue sharing from Major League Baseball, there would be very little money generated, and some type of intervention by the higher powers of MLB would be imminent.
Nevertheless, any rational mind would realize that the idea of "the fans going on strike" would create repercussions that aren't easily visible. The Dodgers are a huge part of the economy of the City of Los Angeles, and the effect would be huge.
Several hundred jobs would somehow be affected right off the top. Stadium security, ushers, food vendors, ticket-takers, and maintenance workers would need to be scaled back.
Considering the current state of the job market, the ramifications of a fan boycott would be ugly.
Then there are the season ticket-holders. They've already spent the money. Although a non-renewal for 2011 could be an option, it only makes sense that they attend games down the stretch of the 2010 campaign.
It's also worth mentioning the number of groups and organizations that travel to Dodger Stadium annually.
For some church groups, Little League teams, and Boy Scout troops, a trip to watch the Boys in Blue compete creates memories that last lifetimes.
Many families plan yearly vacations around a visit to the ballpark. Sure, San Bernardino is only about an hour to the east, but it's just not the same experience.
The charities that benefit from direct tickets sales would also be affected negatively.
Pre-existing deals with food suppliers and apparel/clothing makers would crumble.
Although most of the players on the club won't admit it, the divorce has had a detrimental effect in regards to their performances on the diamond. Imagine if the stands were completely empty—there would be no motivation to compete at all.
So what can the fan do to help the cause?
Write comments about the articles that appear in the LA Times. Share remarks and sentiments in Dodger forums. Sign up for Bleacher Report and write articles or post comments.
Join the protest groups in front of the court house; or if lucky enough to get inside the courtroom, wear a Vladimir Shpunt T-shirt in objection to ownership. The possibilities are endless.
Nonetheless, every individual has his own freedom to choose. And if that individual is happy and content that his hard-earned money isn't contributing to Frank McCourt's evil empire, then by all means, go on strike.
After all, the fan's peace of mind is the second most important issue here.
What's the first?
Getting the McCourts the heck out of Dodge.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?