Wednesday Dream Links: Gentrification, Statistics, Gold Smuggling, etc.
The Classical (the place where Free Darko's Bethlehem Shoals went) published a really excellent series of articles on the Parisian soccer club Paris Saint Germaine and its attempts to "clean up" its cheering section. European soccer's problems with racism and violence are well-documented, but as writer Moacir de Sá Pereira's piece contends, PSG used these problems to spearhead an effort to "gentrify" its fans:
What had started as generalized violence at Parc des Princes in the early 1980s became hooligan violence coupled with racism in the 1990s. Then, in 2010, in response to an act of racial violence, the team proposed an anti-violence policy that then morphed into a policy devoted to anti-racism. But the protests by shut out ex-viragiste season ticket holders have nothing to do with racism at the stadium. The motto of fan group Tous Abonnés—"No to violence, but not like this!"—shows where the fans’ concern was: canceling season tickets and instituting an ID policy was a move by the team to kick out the lower-class members. Regardless of race or previous record of violence, they were all now presumed guilty of racism, anti-Semitism, or homphobia.
The protesters—and this includes fans from Auteuil, who had been direct victims of racist abuse—believe that their real crime is of being, simply, "the people." Throughout their protest literature, they describe their virages as "the people’s stands" or "the working-class stands"(tribunes populaires). Ironically, considering that people of non-European backgrounds make up a disproportionate percentage of the lower classes in France, shutting out the working class has a side effect of shutting out the very people who would be targeted by the racism that the project that shuts them out is supposed to protect them against. So instead of addressing the class dynamic of creating a ticket and ID policy that only affects those who want to buy cheapest tickets, the front office’s focus on public expressions of anti-racism conveniently place the team in combat with the fact that, despite French promises about égalité and fraternité, racism certainly still exists in this Republic.
Moacir de Sá Pereira believes that this is part of an extension of "neoliberal ideology" (something I agree with, though I disagree with his assertion that The New Republic is "a thoroughly neoliberal rag," at least according to the more extreme definition he gives for neoliberalism) -- an attempt to extend the market to every level of public life, obliterating relationships that were formerly non-monetized because they are no longer profitable.
American fans have seen this up close in the same way. The issue here is not one of ousting season ticket holders under the banner of anti-violence or anti-racism and the objective of gentrification -- it's one of extorting cities for subsidies and new pleasure-palace stadiums. The effect is the same.
(A little more after the jump)
When the New York Yankees demolished the historic Yankees Stadium, they first took a bag of money from New York...
3) THE NEW YANKEE STADIUM IS NOT A PRIVATELY FINANCED. We paid for a large portion of this stadium. Why Bloomberg, who had no stake in seeing the Yankees get a new home, went along with it is a mystery to me. It's simply unconscionable for a city, with children attending classes in janitor's closets, to spend money on for-profit sports franchises.
...and then used that money to build a monument to class divide and gentrification:
2) IT'S DESIGN IS PROFOUNDLY UN-AMERICAN. Baseball has traditionally played a unifying role. The ballpark is where people of different classes and races and religions actually mingled. The box seats, where the swells sat, weren't physically separated from the proles. The new stadium is like an architectural system of class apartheid, with far fewer cheap seats pushed way up to the heavens (closer to God, at least) and many of the bleacher seats (home to the most loyal and ardent fans) with obstructed views. There is actually a concrete and plexiglass moat separating the I-bankers paying two or three thousand dollars a pop from the mere middle-management types paying, oh, three hundred dollars seat. (It's interesting: After the first playoff game against the Twins, Michael Kay and David Cone were speculating about the subdued nature of the crowd. Was it the 6 o'clock start? The early lead by the Twins? "Excuse me, guys," I shouted at the TV, "it's the fucking architecture!")
We see this at Rockets games, certainly. The Toyota Center's lower bowl is notorious for its sparse crowd (to be fair, the bars are nice) and calm demeanor, and that's almost certainly a result of the average fan being priced out of the good seats. Paris Saint Germaine experiences the same "problem" (problem for the fans; certainly not for the profit-maximizers):
And what are the fans who stay at home missing? Is Rue 89’s characterization of Parc des Princes as now for "consumers" correct? Most likely. At a recent home match, a 1–0 loss to AS Nancy-Lorraine—their first loss at home since the season opener—I watched the action behind the goal from the Virage Auteuil. The stadium was certainly practically full, but there was nearly no ambience outside of the virages. Early on, the most unified howls revolved around a young fan who had brought a vuvuzela into the stadium and blew it from time to time, earning disdain and reminders that we weren’t in South Africa. Past that, the tribunes felt silent. The virages were also disorganized and intermittent with their support once the match began. The upper deck of Auteuil had a man daringly standing on the ledge with his back to the action, acting as a capo and trying to organize cheers, but without a megaphone. Even typical chants, like heckling the opposing goalie on goal kicks, fell to only scattered fans.
Sports teams sell themselves to the public as objects of devotion. They tout their connection to the city and to their fans, but all the evidence indicates that what really matters is money. That's as true in France as it is in the United States.
---
Yao Ming is entering politics... kinda:
Since the 31-year-old Yao announced last July that injuries had ended his career with the Houston Rockets, he has become a university student and set up a wine business to go with owning a professional basketball team in China.
Photos in official media on Monday showed Yao at the weekend closing ceremony for the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Shanghai Committee.
"There are about 142 members in the group, and Yao is the youngest," Kong Rong, who works in the service office of committee, was quoted as saying by the China Daily.
The advisory committee does not have any real power, but the newspaper said Yao is supposed to attend regular meetings, and can make suggestions for the advisory body and government departments.
Yao was quoted as saying "raising proposals is very serious business, and I do not want to be hasty."
It is common for sports figures to move into politics in China. Olympic gold medal hurdler Liu Xiang is a member of both the Shanghai and national political advisory bodies.
---
Dikembe Mutombo is connected with some weird and shady tales of a botched gold smuggling deal:
More than 1,000 pounds of gold pulled from the cargo hold was taken away by Congolese officials. Two bags containing $6.6 million in cash were gone as well, into the pockets of a local general whose loyal troops oversee much of the nearby mining operations.
To make matters worse, Lawal had to pay millions more to recover his plane and his people. St. Mary said Lawal later told him the entire ordeal cost him around $30 million.
The failed smuggling plot drew global attention. But conspicuously absent from publicity surrounding the incident was any mention of the part played by Mutombo, the finger-wagging basso profondo whose 7-foot stature and defensive prowess made him a force on the hardwoods.
Not only had Mutombo initiated the deal, St. Mary said, but he and his family played a key role from the onset, one not revealed until recently with the release of a United Nations report on Congo’s militia activity that recounts the incident.
Mutombo would not talk about his involvement. "I have nothing to say," he replied when reached by phone in Atlanta. But the extent of it became clear through lengthy interviews with St. Mary, who kept records and copies of text messages throughout the ordeal, and the report by U.N. investigators. Through a spokesman, Lawal declined to comment.
Odd stuff, for sure. If you want to read the ClutchFans thread on the subject, there's some good old-fashioned gold buggery in there, which is always good for a laugh.
---
As much as teams have begun to embrace statistical analysis as a part of decision-making, we still see a lot of teams handing out dumb contracts, making ridiculous trades, etc. A lot of that is probably the result of teams that haven't incorporated analytical work into their decisions, but it's not like the analytical teams are perfect, either (Portland's signing of Jamal Crawford, for instance).
Wages of Wins offers an explanation of sorts for this, as well as something of a rebuttal to the "conventional" crowd -- the human mind is capable of some remarkable errors:
It’s that last bit that is telling. I fall prey to this myself constantly. As my readers know, I am a pretty avid believer that WP48 tells us far more about basketball performance than the naked eye ever could. Yet I couldn’t possibly count the number of times I have seen a basketball game and thought "player X was Amazing!", only to check the box score and discover he was terrible-to-average, committing lots of turnovers (which my mind glazed over), missing lots of shots (which weren’t as important as those three THUNDEROUS DUNKS, SURELY) or grabbing no rebounds.
As basketball fans (or basketball analysts — I like to give myself fancy titles to lend more validity to my statements), are convinced that we are experts in this field. That what we see on the basketball court has meaning, regardless of what the data says. It is why coaches are so reluctant to give up on players drafted highly — they see things in on-court performances that convince them the player is capable of so much more than what the box-score tells them. It is why fans of certain players get outraged whenever we post an article that shows how they are overrated.
We want what we see to have meaning, to fit into a narrative. Players that look spectacular when scoring, well, they must be great players! Look at that athleticism! Everybody knows he’s a great player! Meanwhile, players that score lots of boring put-backs, or don’t really get shots off the dribble and only shoot when they are open and passed-to, well, they slip by, beneath our notice, and somehow the buckets that they score don’t count the full 2 points in our cognitive registry.
The illusion of validity is why I get deeply suspicious whenever a fan, sportswriter, coach, or GM says anything to the effect of "the numbers don’t tell the whole story". This is, in fact, true, but what the person saying this usually means is "I don’t care what the numbers say because I am convinced that what I have seen is correct." Which is, thanks to this illusion, almost never true. If I make an argument that the data says a player isn’t good, and someone points out "Yes, but if you watch the games you will notice that this year they are only shooting threes from the slot, and rarely from the corner, where he used to excel," then that person is pointing out a hole in the data that’s worth investigating. If the argument is along the lines of "anyone who’s watching him can clearly see he’s much better than that," then I’m certain the illusion of validity is doing its dirty work.
I'm not nearly as high on WP48 as its creators at WoW, but I agree in principle. Most of what I study in history concerns how people create categories and concepts and then fit the data to that "received" knowledge, and it's as true today as it was in early Victorian Britain. It's not so much that your eye deceives you, it's that your mind isn't built to evaluate masses of nuanced data. And when you try to make such evaluations, you're more likely to be wildly wrong than correct.
---
The NBA's annual GM survey came out yesterday. The Rockets only make a few appearances: Kyle Lowry is tied for second (with Ty Lawson) on the breakout candidates list. Scola is second in the "most with least" category. Scola and Martin got votes in the "toughest" and "best without the ball" categories. Former Rockets Shane Battier was second on the list for "best future coach."
The survey has some weird spots, too. Kobe is still given way too much credit with the third spot on the "perimeter defenders" list. Most appallingly, Derrick Rose is ranked ahead of Chris Paul in "best point guard" list. Whatever.
---
The more things change, the more they stay the same -- the Wolves are preparing to drive Kevin Love into free agency. Basically, they're offering a shorter and slightly less-well-paid (per year) than the max Minnesota could offer. And Kevin Love probably won't like that:
But here’s the risk: Love could just accept the one year qualifying offer the Wolves have to put on the table — $6.1 million for next season — then after that he could leave as an unrestricted free agent.
Nobody is talking. Not the Timberwolves, not Love who brushed this off as something his agent is dealing with in a recent radio interview.
I, for one, welcome the best power forward under 30's impending 2013 free agency. Here's hoping.
---
We didn't blank ourselves or anything, but SBN is officially against censoring the internet.
...you still can't post streams, though.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Chandler Parsons is the rookie leader in rebounding. NBA.com puts him at #10 amongst rookies in general:
Parsons has quietly become a key piece to the Rockets’ rotation. The Florida product taken with the 38th pick has become a starter and is doing a little bit of everything. He’s first among rookies in rebounding (5.5 per game) and has a knack for the follow dunk (see videos to the left). The energetic 6-foot-10 rookie has obviously earned the praise of coach Kevin McHale. “Chandler plays the same way in the fourth quarter as he does in the first,” McHale said last week. “He plays the same way in practice as he plays in games. He just comes out and plays really hard.”
The rebounding thing really surprises me. You’d think it would be Enes Kanter or something, but Kanter isn’t playing very many minutes right now (still at 5.2).
The PSG's part is one of the dumbest thing I've ever read
“Oh poor little season tickets holder, they can’t see the match, they’re just victim of their bad reputation and racist dirigents”.
From a Parisian standpoint that like the PSG but couldn’t go to the stadium for years because of this “poor victims”, I can tell you this is bullshit. I’m caucasian but you can ask to my black/arabian friends, they think the same as me.
The racist part is just the usual “In america we’re so openned to other culture, not like this racist Europe. It’s not like all of our president have been good ol’ Christian men wgile the next French president is either going to be a never-married atheist or an twice divorced half-jew men”.
Back to PSG thing, yeah, maybe tickets were more expensive for the guys who used to be season-ticket holder (the season tickets have been reintroduced for the 11-12 season), but for the non-season-ticket guys that represent 95% of the PSG fans, you know what the biggest difference is? We can actually go to the stadium. Really. Two years ago most of the people I know were afraid to go see a match because this “poor victim” were some of the most violent fans in Europe. When it come to bring childs, you could forget about it.
So yep, maybe for one year some innocent guys couldn’t go see the team they loved because of a few idiots but one year after, the season-ticket is back, the one that has nothing to reproach to themselves can come back and the main difference is that the average PSG-fan can now go to the stadium to watch some games.
Good to have a Parisian perspective on it.
1) The author is French, himself, so I doubt he’s writing this from the perspective that America is a land blemish-free when it comes to racism.
2) I think his overall point is that the anti-violence and anti-racism efforts are really just a front for increasing the ticket price. Yes, the old fans can buy season tickets now, but their ability to organize and show support is more limited. That has the definite effect of stamping out some of the racist and violent organizations, but doesn’t it also destroy legitimate support? And when that comes via a rise in ticket prices, I think he has a point.
His point is a little more complex than the idea that the old fans were victims. It’s more that the methods used to combat racism and violence went too far and seem to have been designed to raise revenue rather than clean up the games.
I can definitely see why someone would disagree with that assessment, however, or not really care too much if some of the “good” old fans were caught in the crossfire, as it were.
What you got to keep in mind is that we're not talking about guys who're drinking beers
and are filling the stands with smoke. We’re talking about men that have already beaten other men to death.
“The protesters—and this includes fans from Auteuil, who had been direct victims of racist abuse” this sentence is the worst IMO. When you read that it lead you to believe that the fans from Auteuil are innoncent guys who are beaten up by the fans from Boulogne (the ones with an history of racism). But the fact is that all this methods to stop violence started after the death of Yann Lorence. An auteuil guy beaten up by the racist? Nope, a Boulogne fan beaten up to death by Auteuil fans.
In the past five years, two other fans died because of this violence. I have no problem so yes it’s normal that human lives pass before the enjoyement of a few.
And about the raising price, in every sport I know the tickets keep getting more expensive every year, they don’t need that to raise price the simple sentece “you’re going to see Pastore and Sirigu instead of Erding and Edel” would be enough.
Plus you have to realised that the club actually loose money by using that policy. Yes tickets are more expensive when buy one by one but the side-effect is that there is less people in the stadium. And you won’t make me believe that brillant bussinesman like them didn’t plan that.
For the author, i check and he is from Chicago but actually living in Paris.
by RiiseRockets on Jan 18, 2012 9:20 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, he talks about Lorence's death and how it was the most immediate cause of the changes introduced.
I selected that quote because it encapsulated a larger point I was trying to make about the economics of sport (teams in America and Europe are pursuing policies that price the less-affluent fans out of the market), not because it described the entirety of the piece.
It’s a long, nuanced work of journalism.
i read a paper in an econ class
having to do with the economics of sports teams. the reality is that most owners don’t make decisions based on what is the most profitable. in some cases they don’t eve ATTEMPT to do studies. rather businessmen but sports team to ‘play’ with in the same way that we ‘play’ fantasy sports. collecting their favorite players and caring less about winning. this is why some teams make trades or give contracts that make no sense at all. i’ve been looking for it but i can’t find it. ill link if i do.
would be interesting
and I’m sure it’s a true point about many owners (Cuban comes to mind).
But Jeffrey Loria used the Marlins as basically free money for years. It would be hard to describe the Atlanta Hawks as anything but a profit-making (or at least profit-attempting) partnership.
Sports leagues in the USA are set up so that it’s all but impossible to fail. Your labor costs are subsidized (max contract systems and/or the draft), your infrastructure is even more heavily subsidized (taxpayer-funded stadiums), and you get free money from national television deals. Owners might play around with their teams, but in the end these things make money (and the NBA is full of shit when it says otherwise).
Don't forget the Twins - a team that existed to suck down revenue sharing dollars.
American sports isn’t at the level of UK soccer clubs (I can’t really see how Man City could make money for example). The profits might not always be large, but they’re there. And if they aren’t then the team is a great loss soaker for other profitable ventures the owner has by virtue of some very favorable accounting rules.
But let’s see – give me a popular product to sell, a monopoly on a large market, publicly funded facilities, a national franchise payment that I need merely to exist to receive (TV deals) and controlled labor costs and a de facto, if not outright, antitrust exemption, and utter control of my worker’s careers for many years? I think I could make money on that.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
2 links
I always thought Gladwell missed what was really going on.
He provides an interesting account for why the league’s owners should accept not making a profit, but of course that just bought into their nonsense about economic hardship.
Ultimately, his argument always seemed to be undermined (to me, anyways) by the fact that so many conglomerates either own or have owned part or all of these teams. Fox owned the Dodgers for a few terrible years. Nintendo owns much of the Mariners. Both the Raptors and Maple Leafs are owned by the same Canadian conglomerate.
I really doubt mega-corporations are in this shit for the joy of owning a team.
Sometimes conglomerates want a "halo" company
“We’re not a coal mining company, we’re the company that makes your favorite ice cream!”
But given the generally hamfisted way most companies have run sports teams, I doubt they get much benefit from it.
And don’t forget the MSG/Cable company/Sports Franchise nexus.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
i mean i take it with a grain of salt
but i don’t think every owner is like that, just some. especially those who are individuals that don’t need a sports team to be a billionaire. I mean think about it like this. if you spend every day making cut throat business decisions, you want to do things that don’t make all that much sense. The original article was in a journal, im going to email my prof to see if i can get it because at the least i’d like to read it again.
Some owners are clearly more interested in the fun part.
But most of them didn’t get to be billionaires by neglecting the bottom line
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
This is apparently true.
It’s amazing that mere thousands of dollars in campaign donations can buy millions or billions in public supports.
It’s like advertising – why do they do it? Because it works.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
There's a less savory sort of thought to be gleaned than even the (gasp) "sports owners are greedy" point.
That is, PSG’s efforts to increase profits by pricing out, or eliminating the season tickets of, its poorest fans have actually lead to reduced violence. And it isn’t as though they invented the practice – the UK lead the way there. The world of “Among the Thugs” is largely gone.
My own anecdotal evidence from a time when the PSG fanbase was more “unreconstructed” was that I never had a good experience of any sort with someone wearing PSG gear. Some experiences were violent (though not terribly) and one included having a convict in full PSG regalia chained to the seat across from me on the train from Paris to Beaune, him only pausing from leering at my wife to ask for cigarettes. (Yes, we spent a lot of the time in the dining car.) Sure, I understand that not all, or even most, of the fans were that way, but enough of them went out of their way to yell at, shove or harass me that I’m not bursting with sympathy for them generally.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
In the US, the Dodgers, Raiders come to mind
Though, again, if in the process of eliminating the criminal element from the fan base we also price the majority of fans out of the building, I think we’ve gone too far. There have to be better ways to fix the problem.
I agree.
But I wonder if the owners don’t want a certain segment of the fanbase at home, watching commercials anyway?
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Under the new market (post stadium boom)
actually seeing a game live and in person is certainly a luxury good. Pricing everyone out of the stadium who can’t/won’t pay for the expensive addons is a good way to drive up the demand for your television broadcasts while maximizing the benefit from every seat sold in your venue…
Sinister.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It’s just a matter of going through the exercise and seeing where the logic leads you. It could be wrong – fans showing up is money right in the team’s pocket – so you want that, but its a matter of pricing the experience so you get the most marginal benefit from attendance. It does you no good to let everyone in the stadium for $1 and fill it up everytime. Or not much, because the people who’ll pay more will also probably buy food and souvenirs too.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
No, no of course it's not a conspiracy. Just having fun.
Or not much, because the people who’ll pay more will also probably buy food and souvenirs too.
Right. Moreover, they’re the ones willing to shell out a few hundred for the luxury seats. You want them coming to the ballpark and the masses driving up your ratings.
It makes sense.
Of course, you can be the Astros and get neither of those things.
Don't get me started on the Astros and Drayton.
I’ll just say this – Drayton got really rich from a business that utterly depends on shaving pennies in large volumes for success. Some things don’t change.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
No shit
I was there in ’08 when the Astros turned off the A/C in Minute Maid during the summer.
Holy fuck what a cheapskate. Not spending on the draft was one thing, but turning off the air conditioning to save on overhead was just obscene.
That’s the kind of shit that, like, the Royals would pull (if they had a dome, of course). Drayton treated that team like it was located in Kansas City for most of his tenure. And then he just became penny-wise/pound-foolish.
That's pretty much it.
Today the Rangers signed Yu Darvish. The Astros signed Jack Cust.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
Morey talks about the season so far:
here
Notes:
1) Kyle Lowry is playing at an all-star level; team needs him to stay at this level.
2) The ‘09 Lottery Crew is disappointing, can’t get minutes — Flynn sucks (not in so many words); Thabeet can’t even reach third string status; Williams gets beat out by other guys
3) Most interesting (to me): The Rockets “try to inject unpredictability” right now — taking waivers on the ‘09 crew is an example, of course.
4) Patterson has taken a step back due to injury, healing process has been slow.
5) Second unit sucks partly because of P-squared’s injury
6) One of the interview guys identifies “the way Branch Rickey used to do it” as the “old school” of sporting analysis (you know — from the gut). This is an interesting story, given that Rickey was one of the unsung pioneers of baseball analytics.
7) Marcus Morris is healing well, maybe has a higher upside than Patterson, though has tougher transition to the NBA.
8) Utah is the biggest surprise in the league.
9) Philly is “what the Rockets are going for.”
I'd say the Rockets are going for Denver.
The Dream Shake ...on Twitter.
"I think girls are probably just better shooters." - Steve Novak
Wow indeed.
I’d have thought they wouldn’t recover for a whole season from the Parsons Teabag Dunk.
"Each in turn... volunteered his suggestions, his invaluable suggestions."
ridiculous dunk
I don’t remember it making it’s way to the 4 letter network’s top 10. did it? in my mind it was top 5. but are we really surprised? the team that wasn’t even invited to the white house after winning the championship in ‘94. every time I see clinton’s face I am reminded of this. houston get’s no love.
by HTown80 on Jan 18, 2012 11:35 PM CST via Android app up reply actions
we have top 10 worthy plays all the time that don't get on there
which reminds me time to text for lowry
People are starting to see how much the NBA does not like the Rockets.
I was talking basketball with a buddy of mine from Jersey and I don’t remember what I said but he commented saying “the NBA does not like y’all”. I responded saying, “I knew I wasn’t crazy”. At the barber the same comment was made to me about the Rockets. I’m telling you guys something is going to come out about this matter and it won’t look good for the NBA.
I hate david stern!
if cleveland makes the playoffs
ill believe the conspiracy theory
So, ESPN and President Clinton are the NBA?
I am a fan of yours, Batman, but I can’t buy into a conspiracy theory like that because at the end of the day the Rockets problems are their own doing (Sans the nixed trade). The NBA is forcing the Rockets to pick 14th or have sub-standard assets to make a trade.
That's unpossible, the Wizards are terrible and John Wall is overrated.
And no one on that team can walk and chew gum at the same time and it’s obviously not just that Flip Saunders is a fucking idiot and not the right coach for that Washington team!! NOES!
Well, it's not just that Flip Saundeers is an idiot
It’s also that most of the team is scrubs. Athletic scrubs, but scrubs nonetheless.
think it's more spectacular
that russell westbrook got on that list for best PGs.

by 























