On the Irrationality of Typical Sports Team Fans

On September 23 2014 05:18 Kronen wrote:
Where's the irrationality of supporting "foreign" players who choose to represent an organization important to local business and culture? If someone becomes part of an organization, aren't they by virtue of dedicating their energies to improving that organization adopted into the local fold? I have a bit of a problem with the premise of the argument.

On a sidenote, i didn't know all the players on Manchester United were from Manchester. Good to know .

On September 23 2014 05:18 Kronen wrote:
Where's the irrationality of supporting "foreign" players who choose to represent an organization important to local business and culture? If someone becomes part of an organization, aren't they by virtue of dedicating their energies to improving that organization adopted into the local fold? I have a bit of a problem with the premise of the argument.

On a sidenote, i didn't know all the players on Manchester United were from Manchester. Good to know .

On September 23 2014 05:24 MichaelDonovan wrote:


This isn't necessarily the case. If the Patriots offer John Smith ten million more dollars per year to join their team, then it doesn't make sense to be a fan of John Smith for joining your team unless you're a fan of the team that has the most purchasing power. By joining the Patriots, John Smith is dedicating his energy to making more money.

Also I want to clarify that I don't know much about football proper (soccer). I just assume that the world cup teams have team members from the place they represent. If this is false then soccer doesn't stand up to my criticism as well as I gave it credit for.

On September 23 2014 05:56 zf wrote:
I can't agree. It's not obvious that a team is reducible to its constituent players. And, even if it were, it's not obvious that a fan's reasons for supporting a team should also apply to its players.

On September 23 2014 05:24 MichaelDonovan wrote:


This isn't necessarily the case. If the Patriots offer John Smith ten million more dollars per year to join their team, then it doesn't make sense to be a fan of John Smith for joining your team unless you're a fan of the team that has the most purchasing power. By joining the Patriots, John Smith is dedicating his energy to making more money.

On September 23 2014 05:38 MichaelDonovan wrote:
We can squabble about why a player might change teams, and whether salary increase could be the reason, but that is beside the point. The point is that it is very unlikely that a player would switch teams just because he wants to be a part of the local culture. The player will always do what is in his best interest to do given the circumstances.

On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players.

On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:

This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players.

My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result.

On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:

This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players.

My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result.

On September 23 2014 07:23 aike wrote:

Hey man the Packers are a non-profit organization Easy to be a fan of that right? hahaha. The thing is, players slowly rotate out and new ones slowly come in. It's not like the entire roster shifts out. So if I start watching this year and become a fan of the current players, next year 80% of the players I'm a fan of are still there, and then new players come in and I can become a fan of them. Ans so while the team I was a fan of in 2000 isn't around anymore, over time I have become a fan of the players that slowly replaced that team

On September 23 2014 06:50 dangthatsright wrote:
If we take a team and just rename it as basically a combination of everything politically incorrect in the region, I don't think people particularly care if it's irrational to jump ship.

On September 23 2014 07:52 MichaelDonovan wrote:

The slow replacement idea is interesting. But what if every new player that joins is really bad at the game compared to the people they replace? Eventually the team will start losing. How can you become a fan of that new bad player? For what reasons?

On September 23 2014 06:09 Kronen wrote:


This is a strong argument for why there are so many soulless New York Yankee fans in the world .

On the other hand, every organization has a finite amount of resources and a number of options to expend those resources. There was obviously something special about John Smith to have your organization single out him as a person of interest. Something particular in his play your organization felt would gel with the team. Therefore, the choice of your organization isn't just a "we have X dollars, let's spend X dollars on said player whom the general consensus believes is worth X dollars." There's agency and personal choice in each of these decisions.

Furthermore, there have been numerous cases of players taking less money (26million versus 30+) to join a team with prospects at winning a championship (Miami Heat , Big Three). Wouldn't it stand to reason that perhaps not all players are just in it for the money? They actually want to succeed personally and professionally. By virtue of personally succeeding, they impart success onto the organization that facilitated their self-actualization. What say to you this?




I tend to agree on this point, but this fixation on player's origin being the only motivation for them to succeed is rife with problems too. What determines player origin? Birth? Early education? Advanced education? The first place of professional employment? Isn't it up to the player to decide where he or she is "from" if that indeed is a chief motivating factor?

On the other hand, there are numerous examples of relocated professionals (like Drew Brees) becoming embraced by the local culture and championing local community initiatives. He will say that before moving to Louisianna he had no strong feelings for the town, but living there for over a decade, he now feels like it is his home.


---


Personal sidenote because I like your argument and I too feel that personal organization affiliation is somewhat irrational:

I grew up in rural Illinois. I lived 4 hours from the Chicago Bears, two from the Indianapolis Colts, and 2 from the St Louis Rams. Who was my team of choice through all early adolescence? The San Francisco 49ers. I fell in love with the West Coast Offence championed by Bill Walsh and his slingers. It was just amazing too watch. When I moved away from Illinois and San Francisco moved away slowly from that offence, I found myself cheering for the Colts. At first, i thought it was because of nostalgia or local pride, but I soon came to realize it was because I loved watching Peyton Manning analyze and dissect a defence. While I now don't consider myself a Broncos fan (still a colts fan!!), I have come to realize that the reasons I find myself cheering for a team vs another are numerous, diverse, and often contradictory. But as long as I'm enjoying myself and enjoying the company I'm cheering with (or against), I have no problem with embracing any contradiction.

On September 23 2014 07:48 MichaelDonovan wrote:


You're either a fan of the team as a team of players, or you are a fan of their mascot/logo.

As far as a typical fan of the game of football is concerned, there are teams of players from different regions of the country who have logos and mascots. The rest of it is behind the scenes and not typically related to fandom.

On September 23 2014 07:56 aike wrote:

There are many reasons to be a fan of a player other than skill. People are fans of Catz and Destiny because they do fun things, not because they are champions. I'm a huge fan of White Ra, he's a great person and his games are always fun to watch whether he wins or loses. As far as on a big team sport like Football, you kind of "get to know" these players as they come in as rookies and slowly start to play more and more, so you build a connection with them that will either make you like or dislike them

On September 23 2014 08:08 MichaelDonovan wrote:

Sure. The Oakland Raiders have very dedicated fans even though they always lose. The logo is a tough looking guy with an eye patch. It's a great logo to wear with face-paint while drinking beer and shouting. I think a lot of Raiders fans would probably openly admit to being a fan of the logo/mascot itself.

I guess what I would say about the personality part is this: Players on any given team have wildly varying personalities. In fact, there are probably some players on a given team that are disliked by their team mates. How can a fan zoom out and say that they are a fan of a team because of the personalities of the players on the team, when A) they all have different personalities and B) some of them aren't even fans of each other? Maybe that's a foggy way of saying that, but I hope you see where I'm going with it.

On September 23 2014 08:06 micronesia wrote:
I said I disagreed with this, and then you restated it. What?

Source?

On September 23 2014 08:13 dangthatsright wrote:


Nobody is going to respond to that by dissecting what they like or dislike about each player, their interactions, and then evaluate the net effect of that on how they feel about the team. Discounting it as a factor entirely based on a condensed response that doesn't capture something complex is just lazy at best.

On September 23 2014 08:16 MichaelDonovan wrote:


Okay. Consider a given football team. There are certain components of which it is comprised:

The players on the team.
The coaching staff.
The owners of the team.
The sponsors of the team.
Representatives of the NFL and its own sponsors.
The team logo/mascot.

Am I missing any important parts?

Let's say I'm not missing any for now.

What part of the team does a fan of the game of football admire?

Players.
Coaching staff.
Logo/mascot.

Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch.

This excludes owners and sponsors because they aren't part of the game that they watch. Nobody cares about the representatives of the NFL because those are just the guys making sure that everyone on the team is following NFL rules. We don't even know their names. Also not part of the game that they can watch.

The coaching staff changes in the same way that the players change, though they change less often since the coach can last decades. Still, the coach retiring after 50 years of my being a fan of his team isn't going to make me stop being a fan of his team even if the new coach is an asshole and the team loses every game from then on. Otherwise, I'm a fairweather fan and that's bad.

On September 23 2014 08:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't see it as irrational, more intangible/with too many variables at play to easily be able to articulate why you identify with a particular team.

On September 23 2014 08:34 micronesia wrote:

MichaelDonovan there are many things that affect fandom of a team that are not on your short list. I think the problem really starts with "Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch." We aren't talking about fans of the game. We are specifically talking about fans of the team. Teams have a cultural heritage... they have a history. Teams have icons and symbols beyond just a mascot or logo (although those can be an example). Teams have philosophies about how to play, or to manage themselves, how to treat the fans, and many other things. These philosophies can remain nearly unchanged for a long time (of course, any aspect of the team can change after a long time). There are many reasons to be a fan of a sports team... and as others have said trying to simplify human behavior about sports fandom using basic logic isn't going to be very successful.

On September 23 2014 09:04 MichaelDonovan wrote:

So you disagree with my premise that the typical fan of a football team must also be a fan of the game of football? I don't know if I'm really getting anything from you other than "It's complicated."

On September 23 2014 09:09 micronesia wrote:

Well, it is complicated. I gave you some examples of your oversimplifications. I'm not going to say this is too complicated to possibly analyze... because that's obviously not true. And I generally agree that a fan of a team is a fan of the sport, but that's not a definite, either. The problem was the attempt to focus solely on the characteristics of being a fan of a sport, when talking about being a fan of a team. While there is a great deal of overlap, they are not the same thing at all.