A while back in this space, I said that I did not yet consider the Kansas City Chiefs an NFL dynasty of the same sort as Lombardi’s Packers or Noll’s Steelers or Belichick’s Patriots. I do not want to relitigate that issue, but I do want to say something about dynasties in various sports. Here is my bottom line:
- Dynasties are a good thing for sports enterprises.
Much of the basis for that assertion is my fundamental idea that sports leagues at the professional level and the so-called “revenue sports” at the collegiate level in the US are at their core entertainment enterprises. All of what we now consider the “major sports” in the US had their beginnings as shoestring operations that hoped one day to be profitable commercial undertakings. They have succeeded in that economic dimension significantly because enough members of the general public have chosen to devote some of their discretionary dollars and/or some of their spare time to following and supporting the games put on by the leagues. Sports created a demand among fans; fans responded by “paying for” their entertainment either directly with ticket sales or indirectly with TV ratings.
So, why are dynasties good for the leagues? Dynasties create emotional reactions; fans either love them or hate them. From the league perspective, it does not matter if the dynasty organization is loved or hated; the bigger point is that the dynasty organization is the focus of emotion for lots of fans meaning more attention to the entertainment product. The love/hate aspect of dynasties is always present; the balance of love versus hate will vary from situation to situation, but it is always there.
In baseball, the Yankees have had several “dynastic” eras. In the present, MLB exploits the love/hate aspect of the Yankees by featuring them on national telecasts an inordinate number of times. Do you think it is by chance that so many Yankees/Red Sox games get scheduled for Sunday nights? Are you surprised that Yankees/Red Sox games draw higher ratings than Guardians/Rockies games?
In football, fans had an intense love/hate relationship with Bill Belichick, Tom Brady and the entire Patriots franchise for at least a decade. Again, the NFL presented that team to fans nationally as often as possible because people who loved the team tuned in to see them conquer their opponent and people who hated the team tuned in with the hope that the Pats would get their comeuppances that day.
There was no real national television presence for the Celtics in their great dynasty of the 1950s and 60s, but once the NBA got a foothold in the national TV landscape, it was “Showtime” for the Lakers that dominated until it became the “Bad Boy Pistons” and finally the “Jordan Bulls” that everyone saw at every possible opportunity.
When Tiger Woods was dominating golf, TV ratings were much higher than they are now that there is no dominant figure on the PGA Tour. In fact, when Tiger Woods was dominating golf, the entire golf industry was on a more solid financial footing than it is today. And more than a few folks were tuning in hoping to see Woods botch a key shot that would cost him the tournament.
Here is the deal in a nutshell:
- Dynasties drive interest.
- Interest increases involvement.
- Involvement can be monetized.
In most situations, I do not subscribe to the concept that even bad publicity is good for an organization because that bad publicity draws attention to the organization and attention is a good thing. When someone tries to use that argument with me, my canned response is to ask them to check with the Archdiocese of Boston to see how that turned out for them. But regarding the case of dynasties and sports, I think “negative” feelings and passions are good things just as are “positive” fan reactions.
If you browse around the Internet a bit, you will find prognostications of imminent and sweeping fan apathy washing over the NFL and MLB. The argument goes:
- Fans are tired of the Chiefs and the only reason they win is because the league has directed the referees to ensure that they win. Here is the problem with that “logic”. Last year, 123 million people tuned into the Super Bowl and the projection for this year is 125 million viewers. That may not be a staggering increase in viewership, but it is not “cratering” by any definition.
- Fans have given up on baseball because the Dodgers have bought up all the best players, rendering the lengthy MLB regular season a mere formality. Well, MLB game attendance has risen by more than 7 million paying customers over the past two seasons; attendance in 2024 was more than 71 million fans; that does not square with “widespread fan apathy”.
The fact is that “dynasties” ebb and flow. The Yankees had some rough times in the 70s and 80s; the Dodgers went more than 20 years without a championship; the Pats were bad before Belichick and are bad once again in 2025; is anyone worried about the Pistons or Bulls dominating the NBA any time soon? As that ebb-and-flow proceeds, it sweeps in more fans for that love/hate relationship that can be monetized. As Sonny and Cher once sang:
“And the beat goes on …”
The Kansas City Chiefs – – notwithstanding my failure to consider them as a dynasty as of today – – will play the Philadelphia Eagles in the Super Bowl in 4 days and the TV audience is expected to be in the neighborhood of 35% of the entire US population. Some folks will only tune in for the ads and for the halftime show; some will hope to see their favorite team win and others will tune in hoping to see their least favorite team fail on the big stage. But fans are not revolted by or repulsed by a “dynasty” team.
Finally, sports dynasties extend beyond sports themselves; they can become indicators of periods of time as in this statement by Rudy Giuliani:
“I was Mayor of New York during a great Yankees dynasty. I got to preside over the city during four Yankees championships.”
But don’t get me wrong, I love sports ………