The Portland Trail Blazers are on a three-game winning streak, coming off one of their most dominant games of the season against the Philadelphia 76ers last night. The team seems well on their way to the 2026 NBA Play-In Tournament. Maybe, if healthy and a little bit lucky, they\u2019ll get to the playoffs.<\/p>\n
For all of that, a dark cloud is brewing over One Central Court. It centers around Moda Center, the arena in which the Trail Blazers have played since 1995. The structure is sound, but it\u2019s expensive to maintain, is long overdue for renovation, and has been a bone of contention, passed back and forth between the Blazers and local government officials for the last half-decade.<\/p>\n
The matter is coming to a head as Tom Dundon, Texas business executive, takes over majority ownership of the team from the family of late owner Paul Allen, who helped build the arena decades ago and has held the franchise since. Dundon\u2019s representatives and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver have indicated that renovating the aging facility is a high-priority item, all but a quid pro quo for new ownership.<\/p>\n
This week alone, Bill Oram of The Oregonian wrote a column<\/a> [subscription required] saying he fears the Blazers will relocate because of this issue. Meanwhile the Blazers themselves have launched a page<\/a> detailing preliminary visions for a new, better Moda Center. Finally, and most significantly, a bill has been put before the Oregon legislature<\/a> proposing that state income taxes levied on anyone who works in or around the arena grounds be set aside in a fund to subsidize the cost of renovating the facility.<\/p>\n One look at these developments makes the results of the current season seem temporary, ephemeral even. Who can concentrate on the proceedings on the court when the Powers That Be are asking whether there will even be a court in the future. Like the residents of Judea in the Old Testament\u2014watching their northern cousins carried away into exile by the Assyrians and saying, \u201cThere but for the grace of God go I,\u201d\u2014Portlanders are eyeing the empty NBA arena in Seattle and remembering this same situation playing out with the SuperSonics. Except the higher beings in question here aren\u2019t divine, but politicians and billionaires. The lump in collective throats is understandable.<\/p>\n In light of these developments, let\u2019s have some real talk about the issue, cutting through the atmospheric interference and getting down to the heart of the matter. We\u2019re not going to resolve the problem, but maybe we can better understand what\u2019s at stake and our role as interested observers.<\/p>\n Political scientists (or diplomacy game players) will remember Niccolo Machiavelli, 16th-Century political philosopher and diplomat. He\u2019s famous for his work, \u201cThe Prince\u201d, advising rulers how to negotiate difficult issues in a fractured environment.<\/p>\n Machiavelli\u2019s conclusions are too extensive to get into here, but we can (over-) simplify his direct and implied lessons like this:<\/p>\n Try not to get into a place where another person has leverage over you. It does not turn out well.If you have leverage over another person and you don\u2019t use it, you\u2019re a fool. If another person has leverage over you and you expect them not to use it, you are also a fool.Resolution to leverage imbalances doesn\u2019t have to be drastic. If you give people enough of what they want (i.e. they appear to win or be satisfied) and the effort is easy enough, they won\u2019t necessarily push the Doomsday button. But if you make them feel like they are losing\u2014losing material, respect, power, or safety\u2014you can anticipate they\u2019ll value those things more than they value you.<\/p>\n Per Machiavelli, the first question we need to ask in the current environment is who has leverage here?<\/p>\n Tom Dundon and the NBA will hold leverage as long as they can find at least one other city who would be happy to host, and house, the Trail Blazers. If their demands aren\u2019t met, they are free\u2014by league rule and assent\u2014to move the franchise, taking the team away from Oregon. At that point, the state will have no basketball, no income tax dollars from basketball, and no recourse to recover either. If Portland ever wanted a team again, they\u2019d have to do what Seattle has done: build a new facility, come back with hat in hand, and wait.<\/p>\n The State of Oregon holds leverage over those tax dollars. Nobody can force them to spend money on an arena. Much will be made about the benefits of professional basketball in the area, but the reality is that nobody will perish if the team moves. Neither the team nor the public has direct remedy if they disagree with the legislative decision. It will simply happen.<\/p>\n So who really has leverage here? Almost everybody.<\/p>\n If you narrow down to the immediate situation, the legislature holds the cards. They\u2019re the ones with the money. They\u2019re the ones voting on the bill. They hold temporary leverage over the team and the process.In the long-but-not-eternal picture, the team has more power. They have the ability to leave no matter what the government says. If they do so, the influx of state income tax dollars will dwindle. (On top of that, legislators can be replaced by popular vote. Billionaires and commissioners can\u2019t. So the decisions of this legislature may be limited.)At the cosmic level, human beings are free to say that basketball either doesn\u2019t matter much or doesn\u2019t weigh as heavily as other societal and personal concerns. Seattle has mourned the loss of the Sonics, but few, if any, people moved out of the city when the team left, let alone rebelled against the government. Viewed through the ultimate, widest lens, the legislature wins\u2026though the cost of the victory in hearts and public perception may be high.<\/p>\n Three things are evident.<\/p>\n First, the leverage advantage is dependent on perspective.<\/p>\n Second, to the extent that parties are opposed in these negotiations, they are going to scramble like heck to establish their own perspective, thus defining the terms of the argument and their leverage therein.<\/p>\n Third, and perhaps most importantly, you know who doesn\u2019t hold the leverage? You and me. The general public\u2014including the whole body of Blazers fans\u2014will have to face this unfortunate reality. We are the backdrop against which this battle will play out, but we have relatively little immediate power over it. We do not appear anywhere in the above list.<\/p>\n What that means in practical terms is that we\u2019re going to get every fear, argument, and clever negotiation tactic dumped right on our heads, but we\u2019re not going to be able to resolve the situation no matter what we hear.<\/p>\n In the end, the losers in Machiavelli\u2019s equation will not be Prince Dundon or the Grand Legislative Council. One way or another, they\u2019ll end up getting what they want. Because of our love for the team and our need to exist in this region, we are the people they have leverage over. That makes the losers us.<\/p>\n In the short term, we\u2019re going to get the business end of that leverage as we suffer through the public arguments and counter-arguments. In the long-term, the best we can hope for is to keep the team in town\u2026with considerable cost. The alternative will be to become Seattle, Part 2. There is no solution which leaves us clean, in the same relatively-advantaged position we\u2019re in now. That would mean one or both of these parties opting not to use their leverage. As Machiavelli said, that just doesn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the stark reality. If you think this issue is going to be decided on your passion as a fan, your history with the team, your ideas of morality, your personal desires, or anything of the sort, you\u2019re sadly mistaken. None of those things are going to matter. You might find good-hearted individuals in the midst of the fray who care about them, but they will not sway the proceedings. At best, they\u2019ll become retroactive explanations justifying the eventual decision.<\/p>\n Until that decision is reached, our goal is to understand and survive what we\u2019re going through, hoping for a favorable outcome at the end from forces largely beyond our control. That\u2019s not a great place to be in, but here we are.<\/p>\n Free Market or Public Good?<\/p>\n Anticipating some of the terms of the argument at hand may help us parse them out when we encounter them. The debate is likely to take many twists and turns, but at the heart, it\u2019ll probably come down to a simple question: are professional sports teams a free-market business or a public good?<\/p>\n Throughout American history, that question has been answered in different ways. Generally, professional sports are considered a business enterprise. Teams require investments, owners, corporate status\u2026they mimic traditional businesses in most ways. They\u2019re also afforded legal protections, subsidies, and specialized exemptions that only the most prominent corporations\u2014if any\u2014earn, largely in recognition of the unifying community identity (sometimes with a side order of economic benefit) they provide.<\/p>\n The debate often comes to a head when a new arena is considered.<\/p>\n Those who argue against subsidizing teams ask why the public should be giving money to people who are already rich, who already receive money from their operating business, and who should be bound by the rules of any other for-profit enterprise. They claim, somewhat rightly, that billionaires didn\u2019t get wealthy by pouring money back into the system. They siphon it out. Why would a government entity claiming to represent the people bail water back into a boat that\u2019s already over-filling? Aren\u2019t hungry people, environmental protections, and medical research investments (for instance) more important than sprucing up an arena whose seats still work? We\u2019re not talking about keeping the lights on. We\u2019re talking about luxury boxes and concession stands to make the owner more money so he or she can keep up with the ultra-rich Joneses in other municipalities. That\u2019s not the government\u2019s job. The relatively-free business market should determine what can be spent or built.<\/p>\n On the other hand, the government subsidizes all kinds of projects and incentives that are perceived to have tangible public benefit. We named a few in the last paragraph. We can extend that to roadside history signs, public parks and preservation sites, museums and art facilities, and more. We\u2019re not talking about whether to use public funds in this way, but how. If we\u2019re making value judgments about how \u201cgood\u201d a public good is, we could certainly make an argument that sports fandom spans generations and unites disparate people just as much as\u2014or maybe more than\u2014any other form of entertainment or art.<\/p>\n Note that nobody is completely wrong here and nobody is completely right. Where you land on the issue depends on two things: how much the words \u201cpublic\u201d and \u201cgood\u201d apply to professional sports and what you think the role of government is in supporting public goods. There\u2019s a reason this question has never been answered definitively. The area is hopelessly gray.<\/p>\n Though frustrating, this does have one side benefit for us who observe, on whom arguments are going to be shoveled. Anyone who frames this as a settled, black-and-white issue is automatically revealed as partisan. That\u2019s not wrong, but it should be evident. They\u2019re going to couch the debate in complex terms, wending their way through economic and democratic principles, taking stands on tradition and rights and etc. etc. It\u2019d be simpler (and in some ways easier) to say, \u201cI just want the Blazers to stay in town.\u201d Or, \u201cI don\u2019t think this is worth investing in.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s not that the other stuff is unimportant. Maybe it\u2019s necessary to take those long, philosophical journeys. If we think they\u2019re going to provide us a solution, though, we\u2019re probably mistaken. As soon as we land on the answer, someone else is going to use their leverage to knock us off of that spot again, shifting the perspective and starting the journey over.<\/p>\n The Tactics of Persuasion<\/p>\n In the midst of all this, there are three tactics we probably need to watch out for.<\/p>\n The first is the one we just mentioned: the tactic of certainty. People are going to step up and say, \u201cI have the solution! It\u2019s clearly this!\u201d No you don\u2019t. No it\u2019s not. This is a matter of perspective and opinion. We need to work it out together. Saying you\u2019ve already done it cuts other people out of the process. It also assumes everyone\u2019s opinion should be like yours. Personally, I hope the Blazers stay in town. That should be self-evident at this site. But I don\u2019t begrudge a patron of the arts saying, \u201cWhy in the world would we use tax dollars to pay for this?\u201d<\/p>\n The second tactic is similarly obvious: the tactic of lies. People will say anything when large sums of money and careers are at stake. Economic benefits and impact get overstated. Deficits are fudged on both sides. He said this and she said that in a private meeting. This thing is promised\/projected to happen in the future even though it\u2019s not written down anywhere and we have no evidence for it.<\/p>\n All kinds of arguments can be valid when we\u2019re debating perspectives in an uncertain environment, but bad-faith arguments don\u2019t clear our vision, they cloud it. If you don\u2019t have any of those millions of dollars and careers at stake, there\u2019s no reason to believe untruths at the table. They don\u2019t help you win anything. They just stack the odds against a positive resolution where both sides are satisfied with what they walk away with.<\/p>\n The third tactic is the most insidious: the tactic of fear. Recall above where we said that leverage depends on lens. Parties in this debate will benefit or suffer depending on which lens the people around them employ. Convincing someone to pick up your particular lens\u2014particularly when you don\u2019t know them\u2014is hard. Scaring people away from all the other lenses is comparatively easy.<\/p>\n Already, in the earliest stages of public discourse, we\u2019re experiencing the language of fear. The one that\u2019s going to hit us hardest is clear: you\u2019re going to lose the Blazers. Look what it does (again, using our categories above):<\/p>\n It skips you right over the immediate decision, whether near-future dollars from the state coffers should be spent on arena renovation. This is the place where the legislature has its strongest power. Instead we want to leap over that, jump right into, \u201cOh no! The Blazers!!!\u201d and then reverse-engineer our way back into that legislative decision with our minds already made up by fear.It obscures the cosmic reality that, if the team left town, we\u2019d all survive somehow. We\u2019d be sad. It would hurt badly. But in the grand scope of history, this isn\u2019t even a Top 1,000,000 tragedy of human existence.<\/p>\n Note how we\u2019ve lost all power, all identity in this argument except the fear itself? That\u2019s not a reasonable way to approach a discussion. That\u2019s Machiavelli\u2019s EXACT definition of leverage being exercised, coming through unfiltered, acted upon uncritically.<\/p>\n It also works the other way. \u201cHey, tax dollars are tax dollars. They\u2019re not meant for private enterprises. The Blazers are nice but if we do this X amount of people are going to suffer terribly. Basketball just isn\u2019t that crucial.\u201d Priorities are important. Some people will be included and others left out no matter what we do with our public funds. I don\u2019t think anyone would advocate letting people starve so we can watch an orange ball bounce. If that\u2019s really going to happen, we need evidence of same. Otherwise it\u2019s just different value judgments which we\u2019re trying to circumvent by making broad, unflinching, and scary proclamations.<\/p>\n I\u2019m no expert on these things, but at some level the following assertions are necessary.<\/p>\n We\u2019re not going to come up with a perfect solution.Somebody is going to win more and somebody is going to lose more no matter what we decide.We may end up diverting monies in ways we wouldn\u2019t have chosen if we want to keep NBA basketball in Portland because in this place and time in history, professional leagues and their owners have leverage over the regions they operate in.We may end up losing the Blazers if that cost gets too high. If that happens, we\u2019re all going to live with it. We do not expect anyone to pull back that threat\u2014it IS the leverage for the franchise and the league\u2014but our decision cannot be informed solely by that threat. When we hear it, we have to note the possibility, put it in a box, and weigh it among all the other considerations. The gravity of the franchise in our personal lives will help determine that weight, but other things exist too. For some people that consideration is light as a feather and that\u2019s fine.<\/p>\n If we keep these things in mind, we have a chance, at least, of clearing the field of all the unfair tactics that will be employed in these negotiations, allowing us to weigh the real benefits and consequences.<\/p>\n Having walked through all of this, we can now ask the question in a slightly different way than we would have at the beginning. The issue isn\u2019t whether the Blazers are going to stay, whether an arena will get renovated, or how much public funding is appropriate for same. No single person controls those answers, no two people agree on them completely. Even worse is the question, \u201cWho will win this fight?\u201d If THAT gets a definitive answer, the vast majority of us will lose.<\/p>\n Instead we can say, \u201cWe\u2019re all going to lose something here. So how do we come up with a path forward where everybody gets something for that investment as well?\u201d That should be of interest to all parties, even the NBA, who appears to have the least to lose in this situation.<\/p>\n If the eventual resolution can give Tom Dundon and the franchise enough to think they\u2019ve benefited (and\/or \u201cwon\u201d by their own definition) while keeping the legislature to its stated goal of helping the public interest, we should be able to get through this without losing the team or our shirts. Ironically, that\u2019s not the perspective of either side. It\u2019s the perspective of the disempowered in this equation: the public awaiting the debate and decision.<\/p>\n Maybe that\u2019s appropriate. Even Machiavelli himself would admit that the best solutions end up with all sides satisfied. He\u2019d just assert that it\u2019s difficult. We\u2019ll see. Watch out for those swinging sticks of leverage in the interim and let\u2019s pray it happens.<\/p>\n