Post Katrina Thinking: Should Pro Sports Leagues Force Geographically-Vulnerable Franchises to Relocate?

The devastation of Hurricane Katrina will remain a focal point of policy-makers for years to come. Beyond any reasonable doubt, government actors and agencies--at the local, state, and federal levels--failed miserably in preparing for, and responding to, Katrina. Hopefully the government will learn from its failures, and become better equipped by the next time a category 4 or 5 hurricane strikes.

But therein lies the real and frightening concern: the prospect of another Katrina-like storm hitting the United States isn't remote. In fact, the odds appear to be only rising: sea surface temperatures have escalated steadily over the last 30 years, a phenomenon that has raised the frequency of catastrophically-strong hurricanes. Indeed, hurricanes can form when ocean temperatures rise above 78.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and the warmer the water, the stronger the storm. A startling piece in this week's New Scientist Magazine evidences these points: the proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 or 5 has risen from 20% in the 1970s to 35% in the past decade, and that percentage is only expected to climb. (Fred Pearce, "Warming World Blamed for More Strong Hurricanes," New Scientist Magazine, 9/15/2005).

As a separate measure, consider the recent findings of MIT Professor Kerry Emanuel: over the last half-century, there has been a 50 percent increase in the destructive power of hurriances. In short, these storms aren't going away and they aren't likely to be fluke events ever fifty years or so; just the opposite, we should expect them to gradually become more frequent, and more devastating.

Given the expected frequency increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes, and the uncertain capacity of our government to effectively respond to these kinds of hurricanes, it is worth asking the following: How might Hurricane Katrina change the way sports leagues operate? Namely, should leagues consider the relocation of franchises that are located in areas typically affected by hurricane paths? For instance, should the NFL consider moving the Miami Dolphins further inland, perhaps to Orlando? Or should Bud Selig & Co. contemplate whether the Houston Astros are properly-situated? We've seen the financial and emotional damage inflicted upon the New Orleans Saints and their fan-base: Should this not be something that leagues want to avoid? The decision may even be harder for minor-league franchises, which usually feature facilities that are more vulnerable to hurricane damage.

Granted, I cannot recall an instance where a pro sports league unilaterally forced a franchise to move to a new geographic area. The "ownership agreement" signed by each owner upon purchasing the team almost certainly includes language as to the owner's rights versus the league's rights in franchise relocation--they can thank Al Davis and his nomadic Oakland Raiders for that. But do these agreements contemplate forced removal by the league over the objection of the team's owner? I suspect not, and such a maneuver would undoubtedly trigger litigation, if in fact the owner objected to the move. Moreover, a number of teams have signed stadium leases with cities that can impair their capacity to move. In addition, respective players' associations would almost certainly enjoy some suasion, as any forced relocation would affect a significant percentage of their membership. Separately, consider the almost "spiritual effect" on population groups that would watch their beloved franchises flee: it may very well precipitate fear and angst, and possibly encourage other businesses to get up and leave.

Aside from legal and sociological analyses of a forced removal, consider an economic approach: leagues might compare the benefit/cost of forced removal to the cost of keeping franchises in vulnerable areas. Along those lines, how might leagues preserve the opportunity for cities like New Orleans and Miami to feature pro teams, and to do so in ways that make economic sense? One option might be to pool resources among teams, much like an insurance policy. Perhaps leagues could create a disaster-fund that would enable affected teams to remain in operation. Of course, some teams in "safer" geographic settings might not perceive the same risk/reward of such a fund, but the more enlightened teams would presumably take a less selfish approach, and recognize the dramatic costs (both financial and reputational) to an entire league when one team is unexpectedly dislocated.

Another economic aspect to consider is how the prospect of more frequently-devastating hurricanes might affect the way in which free agent players select teams. In my upcoming law review publication"It's Not About the Money: The Role of Preferences, Cognitive Biases & Heuristics Among Professional Athletes, 71 Brooklyn Law Review __ (forthcoming, 2006), I discuss preferences among players, and how those preferences impact their contractual decision-making. One of those preferences is weather. Might the traditional appeal of warm-weather coastal cities take a nosedive, while teams located in previously-unpopular areas become more attractive? Might the Detroit Tigers indeed become the Major League Baseball team to play for?

A separate question concerns college sports: Will an increase in the propensity of category 4 and 5 hurricanes encourage top high school athletes to think more favorably about their full-scholarship offers from schools like Syracuse and Notre Dame than their full-scholarship offers from schools like the University of Miami and the University of Florida? Might we see a talent-shift from Southern schools to Northern schools?

As a final point, consider that the logic described above could also be applied to geographic areas that are likely terrorist targets. In that vein, might we ask if the New York Yankees should be moved to Buffalo? And are the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim due for yet another name change?

At some point, of course, we can't fear the unknown, and we would likely be better off encouraging people and businesses to stay, while simultaneously learning how to better prepare for, and respond to, hurricanes and other risks. The cost of wide-spread fleeing by people and businesses would be far greater than dollars and sense; it would be a sign that we are not strong enough to defend our own land.

Posted in: