Storyline: It has become a pattern in sports: high-profile teams get in trouble. Why? One reason: an iconic brand and consistent winning carry unexpected costs.
A flurry of high-profile teams–across sports–have been accused of problematic behavior. The most recent example came just last week: the FBI is investigating the St. Louis Cardinals for committing cybercrime.
By “getting into trouble” I’m not talking about an athlete’s indiscretions or a team’s response to what an athlete does. I’m talking about injudicious institutional/program behavior—when organizational behavior goes “outside the lines.”
Courtesy: bleacherreport.com
And these aren’t just any teams: they’re iconic brands. Examples include the New England Patriots (“Deflate-gate”), the aforementioned St. Louis Cardinals (corporate espionage), North Carolina and Texas (academic fraud), and Penn State (administrative cover-up). They’re all high-achievers, champions all: Super Bowl, World Series, NCAA basketball, and NCAA football.
At one level it doesn’t make sense. Off-kilter activity would seem to be a more likely occurrence at have-not franchises–bending bend rules to get ahead. But just the opposite is happening. Why?
One reason is precisely because they’re high-profile franchises. Fan support remains strong, penalties are absorbable, and the economic impact is nil or slight. The penalty picture may change if administrative principals at Penn St. (former president, VP, and AD) and in St. Louis (computer system hackers) are convicted of crimes and spend time in jail. But, for most, it adds up to weak penalties that, even if levied, under-fit “the crimes.”
For evidence let’s look at two articles, published the days I was writing this article (June 19-20).
The AP’s Jim Salter paints an economic profile of the St. Louis Cardinals. Operating income for 2014 ($73.6 million, source: Forbes) topped the Majors. The franchise value–$1.4 billion (source: Forbes)—is the 6th highest in baseball. The team has drawn over 3 million fans every year since 2002. And Fox Sports Midwest, the network that televises St. Louis games, reports that viewership is up 25% in ‘15 for a team that has baseball’s best record. Although speculative, it’s unlikely that potential misdeeds—even if high-level executives are involved—will have a significant and negative impact on the Cardinals’ bottom line.
Courtesy:NBC
At North Carolina, Coach Roy Williams agreed to a 2-year contract extension through the 2019-20 season. While it’s a short-term extension only, the value is as much symbolic as financial. That’s because (to quote the news source) it “comes amid UNC’s long-running academic fraud scandal involving a department popular with athletes across numerous sports, including men’s basketball.” The NCAA brought charges against the school, but charges didn’t include wrongdoing by Williams.
It’s quite likely that in both cases—and it’s not just in these cases, either—high-level officials won’t face charges or incur penalties. And institutions and programs — even if “hit hard” at the outset — rarely pay long-term consequences. Consider the Patriots first offense for “Spy-gate.” And recall how NCAA penalties levied against Penn State were lifted early. Why?
On the organizational side, penalties are levied by a membership organization, like the NFL, MLB, and the NCAA. Membership organizations don’t provide detached analyses and make independent judgments: club members oversee other club members. And, for high-level officials, there’s an avoidance mechanism called plausible deniability. The Patriots are using that defense in “Deflate-Gate.”
USLegal.com defines it this way: “Plausible deniability refers to circumstances where a denial of responsibility or knowledge of wrongdoing cannot be proved as true or untrue due to a lack of evidence proving the allegation. This term is often used in reference to situations where high-ranking officials deny responsibility for, or knowledge of, wrongdoing by lower-ranking officials. In those situations officials can “plausibly deny” an allegation, even though it may be true.”
Courtesy: shine.yahoo.com
It’s a means of sidestepping blame or, to put crassly, of “getting away with something.” That’s not to say that any of those accused were perpetrators of misdeeds, but it is to say how it’s possible to avoid negative impacts when bad things happen to high-profile people.
But to really get a handle on why iconic teams get in trouble, it’s important to get our arms around the dynamics associated with what it means “to succeed” in sports–that is, to win and win consistently, and to achieve special standing among others.
With success comes pride. And pride can usher in arrogance and hubris. “We’re important.” “We’re really good.” “We have ‘something special’ going on here.”
Think about it. Consider what might happen if attitudes of superiority become enculturated in a franchise’s way of doing business.
Two institutional responses could very well follow:
Let’s do what we need to do to stay on top. (That attitude might contribute to acting outside the lines of acceptable behavior. Might it explain [at least in part] what happened in St. Louis?)
Protect the brand at all costs. (That attitude might position brand-protection above “doing the right thing.” Might it explain [at least in part] what happened at Penn State?)
It’s speculative, of course, to attribute general attitudes to specific circumstances. However, I’ve seen both attitudes in action before. And I’ve seen situations go from “before” to “after.” That can happen when a have-not franchise joins the ranks of the haves; and when a long-standing winner loses its standing. It can also happen when there’s a regime change—a new owner, a new GM, a new president, AD, or head coach. Ways of thinking change and, with that, practices/behaviors change, too. That’s another way of saying the organizational culture changes.
ESPN reported that Oklahoma St’s Travis Ford intervened in a police investigation (Photo courtesy: thelostogle.com)
Teams then take steps “to protect themselves.” Take, for example, findings that emerged from ESPN’s recent study of the way police handle athletes’ cases (football and men’s basketball) associated with ten major college programs. Findings generally show a differential handling of police cases involving school athletes’ vis-à-vis those involving college-age males (living in the same area) who aren’t athletes.
Of primary interest to me (in relationship to this article) is ESPN’s reporting of circumstances at Florida State. While nearly 70 athletes were named in criminal allegations during the study period, only 30% actually faced changes—20% fewer than those in a sample of cases involving college-age males in Tallahassee. Why?
Based on examination of over 2000 documents ESPN concluded the differential can be explained by a variety of reasons, including “the near-immediate access to high-profile attorneys, intimidation felt by witnesses who accuse athletes, and a higher bar some criminal justice officials feel needs to be met in high-profile cases.”
FSU’s Monk Bonasorte (Courtesy: lhud.com)
ESPN also found that “some athletic programs have…a team lawyer who showed up at a crime scene or jail or police department—sometimes even before an athlete requested legal counsel.” And, in other cases, “athletic department officials inserted themselves into investigations…. …controlling when and where police talked with athletes…being present during player interviews…alerting defense attorneys…/and/…conducting their own investigations before contacting police….” (Primary example: a series of interventions at FSU attributed to senior associate AD, Monk Bonasorte.)
What does it all mean?
One interpretation is this: an iconic brand and consistent winning brings unexpected costs. Nobody wants to be a perennial loser, but few of us think about the negative implications associated with being a household sports brand–and expectations that go with it. Brand image and expectations for winning can threaten the integrity of an organizational culture. Questionable behavior, or worse, can then result.
Courtesy: Huffingtonpost.com
The critical thing is to monitor for warning signs and intervene before situations turn south. Sadly, that doesn’t happen as often as it should. Instead, bad things happen and, then, people and institutions go into damage control. The brand you want to protect is tarnished–at least for a time–and peoples’ careers are hurt. Some careers end.
It happens over and over.
Unfortunately, it will happen again. The only question is where.
Note: This article is dedicated to my friend and colleague, David Wright. David has been a long-time champion of professional and organizational integrity, most recently as the Fed’s top person as director, Office of Scientific Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
