The Worst Pro Sports Franchise According To ESPN
 

ESPN put some real efforts, hiring 3 research firms, into determining the suckiest pro sports franchise in North America, in other words, the world and doing Canada proud is the shittiest sleaziest corporate weasel infested Toronto Maple Leafs of the National Hockey League, ranked the absolute worst.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/team...sportscenterTW

The 10 Best
**********
1. San Antonio Spurs
2. Anaheim Ducks
3. Seattle Seahawks
4. Memphis Grizzlies
5. Los Angeles Kings
6. Tampa Bay Lightning
7. Oklahoma City Thunder
8. Green Bay Packers
9. Dallas Mavericks
10. Chicago Blackhawks

The 10 Worst
***********
113. New York Jets
114. Minnesota Timberwolves
115. Edmonton Oilers
116. New York Islanders
117. Chicago Cubs
118. New York Mets
119. Oakland Raiders
120. Milwaukee Bucks
121. New York Knicks
122. Toronto Maple Leafs

Not surprised about the leafs. Richest NHL team but year after year a laughing stock. The fans are the problem they will continue to support a bunch of losers. In what city in the world would you get away with charging $300 a ticket for a losing team?

oh canada. whomp whomp.

surprised to see the most valued franchise in the world, the dallas cowboys, are 108 out of 122. based on the criteria, you'd think they would rank a bit higher. i guess those constant sells out don't help positively for the team ;)

even more interesting to see the other two dallas sports teams ranked 9th and 12th, the mavs and stars. so you can't say the city doesn't support their teams

Dallas Cowboys are the most valued franchise in the world over Man United?, Barcelona?, Real Madrid? Yes believe it or not soccer is a pretty popular sport around the world.

As a diehard leafs fan (I actually remember watching them win the cup in 1967 with my dad on our old B&W TV -- I was 3 yrs old), I am actually not that surprised that they fare poorly on the list.

There's a a rather dominant corporate presence with the Leafs such that it's become a very divisive atmosphere. I'd guess 75% of the seats sold at the ACC are to corporations. I know when I lived in Toronto, a lot of corps bought season's tickets to give their sales managers who would then give them to the various warehouse managers and such who ordered products from them.

Then there are the fairweather fans and the fans who can't see past the Leafs for the mismanagement, the outward arrogance displayed on forums, and then Bell and Rogers owning the largest shares of them, and you are bound to have a ridiculous atmosphere.

And if that isn't enough, you have the media circus that is akin to Fleet Street Paparazzi and I can't imagine why any big name free agent would even want to consider playing for the Leafs.

If all of that wasn't enough, throw in the mouth breathers, a la Don Cherry's ilk, who like to run their mouth and, in the process, run the players out of town with the help of the media (ewwww, he's European, he's French, he's not an Ontario boy, eww eww eww). Sometimes I am embarrassed to be a Leafs fan... NOT because of the Leafs, but because of being lumped into the same group as the vocal mouth breathers claiming to be fans. But I digress.

For the avg family, they simply cannot afford to go. For lower bowl/rinkside seats, you're going to pay $1200 for a family of four to go see a Leafs game, and that's only IF you can get them without going through a scalper.. otherwise you can double that price).. two adults, two kids... some food and drinks, parking, etc. It's too much.

What the Leafs could benefit from, as well as the League itself, is to have a second team in Southern Ontario as well as put a franchise back in Quebec City. I think a team in Hamilton, Scarborough or even Kingston would create a nice rivalry of teams between Ontario and Quebec, as well as renew interest in Buffalo rivalries.

But yes, I can understand why the Leafs rate poorly among fan lists. They are experts at marketing themselves as being caterers to corporate interests versus fan interest.

Wow, that might be the longest post I have ever added to GFY.

my bad guess i shouldn't have said the word "world"

i don't even want to compare that - those clubs (and a couple more) have more than 100 years of history and tradition.

NBA, NFL etc. franchises are nothing more than companies that can be moved, sold, closed, reopened and whatever.

there are several USA sports franchises well over 100 years old. Atlanta Braves, Arizona Cardinals come to mind, both older than either real madrid or Barcelona and about the same as man united.


others also.

please, American professional baseball started in 1871, the Boston Red Sox were an original member making them 143 years old and older than Manchester United.

American professional football, the Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears are close to 100 years old.

In hockey, the Montreal Canadiens team began play in 1910.

Please. They are all companies with the intent of making money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Ma..._and_ownership

It was under Florentino Pérez's first presidency (2000?2006) that Real Madrid started its ambition of becoming the world's richest professional football club.[125] The club ceded part of its training grounds to the city of Madrid in 2001, and sold the rest to four corporations: Repsol YPF, Mutua Automovilística de Madrid, Sacyr Vallehermoso and OHL. The sale eradicated the club's debts, paving the way for it to buy the world's most expensive players such as Zinédine Zidane, Luís Figo, Ronaldo and David Beckham. The city had previously rezoned the training grounds for development, a move which in turn increased their value, and then bought the site.[33] The European Commission started an investigation into whether the city overpaid for the property, to be considered a form of state subsidy.[126]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manches...p_and_finances

In August 2011, the Glazers were believed to have approached Credit Suisse in preparation for a $1 billion (approx. £600 million) initial public offering (IPO) on the Singapore stock exchange that would value the club at more than £2 billion.[155] However, in July 2012, the club announced plans to list its IPO on the New York Stock Exchange instead.[156] Shares were originally set to go on sale for between $16 and $20 each, but the price was cut to $14 by the launch of the IPO on 10 August, following negative comments from Wall Street analysts and Facebook's disappointing stock market debut in May. Even after the cut, Manchester United was valued at $2.3 billion, making it the most valuable football club in the world.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Barc..._and_ownership

In 2010, Forbes evaluated Barcelona's worth to be around ?752 million (USD $1 billion), ranking them fourth after Manchester United, Real Madrid, and Arsenal, based on figures from the 2008?09 season.[127][128] According to Deloitte, Barcelona had a recorded revenue of ?366 million in the same period, ranking second to Real Madrid, who generated ?401 million in revenue.[129] In 2013, Forbes magazine ranked Barcelona the third most valuable sports team in the world, behind Real Madrid and Manchester United, with a value of $2.6 billion.[130]

That list seems flawed in so many ways...

For example ranking affordability of NY and Cali venues... the cost of living is high in these states, so yeah you need money to have fun. You will pay for premium seating, but you can still get cheap seats at Yankee Stadium if like nose bleeds.

Think about your arguement.

Teen cat's frog is famous.

http://i.imgur.com/JbaY1NA.jpg

The American people stole our Grizzlies
4. Memphis Grizzlies

and so I learn something new every day

Steelers didn't make either list!

Yes they are on the list, every team is -----> http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/team...sportscenterTW

Steelers are ranked 38th best which is decent considering there are 122 franchises ranked.

No worries, we know some muricans think that world ends with the great US and A.
Example - "world champions" title attributed to national league winners :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Haahah, New York Knicks are not so bad... They are earning enormous amount of money, so they are not bad.... :)

I have been a Met fan since 1973. That team had Willy Mays and Tom Seaver on it. It was 10 games back on Sept.1, yet fought back to tie with Chicago on the last day of the season. They then beat the Cubs in a 1 game play off. They then kicked the heavily favored Reds team ass to play against the Oakland A's. Though they lost, they played their hearts out. Since then, they have been in a couple of World Series, beating Boston in 86 and later, getting stomped by the Yankees. It has been a trail of tears for the most part and I was not surprised to see them listed at the very bottom!