Some claim that sports management is such characterized. Sometimes you do wonder. Consider this this blast from AB News:

The AP reports that Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft Corp., has lost more than $12 billion in bad investments over the past decade -- including $600 million he has poured into the Blazers and their arena since 1988 without realizing a dime of profit.

Now, I find it impossible to believe that the Blazers are not returning a dime of profit, but I haven't seen their (real) books. In the end, if Allen isn't good at running an NBA team, perhaps he should divest himself of his millstone.

Unfortunately, such is not the case, at least for the moment:

Executives with the Portland Trail Blazers say the NBA team will lose $100 million over the next three years and desperately needs some kind of "public-private partnership."

DANGER, DANGER, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!! As soon as I see the words "public-private partnership" mentioned in the context of professional sports I wince. There is absolutely no reason for the citizens of Portland to be involuntarily forced to bear the risk involved with running/managing a professional sports franchise. If the team wishes to sell shares of its corporation to the public, then so be it. However, that is not what is implied in this statement.

Lance Conn (manager of Allen's investment company) claims that the Blazers receive no revenue for suites, clubs, courtside seats, game concessions or parking at the Rose Garden Arena." If true, and I do not closely follow the financial arrangements of NBA teams, this is testimony to myopic behavior by the city of Portland and/or to the ineptitude of Allen and company.

I have stated for quite some time that cities that build arenas/venues with public dollars should enjoy a greater share of the revenues generated by said arenas/venues. Unfortunately, cities seem reluctant to push back against franchise owners in negotiating revenue-sharing with the team. I do not necessarily envision the city becoming a for-profit partner with the team, rather the city should secure as much revenue as feasible to retire any debt incurred for stadium construction as quickly as possible (the opportunity cost of stadium debt is staggering).

I have no theoretical model (yet) to predict the optimal revenue sharing, however I am fairly certain that it is greater than the current norm. On the other hand, the city can't take all revenue generated by the arena/venue because if the team goes belly up the arena is essentially worthless.

I hope the folks in Portland keep their politicians from being swayed by threats to relocate the team, etc., to foolishly involve the local government/taxpayers in the business of a professional franchise. I know that it has "sort of worked out" in Green Bay, but that situation is likely the exception that proves the rule.