Access, more than money, defines list makeup.

IN the business of sports, having money helps. But even more important is having access to money.

On the list of Southern California's 25 most influential sports businesspeople, Tim Leiweke, president and chief executive of Anschutz Entertainment Group, is tops, followed by David Hill, chief executive at Fox Sports Television Group.

The survey, prepared for the Business Journal by The Sports Business Group of Redondo Beach, weighed factors that include access to capital, budgetary control, sports product offerings, and community impact (see box below).

Leiweke perhaps best illustrates that access--more than money--dictates power.

In heading operations at Staples Center, home to five Los Angeles professional sports teams, as well as the $150 million Home Depot Center in Carson, Leiweke oversees a total of 3,000 employees.

With minimal contribution from government agencies, AEG is a throwback to the days when Walter O'Malley and Jack Kent Cooke privately financed construction of Dodger Stadium and The Forum, respectively.

"(AEG) understood the supply and demand in this market and they nailed it," said David Carter, Sports Business Group's principal.

And in a town where media plays such an important role, it comes as no surprise that so many of the most influential players have ties to the communications industries. "What controls this list is media," said Jeff Marks, a senior consultant for Sports Business Group.

Media movers

That's what boosted Hill to No. 2 on the list.

An 11-year veteran of Fox, Hill created the sports division and chose Los Angeles as a base of operations because of the locally available labor pool, as well as the presence of Hollywood.

"This is the world center of the entertainment industry and we wanted to stay close to those talents," said Hill, who oversees about 2,500 employees locally and set up the 21-affiliate Fox Sports Net in 1996. "A lot of people in the company felt we should have set up Fox Sports Net in New York, (but) what has happened in the last decade has validated that decision."

Several other names on the list have important media connections.

The recent sale of the Dodgers to Frank and Jamie McCourt (seventh on the list) was financed because, as part of its sale, Fox was able to secure broadcast rights for eight years in a deal valued at $300 million.

The wealth built by Arturo Moreno (No. 5) in the billboard business financed his purchase of the Anaheim Angels from Walt Disney Co. last year. Moreno has moved aggressively to market the team in Los Angeles, spending tar more freely than earlier ownership to market the team to Angelenos.

And in more of a behind-the-scenes role, Jim Lentz (No. 14) wields his influence by controlling the motorsports advertising dollars for Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.

The regional survey comes at the end of a seven-year period that has seen $645 million spent on the construction of three major sports venues--California Speedway, Staples Center and Home Depot Center.

In 2000, $1.05 billion in direct revenues were generated by sporting events in the Los Angeles area, up 31 percent from 1996, according to a 2001 report released by the Los Angeles Sports Council (an updated report is due out later this year).

"I wouldn't expect that kind of jump, but you will see an increase," said David Simon, the group's president, and No. 18 on this year's list.

With the exception Kings owner and Staples Center investor Ed Roski Jr., whose real estate fortune has ranked him among L.A.'s richest people, those who fell into the "magnates and investors" category wield less day-to-day influence in the sports world.

Conspicuously absent from the list are local political figures.

"The extent that politicians are engaged tends to be far greater (in other metropolitan areas) than it is here," said Carter. "Look at the debate in New York--Mayor (Michael) Bloomberg has been very involved in pursuing the New Jersey Nets (for a Brooklyn site) and the Olympics. The most active politician here is Assemblyman (Mark) Ridley--Thomas, and he's in Sacramento."

In fact, one of the more recent examples of a locally elected official exerting influence on a sports issue was former City Councilman Joel Wachs, who bitterly opposed the limited public exposure in financing the Staples Center.

The absence of elected officials may also reflect the failure to secure a pro football team since 1995, when the Rams and Raiders left Southern California.

"Here's this huge TV market and there's no team," said Christopher Thornberg, senior economist at UCLA's Anderson Forecast. "It comes down to bucks and no one has been able to put money on the table to make it happen."

Carter agreed that pro football remained the wild card when assessing the weight of L.A.'s executive sports class.

"Once that domino's knocked over, a lot of people will rise or fall very quickly on this list." said Carter, noting the potential impact of Leiweke, Roski, L.A. Avengers owner Casey Wasserman (15th), Latham & Watkins Partner and Staples Center point man George Mihlsten (20th) and billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad (22nd).

Meanwhile, Leiweke and Hill remain a step ahead of the pack.

"On a global scale Hill's probably more influential (than Leiweke)," said Carter. "Only in L.A. can you be so good and still place second."

Staff Reporter Pat Maio contributed to this article.

Ranking the Professionals

As with any ranking, compiling a list of Southern California's most influential sports executives is a process of weights and measures.

David Carter and Jeff Marks of the Sports Business Group prepared the list for the Business Journal, launching the process by defining the parameters by which individuals would be given consideration.

Regional residency was required. They had to spend a considerable amount of time focusing on sports business in the region. Only the most influential person could be chosen from any one organization. Athletes and coaches were excluded because of the narrow role they play in sports business.

The Sports Business Group then drafted matrices highlighting the relative strength of each potential candidate in a variety of areas and developed a model that allowed for their ranking.

Weightings were assigned to each criteria based on the significance and strong correlation to overall influence.

One of the key steps was developing criteria that could be used for both qualitative and quantitative review. Six "areas of impact" were established:

Money: The flow of funds directly related to the Southern California market through personal wealth, budget, investment, advertising and client activities.

Labor: Not only includes the number and type of individuals employed by a particular organization, but also considers the ability to measurably impact labor throughout the region resulting from new franchises, ventures, and sporting events.

Sports Product/Service Offerings: The degree to which the individual controls a category's sports inventory. This may include the number of athletes under contract, the number of major sporting events hosted at a particular venue or the percent of market share for advertising dollars.

Community: The level of community involvement, philanthropy and ability to influence regional sporting events and sports business opportunities, such as advertising, building of new venues and the procurement of new franchises.

National/International: The degree of influence outside Southern California that may indirectly impact the local sports business community.

Cross Factor: This factor was created to capture intangible attributes. That includes access and influence over the political and business communities. The model yielded three sets of statistical ties, which the editors of the Business Journal reviewed before determining final rankings.

Measuring Influence

Money and labor account for more than half of weighting, but community
impact is a factor.

Overalln Model Weight

Money                       29%

Cross factor                10%

Product/service offerings   17%

National/International       6%

Labor                       24%

Community impact            14%

Note: table made from pie chart.

Source: Sports Business Group

Degree of Influence Per Criteria

                              High     Medium     Low

Money                          16%         68%     16%

Labor                          12%         40%     48%

Product/Service Offerings      28%         52%     20%

National/International         44%         44%     12%

Community Impact               52%         44%      4%

Cross Factor                   56%         36%      8%

Note: table made from bar graph.