Comparing “football” with commerical business transactions will not work - although the objective is still to “win,” the definition of “win” for each activity is very different.
Companies should be making profits, managing their trademarks, producing desirable products and services at prices the market will bear.
If all or most of that is happening then shareholder value will necessarily follow in the short run and over the long haul.
However, if business owners focus solely or primarily on shareholder value then they are more likely to engage in strategies that may bump up short term value at the expense of long term success.
For starters, CEOs of public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Shareholders invest in good faith, and CEOs are supposed to reveal their expectations for achieving success in future market conditions. Shareholders can take the CEO at their words, and stay invested, or they can take their money elsewhere.
Sports coaches are under no such responsibility. They can tell you how they expect their team to perform, but they have no obligation to fans or bettors. Coaches have an obligation only to their general managers or team presidents.
I would also say that where CEOs have an obligation to earn at least as much as their reasonable competitor, in terms of return on investment, coaches are measured by wins and losses. (I'll let others decide which is more difficult.)
SO to the original question, as a shareholder, I'm hopeful that a CEO maximizes their profits, keeps costs reasonably low, and does whatever they can to maximize my value. Otherwise, what's the point of investing?
The writer simply doesn’t understand the word “value”, and so wastes his and his readers’ time.