Steelers to lose Super Bowl Trophies

[YardleyLabs]

Jeff,
The NFL is one business with 32 franchises. Its competitors are all other professional and college sports as well as all other Sunday (and Monday night) entertainment options. Pretty much free-market competition. So far, they've done a pretty good job of competing.

Yes, I know how the NFL is organized. And it is very much a socialist model.

The anti-trust exemptions that have been provided to all the professional sports have to do with protecting the franchises from charges of restraint of free trade based on the manner in which they limit the mobility of labor. There have also been questions of anti-trust litigation over time from cities that wanted a franchise but were not granted one.

Professional football actually existed for over 20 years before it was organized into franchises with the creation of what subsequently became the NFL. However, the sport did not thrive because there was no way to structure effective competition among the teams.

In a similar manner, our economy does not realize the advantages of a market economy in the absence of competition. Accordingly, the greatest involvement of government in business is to prevent business practices that stifle competition. That is not socialism; it is the protection of capitalism.

I have no problem with the way that professional sports are organized in our country. I simply found it ironic that this thread was using the NFL to illustrate how socialism might work if applied to the sport. The irony is that the whole sport is based on a socialistic redistribution of resources from the stronger teams to the weaker teams.

[Franco]

There are no laws preventing the start up of another league. As I remember, many NFL players jumped to the USFL for more dough.

One can't blame the NFL for being first and setting the standard and if they are strong enough to dictate terms to state governments, so what!

[Matt McKenzie]

Yes, I know how the NFL is organized. And it is very much a socialist model.

The anti-trust exemptions that have been provided to all the professional sports have to do with protecting the franchises from charges of restraint of free trade based on the manner in which they limit the mobility of labor. There have also been questions of anti-trust litigation over time from cities that wanted a franchise but were not granted one.

Professional football actually existed for over 20 years before it was organized into franchises with the creation of what subsequently became the NFL. However, the sport did not thrive because there was no way to structure effective competition among the teams.

In a similar manner, our economy does not realize the advantages of a market economy in the absence of competition. Accordingly, the greatest involvement of government in business is to prevent business practices that stifle competition. That is not socialism; it is the protection of capitalism.

I have no problem with the way that professional sports are organized in our country. I simply found it ironic that this thread was using the NFL to illustrate how socialism might work if applied to the sport. The irony is that the whole sport is based on a socialistic redistribution of resources from the stronger teams to the weaker teams.

I see your point.

[badbullgator]

I see your point.

The point is that Jeff will argue ANYTHING

I think I would fall on the floor and die if I ever opened a thread like this and Jeff had nothing but to post in agreement.
Hey jeff the sky is blue

[Franco]

BBG, the socialist will probabaly want LSU and Florida to give up one of thier two each BCS National Championship trophies too! One will go to the Pac 10 and the other to the Big 10.

[sinner]

If you have not played, or worked in the NFL or the old AFL (pre 1964) or are not one many retired players and workers you are the blind being lead by the blind.
The lead story left out the merger of the NFL & AFL.

[YardleyLabs]

The point is that Jeff will argue ANYTHING

I think I would fall on the floor and die if I ever opened a thread like this and Jeff had nothing but to post in agreement.
Hey jeff the sky is blue

My kids would probably agree, and my ex-wife definitely would

[Steve]

Yes, I know how the NFL is organized. And it is very much a socialist model.

In a similar manner, our economy does not realize the advantages of a market economy in the absence of competition. Accordingly, the greatest involvement of government in business is to prevent business practices that stifle competition. That is not socialism; it is the protection of capitalism.

How many other franchises require the existence of each other to exist. If a restaurant in one city fails it has no impact on the success of the others. The NFL needs the teams to exist to maintain the quality of the product.

I do get your point that they already distribute resources. I don't understand why they won't step in and do something about Mike Brown. The Bengals were a competitive team, having been in two Superbowls before Paul Brown died. Since his loser son took over they are possibly the most inept team out there with maybe the exception of the Lions.

Anti trust is another issue. It sounds good in theory, but is a joke in practice. The best thing they could do would be to allow easy entry into the market, but excessive government regulations achieve the opposite.

[YardleyLabs]

In the NFL today, there are three areas where competition remains unfettered:

• Host city generosity: Obviously no team can survive without active support from its host city
• Owner competence/incompetence: Some guys never get it right. That was a Philadelphia problem for a long time (fortunately corrected). The Bengals are on the short end of the stick. Ultimately, the team is private property and the NFL has little ability to force an ownership change.
• Coaching staff: While there are caps on player payroll, there are no caps on spending for other things. If the owner is bad, the coaching staff will probably follow suit. Even with a good owner, however, a wealthy market team can usually outspend a poorer market team, although a wealthy owner can balance that out for a short time.

[zeus3925]

Socialism is alive and well in pro-sports. Billionaire owners want huge amounts of public money for stadiums to show off their millionaire players. They don't want to pay any rent either. We all ought to band together. Maybe we could get some of that public dough for trial grounds.