Posted on 10/08/2017 12:24:42 PM PDT by mbrfl
I just sent this to my Congressman. I encourage others to do likewise. It's time to broach the topic of regulating major league sports in this country. And no, there's nothing unconservative about regulating a monopoly like the NFL. Don't buy the argument that it's un-American to regulate the NFL because is goes against the free market. The NFL is anything BUT a free market, and it never has been.
Mr. Desantis
I am writing to encourage you to introduce legislation to fix the broken state of major league sports in this country. The NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL are de facto monopolies of their given sports and should be regulated as such - with the concerns of the consumer placed first, rather than the concerns of the owners and players. The problems with major league sports in this country are structural, and long standing. The NFL has never been a free market, and yet Congress has never fully addressed this issue. In some regards the law acknowledges the necessity of coordination amongst owners, and therefore allows a degree of cooperation and communication between them that would be considered collusion in any other industry. In other areas, specifically labor, the courts have imposed a strict free market interpretation on the leagues which has created out of control salaries, free agency, and ultimately an unaccountability and entitled attitude amongst the players. When you have an industry that exists in such a legal limbo, those with the deepest pockets will exploit the inconsistencies in the system to achieve the outcome that is most beneficial to themselves.
As such, it is entirely appropriate for Congress to play a role in this issue. It's time to decide whether the major sports leagues should be viewed as a natural monopoly and regulated as such, with the interests of the consumer being placed first, or be viewed as a free market, in which case the leagues need to be dissolved. While one can debate which of those two options is the best solution, the status quo is unacceptable.
It's hard to imagine what the outcome would be if the leagues were simply forced to dissolve. Perhaps the market would respond with the creation of more independent teams who would schedule competition with one another individually, just as with boxing matches.
The option of requiring the individual team owners to merge and create one entity rather than maintain the façade of independence seems more reasonable to me. After all, there is an inherent contradiction in viewing competitors on the field as economic competitors. In fact, a strict enforcement of free market principles on league play is oxymoronic. Both parties to a competition have to, by definition, engage in a degree of cooperation and coordinate amongst themselves.
What would such a merger look like? In broad terms, the owners would be required to exchange ownership of their individual teams, in exchange for shares in the new entity - let's call it the NNFL (i.e. the new nfl). The amount of shares could be determined by the market value of the individual teams. From there, the NNFL would be able to set up a uniform, incentive based salary structure, a uniform code of behavior whose enforcement would not bend to the whims of an individual owner, and a policy on free agency that would make the game more enjoyable for the fans. The mission of the coaches and GM's would remain the same - to compete to the best of their ability with the resources given to them by ownership. But salary and disciplinary decisions would be out of their hands and would instead be controlled by NNFL ownership, whose mission would be to oversee the competition, ensure its fairness, and look out for the well being of the product as a whole rather than the interests of one team.
In such a scenario, there would need to be some legal oversight - just as exists with other monopolies such as electric companies - to ensure they manage their business properly.
Thank you for your time. Please feel free to contact me if you feel there is any way I can help to push this idea forward.
Absolutely correct. Let em compete like everyone else.
Don’t change the subject.
Awesome! I will get this done this week.
It’s my understanding President Trump was threatening to look in to the NFl’s anti-trust status as well. I’m beginning to believe this false BLM narrative was done on purpose by most of the owners. It was to help undermine President Trump with this slow agitation, despite the NFL having rules of conduct they could enforce. It’s a crazy destructive business model the NFL is on so there has to be a logical answer as to why they would do this.
With one Pro American message, President Trump blew it all up in many ways. Along with the President putting pressure on this issue, they’ve pissed off so many patriotic Americans, they will also get political pressure from their angry fans too. It’s a backfire double-whammy. The NFL would be wise to cut their losses now, apologize, and fire Goodell and all his cronies, and hope they can move on.
CGato
OK — I won’t. LOL.
Good. Lol.
“Of course the end result of all that is: so what. Everybody likes to talk big about them being a monopoly but it means nothing.”
No, it means everything. It’s the cause of the excesses that we see in professional sports today - namely player and owner unaccountability, excessive salaries, free agency etc. These result from poor regulation. There doesn’t exist a free market to enforce industry accountability to the consumer as in other industries. When consumers have only one supplier of a product they have less of an ability to influence it through market mechanisms. Of course people can choose to not purchase their product. People can also choose to not purchase electricity from their local power companies.
” Monopolies are NOT illegal.”
No monopolies are not illegal but they are usually regulated. The NFL represents a poorly regulated monopoly. When you’re the sole supplier of a product and have such a dominant position that it is next to impossible to be challenged by a competitor, oversight is completely legitimate.
“Yes the NFL is the only source of NFL football on the planet. But they are not the only source of sports entertainment, nor the only source of football.”
The NFL is the only source of professional football on the planet. We can both agree on that. Sure there are other sources of sports entertainment and there is college football. Why stop there? People can spend their money at the movies, go camping, buy a book to read. The possibilities are endless. The demand for professional football is unique enough that a dollar spent there doesn’t automatically translate to a dollar spent on college football or auto racing, or whatever. I know many fans of pro football who don’t like college football.
“It’s like accusing McDonalds of having the BigMac monopoly”
Only if McDonalds somehow had the ability to prevent others from opening competing restaurants that weren’t McDonald’s franchises. In that case, having a monopoly on BigMacs would matter, but only because it would be a symptom of their control of the entire restaurant industry. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
“..and no court will do anything about it.”
It’s not up to the courts. It’s up to Congress to change the laws.
But all that aside, if you think the NFL is a monopoly and you’re just fine with that, then why are should they not, as a monopoly, have the right to tell an employee (i.e. player) where he should play and how much money he’ll
make. In other words, you’re fine with them operating as a monopoly within the larger economy yet have no problem with free market principles forced on them when it comes to player compensation and free agency?
Again, the regulation of the NFL has been inconsistent, and the outcome has been bad for the public. If you’re against regulation, fine. Then you should be in favor of owners being allowed to collectively setting salaries and regulating free agency as well. If the courts have a problem with that, then it’s up to Congress to change the law.
Not tax breaks per se but stadium venues acquired through eminent domain and built with public (tax) dollars under the ruse of "economic development".
No it means nothing. It causes nothing. All those things you think are caused by being a monopoly are ACTUALLY caused by being a 13 BILLION dollar business. There IS actually a free market to enforce industry accountability, it’s called people can not watch football. Or they can watch a different football.
WRONG, the NFL is NOT the only source of professional football on the planet. There are MANY sources of professional football on the planet, including the Arena league, numerous semi-pro leagues, Canada, and (let’s be truthful here) the NCAA. Only thing the NFL is sole supplier of is NFL professional football, they are the only league that can supply those uniforms and rules.
The NFL does NOT prevent others from opening competing sports leagues. Not even competing football leagues. There are many competing leagues through history. In fact one will be starting up next year. Just because they keep winning doesn’t mean they can’t be competed with.
I’m comparing apples to apples. The simple fact of the matter is trying to apply monopoly rules to sports leagues is a fools errands. You’re throwing apples at orange, I’m pointing out that the effort is doomed to failure.
All good points. Those should be addressed with state and local governments that give away that taxpayer-funded crap in the first place.
Very poor analogy about power companies
Okay. You like the status quo. That’s fine. Or you don’t like the status quo but regulating the monopolistic practices of the NFL goes against your principles, whatever they are. The bottom line is, the NFL has an effective monopoly on the product so consumers who like professional football have few options when it comes to dealing with behavior that they don’t like. For most NFL fans, regardless of professional football’s flaws, other forms of entertainment, college football included, are poor substitutes.
“There IS actually a free market to enforce industry accountability, it’s called people can not watch football. Or they can watch a different football”.
Right, and by the same token, there is a free market to enforce industry accountability on the electric companies. I can always buy myself an expensive generator and continuously keep it supplied with fuel, or I can buy a large supply of industrial batteries to power my home. Both very costly options. I can even do without power. Do you view electric companies as not particularly unique, and just one of a number of equal options for supplying ones power needs?
But again, you like things the way they are. Or else you don’t like the way things are but are against addressing the problems through any means other than boycots, because of some principle of yours. Fine. Name your principle. You want to preserve the free market? Then demand that any new owner that wants to do so, be allowed to enter the NFL. If that was allowed, you’d still have a 13 billion dollar industry but you would have more teams. The 13 billion would be spread out amongst more teams and players, and salaries would go down. The idea that the problems I cited (i.e. salaries, free agency, etc.) are merely the result of the industry being a 13 billion dollar industry and have nothing to do with the legal structure of the industry is simply foolish. If you were right, then we would have similar problems with any other 13 billion dollar industry. But those are just details.
You appear to have a knee jerk reaction to change without articulating any principle upon which it’s based. Name your principle. Is it that support free markets on principle? Is it that you support the right of monopolies, that coordinate to stifle competition, to exist, on principle? Or do you just like the status quo?
“Very poor analogy about power companies”
You’re going to have to do better than that. Explain to me why it’s a poor analogy.
No industry exists in an absolute state of a free market, nor does any industry exist that is purely monopolistic. All industries lie somewhere on the spectrum. Basic commodities lie on one end of the spectrum. Power companies lie on the other end. But there are options. One can simply do without electric power. Or one can buy industrial batteries or a generator to supply ones power needs, both expensive options.
nice. Thanks.
You NEED power for your life
You don’t need entertainment
So what is this resource that the NFL is the sole provider of? Because by definition a monopoly mut monopolize some resource.
They’re not the only business offering regularly scheduled football contests as sport because every junior high, high school and college in America has football.
There’s even other PRO football leagues, specifically the arena and lingerie leagues.
They’re obviously not the only purveyors of the wider category of sports entertainment because we’ve got MLB, the NBA, the NHL, the PGA and the WWE.
They’re not the only providers of entertainment in general because we’ve got the cinema, theater, musical venues and the Democrat party.
Nor do they have the market cornered on insolent, overpaid, undereducated athletes with sociopathic tendencies. We’ve got such an abundance of those we should figure how to export them, market them overseas to balance the trade deficit.
So I can’t figure what resource it is you think is being monopolized by the NFL, much less who is being harmed by this so-called monopolization or forced to buy some product from the NFL to which they have no no alternative. All of which leads me to believe that one of us has no clue what a monopoly is ...
... and I’m thinking it ain’t me.
We do have a monopoly and oligopoly problem. True, sports are monopolies and wihile important in terms of their cultural effects, there are bigger sharks out there. The media oligopolies, Amazon, Google are a much greater threat becuse they stifle free speech and create choke points for important consumer products.
“A sports league by definition has to function as a monopoly. You can’t have an industry function without a monopoly when the competition between the industry’s members is the product that they’re selling.”
Right. Exactly. By definition, a league requires teams to cooperate in order to create their product, which is the game itself. So why are teams required to compete against each other when it comes to setting player salaries, and restricted from collectively limiting free agency, as if cooperation is somehow verboten, when they already cooperate in other areas?
“I’d also point out that using U.S. government resources to regulate something as inconsequential as an entertainment business is a waste of time and money.”
Too late. It’s already regulated. If you don’t think sports leagues should be regulated, then you should be in favor of Congress telling the courts to butt out when it comes to NFL teams cooperating on player salaries and free agency. It costs nothing to do that.
Why ask Congress to “solve” a problem that we can solve w/o government overreach?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.