November 27, 2007
I don't like us being "almost socialistic"
I prefer the free market in everything, including sports:
"Imagine an NFL where a previously unheard of Russian billionaire could buy up, say, the Cleveland Browns, purchase Tom Brady and half the current New England Patriots team along with the best players from all the other teams and win the Superbowl easily every, single, year. You can’t do that in American sports because of the regulations – the draft, the salary cap, the rules on ownership etc – it is a curious state of affairs but compared to the laissez-faire capitalism of English soccer, American sports are almost socialistic."
-Jimmy Bradshaw
Posted by Karol at November 27, 2007 02:39 AM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: Sports English+Premier+League
The people who complain about things like the luxury tax or salary caps in professional sports almost always base their argument on an abstract political philosophy, not on an existing problem that needs to be addressed.
In a self-contained unit like a professional athletic league revenue-sharing is successful. Just look at the NFL, where you have relative parity at the same time as dynastic glory, i.e. the New England Patriots. Teams that thrive on smart ownership and good coaching win while inept ownership-no matter how wealthy-drives teams into the cellar. On a theoretical level the free marketers are right-you should be able to spend as much money as you want if it is your money-but from a pragmatic perspective they don't have a leg to stand on.
The rest of the essay is fascinating though-I always enjoy reading pieces that put globalization into perspective. I do think the English are being a bit delusional in not accepting the fact that the world has surpassed them, for the most part, in the sport they invented.
It is somewhat hard to reconcile my love for heavily-regulated American sports with my love for laissez-faire capitalism. But, while I can't speak for Premier League football, I find American leagues make more sense if you consider them for what they essentially are: franchises (individual clubs) of a single business (here, the NFL).
The NFL as a single entity (in the entertainment industry) needs the regulations to survive. Not doing so leads to a situation like the old AAFL, where the sheer dominance of the Cleveland Browns killed off interest in the league.
Posted by: Nikhil Bhat at November 27, 2007 09:53 AMreally, karol? "everything"?
a full-fledged Rothbardian at last!
Posted by: E5 at November 27, 2007 10:06 AMSorry, but I disagree in this one.
Unlike governance, the NFL is an optional organization. As Vince McMahon attempted to prove (and Mark Cuban is going to try again), there is nothing that says the NFL has to be the _only_ professional football league in America. Ergo, if owners want a league that will allow one of their number to purchase a championship, then so be it.
On the other hand, at least 32 owners want a league where any team honestly has a chance to win it all. Sure, New England is allegedly a dynasty, but let's be serious here--there are two reasons why the Pats have three championships, and they have nothing to do with the salary cap:
1. Marshall Faulk didn't channel his inner Keyshawn and say to Mike Martz (he who has as much right to claim genius as Wiley E. Coyote) "Just give me the da*n ball..." and;
2. John Karsay didn't that he's a kicker, not a punter.
So, instead of having Dan Snyder hoisting the Lombardi Trophy after he bought the NFC's entire All Pro team, we have a league where coaching and general managing _matter_. Which is just fine with me, even though the only reason my team's GM (Carl Peterson) seems competent is we play in the AFC West.
Posted by: James at November 27, 2007 10:41 AMSocialism, eh? Hrmm. Must not be too bad. Anything that keeps Brady in New England is fine by me!
You don't see them trying to buy Tony Romo, do you? Only Jessica Simpson is trying to do that.
Posted by: toby at November 27, 2007 11:08 AM
