PDA

View Full Version : "Sports Stars Get Paid TOO MUCH!"




dannno
02-05-2010, 04:54 PM
I enjoy sports but I don't pay enough attention to have all of the details about some of these issues, so maybe I can get some help.

My argument was that the reason why sports players get paid a lot is because of demand, and the reason why there might be excessive demand for individual stars is due to the barriers to entry for sports league and team creation.

Some people here might believe that all the big sports stars deserve the full amount they are making and wouldn't make any less in a free market environment. I'm certainly not arguing that it should be stolen from them, but I believe that there are anti-free market reasons why some sports players have such high salaries.

Does anybody actually think that the NFL wanted the XFL to be successful? Does anybody think the FCC is some how ultimately responsible for the failure of the new league? Or that the FCC is somewhat responsible for maintaining the monopoly of the NFL over American Football?

What other barriers to entry does the government create for sports that prevents local sports leagues from thriving more?

Or do you think that people don't WANT to watch local sports, they would rather watch and root for a team from 50-100 miles away with more talented players?

The Patriot
02-05-2010, 04:56 PM
I enjoy sports but I don't pay enough attention to have all of the details about some of these issues, so maybe I can get some help.

My argument was that the reason why sports players get paid a lot is because of demand, and the reason why there might be excessive demand for individual stars is due to the barriers to entry for sports league and team creation.

Some people here might believe that all the big sports stars deserve the full amount they are making and wouldn't make any less in a free market environment. I'm certainly not arguing that it should be stolen from them, but I believe that there are anti-free market reasons why some sports players have such high salaries.

Does anybody actually think that the NFL wanted the XFL to be successful? Does anybody think the FCC is some how ultimately responsible for the failure of the new league?

What other barriers to entry does the government create for sports that prevents local sports leagues from thriving more?

Or do you think that people don't WANT to watch local sports, they would rather watch and root for a team from 50-100 miles away with more talented players?

I personally think they are paid a ridiculous amount, however, consumers disagree. If they were getting paid to much, consumers would not continue to pay for jerseys, hats, tickets, beer, popcorn, and parking at ridiculously high and increasing prices.

dannno
02-05-2010, 04:59 PM
I personally think they are paid a ridiculous amount, however, consumers disagree. If they were getting paid to much, consumers would not continue to pay for jerseys, hats, tickets, beer, popcorn, and parking at ridiculously high and increasing prices.

Yes, but if consumers are limited in their choices by government regulation or agencies like the FCC, then a limited number of people make an inflated amount of money. That is a mechanism I seem to see working in sports.

I don't see why sports stars shouldn't be multi-millionaires, but the contract amounts seem to inflate like housing prices over time.. this is a sign of government intervention, IMO.

KCIndy
02-05-2010, 05:09 PM
What other barriers to entry does the government create for sports that prevents local sports leagues from thriving more?


That's a good question.

Never having tried to start up a sports franchise or league, I have no idea how many regulations there are. But if I had to guess, I would imagine such a start up would require reams of governmental paperwork sufficient to fill up a team bus....

Interesting. This is an angle on sports payroll I had never considered before.

dannno
02-05-2010, 05:23 PM
That's a good question.

Never having tried to start up a sports franchise or league, I have no idea how many regulations there are. But if I had to guess, I would imagine such a start up would require reams of governmental paperwork sufficient to fill up a team bus....

Interesting. This is an angle on sports payroll I had never considered before.

The thing I never really thought about was the size of the sports lobby in DC. But we had all these Senators talking about steroid usage and such recently for what seemed like months. Why?? It HAD to be these lobbyists pushing for this crap.

Now here's an interesting connection.. In the following thread that talks about banning nutritional supplements, if you go to the link in the OP you will find that the backers of this McCain sponsored bill are.........wait for it.........the sports lobby...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=230012


I'll be you're right, I'll bet it's almost impossible to get a sports league off the ground due to reams of government regulations that I can only imagine..

Where's John Stossel? I think this would be a great idea for an episode. Great topic for the sheople to relate to. I'm going to e-mail him this thread.

jkr
02-05-2010, 05:24 PM
yes they are...and we are paid too little


no one knows how to fix it

BlackTerrel
02-05-2010, 05:32 PM
Funny tht the people that say this about sports stars never say this about movie stars.

They are paid exactly what people are willing to pay (in ticket and merchandise sales, demand on TV etc.)

How did the government stop the XFL from succeeding? The XFL was on TV and had a lot of hype. That first week everyone was watching. But they had a shit product - and they quickly disappeared.

Dieseler
02-05-2010, 05:37 PM
http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/xfl_hehateme.jpg
It was fairly entertaining but you're right, no sub for the real thing.
I think sports fans feel a sort of pseudo patriotism for their chosen teams and once it builds to the level it has today, man, it's unstoppable.
No sub for the real thing, heh.
http://www.progressiveboink.com/jon/images/NFL/rod1.JPG

0zzy
02-05-2010, 05:39 PM
Funny tht the people that say this about sports stars never say this about movie stars.

They are paid exactly what people are willing to pay (in ticket and merchandise sales, demand on TV etc.)

How did the government stop the XFL from succeeding? The XFL was on TV and had a lot of hype. That first week everyone was watching. But they had a shit product - and they quickly disappeared.

wtf is xfl?

i googled, and apparently, ya. i dont think the product was shiz tho. the marketing and the linking to WWF and all that was bad for it. the stadiums looked packed as hell tho. i like the idea of it.

MelissaWV
02-05-2010, 05:40 PM
yes they are...and we are paid too little


no one knows how to fix it

Convince people upon whom your company's money-making hinges that your skills are fairly unique, and that the package they come wrapped in (you) is worth any cost, and you will be paid a lot of money as long as your company has the money to pay you.

When you are no longer convincing, you will be let go, phased out, or in the case of sports, you will be traded for something/someone else.

Peyton Manning gets paid what he does because oodles of people are utterly convinced, to an almost religious degree, that no one else can do exactly what he does. He has made himself synonymous with the Colts, and Super Bowl wins. Even his "bad" seasons look pretty good to the folks in charge. The team has done well with him at the QB position. Each time his contract comes up for renegotiation, as long as those things are true, he can go in and ask for a raise.

Brett Favre, if he makes it to his next renegotiation, should probably not ask for a raise. His name was synonymous with the Packers, but then he was with the Jets, and finally now he's with the Vikings. He had a really nice year this year, and then he had some bone-headed ideas about what to do with the ball... at really bad times to have those sorts of ideas. Vikings fans probably love the way some of those games played out, but they would have liked to get to the Super Bowl.

John Doe works at a widget-manufacturing company. He just came up with a new process that makes the manufacturing floor 5% more efficient than it was before his process was tested. His changes have saved the company money, and even saved them from having to lay off some workers, which would have exposed them to some bad public relations (the company prides itself on being "layoff-free since 1886" or somesuch). Being the person who invented the process, and that process not having been documented yet, his leaving would result in its being lost to the company forever. John Doe can go in and ask for a raise, trust me. Now, when the demands reach a point that the company starts thinking "Couldn't we just hire John an 'assistant' who learns the process, and maybe learns the important parts, and then let John go?" then John is going to have a problem. John is not REALLY irreplacable, he just feels like it at that moment. He has a little clout, but not much.

John Doe Esquire Penniworth, III. works for a major bank. He's been moving imaginary money here, there, anywhere, and it doesn't really add up, but it isn't fraud, either. It's just business, just how the economy is, or some other cliche, and he feels smug. He was hired under the terms of a really great contract, and no matter what on earth happens he is legally guaranteed his millions in salary, and his beautiful golden parachute.

So, it really just depends how replacable you make yourself seem at the right moment, and how ironclad your contract is. Of course, if you seem like you can be replaced, people will try to replace you if you take too many bathroom breaks, or if you say "God bless you" when someone sneezes, or if you DON'T say "bless you" when someone sneezes, or whatever else.

* * *

And for the record... college football is generally more exciting to watch for me, and more interesting to keep up with (more teams, more styles of play, more variety in the matchups).

New2Libertarianism
02-05-2010, 05:49 PM
Why did the sports lobby want congress to talk about the steriods when it damaged the MLB's image even more to a different group of people?

angelatc
02-05-2010, 06:00 PM
Why did the sports lobby want congress to talk about the steriods when it damaged the MLB's image even more to a different group of people?

They spent more freaking time discussing that than they did TARP. If would be funny if it wasn't so expensive.

dgr
02-05-2010, 06:30 PM
The question should be How are sports players paid so much?
After Bush failed as an oil man and a politician, he came up with a plan, he studied in Business school that was being used in England. PPP's public Priviate partnerships.
So he borrowed $250,000 to invest in the formation of the Houston baseball team. Then he went to the city goverment and sold them on the benifits of taxpayer funded statiums, that would cause businesses to open, increase the tax base and provide jobs. next step land, the first use of Emmenint Domian for priviate land for businness use.
When he sold his share of the team it was worth 14 million. In the meantime baseball revenues rose 1000%, players got outreagous salaries. Phase 2 give us a bigger better statium or we will go some where else. Then the player salary dispute that stopped baseball cold, and it took years to recover. this great plan spread to other sports, football may not have a season next year because of a lockout, just like baseball.
Now if you look back this plan then spread to the non sports world, the Kelo case, the corporate blackmail for business relocation or staying , tax breaks, incentatives, building of industrial parks water and sewer, and land improvements before a business will grace you with there presence, then if it doesn't work out to their benefit they leave and get another city or country to give them a better deal.
so all of you who favor PP's take a look at what it really means and remember the "Big Dig"
that really worked out well, and the same company that caused the tragic loss of life, is still getting state contracts.

ARealConservative
02-05-2010, 06:34 PM
I imagine someone else posted this line of thought, but it's really the easy money policy of the fed that is to blame.

We have an economy on steroids so to speak. This environment signals to spend now and worry about later later. And since we can only spend so much on necessities, we bloat the hell out of the non-necessities - primarily entertainment, which drives up the salaries of people that work in those industries.

Nemesis
02-05-2010, 07:35 PM
I personally think they are paid a ridiculous amount, however, consumers disagree. If they were getting paid to much, consumers would not continue to pay for jerseys, hats, tickets, beer, popcorn, and parking at ridiculously high and increasing prices.

And when given a choice will the consumer choose intelligently?

NO!

Sub-prime crisis: Partly to blame are the "Consumers" who lied through their teeth on loans. These were and are called LIAR LOANS.

Imported vs. Domestic Goods: The fools chose cheap-chinese crap everytime and now nothing is made here of importance and all the jobs that used to be able to allow a man the ability to support his family are GONE.


The consumer, like the voter he is also, is a phucking idiot who cannot be trusted in the vote or the economy. He is as stupid as were his ancestors in the Colusium some 2000 years ago.

Modern sports are nothing more than a diversion designed to keep the moronic consumer's attention off the corruption in D.C.

mediahasyou
02-05-2010, 07:42 PM
The player unions of the major sports league are the most successful unions ever.

The average worker dreams of taking over a larger section of the owner's profits but that never happens because the owner can simply get new workers as replacements. People pay to see the great and popular athletes. If the owners paid the athletes less, the athletes would simply make their own league.

Met Income
02-05-2010, 07:45 PM
And when given a choice will the consumer choose intelligently?

NO!

Sub-prime crisis: Partly to blame are the "Consumers" who lied through their teeth on loans. These were and are called LIAR LOANS.

Imported vs. Domestic Goods: The fools chose cheap-chinese crap everytime and now nothing is made here of importance and all the jobs that used to be able to allow a man the ability to support his family are GONE.


The consumer, like the voter he is also, is a phucking idiot who cannot be trusted in the vote or the economy. He is as stupid as were his ancestors in the Colusium some 2000 years ago.

Modern sports are nothing more than a diversion designed to keep the moronic consumer's attention off the corruption in D.C.

Even if your premise is right: the market isn't efficient. What's the alternative? Government? It's way less efficient.

TCE
02-05-2010, 07:51 PM
Nemesis: People chose the cheaper products because some were poor and couldn't afford those items before. With everything made in China, even people with little money can afford to have a pretty nice lifestyle. Although the inflation rate hurts them the most...but another topic for another day.

The XFL was terrible, McMahon realized that and pulled out. He made a ton of mistakes. The government didn't hurt him. Melissa's explanation is a good one.

torchbearer
02-05-2010, 07:56 PM
wtf is xfl?

i googled, and apparently, ya. i dont think the product was shiz tho. the marketing and the linking to WWF and all that was bad for it. the stadiums looked packed as hell tho. i like the idea of it.

the XFL developed a camera technique that is used by the NFL today. They put a camera on a pulley above the field. the camera would hover above the field and get an above field perspective.
In the XFL they used those camera shots to give you 'in-the-huddle" experience. in the XFL you could actually hear what was going on in the huddle, kinda like you get in football movies.
Having competing leagues would develop more inovation like this camera angle.

Andrew-Austin
02-05-2010, 07:59 PM
We need some kind of wage czar to determine "objectively" what they should get paid.

DapperDan
02-06-2010, 12:25 AM
Convince people upon whom your company's money-making hinges that your skills are fairly unique, and that the package they come wrapped in (you) is worth any cost, and you will be paid a lot of money as long as your company has the money to pay you.

When you are no longer convincing, you will be let go, phased out, or in the case of sports, you will be traded for something/someone else.

Peyton Manning gets paid what he does because oodles of people are utterly convinced, to an almost religious degree, that no one else can do exactly what he does. He has made himself synonymous with the Colts, and Super Bowl wins. Even his "bad" seasons look pretty good to the folks in charge. The team has done well with him at the QB position. Each time his contract comes up for renegotiation, as long as those things are true, he can go in and ask for a raise.

Brett Favre, if he makes it to his next renegotiation, should probably not ask for a raise. His name was synonymous with the Packers, but then he was with the Jets, and finally now he's with the Vikings. He had a really nice year this year, and then he had some bone-headed ideas about what to do with the ball... at really bad times to have those sorts of ideas. Vikings fans probably love the way some of those games played out, but they would have liked to get to the Super Bowl.

John Doe works at a widget-manufacturing company. He just came up with a new process that makes the manufacturing floor 5% more efficient than it was before his process was tested. His changes have saved the company money, and even saved them from having to lay off some workers, which would have exposed them to some bad public relations (the company prides itself on being "layoff-free since 1886" or somesuch). Being the person who invented the process, and that process not having been documented yet, his leaving would result in its being lost to the company forever. John Doe can go in and ask for a raise, trust me. Now, when the demands reach a point that the company starts thinking "Couldn't we just hire John an 'assistant' who learns the process, and maybe learns the important parts, and then let John go?" then John is going to have a problem. John is not REALLY irreplacable, he just feels like it at that moment. He has a little clout, but not much.

John Doe Esquire Penniworth, III. works for a major bank. He's been moving imaginary money here, there, anywhere, and it doesn't really add up, but it isn't fraud, either. It's just business, just how the economy is, or some other cliche, and he feels smug. He was hired under the terms of a really great contract, and no matter what on earth happens he is legally guaranteed his millions in salary, and his beautiful golden parachute.

So, it really just depends how replacable you make yourself seem at the right moment, and how ironclad your contract is. Of course, if you seem like you can be replaced, people will try to replace you if you take too many bathroom breaks, or if you say "God bless you" when someone sneezes, or if you DON'T say "bless you" when someone sneezes, or whatever else.

* * *

And for the record... college football is generally more exciting to watch for me, and more interesting to keep up with (more teams, more styles of play, more variety in the matchups).

*nod*

bolded part...can we be friends?

SLSteven
02-06-2010, 01:19 AM
Don't forget about the publicly funded stadiums that are inevitably provided for the professional teams. Since the taxpayers pick up the tab for the stadium there is more money for the salaries.

rpindy
02-06-2010, 01:36 AM
It may also be worth noting that professional sports leagues are exempted from federal antitrust laws.

Pepsi
02-06-2010, 05:14 AM
I enjoy sports but I don't pay enough attention to have all of the details about some of these issues, so maybe I can get some help.

My argument was that the reason why sports players get paid a lot is because of demand, and the reason why there might be excessive demand for individual stars is due to the barriers to entry for sports league and team creation.

Some people here might believe that all the big sports stars deserve the full amount they are making and wouldn't make any less in a free market environment. I'm certainly not arguing that it should be stolen from them, but I believe that there are anti-free market reasons why some sports players have such high salaries.

Does anybody actually think that the NFL wanted the XFL to be successful? Does anybody think the FCC is some how ultimately responsible for the failure of the new league? Or that the FCC is somewhat responsible for maintaining the monopoly of the NFL over American Football?

What other barriers to entry does the government create for sports that prevents local sports leagues from thriving more?

Or do you think that people don't WANT to watch local sports, they would rather watch and root for a team from 50-100 miles away with more talented players?

I have a full set of XFL trading cards.

Pepsi
02-06-2010, 05:26 AM
wtf is xfl?

i googled, and apparently, ya. i dont think the product was shiz tho. the marketing and the linking to WWF and all that was bad for it. the stadiums looked packed as hell tho. i like the idea of it.

It was another Pro Football leage that went out of business. I wonder why the Women's Professional Football League is not as big as the NFL.

http://www.xflboard.com/teams/index.htm

http://www.jerseytitans.com/

TastyWheat
02-06-2010, 05:32 AM
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism explains this well. If Kobe Bryant and such didn't generate millions of dollars in revenue for their bosses they definitely wouldn't be getting paid that much. If you want to complain about their salaries, complain to the "suckers" that pay so much to go see them play.

MelissaWV
02-06-2010, 10:20 AM
*nod*

bolded part...can we be friends?

I'm friends with most anyone until they give me a genuine reason never to wipe the slate clean again :p

Son of Detroit
02-06-2010, 11:33 AM
I wonder why the Women's Professional Football League is not as big as the NFL.


YouTube - LFL - Seattle Vs. San Diego Game Highlights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZcSEE7TuGU)

:D:D:D

Pepsi
02-06-2010, 12:01 PM
YouTube - LFL - Seattle Vs. San Diego Game Highlights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZcSEE7TuGU)

:D:D:D

I don't mean that. I meant the real Women's Professional Football League.


http://www.lvshowgirlz.com/

Promontorium
02-06-2010, 12:19 PM
In one field where the employee makes millions of dollars, and you have to complain they make too much? I can assure you, their bosses aren't going broke.

To start a new team for the league you need approval from the NFL. The professional leagues keep close control of their business. And their business is very popular.

If people were interested in other businesses, to a fervor of similar competitiveness, those businesses that facilitated the competition would probably do well too.

Let's see if we can think of any?

Wall Street? Ding!
Las Vegas? Ding!


People love gambling, competition, and emotional satisfaction. Whether or not the government is involved (and I can't imagine any pie left in America that the government doesn't have a finger in) industries of gambling, competition, and satisfaction will always generate a lot of money.

What are other industries that generates satisfaction?

Prostitution? Ding Ding!
Porn? Ding Ding!
Drugs? OMFG DING DING DING DING

I think we've figured out humans put their money where their emotions are.

/rant. No harm intended.

__27__
02-06-2010, 01:31 PM
I want to watch the most talented athletes in the world, period. I do enjoy going to high school games as well, but I wouldn't pay them more than the $2-5 admission they charge. To see the best athletes in the world on the biggest stages in the world I will gladly pay more. To me, the Olympic games are the best in athletics, but they only come every 2 years so the void needs to be filled.

What could be better than the anticipation of Russia v. Canada in Vancouver on Canada's home ice? God I love Olympic hockey.

awake
02-06-2010, 01:38 PM
Actually they are paid exactly what the market can afford them... If they ask too much they will not be employed in their current role. As much as it is popular to attack those who make more money in our society than us, one needs to remember that they are specially skilled in their area of demand. Unless you can convince the millions of people who fork out their money to not support these guys, then you have no choice but to respect that this is a free market outcome of consumers directing production.

__27__
02-06-2010, 01:44 PM
Actually they are paid exactly what the market can afford them... If they ask too much they will not be employed in their current role. As much as it is popular to attack those who make more money in our society than us, one needs to remember that they are specially skilled in their area of demand. Unless you can convince the millions of people who fork out their money to not support these guys, then you have no choice but to respect that this is a free market outcome of consumers directing production.

I agree with what you're saying, but you completely missed the OP. He never once argued that they shouldn't be paid what the market will pay them, he argued that the market is NOT being allowed to work. If it were there would be more leagues than just the NFL, than just the NHL, than just the NBA, than just MLB, etc.

Son of Detroit
02-06-2010, 01:49 PM
The fact is, any other league created would pale in comparison in terms of talent, name recognition, and overall prestige to the currently established leagues.

__27__
02-06-2010, 01:51 PM
The fact is, any other league created would pale in comparison in terms of talent, name recognition, and overall prestige to the currently established leagues.

And you know this how? You don't sound like you believe in the free market at all.

Son of Detroit
02-06-2010, 01:53 PM
And you know this how? You don't sound like you believe in the free market at all.

Go start up your own football league and offer Peyton Manning $50,000 to play. See how that works out for you.

__27__
02-06-2010, 01:56 PM
Go start up your own football league and offer Peyton Manning $50,000 to play. See how that works out for you.

:rolleyes:

Son of Detroit
02-06-2010, 02:01 PM
I don't understand how believing that no newly created league would be able to compete with the top 4 leagues is "not believing in the free market".

I do believe in the free market, which is why I also know that the MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL will always be the most prestigious and popular professional sports organizations here in the U.S; barring financial problems.

No league will ever be able to compete with these four. The only way you will see an alternative is if one of them suddenly folds and another one is created to take its place.

Met Income
02-06-2010, 02:03 PM
Go start up your own football league and offer Peyton Manning $50,000 to play. See how that works out for you.

It wouldn't work out because he's worth much, much more than that, obviously.

dannno
02-06-2010, 02:12 PM
YouTube - LFL - Seattle Vs. San Diego Game Highlights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZcSEE7TuGU)

:D:D:D

Thanks for posting.

Nemesis
02-06-2010, 02:48 PM
Nemesis: People chose the cheaper products because some were poor and couldn't afford those items before. With everything made in China, even people with little money can afford to have a pretty nice lifestyle. Although the inflation rate hurts them the most...but another topic for another day.

The XFL was terrible, McMahon realized that and pulled out. He made a ton of mistakes. The government didn't hurt him. Melissa's explanation is a good one.


Chicken or the egg? People can't afford to buy quality goods because their job have been shipped to china.

Why have their jobs been shipped to China? Because the free market dictated it to be more efficient.

Is that what America has come to? You won't work for twent-five cents an hour so we won't give you work??????

Nemesis
02-06-2010, 02:53 PM
I want to watch the most talented athletes in the world, period. I do enjoy going to high school games as well, but I wouldn't pay them more than the $2-5 admission they charge. To see the best athletes in the world on the biggest stages in the world I will gladly pay more. To me, the Olympic games are the best in athletics, but they only come every 2 years so the void needs to be filled.

What could be better than the anticipation of Russia v. Canada in Vancouver on Canada's home ice? God I love Olympic hockey.

You want to watch them, I dont' yet I have to pay for your hobby through higher product costs.

I am subsidizing your life-style choices. Why are you on the Ron Paul form if that is the case?

Nemesis
02-06-2010, 02:54 PM
Don't forget about the publicly funded stadiums that are inevitably provided for the professional teams. Since the taxpayers pick up the tab for the stadium there is more money for the salaries.

Good point Steven. We also pay for these idiotic gangster thugs who throw a ball threw a hoop in the form of higher product prices.

It's wrong, just as wrong as making me subsidize the greedy bankers.

surf
02-06-2010, 04:08 PM
yup - stadium subsidies mess up any "free-market wage rate" analysis. many owners tend to put a gun at the cities heads with threats to move the team. new "state-of-the-art" stadia with porcelin pissers, etc. cause these demands and subsidies to grow. These new stadia are also no longer "multi-use" facilities (i.e. football and baseball)

another factor is the tax write-off factor for entertainment expenses which, imo, have caused this dreadful expansion in the worst aspect of stadia construction: luxury boxes - i've been in these and while nice, they are generally not populated by real sports fans. Every new stadium has these. edit: i'd also argue that these tax advantages for businesses tend to inflate and even price-out many sports fans.

as a side note, the original Yankee Stadium was constructed for $2.4 million between 1922-23 (approximately 10-months, if I remember correctly). It has hosted NFL teams, classic boxing matches, a pope or two, and of course the Yankees. The new Yankee Stadium is a baseball exclusive park that was constructed for $1.6 billion and priced tickets at as much as $2500/game for "box seats."

awake
02-06-2010, 04:08 PM
I agree with what you're saying, but you completely missed the OP. He never once argued that they shouldn't be paid what the market will pay them, he argued that the market is NOT being allowed to work. If it were there would be more leagues than just the NFL, than just the NHL, than just the NBA, than just MLB, etc.


Opps... I did miss the OP. Some good points... However, in our current dimension we have only to imagine what a free market might look like in various circumstances such as professional sports leagues. I personally think that there is plenty of competition out there. The 'nationals' - NFL, NHL and NBA etc. must always compete with the local markets and can only exist by selecting the best talent from these sub national leagues.

Subsidization of sports teams are interventionist market distortions.

surf
02-06-2010, 04:18 PM
I want to watch the most talented athletes in the world, period. I do enjoy going to high school games as well, but I wouldn't pay them more than the $2-5 admission they charge. To see the best athletes in the world on the biggest stages in the world I will gladly pay more. To me, the Olympic games are the best in athletics, but they only come every 2 years so the void needs to be filled.

What could be better than the anticipation of Russia v. Canada in Vancouver on Canada's home ice? God I love Olympic hockey.

You want to watch them, I dont' yet I have to pay for your hobby through higher product costs.

I am subsidizing your life-style choices. Why are you on the Ron Paul form if that is the case?
i think Nemesis is missing the point here. and good luck 27 getting tickets. talk about a premium.... the IOC and their partners have made it such that even the good folks in Canada can't get a ticket w/o buying one through scalpers for approximately $1 gazillion/ticket.

Olympic hockey is pretty damn cool though, even for those that love to see good fights w/a hockey game thrown in (basically zero fighting in Olympic hockey for those that aren't aware).

Nemesis
02-06-2010, 09:19 PM
i think Nemesis is missing the point here. and good luck 27 getting tickets. talk about a premium.... the IOC and their partners have made it such that even the good folks in Canada can't get a ticket w/o buying one through scalpers for approximately $1 gazillion/ticket.

Olympic hockey is pretty damn cool though, even for those that love to see good fights w/a hockey game thrown in (basically zero fighting in Olympic hockey for those that aren't aware).


What point? The FACT I'm subsidizing your sport (which I love btw) or some sport where a bunch of genetic freaks who can't string together a simple sentence without some sounding like a RAP STAR (which I hate by the way) should be enough to piss-off all Ron Paul supporters.

But no, everyone is cool with this forced subsidization of a questionable activity.

surf
02-07-2010, 12:42 AM
What point? The FACT I'm subsidizing your sport (which I love btw) or some sport where a bunch of genetic freaks who can't string together a simple sentence without some sounding like a RAP STAR (which I hate by the way) should be enough to piss-off all Ron Paul supporters.

But no, everyone is cool with this forced subsidization of a questionable activity.
i think his point is that he digs hockey (hell, he's from MN) and he'll pay more to watch the best hockey on the planet.

i agree with you, and i'm a soccer and Husky sports fan. in my city we blew up the Kingdome and built over a $billion worth of stadiums next to each other (one of which was built for Paul Allen (MSFT cofounder) and houses my Sounders when the NFL isn't using it 10x a year - and i'm glad we have the Sounders even though i campaigned and voted against the stadiums). The Sonics left approximately 10 years after rebuilding the Coliseum to keep them here and the primary reason was that they couldn't get the city to build them a new stadium like the Seahawks and Mariners got. Wonder why we finally said "no"? because the Starbucks owner/duechebag sold the team to a neocon from Oklahoma City that didn't want to keep the team here.

And now, in this economy, the UW goes to the legislature every year to ask to extend the restaurant/hotel taxes (used to partially fund the 2 new palaces) in order to refurbish Husky Stadium. I post on other boards about legalizing alcohol sales in the current stadium as a revenue source to fund it, but that's never considered.

the point i think you missed is that 27 is a hockey fan and likes the Olympics - and imo your reaction based on the quote you used seemed a little off base.

can we be friends now?

BlackTerrel
02-08-2010, 01:29 AM
Good point Steven. We also pay for these idiotic gangster thugs who throw a ball threw a hoop in the form of higher product prices.

It's wrong, just as wrong as making me subsidize the greedy bankers.

If you don't watch then you don't pay. How are you subsidizing them?

Dieseler
02-08-2010, 01:37 AM
Endorsements and shoplifting.

BillyDkid
02-08-2010, 09:17 AM
Well, it's really an example of the use of government to protect established/entrenched business and this happens throughout the economy. There are all sorts of barriers to entry to stifle competition in many areas - from medicine to the music business to publishing. Most of these are not blatant and obvious, but subtle and difficult to get a handle on. Traditional publishing and recording types of businesses are suffering the realities of free communication due to the internet and are fighting back. They will lose unless the government steps in and protects them by finding ways to control the free exchange of information and media - which they are trying very hard to do. They will need to find a new model where you don't automatically make millions of dollars through residuals thanks to the idea of "intellectual property".

nayjevin
02-08-2010, 10:28 AM
Athletes being paid millions is the only thing keeping the owners of the franchises from keeping that money. Owners will try to get you to believe that agents/players are driving up ticket costs with hard salary bargaining - but in reality what the public is willing to pay for a ticket is what defines the cost - and the players lobby for a bigger piece of the pie that they work/play to create.

Nemesis
02-08-2010, 01:18 PM
i think his point is that he digs hockey (hell, he's from MN) and he'll pay more to watch the best hockey on the planet.

w?

I have no problem with he having to pay for his sport. The problem is that I AND OTHERS end up picking up the tab for a minority of sports fans.

Higher product prices, higher taxes.

TonySutton
02-08-2010, 01:30 PM
Players started making huge salaries soon after the big TV deals were made. When the AFL came into being, they incorporated revenue sharing. When Pete Rozelle took over as commissioner of the NFL, he brokered large tv contracts which pitted the major networks against each other.

This is when big money started pouring into pro sports and soon after the players started demanding a share.

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 04:50 PM
i keep hearing that the nfl is getting rid of salary caps- is this a done deal or just a proposal?