A long geeky one about economics.

[WicketMaiden]

This is better suited to a chat over a beer, but I’ll give it a try.

Prompted by the recent news of a legal challenge to baseball’s anti-trust exception, I wanted to ask for some insight into why sports in the US are so protected and often secure huge amounts in public financing for their stadia. And subsequently, why don’t the people kick up a stink about it?

I’m looking at this through the UK/European lens of slightly left of centre politics and complete free market economics in professional sports built around contract law (where no player or club has to do anything they haven’t previously signed and fully consented to do, and no club or player can be supported by public funds as that would be seen as gaining an unfair commercial advantage), and I’m looking across at the US and seeing a country that birthed and devoutly follows free market economics; highly values personal freedom and liberty; a nation built on drive, hard work and innovation that rewards drive, hard work and innovation and thrives on the individual’s success. But I also see that your billion dollar sports businesses are supported with legislation which protects them from competition, while elsewhere exempting them from protecting the very employees who provide the on-field product people pay to access (minimum wage; no freedom of movement for several years etc), and I see elite young men with very little say in their life as a player until they are well into their mid-twenties having been given the Hobson’s choice as a teenager to sign a minimum six year contract to play in just one place that is not of their choosing, or to sign with no-one at all and try again next year. Maybe. There’s very little free market about all that and I doubt you allow other industries to treat the brightest and best youngsters in their fields in that same exploitative way.

It doesn’t seem to fit with American ideals, but I’m not aware of much friction and protest against it so maybe there is something I’m missing. I understand the structural attempts at invigorating competition throughout the league, (the order of the draft is a brilliant idea that I would like European sports to mirror somehow, it’s an excellent way of giving the smaller clubs a step-up and increasing competition but is difficult to implement in a free market), revenue sharing and luxury tax penalties echo pseudo-socialist ideals of taxing the rich to give to the poor, but even so the big clubs continue to dominate the post season with rotating smaller fish thrown in during short contention windows where everything comes together for a couple of years. It happens in every sport.

Doesn’t matter which model, ours or yours, the biggest clubs in every sport are the ones regularly going for the big prizes, along with the occasional underdog of a team that is either having a great run of luck, has a solid core of young players all maturing at the same time, or has created an innovative new method to be competitive on half the budget (the A’s in baseball and Ajax Amsterdam in football (soccer) are good examples of the latter).

So, I guess what I’m asking is, what’s the argument against opening up American sports to the same free market economics that apply to other American industries and other successful global sports? Thanks for your input.

TLDR: Just read the final para.

Happy new year and all that.

[arch stanton]

I guess the simplest explanation is that the super wealthy in the US discovered long ago that the most valuable purchase they could make was national politicians. They're surprisingly affordable in the big picture of running a business

They also understand the concept of boiling the frog 1 degree at a time. Nobody complains about the 1/2 cent tax increase if it keeps the local team in place.

[eligrba]

@WicketMaiden, why must you look behind the curtain?

[UndertheHalo]

Britain birthed “free” market economics.  Also everything is your shitty islands fault. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by UndertheHalo

[AngelsLakersFan]

I'd say it results from two simple American principles, fairness and jealousy. 

You may find that America is not actually all that free market. American capitalism is very much the 'free market' with millions of pages of rules put on top. Here we have decided that we want the teams that win to make the most money; not the teams that make the most money to win. The leagues have used this to push rules that promote fairness generally at the expense of the players and shockingly to the benefit of ownership. This has been made possible in the US where leagues are single businesses entities, rather than individual businesses like in Europe.

The negative impact on the players is generally ignored because some of them make a ton of money, and most of them do very well. As long as the leagues can show that there is a guy making X millions of dollars a year the public will not care in the slightest about anything beyond that. I think you can see how this manifests in our treatment of celebrities. We love to build them up so that we can bring them down. We, the public have granted these individuals fame and fortune and they need to prove they are worthy of it every day. There is no consideration given to the costs paid by those who didn't make it, or those struggling to hang on. When you are working towards a multimillion dollar payout there is nothing to complain about - if anything it is that struggle that the fans are paying for.

[Dollar Bill]

Relegation/promotion would be helpful. There is no such economic incentive for, say, the Pirates to spend to win enough to stay in the major leagues.

[Taylor]

The U.S. economy is intentionally structured to benefit the (mostly white male) ultrarich at the expense of the everyday American. So the myths of "individual liberty" and the American dream are folktales told to the masses to keep them from questioning the status quo and keep them believing they can be one of the minute percentage of individuals who experience extreme wealth.

The MLB's anti-trust status is a relic of a time when capitalism wasn't reigned in and eventually resulted in the Great Depression. Our government responded with FDR's New Deal, which put some restraints on pure capitalism and expanded the power of the federal government. During the Reagan years, the (mostly white male) ultrarich gained back much of their power to exploit marginalized folks in order to pad their overflowing pockets. We're still effectively living in the Reagan "trickle down" era, to the point where even "progressive" presidents like Obama feel compelled to bail out the (mostly white male) CEOs who caused the Great Recession.

[Blarg]

It seems very creative minds find a way to become rich regardless of how the system is rigged. 

[HanfordGuy]

On 1/1/2022 at 5:59 AM, WicketMaiden said:

This is better suited to a chat over a beer

What kind of beer???

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

It seems very creative minds find a way to become rich regardless of how the system is rigged. 

But it's impossible to be ultra wealthy without having people under you who make a meager wage. It's why I have a lot of respect for companies like In-N-Out that lead the way in paying their employees a decent wage.

[WicketMaiden]

4 hours ago, HanfordGuy said:

What kind of beer???

Whatever the most local real ale is, and whichever is the creamier out of their bitter or pale ale. I find ale doesn't travel well so local is always best. This is probably a four pint conversation so plenty of opportunity to try both. That work for you Hanford?

[Blarg]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

But it's impossible to be ultra wealthy without having people under you who make a meager wage. It's why I have a lot of respect for companies like In-N-Out that lead the way in paying their employees a decent wage.

A lot of creative people find a way to rise above minimum wage without  complaining as to why they get paid what they are worth, instead make themselves worth what they are paid. 

[Lou]

23 minutes ago, Blarg said:

A lot of creative people find a way to rise above minimum wage without  complaining as to why they get paid what they are worth, instead make themselves worth what they are paid. 

Moving to Minor League Forum.

[Taylor]

42 minutes ago, Blarg said:

A lot of creative people find a way to rise above minimum wage without  complaining as to why they get paid what they are worth, instead make themselves worth what they are paid. 

Not everyone has equal opportunities to do this. Sure, many people squander their opportunities, but there are others who will never ever be at the top of the food chain even if they are the hardest workers in their organizations. Who you know, where you come from, and what kind of lucky breaks you get are just as influential as hard work and creativity.

[Blarg]

Again, Taylor, there are worker bees in every society and culture and those that rise up even under the worst circumstances. It does happen and because of which the failures of others isn't the blame or fault that haven't. You will achieve whatever your privileges can offer but you certainly could have done better than where you are at now, you just chose not to. Which is fine, the accumulation of wealth isn't necessarily the accumulation of a life well lived. Just don't act like the two are interrelated and there is some sort of blame to be cast outside of personal choices.