Football and capitalism seem like
they go hand and hand, but do they? Recently, we were assigned with reading
Marx & Engels “Communist Manifesto Part 1 and Part 2.” This document talks about the need for socialist policies to be
more engrained in society. It says that the policies don’t exist, but they
should. I’m so sorry to break it to everyone, but there are some socialist
structures in our society already. Are you ready for some football?
Yes, the NFL. The sport that I have grown up worshiping breaks all of my
capitalistic dreams. People would only assume that in the country we live in,
that bleeds capitalism that our favorite sport would have more of a free market
structure. However,the structure of the NFL is socialist by nature.
Lets start with revenue sharing.
The NFL, unlike other leagues has only one game per week. Most of those games
are played on Sunday. Growing up, the buildup to Sunday was something I couldn’t
wait for (minus this year when my Eagles are currently 3-9). In my Intro to Sport Management class, we
learned that the NFL under former commissioner Pete Rozelle, decided a long
time ago that it would adopt this strategy of “league think”. This strategy
urges owners to not only think about their own franchises, but the health of
league “as a whole.” This started what is common in sports today, revenue
sharing. The NFL signs for billions of dollars in TV revenues a year. Then, they send a check to a tune of over $100
million dollars to each of the 32
teams. Every team in the NFL, whether 16-0 or 0-16 are guaranteed these
revenues from networks such as NBC, CBS, FOX and ESPN.
This is done so that even the
small market teams survive, and they can be on an even or EQUAL playing field.
Its classic socialism and music to Marx’s ears “When, therefore,
capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of
society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It
is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its
class character.” Capital is converted into revenues that are given to every
team in an equal fashion. This doesn’t happen in the American economy.
Businesses who are competitors don’t share revenues so they can all be stable.
It’s the opposite of the capitalism fundamentals that this country was built
on.
According to my
professor, “leagues are essentially Cartels. Independent franchise owners all
agree to operate under the same rules/regulations.” Imagine if Bank of America,
PNC, and TD Bank agreed on rules and shared profits? They would be lambasted
for socialist practices.
Not to mention that
the common practices of labor relations in the NFL: Free Agency, the NFL Draft
and Salary Cap are restraint of trade. They limit what labor and what
businesses can or can’t do. In our economy, if you want to change companies you
can. This is not the case in the NFL where labor is controlled by its
franchises and has severe limitations in movement.
Why isn’t the
government knocking on the NFL’s doors? These practices would violate the Sherman Act, which according to my
professor “prohibits any conspiracy, collusion or contract that restricts trade
or commerce.” It also outlaws monopolies (NFL) and says that companies “cannot
exchange in unfair or illegal business practices that help you maintain a
monopoly.” The NFL violates these laws. However, under the National Labor Relations Act, as long as you negotiate with a union
in collective bargaining, the agreement is exempt from antitrust laws.
These practices,
while legal continue to make things even.
A Salary Cap is designed so that the big market teams are caped on how
much they spend, so everyone can be on an equal or even playing field. The
draft is the only way that players can get in; it restricts entry. Free Agency
limits movement by labor. Every one of these common practices in the NFL
wouldn’t be tolerated in the free market.
Through “league
think”, the NFL proves that they align with Marx. In the NFL’s book, fairness
and equality are more important than competition. That in itself proves that we
are dealing with a socialist structure.
Matthew,
ReplyDeletethis a great post and is something I never even noticed. Its crazy to think that something like the NFL, a business in itself, can be allowed to act this way operating in America, a country with a capitalist economy. While it would be interesting to see what would happen if revenue sharing policies and salary caps were eliminated, I can see why the NFL operates this way. To maximize their total revenue and popularity, the NFL needs to create as even a playing field as possible for all the teams. Without these regulations, big markets would dominate leaving small markets no chance to compete in total revenue or the ability to give expensive contracts to players. If this were the case, the league would be much less competitive and fans would lose interest knowing the big market Dallas Cowboys would dominate the small market Kansas City Chiefs every year, for example. Leveling the playing field gives all teams a chance and increases the sports popularity. However, you touch on aspects of the NFL I never even thought of, very interesting read.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much man. Really appreciate it. In writing this article, I wasn't intending to write for or against the structure. Just point it out to people. In my opinion, they should keep the structure. They never would change it because it clearly works and has been proven in a variety of ways. Most NFL teams are worth over 1 billion dollars. The NFL is the most popular sport in America by far. The latest Harris poll asking what is your favorite sport had the NFL at 36% and the next league the MLB at 13%. The gap between the two grew in this latest sample. Also, in the Top 10 Nielsen ratings, more than half are NFL games. I’ve heard this in the past "If it ain't broke don't fix it" That phrase fits in this sense. I was more or less just opening people’s eyes to things they have never thought about or seen. I definitely agree that the structure should change because it works.
While I don't agree with socialism policies in America for our economy, it works in the NFL. It allows for teams to rely on constant revenues regardless of how they are selling at the door. This allows every team to stay afloat. The Lions still made money from when they went 0-16 and that is due in large part to revenue sharing. The NFL has only grown since they have enacted these policies. These socialist policies have been what is best for the NFL and its 32 franchises.
-Matt
Cool post!
ReplyDeleteI don't really know much about sports or how leagues operate but it's interesting to see the way in which the NFL has to function to work successfully. This is a great example of why free markets don't work in all situations. You did a great job pointing of the needs for fairness and equity in the NFL so that smaller teams can keep going against larger teams. And how competition between different teams would severely disadvantage smaller teams and they would probably have to stop operating.
Glad I read this post and I definitely learned something I didn't know before.
This is a very eye-opening post. Firmly believing in a capitalist society, I never truly realized the qualities of socialism the NFL had. I guess I always just thought of it as different than all of the other corporations in the US. I suppose this may be because the NFL has always been in the eyes of the public and for the most part simply existing for athletics. I have now realized while reading this post that the NFL is simply a business. It provides a service (entertaining football games), maintains a working force (camera crew, officials, coaches , and players), and tries to make a profit.
ReplyDeleteI think their idea of giving an initial $100 million to each team for broadcasting rights is a great way to give each team a fighting chance. However, what if another team draws a crowd ten times larger than another team? Should the more popular team be granted more money? This only seems fair but doing this creates an unbalanced playing field. Would seeing a few popular teams dominating the less watched teams be entertaining?
In addition to this, I also see a socialist believe in the draft. When it is time to draft the new wave of future superstars, the worst teams get to choose first. There is no reward system for the teams who won more games (except that of pride and a possible salary raise). This can be seen in the Socialist method of distributing the wealth. The poorer citizens are given more money while those at the top take a hit.
This was a great post. It was very well-thought out and extremely interesting. Great job.
Great post! I am a college football man myself, which should be understandable living in Ypsilanti, between the Lions or the Wolverines, I choose the team that typically wins. (I of course love both, but that's beside the point). I have honestly never thought of the NFL like this before. I always thought of it as a business, because it's very easy to see that there is a lot of money to be made in that league. But the socialist side of things always eluded me. But hey, I guess the biggest example of socialist ideals in America is hiding in plain sight, on the TV every Sunday. I would have one major question about these broadcasting rights though. Suppose a team, let's call them the Lions, were really bad. And I mean REALLY bad, like 0-16 bad, and half the season was blacked-out on TV. Do they lose half of the $100 million a year broadcasting payout? If they did, this would be one anti-socialist measure in the system. The really bad teams get punished for being really bad. I would propose that the NFL is not completely socialist. I agree that everything you state is obviously socialist. But, the players are not paid nearly equally. On a single team, there may be a hand-full of guys making money in the millions, then some more making hundreds of thousands, and then a lot making tens of thousands. There are also performance bonuses that not ever player will receive. For example, one receiver makes 83 catches, for 1000 yards, and 26 touchdowns, his teammate makes 64 catches for 600 yards, and 7 touchdowns. A team may have a performance bonus for receivers that says if you make at least 75 receptions, get at least 900 yards, and score 15 touchdowns, you will get a $75,000 bonus. Obviously the first receiver gets another car, and the second hopefully gets to play next year. I agree that there are some strong correlations with socialist ideals in the NFL, but I also think that there are capitalist ones as well. Good post though, I really enjoyed it!
ReplyDeleteWhat an eye-opening post. First of all, I have always considered myself to be a capitalist, and between the reading of Marx's Communist Manifesto Part 1 and 2, and posts such as this, I find myself questioning my economic beliefs. When I read the Manifesto, I would be in a constant state of what i would like to call rebuttal, but would more appropriately be described as denial. It was like everything that I had ever thought to be true was shattering before me. THis being said, I have never even began to think about the NFL in this sort of manner. I reread your post twice, just to take it all in. At first, i was completely shocked that a thing so American as football, could run on such an un-American concept. I completely agree with your initial assessment of the league. but as I dig deeper, I think that there is maybe just as much capitalistic influence as there is socialist. I think that just the difference in salaries among a team is reason enough to think that there might be a fair amount of capitalism. It is for capitalism that Quarter Back Matthew Stafford has a base salary of $11,500,000, while Wide Receiver Titus Young makes a petty $465,000. All in all, I still see the socialist views in the NFL, but am not willing to admit that socialism has taken over our national pastime.
ReplyDeleteMatthew,
ReplyDeleteI think you make an interesting connection of Marx to the NFL that many people would not see. I always think of socialism as anti-capitalism, however it is interesting to see an example of how socialistic values can benefit a capitalist enterprise such as the NFL. What I was particularly interesting in your post was the $100 paycheck each team receives regardless of their season. You could be a superbowl bound team or a team such as the 2008 Lions that Anthony mentioned above, you still get the money. While some may argue that this is ridiculous and that bigger and better teams with the larger fan bases should get more money, I believe this socialist structure is integral to creating a stronger NFL. With the $100 million dollars a "smaller" team has the opportunity to gain fan attention and develop their program. With stronger program, the NFL as a whole will become stronger. This was a very interesting post, you definitely opened my eyes to another layer of the NFL and its interesting to see the interaction between socialist actions within a capitalist organization.
Great job!
Maddy
It's apparent from all the other comments on your post that you did an incredible job with this post. I too agree with the other commenters on the greatness of writing and example. I am also a major sports fan and am a cut throat fantasy football manager. Prior to reading the body of your post, I was wondering how you were going to incorporate Marxist themes into the profiteering powerhouse that is the NFL. Particularly following the lock out two years ago, I envisioned the meeting between the NFL (the owners) and the NFLPA to be a back-and-forth of greed, with each respective party attempting to get the most revenue share as possible. However, the strategies they employ (salary cap, free agency, the draft) are, as you explain, socialist in intent.
ReplyDeleteI liked your post not only because I am an NFL fan, but because you shed light onto a business I took as the epitome of greedy capitalism with high ticket prices and the merchandising of players. However, I think a close analysis of the financial structure of NCAA athletics (particularly football and basketball) would be interesting as well. Colleges sell jerseys with players names and numbers on them, yet the players don't receive a penny. Is it right not to pay college athletes while they attend universities? Is it right to fire coaches mid-contract even when universities have to pay them millions of dollars when they are no longer coaching? Food for thought.
Thanks for the awesome and insightful post.