Wednesday, 02 February 2011
-
'Socialism': Another Reason to Love, I Mean Hate, the NFL
In a recent segment from the show Real Time With Bill Maher, Maher brought up the fact that the NFL's salary cap rules are essentially a method of profit-sharing. Because of this, teams from small markets have a fighting chance to compete despite economic and/or geographic disadvantages. I was reluctant to bring politics into a blog for guys, but I figure the sports metaphor and timing shortly before the Superbowl make this appropriate.
You really can't deny that the NFL is socialist. At least, "socialist" as the tea party/Glenn Beck/right-wing/anti-government/cut-taxes-and-spending platform defines the word, not its real meaning (different teams are still at competition with one another for better coaches and players, meaning that they aren't really part of a cooperative system that shares publicly-owned resources). The New York Giants aren't allowed to spend their money at will on "resources" that will only benefit them. Nor does the money raised from advertising during the Giants/Cowboys game stay exclusively in New York and Dallas. The NFL manages the money all 32 teams "earn," and reallocates a portion as the commissioner sees fit, in a way that will benefit the entire league.
Teams are forbidden from spending above the salary cap, and are punished if they disregard this. Thus, their freedom to choose is not directly touched, but financial policies provide incentives for teams to do what's best for the league. Teams are also required to spend at least a certain amount, keeping everyone on a somewhat equal playing field.
Similarly, the teams draft in reverse order of how they ranked the previous season. The best team picks last, while the teams that really struggled get a shot at bringing in players with the potential to reverse their fortunes. The first team to draft may get a crummy player (Jamarcus Russell, anyone?), but that's on their poor scouting and bad decision-making, not due to the disadvantages they have no control over. Says Maher, "That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call 'punishing success.'"
The reason the NFL is so great, in my opinion, is the fact that teams rarely sustain dominance for an extended period of time. Some teams do, and they really do deserve credit (even though I can't stand the Pats or the Steelers). But they also tend to crash hard when their time is up. Look at how baller the 49'ers were back in the day, and how terrible they've been since then.
Unlike baseball, which has no policies in place to level the playing field, the NFL is always competitive and is a place where anyone has a chance at success. I love baseball; I actually like it more than football as a sport. But, football is so much more appealing to Americans everywhere because the teams from Pittsburgh and bumble-fuck Wisconsin have a legitimate shot.
Now, to apply this to economics. It's really quite simple. Think of the small market teams as youngsters growing up in crappy neighborhoods (small market cities), with parents (fans) who are either unable or don't care to give them an upbringing that primes them for success. It's easy to see how this (admittedly overgeneralized) sect of society could easily become frustrated, disenchanted, and give up on the society they live in. Like the Kansas City Royals, who bring in huge amounts of revenue year in and year out, yet never produce, and never seem to pursue, a successful baseball team.
Obviously, not all small market teams are doomed to perpetual suckiness. Once in a while a 2003 Florida Marlins or a 2008 Tampa Bay Rays will beat the odds. But the success is never sustainable. Additionally, teams like this must take gambles to get there by trading away their future stars for a big name player that has a contract expanding at the end of the season (so that they don't have to pay full price). For example, in 2008 the Milwaukee Brewers traded away several of their most promising prospects for CC Sabathia, hoping to make a World Series run, but lost in the playoffs. The Brewers have struggled since then, and the next year the Yankees sign Sabathia as a free agent.
If the MLB were to limit the amount of money that the Yankees would spend, and require that teams like the Royals spend more, the Yanks would win less and the Royal would win more. (Notice how the correlation between spending and winning is actually quite strong in the graph for baseball, and it virtually nonexistent in the earlier graph about football). The Yankees would still probably be the more successful team, but the Royals would probably make a playoff run every now and then. KC fans would probably grow more interested in baseball, and be more supportive of the game (the economic system, and America in general, if you still aren't grasping this metaphor), like the way that denizens of KC, Pittsburgh, and Wisconsin really get into football.
Yankees fans would probably see this as a punishment to them, as "punishing success." George Steinbrenner MADE this franchise great through his own hard work. Sure, but now the next Steinbrenner can ride on his father's success. Even if the Yankees suck one year, the new owner can just spend money for a quick fix because he was "born" into ideal and near-perfect circumstances. Owners three-to-four generations from now can be dumb and undeserving, but as long as they possess even an ounce of competence they will be able to very easily run a great sports franchise that will continue to win rings and generate profits. It's about as unfair as some kids being guaranteed the American Dream because their great grandparents had the drive and determination to pursue that dream. Maybe they do deserve it, but maybe they don't. Is there any way to know for sure?
You see, for the country to reach its full potential, all youth and their talents must be cultivated. And for citizens to be happy with their nation and government, they must feel like they have a shot at succeeding. So go ask the folks in North Carolina if they are content with their position in the MLB. Oh wait, there's so few people in that state that it really has no chance at success, on a national level, unless some sort of policy is put in place to give them a shot. Which is why the NFL's Carolina Panthers exists. And, oddly enough, the Panthers didn't exist until 1995, meaning all the other teams made sacrifices (of potential players, draft picks, and league profits) to accompany this newcomer.
And, also strangely, the Panthers made it all the way to the NFC championship during just their second season in existence. In other words, they were given a chance to shine, and the entire league was better for it.
How about the fact that LA has two baseball teams, but not one football team? If football didn't share the wealth I am certain that at least one team would abandon their fans for the City of Angels, where there is more money to be made.
Now I'm sorry if this is upsetting to some people; I've been pretty clear about my political preferences. But the real point I want to make is not that capitalism sucks. It's that the NFL is great because of profit-sharing and policies that encourage competition through fairness, not unchecked freedom. Sure, you can still be a capitalist and love the NFL. But if you are, you should probably root for a big-market team and resent the league for catering to the small-market teams, or "freeloaders," and trying to give everyone a chance at success when others' fortunes are really no concern of yours. You should also be ready to tell fans of small-market teams that they and their team contribute nothing to the NFL, and that the league would be just fine if they were relegated to its cellar.
Are you happy about the way the NFL spreads the wealth, or are you more into baseball's laissez-faire model. And are you a fan of large-market or small-market teams? Do you think this influences your opinion?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to mancouch's Mancouch Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in mancouch's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: bdel008
- Name: bdel008
- Location: South Brunswick, New Jersey, United States
- About Me: I'm extremely self-conscious about my narcissism...
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 37 Views: 0 91333 Comments: 0 966 View all posts by bdel008
Comments (8)
I prefer the NFL model in spite of being economically socialistic.
The problem with socialists is that while all liars are socialist all socialist are liars.I would definitely agree that higher payroll teams in the MLB have an advantage... But the biggest advantage in baseball is having an intelligent GM. It's the reason why the Rays are good, why the A's have remained relatively competetive and why the Mets are constantly squirming to find their way ahead of the Phillies and Braves. The Pirates and Royals suck, not just because of lack of spending, but also because they're stupid. They spend money on players like Rick Ankiel and Lyle Overbay. The Pirates in particular, draft horribly. The Royals hadn't been drafting very well until a few years back and now they have a billion prospects on the way (but they'll only be competetive if they get rid of that shitty GM and start making wise free agent signings).
The reason why the Yankees and Red Sox are excellent every year certainly has to do with their money... But an underrated reason is that they are very good talent evaluators. From signing free agents to drafting prospects. You have to be smart in baseball... And well... Baseball tends to have a lot of different World Series winners and appearances. Just look at this past decade. The Rangers made it in 2010, the Rays in 2008, the Rockies in 2007, the Tigers and Cardinals in 2006, the Astros in 2005, Cardinals in 2004, Marlins in 2003, Angels in 2002, Diamondbacks in 2001 etc... Lots of variety here... Underrated amount of variety here. Maher is wrong in how much he exaggerates the MLB's market differences.
And one last thing: The MLB has the same drafting rules. The worst team picks 1st etc... And yes, that actually makes a difference. I know that the baseball draft isn't as publicized and followed as the NFL draft, but without top picks, the San Francisco Giants wouldn't have acquired Buster Posey and Tim Lincecum. Maher completely ignores the fact that the MLB does the same and that it makes a difference just like in the NFL.
I do agree that the NFL model is better, but baseball isn't even remotely 'bad' IMO. It could be better, but it's really fine as is. I would certainly disagree if the Yankees just started winning the World Series every year... But it just hasn't been that way. Hell, even when the Yankees were winning every year in the late '90s, they were doing it in really exciting fashion, and not in an overpowering 'spending' kinda way. They were winning cuz of players like Paul O'Neill and Bernie Williams. It's not like they bought Sammy Sosa and Kevin Brown and that guaranteed 3 straight titles.
@ElevenStones@xanga - people in general are liars. Doesn't matter what political view you have doesn't even matter if you have no political view at all.
The problem is that socialism has huge branding issues. Are your firemen liars? Are your Teachers Liars? Even paying Government officials can be considered an act of socialism since government is an extension of what we as citizens do and can do.
The problem with socialism is that it is as culturally accepted as a problem just as Racism was culturally accepted as totally fine. McCarthyism and the Panic of the Red Death is whats wrong with socialism
We're not talking about socialism here- we're talking about cooperation amongst competitors to reduce competition and the prices they pay for a necessary input good (the "best" players). In any other industry, this would be "cooperation in restraint of trade". (Monopoly capitalism at its finest/worst. . .)
@Suicidal_Optimist@xanga - yes, i def agree that proper management has a lot to do with it. however, you also must acknowledge that a stupid yankees gm will still be able to put a competitive team on the field. if the yanks suck one year, there is no way they will be content with a few small acquisitions, they are gonna go for the big names. hell, they do this every year anyway, even when they do win.
GMs from small market teams have to work a lot harder, is what I'm saying, making it very easy for fans from those cities to be turned off of the game.
and if you look at long-term stats: in MLB the yanks have to most rings, with something like 27. the next best team - the cardinals - has ten. that's a huge drop off. from there it gradually tapers to zero.
in the nfl, however, the best team has 6 wins, and its a team from pittsburgh. super bowl victories are also very evenly distributed, with a good mix of teams from huge cities and small ones.
looking at victories over the sports' existence somewhat eliminates the role a gm plays in success. even so, do you think steinbrenner could have made the florida marlins a successful team? probably. but could he have created this world series winning machine that has dominated the sport for decades and shows no signs of letting up? probably not.
"you also must acknowledge that a stupid yankees gm will still be able to put a competitive team on the field."
I definitely agree with this. The Rays have quite possibly the best upper management in the game, yet they were only able to muster up 84 wins in 2009. If the Yankees had upper management like the Rays to go along with their ridiculous payroll, they'd never miss the playoffs. A bad, injury-plagued season for the Yanks would still get them about 93 wins. Because they do have good upper management though, they're pretty close to being guaranteed a playoff spot (although this upcoming season doesn't look too good for them).
On the flip side. If the Pirates had Mets-like payroll, they probably would have lucked their way into a few playoff berths and a lot more 80-win seasons despite being stupid. So there definitely is something to say about the money teams have.
"and if you look at long-term stats: in MLB the yanks have to most rings, with something like 27."
I think the problem with long-term (at least for me) is that I don't know much about how teams managed prior to free agency (1975 I believe). If the draft was conducted the same way in 1960 as it is today, then the Yankees were just flat-out winning because they were smarter (and not necessarily richer) than everyone else. If you have some insight on that, that would be cool... But since 1975, the Yankees have only won 7 titles and endured their longest World Series drought in franchise history (unless they sucked for a long time prior to 1920; I'm not sure).
And it should be noted that the St. Louis Cardinals have been a particularly small market throughout their history, so 10 titles is pretty impressive. I don't even think the Cardinals have ever had 'lean years' because they've been so competitive.
My only argument was that, even though there are some issues with how baseball is managed, it's still pretty damn good and it's churning out unique World Series appearances and winners.
@Suicidal_Optimist@xanga - yeah i agree with you; baseball is easily my favorite sport. but i definitely think that adding a salary cap would spice up the game. of course, that wouldn't help my cubbies, who always have a high payroll, and yet have STILL not won a series since 1908. damn cardinals...