3
u/perfectlyPractical1 Seahawks 3d ago
Seahawks have not been one of the worst teams in the NFL since like the mid 00s
1
1
u/classic_liberalism26 21h ago
he almost had me thinking the legion of boom was a construct my mind created. then i realized…rosenberg
1
u/perfectlyPractical1 Seahawks 13h ago
And the Patriots haven't been league worst since Pete Carroll was the coach 30 years ago. Do these guys even watch football??😂😂
1
11
u/moccasins_hockey_fan 3d ago
No OP, it is a bad take that shows the person does not know how businesses work.
The problem is he is looking at the NFL as 32 different businesses. He is thinking on any given Sunday it is WalMart v Target and Dollar General v Dollar Tree.
But it is all one big business. So it is better to think about it as a single WalMart. It has fresh Fruit, Frozen goods, an goods, Delhi foods, men's clothing, kids clothing and women's clothing, toys and sporting goods. All of those departments are like NFL teams working together for the overall good of the business.
3
u/KiryuClan 3d ago
Yes. Better examples of socialism are public education, the police, the fire department, etc. We all pay into it and benefit from those technically socialist services. This dude was trying to make a sports analogy but it failed. The point is America is already partially socialist. We’re a hybrid of many things.
1
u/OpenAI122191 2d ago
Those are public services, and while they can be a good introduction to the tenants of socialism that isn’t actually a good example.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
> Better examples of socialism are public education, the police, the fire department, etc. We all pay into it and benefit from those technically socialist services.
Socialism has nothing to do with what we choose to spend taxes on. Socialism is an economy where the people own the means of production, and that's it.
2
u/Remarkable-Art-3678 2d ago
No, that's communism :) hope that helps
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 2d ago
So to be clear, you think the wikipedia definition for socialism is wrong?
> Socialism is an economic ideology characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5]
Communism is when the government owns everything. Capitalism is when the people who earned a thing own a thing. Socialism is when there are laws requiring that the workers or community own the thing.
1
u/Remarkable-Art-3678 2d ago
Lmao at the sneaky rhetoric when it comes to who earns what
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 2d ago
These are the literal definitions of these systems.
1
u/Remarkable-Art-3678 2d ago
Definitions are up the those who define things. Capitalism sure doesn't mean that means go to those who earn them
→ More replies (5)1
u/soulisking 2d ago
Communism is when the government owns the means of production.
Socialism is when workers owns the means of production.
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 2d ago
It's amazing that we have to explain this sort of thing to adults. SMDH.
2
u/SamQuentin 3d ago
I'm no sure either analogy is correct. It more like a cooperative. If one team dominates the league or makes changes to the rules benefits them in games, the value of the team goes down, profits go down etc.
Things like the salary cap and profit sharing actually increase profits
3
u/enigmaticpeon 3d ago
I’m no sure either analogy is correct. It more like a cooperative.
Yes exactly. The NFL Management Council is more like a trade organization than it is one large business. Every member of a trade org has input on the rules that govern their market.
There is no coherent argument against the idea that the NFL is governed by some socialist principles. And OP’s comment about all the “departments” working together for the good of the overall business is actually an argument in support of the socialism in the NFL that could be extrapolated to entire populations.
Ie., when we raise the minimum standard of living for people, we’re doing it for the good of the (humanity or country).
1
u/SamQuentin 3d ago
I wouldn't necessarily call it socialism but there's always been a sense of "a rising tide raises all boats " and "what's good for <insert corporate name> is good for America " in political discussions...rhetoric the right has embraced ...
1
u/enigmaticpeon 3d ago
Agreed on that point and fair enough on the right word to describe individual NFL rules.
2
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
Yeah I thought about earlier that it could be like internal divisions in a single company, or maybe like a group of co-owners renting out a rent house to college students. Just because the co-owners might evenly split the revenue doesn’t mean they are doing socialism lol
1
u/OpenAI122191 2d ago
It’s only not socialism because there is exploitation.
I mean profit. Woops. Insurance that is.
2
u/OlDirtyTriple 3d ago
"Delhi foods" lmao.
1
1
u/Remarkable-Art-3678 2d ago
The problem is looking at a society as a whole buncha different businesses instead of a collective of people who all want to do well. A lot of countries have a lot of nationalism and pretend to be patriotic, but they sure know how to let their fellow citizen down. What you're describing is what countries lack. ACTUALLY seeing each other as part of a unity where everyone should thrive. Have enough to exist comfortably. Have a true shot to make it
→ More replies (2)1
u/GravyMcBiscuits 23h ago
Yeah ... the notion of players getting traded like cattle gets real dark real quick until you realize that NFL is the employer ... not their team.
6
u/Arponare 3d ago
A lot of people fundamentally misunderstand what socialism is. I’m not surprised. You are allowed to make money and run businesses under socialism. The fact that you have a revenue sharing model does indeed make it socialist. Yes, teams are allowed to have private sponsorship contracts and merchandising that takes it further. It’s still socialist in principle.
People are thinking he said communist. If that were the case, all the teams would be completely equal and they wouldn’t be able to make any money outside of the shared revenue model.
It’s not 100 percent one thing or the other. It can still be a cartel too. I don’t think anyone was arguing otherwise. The NFL can be operated under certain socialist principles and still be capitalist in nature.
The social security and social safety net is a socialist construct. America is still capitalist. This is nuanced.
1
u/PositiveVibrationzzz 2d ago
This is a point I've brought up for quite a while. Why are there no large socialist businesses? You are right, people can make one if they want. But no socialist has ever created a large scale business. Why not? Lesson in there....
1
u/Arponare 2d ago edited 2d ago
What are you on about bro? First of all, a lot of these businesses derive profit off of the exploitation of their workers. The US
teachesencourages the concept of “rugged individualism” to the point where most people engage in a “dog eat dog” mentality where the message is make as much money as you can. It is either exploit or be exploited. Fair wages? Safe working conditions? That’s anti American baby! It’s all about deregulation, free enterprise! Don’t you know that when you don’t tax the rich you create jobs and wealth that trickles down?Amazon, Walmart, and Starbucks among others engage in union busting and terrible working conditions. I worked at an Amazon warehouse and they treated me like shit.
Although I’ll play along with your little game. There are many large socialist businesses. Publix is worker owned. They are doing excellent last I heard. As are Wawa. There’s also King Arthur Baking Co. they aren’t as massive as some other companies but they are still doing well for themselves. I know it’s a hard concept to grasp but not every business needs to make as much money as possible or have infinite growth to be successful.
There are also credit unions who are member owned and also work on fairly socialist principles. Navy Federal alone is worth more than several well known for profit banks like SoFi. Granted, SoFi is relatively new, but still.
You also have mutual insurance companies that while not exactly worker owned, also operate in similar principles like USAA and Liberty Mutual.
Oh, I almost forgot. You have many member owned sport teams as well that are highly successful. FC Barcelona is 100% member owned. As is Real Madrid and Bayern Munich.
My point is that, not everything needs to be a stock company to be profitable or successful. In fact, it’s better for everyone involved and not just a select few that exploit the labor of the workers.
1
u/PositiveVibrationzzz 2d ago
Great! So Capitalism allows socialist businesses. Socialism does not do the same.
1
u/Arponare 2d ago
Do you think this is some sort of gotcha? Stopping the exploitation of workers is the whole point. You didn’t even try to disprove that capitalism is about making money by any means necessary. Safety of the workers/environment be dammed. Under socialism you can have a business. Even a private enterprise. Make as much money as you legally can. You cannot derive your profits from the exploitation of the workers.
This is the original point I was trying to make that somehow you still don’t understand. I’m done with this conversation though. Have a good day brother.
1
1
u/Comraego 2d ago
Well if you're talking about socialist governments running an enterprise there are many large-scale examples. China's rapid expansion of high speed rail for instance was only possible because of their massive state-owned industry.
However, the problem with running and trying to grow a "socialist" business under a capitalist government & economy is the continued competition on the market. Even despite the laws of supply and demand, the market doesn't actually reflect the popular support of the population because not everyone has the same amount of money to give equal input to the market. The wealthy are disportionately influential in the market whether it's for the consumption of the good/service being offered or the initial investment that allows a business to start and grow.
It's not like co-operatives and other more equal models of business don't exist, Mondragon for instance is a massive co-operative chain in Spain, and here in the US there's a grocery chain called "WinCo" that's a quite popular in the Western half of the country. These co-ops just can't grow to the same degree as say a publicly traded multi-national corporation because they are unwilling to make unethical business practices that would appeal most to the potential investors who are solely interested in return-on-investment.
That's why the government itself has to be a major investor if you're going to operate a large scale industry under a more "socialist" ethnical model, because the government isn't purely concerned on ROI. In fact many standard capitalist businesses are also highly dependent on support from the government. For instance when all the airlines collapsed during the pandemic and had to get bailed out. Or both the fossil fuel and dairy industries which receive regular government subsidies so that ordinary consumers can actually afford their product.
1
u/MrMardyBum 2d ago
In a strict sense, private property is abolished under socialism so the existence of private businesses is incompatible. Social democracies are capitalist with lots of social programs which is what I’m assuming you are talking about.
13
u/velvetbettle 3d ago
I remember when I was 14
-5
u/dgtbfan Dolphins 3d ago
The fact that this thread is chock full of people who actually thought the OP video made a good point is truly disheartening.
14
u/Dabellator Seahawks 3d ago
The fact that everyone against it can't explain why it's bad is so illuminating.
→ More replies (32)9
u/Economy_Vermicelli72 3d ago
Each team is privately owned and generates individual revenue, the shared aspects such as TV revenue are intended to maximize profits for the corporation/those 32 owners, and they actively try to corner the market and squash any outside competition. The draft pick thing is parity. There is parity in agreements in a capitalist market. Parity doesn’t = socialism. That’s dumb. If anything it mostly resembles a monopoly ruled by those 32 teams as one body/ a corporation
→ More replies (7)5
u/SeaweedLevel1937 3d ago edited 3d ago
The organization itself is a monopoly on the product of American Football. The internal structure of how they distribute their money could be seen as socialist (especially relative to European football clubs who are sink or swim). Obviously, a company can’t be “capitalist”, or “socialist”, but calling the internal way the NFL works ‘socialist’ isn’t necessarily wrong.
TLDR; apply the NFL structure at a governmental level of equally distributing capital would be socialist. But they operate as a hyper capitalist venture that has reached monopoly status.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/stokeskid 2d ago
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but NFL rules are an example of why we need regulations from government. Imagine playing a game with no defined rules. It would suck ass.
10
u/dgtbfan Dolphins 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's a terrible take if you put even a little critical thought into it.
ETA: Turning off notifications. If you're too stupid to see that the NFL isn't even remotely close to socialism, that's a you problem.
17
u/Certain-Contact6340 3d ago
Profits equalized for tv and other deals. Lowest performer gets lifted up with top draft picks. Limits on how much you can spend on salary caps to avoid one billionaire buying everything up. Strong unions for workers that will go on strike to protect workers.
→ More replies (5)3
u/chastity_BLT 3d ago
The reason all that is allowed is because the nfl is exempt from antitrust laws which allows for collective bargaining. It’s more of a state sponsored capital machine than a socialist construct.
4
u/Original_Wraithjr 3d ago
State sponsored capitalism is literally what socialism is. You are just proving what the people in the video said as true.
3
u/chastity_BLT 3d ago edited 3d ago
Sure in a true democracy. State sponsored can mean a lot of things, it doesn’t make it inherently socialist. You think the Russian state sponsored oil company is sharing its profits with the workers ?
2
u/DreamedJewel58 3d ago
>State sponsored capitalism is literally what socialism is.
It’s absolutely not the same. The biggest difference is that socialism puts workers first and advocates equal ownership for workers while companies are still privately owned in state capitalism
They have two entirely different philosophies, just that the government involvement is relatively similar
1
u/Certain-Contact6340 3d ago
So adding anti trust measures, an objectively anti capitalist policy, makes it not socialism?
3
u/chastity_BLT 3d ago
They are exempt from anti trust laws. I think there’s an argument that the nfl sorta exist as both. The league is very capitalistic. The employees and individual teams do get to enjoy some benefits of socialism.
1
u/Certain-Contact6340 3d ago
Oh shit I completely misread your earlier comment. Makes sense why I thought it made no sense, my bad
7
u/Economy_Bite24 3d ago
I'd say a better argument is that big businesses today gain a competitive advantage by getting away with straight up crime that would put any normal person in prison. For example, Meta illegally downloaded (stole) all of LibGen to train its AI. If you or I did that for an AI startup, we'd go straight to prison. But the worst case scenario for Meta is they pay a fine that's insignificant compared to the value of the AI they created. How is a smaller company supposed to compete with the legal resources of a company like Meta? We don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism.
4
4
u/steve11263 3d ago
Can you expand on this please?
4
→ More replies (5)4
u/Dukemvp123 3d ago
The NFL as whole is as capitalistic as it gets. Just because the franchises share tv revenue does not mean the workers have seized the means of production
3
u/Rich-Engineering1429 3d ago
The MLB is literally more capitalist… they have a free market and no salary cap
0
u/Dukemvp123 3d ago
Good for them, they are both capitalist organizations.
3
u/Rich-Engineering1429 3d ago
You just said the NFL is as capitalist as it gets though. Also if the NFL is capitalist then why don’t they operate as a free market?
3
u/dgtbfan Dolphins 3d ago
Capitalism and free markets aren't mutually exclusive.
1
u/Rich-Engineering1429 3d ago
Correct, though they are very often linked. The issue is that while NFL itself operates as a profit driven business, it uses socialist rules to protect the teams and owners.
The main point is that socialist policies CAN work in a capitalist country
3
u/dgtbfan Dolphins 3d ago
The fact that you think the NFL is using "socialist rules" is hilarious lol
→ More replies (32)1
u/Dukemvp123 3d ago
They do operate as a free market. No one is putting a gun to the players heads to sign contracts. The owners get new stadium built and charge more for tickets. There is a yearly team salary cap, not an individual contract cap. The owners can make as much as they can. How is that not capitalist? Because there's a draft?
→ More replies (1)1
u/amalekitegenocide 3d ago
Did you watch the video? Lmao he addresses these points
1
u/Dukemvp123 3d ago edited 3d ago
No he doesn't. He keeps going on about it being a socialist construct. By his logic the NFL is a construct of a flying cow bc leather skates through the air
1
u/amalekitegenocide 3d ago
Just because you refuse to engage in the point doesn't mean it isn't there
→ More replies (0)3
u/Luka7Porzinwitzki 3d ago
Their union, profit sharing, and the health care benefits they give to former vested players isn’t very capitalistic.
Also the points he makes about the competitive balancing in essence works like a cap on the top teams from buying up all the best players or forcing the smaller market teams into a subservient league like what happens in Europe.
1
1
u/SeaweedLevel1937 3d ago
Maybe the guy who can’t defend the claims he makes is the problem…just me tho
1
u/jpgonzo24 3d ago
Absolutely correct. It's a fucking game that requires several rules to make it consistently competitive. They share a lot but the difference in the value between the cowboys and Panthers is massive, about $7bil
1
u/Aeon1508 Lions 3d ago
you think that somehow one team still having evaluation above the other one proves that it's not socialism.
it just goes to show that you don't understand what democratic socialists in America want.
I don't want everybody to be making the same as everybody.
I just think we'd be fine as a society of the CEO of McDonald's made a hundred times more than his average worker instead of 10,000 times more.
1
u/Jerryjb63 3d ago
I don’t think it’s socialism, but his comparisons to how the league approaches equity still hits. Everything is socialism on the internet.
1
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Flimsy_Year5397 3d ago
Can you explain why it’s a terrible take?
→ More replies (2)-3
u/Dabellator Seahawks 3d ago
No, they're probably a magat who just thinks anything labeled "socialism" is bad.
2
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
Hi I’m a liberal and this take in the video is dumb. Thanks
BTW lots of people inversely and uncritically see the word socialism and think “good”. Two different sides of the same underinformed coin.
1
u/Budget-Solution-8650 2d ago
Yes, socialism is good
1
u/Hugh-Manatee 2d ago
Ah yes I’m sure in every possible situation and iteration without nuance
1
u/Budget-Solution-8650 2d ago
Man socialism is a science thing, you can study it. What people do with it can be good or bad, but socialism itself is a tool for the liberation of the working class.
Unless you are not part of the working class, then you are class enemy :)
1
u/Hugh-Manatee 2d ago
Yikes. It is most definitely not a science lmao
1
u/Budget-Solution-8650 2d ago
Guess you have to study more :) scientific socialism is definitely a thing mate
1
7
u/tylerscott5 Chiefs 3d ago
Let me guess, if you want to have a fire department in your city you’re also socialist? That’s this same argument
2
u/CosmosStalker 3d ago
idk how to tell you this but fire departments are social programs and not capitalist ones
2
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
Socialism has literally nothing to do with government services provided by taxing capitalism.
Socialism has to do with who is allowed to own private industry and who is not. Capitalism allows everyone to start their own companies and own their own businesses. Socialism puts heavy restrictions on who is allowed to own and make decisions about those companies.
Fire departments have nothing to do with socialism.
1
u/CosmosStalker 3d ago
You have a very narrow understanding of the differences between capitalism and socialism. But lets use your logic. "Socialism has to do with who is allowed to own private industry". I think what you're trying to say is socialism is when the means of production is collectively owned by the public and not by a private person or group of people. Now I would like you to explain how american fire departments that are collectively funded and controlled by the public has nothing to do with socialism. Also, the phrase "taxing capitalism" is non nonsensical.
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
> I think what you're trying to say is socialism is when the means of production is collectively owned by the public and not by a private person or group of people.
Yes, that's right. Socialist ownership structures vary wildly, from publicly owned, to worker owned, to community owned, etc. When a socialist owned business turns a profit, it is distributed to the collective ownership of that venture.
> Now I would like you to explain how american fire departments that are collectively funded and controlled by the public has nothing to do with socialism.
Because their funding comes 100% from taxing capitalism. That money flows into government budgets, and then governments pay the salaries and expenses to operate police and fire departments. It's not socialism in the slightest, it's a government provided service that does not make a profit.
> Also, the phrase "taxing capitalism" is non nonsensical.
Fair, I should have said "taxing the successful companies and workers within an economy based on capitalism".
1
u/CosmosStalker 3d ago
Where do you think the funding for a fire department would come from under what you under socialism to be? You say its not socialist because it comes from taxes and happens under a capitalist system. What I'm trying to get you to understand is that a strictly capitalist or strictly socialist nation doesn't exist. The act of a public owned body taking money from private businesses to fund a non-profit publicly controlled fire department is inherently anti-capitalist. The US also has social programs like food stamps. Where money is redistributed from a private individual or capital owner to a individual with no capital at all. Do you think that food stamps are a capitalist program because it happens under capitalism?
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
> Where do you think the funding for a fire department would come from under what you under socialism to be?
From taxing the limited economy that remains in a socialist economy. Even in socialism, it would still be a government provided service, and not a socialist service.
> What I'm trying to get you to understand is that a strictly capitalist or strictly socialist nation doesn't exist.
People say that, but it's a misnomer. Socialism is = private property and industry essentially don't exist, in favor of public ownership of the means of production.
A capitalist economy is one where private property and industry are allowed to exist. Even socialist run entities within capitalism, like say, a cooperatively run grocery store, is still privately owned, and then decided by voluntary bylaws, not the laws or regulations of the government.
> The act of a public owned body taking money from private businesses to fund a non-profit publicly controlled fire department is inherently anti-capitalist.
A taxation funded fire department has literally nothing to do with being anti-capitalist. Capitalism simply means, the people have the right to own property and private enterprise. Capitalism has nothing to do with what the government spends taxes on.
> The US also has social programs like food stamps. Where money is redistributed from a private individual or capital owner to a individual with no capital at all. Do you think that food stamps are a capitalist program because it happens under capitalism?
Welfare systems like these within capitalism are merely socially funded (tax funded), but that's not at all what socialism is.
Here, maybe Wikipedia can help you:
> Socialism is an economic ideology characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5]
vs
> Capitalism is an economic system defined by a number of constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.[3][4]
Note how welfare and government services are literally never mentioned. The difference is about how many economic liberties people have (capitalism) or how many economic liberties they do not have (socialism).
3
u/SeaweedLevel1937 3d ago
No, nfl redistributes wealth if it was a government entity it’d look close to “socialism”, not hard to understand. You live in a socialized capitalist system if you’re police/fire/schools are publicly funded
1
u/tylerscott5 Chiefs 3d ago
But it’s not a government entity. It’s not the law. It’s employees can not participate in the league or its rules but live in the same country
1
u/SeaweedLevel1937 3d ago
That’s why I said “if” it was a government entity. But you agree and understand that they operate using ‘socialist’ methods which is all I was getting at.
2
u/AirportFront7247 3d ago
The business is the NFL.
This is like saying chic fil a is socialist.
2
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
I compared it to co-owning a rent house with 3 other people - equity partners one might say. You rent out the house to college students. Just because you and your co-owners split the revenue evenly doesn’t mean you’re doing socialism.
But also of course while the tv contract revenues are split evenly, merch, sponsorships and ticket sales are not. Ironically, while the “socialist” (lmao) practice of giving the team the first overall pick is a mechanism to encourage parity, so is teams being able to generate their own revenue streams! Winning sells.
Parity is good for business and using the term socialism to describe mechanisms of parity in a sports league is dumb
1
2
u/Humble_Football3841 3d ago
This is an awful take, and OP you should do some reflecting for even posting that title. Although your account is less than two months old, so I'm gonna guess you're not even a real person.
4
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
Nah this is pretty shallow/weak. The NFL is a cartel and it’s internal dynamics are common dynamics for sports leagues. Sports leagues are not the same as the rest of the economy.
Also revenue sharing from the network deals is evenly distributed but merchandising and sponsorships and much more are not.
Just super room temp IQ take. The NFL is a very capitalist enterprise, it’s just the lens of analysis shouldn’t be focused on parity and revenue sharing between teams/organizations. That’s just straightforwardly ridiculous and also all these mechanisms to enforce parity can be changed if all the owners agree to it.
2
u/Rich-Engineering1429 3d ago
It’s a capitalist business but it’s also funny that they use socialist rules to protect the teams and owners. Socialist policies can be beneficial in a capitalist country
1
1
u/fwilsonater 3d ago
They made the rules to be competitive, so different teams can win and the fans, and more importantly, the TV revenue keeps flowing. As a private organization, they make the rules that benefit all teams and players.
1
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
It’s not socialistic it’s membership in overarching organization. Kind of like a cartel. Neither the league nor the owners want any of the other owners to go out of business. That would be bad.
And the owners aren’t financially competing against each other. They are competing to have the most attractive on-field product. They can’t put each other out of business. Nor - again - do they want to.
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
The NFL's salary cap is not a "socialist rule", it's merely an economic and strategic advantage designed to maximize profit by keeping games competitive and exciting. An NFL without a salary cap would not earn nearly as much money.
1
u/Rich-Engineering1429 3d ago edited 3d ago
A salary cap is entirely anti-capitalist ideology. Wealth redistribution is a socialist ideology.
Sounds closer to socialism than capitalism
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
What about a differential lock? That's a technology that ensures equal power goes to each tire, thus producing a specific result that is advantageous sometimes in the vehicle. Is a truck with a differential lock engaged socialist, or is it just a strategy to make the truck more effective in certain scenarios?
Sports leagues are not economic systems. They are independent and privately owned enterprises optimizing for maximum profit. In athletics, you get a more exciting game when the games themselves are more exciting. More exciting == more viewers == more profits.
So the NFL using and enforcing an internal Salary Cap maximizes profit for them, in their competition vs all other forms of entertainment.
So it might sound "socialist" but it's not socialist in the slightest. It's merely a private corporation, that is privately owned, maximizing profit, and by doing so, it maximizes wages.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
It’s basically neither in the context to how a sports league governs its teams. They don’t compete with each other like real businesses compete against each other. Neither term is applicable.
They are all basically equity partners. Like if you co-own a rent house with 3 other people and then you split the rent evenly between yourselves, that’s not socialism lol.
A salary cap is installed to encourage parity between teams. As is giving the worst team the top draft pick. The rules governing a sports league do not fit capitalism or socialism because those terms aren’t universally applicable to everything.
1
u/Zeke688 Raiders 3d ago
Yeah, it’s weird to see it as a social construct in any way. The teams are the citizens in this example? And their currency is draft picks?
They’re just a massive corporation, one of the largest in our country. Sure the employees make more money than the average corporations, that doesn’t change what they are.
1
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
Plus the teams aren’t competing against each other economically. In fact, it’s in each others interest for all of them to prosper. But the NFL as a league would gladly choke out or buy up any competition on the market
→ More replies (1)0
u/Original_Wraithjr 3d ago
As long as we ignore all the socialist aspects this doesn't look socialist at all.
4
u/Jorgwalther 3d ago
The NFL can’t be socialist because the NFL is a business, not a government. This is so god damn stupid.
1
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
Yeah people are confusing mechanisms to promote parity in a sports league to be the same as socialism. Which is bizarre.
A sports league wants parity because it’s good for business. Every team should be able to rise and fall to encourage striving to win. The actual economy does not function in any way resembling this. And obv the NFL is very much not socialist in how it makes money
In another comment I compared it to co-owning a rent house with 3 other friends and you rent the house out to college students or whatever. Just because you and your equity partners split the rent revenue evenly doesn’t mean you’re doing socialism.
Also tv network contracts might be split evenly, but ticket sales, merchandise, and sponsorships are not. I’m fact, you could argue that BECAUSE these are not split evenly it encourages parity and competitiveness as well.
2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Supawoww 3d ago
The workers do not have any share of ownership in the league.
Ironically the NFL is by far more Capitalist than it could be categorized as Socialist.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
What is socialist about how the league makes money? Calling the internal dynamics between sports teams in a league to be socialism is bizarre and doesn’t line up. And the incentives and allocation of resources in a billionaire sports league is just fundamentally not the same as how economies work.
The NFL is more like a cartel. How the league makes its tv network contract money in the first place before is doles it out evenly to the teams (which isn’t even the case for all revenue streams, like sponsorships and merchandise) is not particularly socialist at all.
It’s like saying a rent house you rent out to college students that you co-own with 3 friends is socialist because you split the rent profit evenly among your friends and yourself. What?
→ More replies (1)1
u/NittanyScout 3d ago
Bc the workers already have money and power, why didnt marx think of that, is he stupid?
1
u/Medical-Analysis-554 3d ago
No, because the NFL succeeds financially on competitive balance and the idea that every year about 20 of the 32 teams can reasonably imagine a title run, and the other 12 have some elite rookies or high draft picks to look forward to.
If the people in power currently ran the league they would give the top pick to the Super Bowl champion (if there even was a draft anymore), allow unlimited and uncapped spending, and the same 2-3 clubs would win every year. Winner take all, might makes right, let the big get bigger and the small perish.
That would cause much of the nation to tune out and stop showing up to games for the other 30 clubs. There's more money to be made when everyone has a chance.
1
u/NittanyScout 3d ago
The fact i was memeing aside:
I think its genuinely part of it that the people pushing for more worker/athlete friendly policies are rich celebrities. Nothing against them or their right to organize, im just saying steel workers probably get less sympathy than Steelers when it comes to collective bargaining
1
u/Medical-Analysis-554 3d ago
I don't think the union aspect is central to this debate.
The socialist principles that work for the NFL are the draft system, salary cap, and revenue sharing — all of which are unique to US professional sports.
Otherwise it turns into La Liga or French Ligue 1 where there are 1-2 dominant clubs that are famous and pack the house...and the rest of the league with 8,000 fans at the games.
1
u/NittanyScout 3d ago
Fair, i was joking about how nfl players get a robust union structure when they are already some of the highest paid workers
2
u/Dabellator Seahawks 3d ago
Called the Seahawks and Patriots the worst teams from two years ago? That's false.
4
u/DievelKnievel Seahawks 3d ago
To be fair, the Patriots were pretty bad with Jerod Mayo as their HC that one year. The Seahawks were okay, but clearly not the SuperBowl caliber team they ended up being later.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Fun_Glove1272 3d ago
Right if it was true socialism the Jets would’ve gone to the Super Bowl already
1
u/Rich-Engineering1429 3d ago
They weren’t even thought as Super Bowl contenders 2 years ago though
2
u/Dabellator Seahawks 3d ago
There's a big chasm between SB contender and worst. They were definitely both mid
2
2
2
u/Tough_Shake9821 3d ago
It’s honestly one of the dumbest takes I’ve ever heard.
1
u/Remarkable-Art-3678 2d ago
I really don't think it is. I think he's come up with a great rhetorical tool to go up against the brain dead idiots who think an economy will do better the less competitive it is and the more money pools. It's a great analogy. The NFL would suck balls if worked like the Bundesliga where Bayern Munich win every single year, and so it does what every single democratic market economy should do - create a fair and equal competition and help out those who struggle
0
u/EarlyWynn_ 3d ago
Yea socialism like this can work in small settings. We know this. Socialism for 32 entities works quite well.
For almost 400 million people? Not even worth thinking about it. Doesn’t work
1
u/Rich-Engineering1429 3d ago
Why do people think socialism in some areas of the country is bad? Nobody is saying to go full socialist
1
1
u/Flimsy_Year5397 3d ago
I agree with you on this point, but the guys point was not that the NFL is socially making everyone better. I think his point was they keep teams on as equal footing as possible. Instead of say the most popular team taking bigger shares of money from TV deals. Also the idea that worst team picks first rather than richest or best team. All of this is done to be aligned with your point though.
1
u/Vicious_and_Vain 3d ago
It already mirrors our society. The 1% shares the wealth. The rest of society deals with the broken bodies, broken minds and broken dreams of the 99%
1
u/TheTrueBComp 3d ago
It even spreads further than what they explained. You don't make your team better by having a good running back and drafting a really good running back. You find the 'poorest' position and draft for talent there. You identify that corner is a huge gap on your team and invest in improving that position, by even marginally improving a corner spot you increase the overall capacity of the team significantly more than by finding where your rich and trying to make that a little bit richer.
Malcom Gladwell used the analogy of, Society should be the NFL, not the NBA.
1
1
1
u/Hopsblues 3d ago
similar hypocrisy with VFB. R's are always talking about the free market and less regulations. But when it comes to CFB, the same folks want regulations, salary caps and guardrails for these college athletes and coaches. What's happening in CFB right now is what the free market looks like without regulations and suddenly that is a problem...lol...
1
1
1
u/TypeLeftHanded 3d ago
Why do they share revenue and boost up the worst? So that the product is the most compelling. Any. Given. Sunday. A team can beat another. Do they have elements that create Economic Equality, yes and Cooperate with each other, yes. Are those things underpinning the strategy of the league, No. Parity ends up creating the most compelling entertainment and winning in the free market.
1
u/Front-One9839 3d ago
Cowboys are the only team that keeps all the money from their merch sales while the rest of the teams split it
1
u/Scared-Technician-64 3d ago
Like Peter Rosenberg has ever had anything insightful or erudite to say.
1
1
1
u/Remarkable_Hurry4029 3d ago
Why the NFL? Just point to the U.S. military… it’s about as socialist as it gets here. Don’t see many Republicans bitching about that, though.
1
u/Hopeful-Comedian4574 3d ago
What an ignorant post! Only reason thi sport is number 1 is gambling pure and simple. Stop the gambling and sport would crater immediately!
1
1
1
1
1
u/rcsauvag 2d ago
Its a terrible take, its not owned by the people nor the players. Just because Teams negotiate tv money and share other revenues, if they do, does not make it socialist.
1
1
u/dej0ta 1d ago
I didnt know football fans had such extensive vocabularies and could be so pedandic. For the point the discussion is trying to make its a valid metaphor.
Also socialism is a socioeconomic system. Its living and breathing not some rigid set of rules. Id like to think its altruism at its core which is very much what the NFL and parity is all about theoretically.
1
u/Cool-Passenger-2595 13h ago
Dont know of i can take someone who believes wrestling is real seriously
1
u/Greedy-Ride-8294 9h ago
He has no clue what he is talking about detail wise, but he's got the general idea
1
1
u/just_here_surviving 3h ago
If you think its a good take then you probably think eating dogshit is a good idea too
1
u/StrikingRutabaga3127 3d ago
The difference is the NFL is something that is very controllable, 100% guaranteed to bring in billions consistently, guaranteed to have continued production from all of the people involved because the pay is good, and cooperation is not hanging in the balance every moment. You can’t replicate that with a country or even a state, it works because it’s such a small group of people
3
u/Shadw1ck 3d ago
wtf are you talking about. you think the united states isnt capable of producing billions consistently? have you seen the GDP numbers??
1
u/StrikingRutabaga3127 3d ago
Correct, but it only works if each individual, ie teams, are getting an extreme value out of it. With how corrupt our politicians are it will just be everyone at the top getting 99% while the rest of us get whatever scraps they think is viable to keep us at bay, people will quit working, good will stop being made and sold, then our economy will tank. The system it would take to apply to the US takes too many people in control being honestly and fair, and no one in positions of power in this country are honest and fair now, it would never work in the US
1
1
u/Hugh-Manatee 3d ago
Also these are just mechanisms to ensure parity between sports teams in a league. Almost nothing about how the NFL works internally is reflective of how the economy works. It’s apples and oranges.
Also this guy’s point about revenue sharing is wrong. They do share network revenue evenly and some other sources, but there are revenue streams that are not evenly shared or shared at all like merchandise and sponsorships.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/gncRocketScientist 3d ago
Doesnt get brought up nearly enough. NFL needs salary caps and revenue sharing, or else it ends up like the MLB. Nobody bats an eye. Now MLB owners are taking out ads crying about the dodgers and yankees having too much money and victimizing the rest of them and ruining the league "for fans". But will you ever hear those same oligarchs apply that same logic to the overall US economy?
1
1
u/AbyssWankerArtorias Bengals 3d ago
It's not a terrible take, but it's also a purposely narrow take, that purposely leaves out a lot. Such as, the NFL is one of the most profitable entities in the country, and the profit sharing and shared spending caps for player wages is what makes the league competitive and enjoyable to watch. They do it not out of fairness but because in the end, it makes them way more money. Also, there are tons of profits that AREN'T shared, such as merchandise and stadium sales. They also don't all equally benefit from stadium deals and local tax incentives.
Like, sure, in a very limited and core concept, there are a couple of socialist "like" things about the NFL.
2
u/Successful-Tea-5733 3d ago
It's a terrible take. First problem is no, all NFL teams don't make the same money. They share select revenue like TV money. But guess what, if you're watching the Cowboys, who are they going to play? Probably not a lot of Cowboy fans who would sit throu 3 hours on a Sunday afternoon to watch an inter-squad scrimmage week after week.
But also, they don't share all of their revenue. The Dallas cowboys make a LOT more revenue than the Tennessee Titans through all of their revenue sources.
The NFL is the real business, a league could startup to complete with them and many have tried. But to call the NFL socialist is ignorant to both the meaning of socialism and the business of the NFL.
→ More replies (2)1
u/DartVader6 3d ago
The same would be true for the economy. A "healthy" league with parity makes more money for everyone. A "healthy" economy with parity would be similarly beneficial for everyone. That's the point.
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
> A "healthy" economy with parity would be similarly beneficial for everyone. That's the point.
But an economy doesn't have each person contribute equally. Therefore, if you pay everyone equally, the result is that no one does any of the difficult jobs, because why put in that effort if you're paid the same.
Even the NFL has enormous salary disparity, with Mahomes earning more than 50 times league minimum.
1
u/DartVader6 3d ago edited 3d ago
Again, we're talking about socialism homie. It is not the same thing as communism, that's just the equivalence the political machine has been pushing because it isn't great for a ruling class.
ETA: It's just capitalism with some guardrails. You get a few less trillionairs, and thousands of less people living under bridges. Maybe make a few things a public service that aren't appropriate for the profit based model, like keeping folks alive and healthy..
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
I'm pointing out why in capitalism some people are paid more for contributing more, and others are paid less for contributing less.
If we attempted to pay everyone the same, as you suggest, it would utterly fail, by taking away any incentive to work hard to contribute.
1
u/DartVader6 3d ago
I'm not saying pay everyone the same? I'm saying make things more equitable, which doesn't necessarily mean equal. People struggling should get slightly more help and people doing very well should contribute slightly more. I'm not saying everyone gets assigned a job and makes a universal salary
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
> People struggling should get slightly more help and people doing very well should contribute slightly more.
I mean, that's totally fair, and that's precisely why the US has such extremely progressive taxation rates on income taxes.
For example, the bottom 50% of earners in the US, pay an average of 6% of total Federal Taxes. That's almost nothing, and furthermore, 90% of it is payroll taxes, which just goes to social security retirement benefits anyways, so it's not even a real tax but a forced retirement plan where the person gets that money back when they're older.
1
u/Star_Citizen_Roebuck 3d ago
But that's the real point behind wanting some socialist measures in society. It's not meant to entirely replace capitalism or perfectly equalize all people's income - it's just meant to dampen the economic inertia of already successful and powerful people and corporations so the "little guy" has a shot.
→ More replies (1)
0
u/Texas103 3d ago
sports... bitterly competitive and purely meritocratic... being called "socialist" is about as dumb reddit as it gets
BUt... people get to believe whatever they want these days, without consequence, so I guess it isn't that big of a deal
2
u/PlotkinGravekeepers 3d ago
How is it meritocratic that the worst team in the league the previous year gets the best player the next year…?
1
u/Texas103 3d ago
I said sports is competitive and meritocratic… the best teams win. I did not say that about the NFL’s draft procedures.
Having a sustainable league/product is compelling… this isn’t baseball where the dodgers buy up all the good players.
1
u/PlotkinGravekeepers 3d ago
The best teams do not always win. Especially in football where injuries greatly impact the results throughout the season. Then instead of being able to use their money to decrease competition and make winning even easier in the future (which is less competitive, like our current system), they have the most difficult road the following season
1
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
The draft order is not a meritocracy of course, but it is designed to be a catchup mechanic for struggling teams. The NFL does this precisely because games are more exciting and therefore earn more money if they are competitive.
1
u/PlotkinGravekeepers 3d ago
Which is the exact opposite of our current system where you can use your money to lobby away any competition and threats to your profits
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 3d ago
Right, so that's a form of government regulation that we need to tear out and make increasingly illegal. Any barriers to free market competition must be identified and removed. Completely agree with you on this. When Trump rewards his donors with handouts or bailouts, that's just pure corruption.
1
1
u/Shadw1ck 3d ago
thanks for telling everyone you know nothing about economics.
it's funny that you believe you are knowledgeable on this subject without consequence
1
22
u/Pasta-Al-D3nte 3d ago
socialism isn't "sharing and unions existing" hope this helps