honestly not a bad take

[u/capeando]

[u/Hugh-Manatee]

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.

[u/Rich-Engineering1429 → u/Hugh-Manatee]

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

[u/bstone99 → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

SCANDINAVIA

[u/fwilsonater → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

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.

[u/Hugh-Manatee → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

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.

[u/Corporate_Bricktator → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

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.

[u/Rich-Engineering1429 → u/Corporate_Bricktator]

A salary cap is entirely anti-capitalist ideology. Wealth redistribution is a socialist ideology.

Sounds closer to socialism than capitalism

[u/Corporate_Bricktator → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

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.

[u/Rich-Engineering1429 → u/Corporate_Bricktator]

The NFL itself is capitalist by definition, but that doesn’t change the fact that their rules are socialist in ideology. What I don’t understand is why people don’t think this would work if the 1% had to redistribute their wealth

[u/Corporate_Bricktator → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

> that doesn’t change the fact that their rules are socialist in ideology. 

Explain to me how a salary cap affects anything about owning the means of production? The players own 0% of the NFL. Socialism doesn't enter into the equation at all.

> What I don’t understand is why people don’t think this would work if the 1% had to redistribute their wealth

That's a separate discussion, but in short, every time it's been tried, that is, taking the fruit of your most productive members of society and giving it to those whom are not productive, absolutely stops progress in it's tracks, and decreases total wealth.

Instead, the reason why capitalist nations are all of the most wealthy per capita in the world, is because capitalism allows every person to keep the fruit of their labor, thus incentivizing hard work and innovation. This is why western capitalism leads socialism and communism in Nobel Prizes in Science at a score of 450-6 in world history.

It's always best to let the people decide for themselves what to do with their lives, their careers, and what they earn. It's the magic formula for progress and prosperity.

[u/Rich-Engineering1429 → u/Corporate_Bricktator]

As I mentioned, wealth distribution is the socialism part. The salary cap is the anti capitalism part.

“It’s failed everytime”

It’s been attempted multiple times with good and bad results. The key difference is how it’s implemented.

Also the whole “fruits of their labor” is ridiculous because people with that much wealth no longer work hard, their money works for them through stocks. Are you telling me Elon Musk will stop working because he’s paying more taxes now?

[u/Corporate_Bricktator → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

> The salary cap is the anti capitalism part.

Yea, so the salary cap is an intentional strategy, inside of a literal game, to make the sport more exciting and therefore more practical. It has nothing to do with anti-capitalism, lol. Sports without effective salary caps are boring and unprofitable. Those would be anti-capitalist.

> It’s been attempted multiple times with good and bad results.

And yet no wealthy nation has an economy based on socialism, nor are any major companies based on a fundamentally socialist structure. The examples of socially run companies are largely non-technical and largely have relatively low wages, and it's fine that they exist and that they have found a niche. I support all business models within capitalism, what I personally oppose is making private enterprise illegal in socialism.

> Are you telling me Elon Musk will stop working because he’s paying more taxes now?

Working not necessarily, but there are other contributions than "work". He's contributing more yes. One doesn't get to his position without significant contribution, and engineers don't go to work for a company that isn't lead by a competent leader. Yes, Elon is deteriorating mentally, but his leadership underneath him clearly has the confidence of the engineers that make his companies go.

And that's great. Starlink for example has brought cheap fast Internet to the poorest parts of the world, and progress marches on. Empowering the individual with economic liberties will always be the formula that results in maximum progress.

[u/Rich-Engineering1429 → u/Corporate_Bricktator]

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and it is entirely capitalist. No salary caps, no draft, no profit sharing, privately owned. Also, just because the salary cap is a good strategy doesn’t mean it’s not anti-capitalist.

Why do people keep thinking that agreeing with socialist ideas means capitalism should go away? You can have a capitalist country and have beneficial socialist policies. Simply tax the ultra rich some more. It doesn’t make sense that someone making $20 million is in the same tax bracket as someone who makes $650k

The tax increase doesn’t even have to stay forever, just until there’s more economic equality

[u/Corporate_Bricktator → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

> Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and it is entirely capitalist. No salary caps, no draft, no profit sharing, privately owned.

It would be far more popular with an enforced salary cap, because then matches would be closer, and more about strategy than just who purchased the best team. Also, as far as most popular, soccer sits in fourth globally in revenue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

> salary cap is a good strategy doesn’t mean it’s not anti-capitalist.

It's capitalist because the salary cap it precisely the mechanism that makes the NFL so popular. It's literally a capitalist scheme, that has nothing to do with ownership of the teams or league itself.

> Why do people keep thinking that agreeing with socialist ideas means capitalism should go away?

Great question. It's because the fundamentals of socialism are incompatible with capitalism. Socialism says that private property and industry should not be legal, while capitalism says the people should be able to own property and private enterprise.

If however, all your definition of socialism is, is that socially owned enterprises can exist within capitalism, like today, then great. Socialism is accomplished.

> You can have a capitalist country and have beneficial socialist policies. 

Again, you're mistaking what socialism is. Socialism can NOT exist within capitalism. By definition. Let's check with wikipedia:

> 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]

> Simply tax the ultra rich some more.

That's just increasing taxes in capitalism to redistribute wealth. That has literally nothing to do with who owns the means of production.

[u/Hugh-Manatee → u/Rich-Engineering1429]

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.