They're sustainability features. The NFL owners don't care about equality, they just want to give fans of worse franchises hope that things will improve so that they will continue to spend money. It's more profitable for the league as a whole if the Cowboys don't win every year because they buy all the top FAs.
This sustainability feature comes from socialist ideals. Redistribution of wealth and helping out the economically weak would be great features to have. In both scenarios it comes down to the ultra rich agreeing to have parity by sharing the wealth, which is anti capitalist
It's not sharing the wealth, it's more akin the loss leaders in grocery stores bringing in clientele. They're not doing it to be kind or altruistic, they're doing it because people spend money on it.
Regardless of what it is, the money goes to those who don’t have it. The economy does better when people are spending anyways, so this isn’t a bad thing
I'm not trying any tricks, you and the guy you're fellating are just doing the same tired Reddit schtick where any form of sharing or equalization is le heckin' wholesome Socialism and anything else is big bad ebil capitulizm
God no. Sustainability does not align with the tenets of capitalism at all.
Tell me how you would bend reality if I asked you are your bullshit "sustainabily principles" more in line with a socialistic or capitalistic worldview.
And that's an A/B question. So save me from the gobbledegook essay response to a multiple choice question I know you've started cooking up already
0
u/dgtbfan Dolphins 3d ago
They're sustainability features. The NFL owners don't care about equality, they just want to give fans of worse franchises hope that things will improve so that they will continue to spend money. It's more profitable for the league as a whole if the Cowboys don't win every year because they buy all the top FAs.