As millions settle in to watch the big game today between the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers, half of them (who are likely conservatives) need to read Bill Maher's New Rule on the NFL.
Hilarious! And more true than he realizes. The NFL is indeed socialism in action. Smaller market teams like Green Bay and Pittsburgh share revenue with the bigger market teams like the New York Giants and the high profile teams like the Dallas Cowboys. All the money goes into one pot and it is shared. Shared! What a concept...
Success is punished as the winner of today's game will be picked last in the draft. In addition, today's game is a double dose of socialism as the city of Green Bay (aka the GOVERNMENT) owns the the Packers. So if they Pack do go on to win, all the people in Green Bay will benefit and not just one tyrannical owner.
Sit back for a moment and think about the BILLIONS of dollars the NFL makes every year. To call them a success would be as much of an understatement as saying the Beatles were a pop group in the 1960s. The reason why they are successful is due to their framework which is completely socialistic. I know this will be tough concept for the conservative brain to grasp (as they are wired differently) so I'm going to skip over the part where I ask some of you to reflect. Instead, I will point the light of interrogation on myself.
Looking inward, I do not like what I see. I actually prefer baseball to football. As Maher astutely points out, baseball is the libertarian's dream...every man for himself...smaller market teams crushed by giants like the Yankees...hands off my cash...fuck sharing....and, until very recently, indentured servants. Ideologically, I am more in line with football yet I prefer baseball. WTF??!!???
Perhaps I need to re-think all of this. As I often lament, I will not stand for such hypocrisy!
21 comments:
Again, you insist on using caricatures and stereotypes. I really think most libertarians couldn't give a shit how the NFL is run - except to the extent that franchises are always demanding shiny new stadiums or they will up and leave for greener pastures. Even at that, it isn't the demand for such - it is the fucking capitulation from govt. Even if 51% of the [voting] populace actually wants to do it - what right do they have to tax it out of the other 49%? Why don't they just pool their own money and leave the others out? Oh, and you might ask yourself why the NFL is exempt from anti-trust, like MLB, but unlike every other corporation.
Anymore I can barely tolerate the NFL. Go to a game and you spend most of your time waiting for a play to happen - because official timeouts have to be taken for TV commercials. Offensive lineman hold on every play, but it is only called sporadically - and seemingly randomly. I used to be mostly a basketball fan, but the Jordan Rules ruined the NBA (and college has sold out almost as badly). These days my favorite sport to watch (live or on TV) is soccer.
...football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams...
Well, that didn't take long. He's wrong of course. Do you know why?
I think calling the NFL "completely socialistic" wouldn't be accurate. I think the couple of examples you gave resemble socialism but what you left out (to me anyway) is that they wouldn't have that much money to spread around if it wasn't for the capitalistic system we all live in.
I agree they are successful but are those 2 socialist characteristics of their framework the primary reasons? They have a product that people want to spend their money on and our free market has determined that there is a tremendous demand for their product and supply is just following the demand.
The NFL its an exclusive club, you have to want to join and they have to want to have you.
Socialism is inclusive, everyone has to join whether you want to or not.
The reason why they are successful is due to their framework which is completely socialistic.
Is it? Where is the individual mandate that requires everyone in America to buy tickets?
I suppose the fact that I didn't buy tickets to the super bowl, and would oppose being required by law to buy them, makes me "pathologically anti-football", huh?
I guess that also means I am obviously a fucking wussy, with an inability to root critically.
Suddenly it's no longer surprising that all the conservatives, libertarians, flat-earthers and civil war reenactors raised hell when Rush Limbaugh wanted to buy an NFL franchise, and went into their usual meme of "you can have my jersey when you take it from my cold, dead body..."
Oh, wait. My bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers
According the wiki, there were "Articles of Incorporation for the (then) Green Bay Football Corporation" put into place in 1923", "In 1950, the Packers held a stock sale to again raise money to support the team.", "Another stock sale occurred late in 1997 and early in 1998. It added 105,989 new shareholders and raised over $24 million, money used for the Lambeau Field redevelopment project. Priced at $200 per share, fans bought 120,010 shares during the 17-week sale, which ended March 16, 1998. As of June 8, 2005, 112,015 people (representing 4,750,934 shares) can lay claim to a franchise ownership interest.", and "To run the corporation, a board of directors is elected by the stockholders.".
That doesn't sound like government ownership to me.
It's a *GASP* CORPORATION! AHhhhhhhhhhhh.
Speaking of brains that are wired differently, what about the brain that reads things like "articles of incorporation", "stock sale", "shareholders", "bought 120,010 shares", "franchise ownership interest" and "To run the corporation, a board of directors is elected by the stockholders" and thinks that is government ownership.
Think we'll get a correction on here?
Well, last, how effective were the shareholders and the board of United Health Care? What a farce...
The Packers sound to me like a company that employs the servant leadership model. Uh oh....:)
Say M - were you gonna guess how your beloved Bill was wrong in the sentence that I quoted? Or would you just prefer I tell you?
Go ahead and enlighten us:)
...football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams...
That isn't what the NFL does. It shares TV revenue equally (despite the differences in team markets and lack of presence in the 2nd largest market in the country - LA). The second thing the NFL does is cap how much all teams can spend on players.
What the NFL does NOT do is equalize profit - which is already pretty much guaranteed by the salary cap and the shared TV and revenue. That leaves tickets, luxury boxes and ancillary revenue (parking, concessions, etc.) that each team is free to maximize and keep - no sharing.
That ain't no Robin Hood fantasy as portrayed by Bill.
...football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams...
That isn't what the NFL does. It shares TV revenue equally (despite the differences in team markets and lack of presence in the 2nd largest market in the country - LA). The second thing the NFL does is cap how much all teams can spend on players.
What the NFL does NOT do is equalize profit - which is already pretty much guaranteed by the salary cap and the shared TV and revenue. That leaves tickets, luxury boxes and ancillary revenue (parking, concessions, etc.) that each team is free to maximize and keep - no sharing.
That ain't no Robin Hood fantasy as portrayed by Bill.
I'm not talking about United Healthcare. I'm talking about you claiming that the packers are owned by the local government. They aren't, and you now know that which is why you brought up United Healthcare so quickly. Just admit that you got that one wrong....
Last, the fans that own the team are largely residents of Green Bay and the surrounding areas. Some are from Milwaukee and have the old County Stadium package (like Pete and Chuck) but the city of Green Bay.
Here's some more info...
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/07/133571660/The-Pride-Of-Green-Bay
Cheeseheads unite — the Packers are the new Super Bowl victors. We'll look at just what makes this team unique — especially its ownership structure. Instead of one owner with a billion dollars, the joke is, they have a billion owners with one dollar. Stock is offered at $25 apiece; no one may hold more than 200 shares; shareholders have no voting rights and receive no dividends.
The city foots the bill for the stadium and the owners are the city's residents so technically it is owned by the city and the community of people. I don't think there is any denying it's communal ownership.
In your original entry, you told us the GOVERNMENT owns the packers.
Now you surfed the net to try to find an article that proves me wrong and the best you could find was an article that said the team is owned by its shareholders.
and so far, you have not been wrong here. Got it.
The city footing the bill for the stadium does not mean the city government shares ownership of the team.
I really don't care where the shareholders live or if the behave as a community - the team is not owned by the government. Period.
it is owned by...the community of people. I don't think there is any denying it's communal ownership.
Oh. My.
By that definition United Healthcare is also owned by the 'community' and there is 'no denying' its communal ownership, and thus its inherent goodness and rightness. Golly Mark, you've just basically made every corporation into a communally owned business.
As a Packer fan and ticket holder, I think I can clear a few things up. The team is run by the city of Green Bay. It is owned by the residents of Green Bay who are the season ticket holders and some residents of Milwaukee. Since the owners and the residents are responsible for the City, they are also responsible for the team. The two go hand in hand with one another. It's different from United Health Care in that the stockholders are restricted to this group of people and have no say in how the team is run. The say comes from the government. It's a little complicated but Mark is correct when he says the city owns the team since the shareholders have no say.
When you the say the people of the city of Green Bay you are also saying the owners of the team which is what Mark was saying. If you want to be upset at him for something, be pissed that he isn't a Packer fan enjoying another victory. He's never been one and has decided to stick with losers like the Vikings. Now that is sad!
I'm not upset at Mark.
> It is owned by the residents of Green Bay who are the season ticket holders and some residents of Milwaukee.
That's what I'm saying. From the wikipedia entry, it is a corporation that sells stock. Mark said in his original entry that the ownership of the team is an example of socialism.
Juris pointed out that the NFL shares TV revenue, not all revenue. That point was not disputed so somebody saing "All the money goes into one pot and it is shared. Shared!" isn't exactly accurate.
The fourth post in this discussion from GuardDuck has not been refuted yet either and that is a major difference that was pointed out.
I won this discussion, deal with it. (j/k all)
Post a Comment