Comments on: The NFL is Not for Libertarians http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/04/26/the-nfl-is-not-for-libertarians/ Property - Prosperity - Peace Sat, 09 May 2015 08:06:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.5.3 By: Andre http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/04/26/the-nfl-is-not-for-libertarians/#comment-2622 Fri, 04 May 2012 17:15:26 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=10992#comment-2622 Great points, overall, but I think the main point of Doug’s article was about how one Joel B. was able to leverage his talents, make money, and gain some recognition in the process. It wasn’t a rah rah rah of the NFL. To SM’s article, this is why I appreciate local talent, grassroots sports so much more. There comes a point, and almost right away, where statism’s and corporatism’s footprints are all over professional sports.

]]>
By: Jason Seagraves http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/04/26/the-nfl-is-not-for-libertarians/#comment-2618 Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:32:11 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=10992#comment-2618 Doug French, you got served, yo!

]]>
By: Wilt Alston http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/04/26/the-nfl-is-not-for-libertarians/#comment-2617 Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:10:43 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=10992#comment-2617 Great stuff, Skip. As usual, spot-on. As I said over on G+, I’m in a pickle, because I *love* NFL football. I wish–hoping against hope really–that it wasn’t the statist cesspool it is, particularly in terms of the stuff you mention, like stadium financing. …and don’t get me started on Goodell, ’cause this is a family site.

]]>
By: John http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/04/26/the-nfl-is-not-for-libertarians/#comment-2614 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:28:52 +0000 http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=10992#comment-2614 I’m a fan of Oliva’s writing, but when I saw this subject, I expected the worst. Fortunately, the item I feared he marginalizes as “window dressing,” and the rest is excellent and spot-on. (What remains is a rant against that “window dressing.”)

I detest when people call this sport or that un-libertarian, and point to anything that looks like subsidies to weaker teams. I understand that there is superficial resemblance, but sports leagues are not merely selling the product of superior sport. They ALSO sell competition. That requires some form of “playing-field leveling,” to keep the fans of losing franchises.

In the market, if Apple does something well, they make money, which they can invest into new products which will hopefully make more money, and so forth. While we all want the opportunity for competition, if Apple’s superiority incidentally allows them to dominate the market by merely producing the greatest products, so much the better for all of us. (This is theoretical: I’m not even attempting to argue that Apple is innocent of any and all government-aided extra-market coercion.)

In contrast, if the New England Patriots play well, and make money which they can invest in ever-greater talent, THEY can dominate THEIR field, just like Apple. While it (might) be good for the Patriots, and it might even help to create the greatest American-football product ever (in New England), it would be bad news for the league as a whole, because interest would wane badly in this new, non-competitive league. So while the franchises have every incentive to continuously improve their product (their execution of the sport), they need to be reined in by the league, while the league seeks to maintain its own product (competition). Even if that means letting the Colts have exclusive negotiating rights to Andrew Luck.

Besides THAT, an excellent article.

]]>