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.