Politicians, left and right, say the NFL should take care of the ruined old men it creates--or else lose its anti-trust exemption (which lets the league negotiate contracts [broadcasting and labor, I think, maybe others] instead of individually owned teams doing so like in most industries).
Can somebody tell me what I'm supposed to think about this?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I've never understood why they get anti-trust exemption and all the ramifications of having it. I also thought baseball was the only sport that had it for some reason. But then, I think sports should be publicly owned entities generally.
Anyway, the anti-trust exemption seems removed from the issue of the NFL distributing its benefits more proportionally to the costs incurred. Why a laissez-faire economics supporting politician supports such measures is unclear to me but if you value equity, fairness, and suffering-mitigation you want the NFL to figure out a way that its handicapped former players aren't left in a lurch.
Any liberal should support some sort of wealth reallocation not only to help injured former-athletes but also to help idiots like Antoine Walker from bankrupting themselves so tragically and dramatically.
Why should sports franchises/leagues be publicly owned?
They shouldn't be. The NBA would never be able to market to China if it was an ineffective state run enterprise. If you want the world's best playing in Europe, by all means let the government run pro basketball.
Post a Comment