iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Morris

GET UPDATES FROM David Morris
 

Is the Super Bowl Socialist?

Posted: 01/31/2012 5:33 pm

Is the Super Bowl a socialist enterprise? The question may be provocative but not, I believe, inappropriate. After all, Indiana, the site of the next Super Bowl, is currently governed by those who insist government should play a minimal role. And socialist is the word they, and their Republican brethren around the country, use in this election year to describe those who disagree.

By any measure the Super Bowl is socialist from head to toe.

Start with the venue. Governments paid for over 80 percent of the new $750 million Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, the Super Bowl venue. The Colts chipped in about 15 percent, an investment they probably recouped in inflated asset value the day the stadium opened. Governments are also covering the estimated $20 million a year in operating deficits.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The NFL itself is a government creation.

Back in 1961 Commissioner Pete Rozelle convinced Congress to grant anti-trust immunity to the NFL to allow it to negotiate with broadcast companies as a single entity. Its first contract with CBS proved so lucrative that each team had $332,000 in the bank at the beginning of the season, a sum that exceeded most team payrolls at the time. Flush with cash, team owners might have started a bidding war for players if a truly free market in labor prevailed.

But having eliminated a free market externally in the broadcast marketplace, this new government sanctioned monopoly proceeded to eliminate a free market internally in the labor marketplace. The NFL imposed a rule allowing any team losing a free agent to another team to receive something of equal value from that team. Few teams were willing to risk signing a high profile free agent only to see their own rosters depleted.

Free agency came about only in 1993 after a jury ruled in favor of the players in a restraint of trade lawsuit brought by a group of NFL stars. That verdict and the threat of a class action filed by Reggie White of the Philadelphia Eagles on behalf of all NFL players led the league to the bargaining table. Still the owners refused to allow a completely free market by demanding and receiving a salary cap.

Back in 1961, to gain the support of all the owners, the NFL decided to distribute the revenue equally to all teams. Nothing more socialist than that! But this created a problem. The Green Bay Packers were (and are) a non-profit team whose community ownership structure prevented it from blackmailing cities into giving it huge taxpayer subsidies by threatening to leave. Equal revenue sharing could result in other communities opting for the Green Bay model. The NFL quickly closed that door by amending its constitution. Article V, Section 4, often called the "Green Bay Rule," declares "charitable organizations and/or corporations not organized for profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the National Football League."

Some might justify the huge subsidies to football stadiums because of their purported equally huge positive local economic impact. The evidence does not support that argument. Numerous researchers have examined the question and in virtually every case found no statistically significant positive correlation between sport facility construction and economic development. As for the Super Bowl itself, a study of six Super Bowls from 1979 to 1998 by economist Phil Porter found no increase in taxable sales in the host community compared to previous years without the game. Economists Robert Baade and Victor Matheson found that hosting the Super Bowl was associated with an increase in employment in host cities of a paltry 537 jobs.

Not that any of this matters a whit to a true blue football fan. I myself look forward to sitting back and enjoying a hard fought game.

But this is an election year. A year in which the role of government will be vigorously debated. The Super Bowl is a reflection of governments aggressively intervening, not on behalf of the poor or the consumer or the worker but on behalf of the 1/10th of 1%. Eighteen of the 32 NFL teams are owned by billionaires. Perhaps during the interminable commercials we might pause a moment and reflect on the fact that we are watching a truly socialist spectacle.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 32
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
04:56 AM on 02/06/2012
This is NOT red socialism. But it is National Socialism; favored, subsidized, privately held, for profit, de facto monopolies (NFL was sued by Trump and Trump won, compensation from the court = $1 - sounds like a favored, de facto monopoly to me) that produce a spectacle for the masses complete with militaristic trappings such as fly overs, "hi mom"s from the troops, flags, flags, flags, and prayers, prayers, and prayers. Plus, propaganda/public relations pitches between plays for those that don't care for the "game".

This is fascism friends, it just looks like football.
10:48 PM on 02/05/2012
Great misuse of socialism. True socialism would imply public ownership.
05:41 AM on 02/06/2012
You are confusing socialism with communism.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SylvreWolfe
06:01 PM on 02/05/2012
K, say the GOP motto with me, "It's okay when we do it, not okay when you do it."
11:47 AM on 02/02/2012
Equalizing income across NFL teams to drive more competition is not socialist. Its like an auto company varying prices and profit margins across its portfolio of cars/trucks to maximize overall revenue/profit. Thus an auto company may take lower profit on a sub-compact and get more profit on a large SUV, maximizing overall profit. The same is true with large and small markets in the NFL.
11:44 AM on 02/02/2012
Socialism:
Dictionary.com: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Wikipedia: "an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system."

By the author's own admission, billionaires own 18 of the 32 NFL teams and only one is collectively owned (Green Bay). I understand why the author is trying to make the connection between something beloved in America and socialism, but it is a bit disingenuous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bart DePalma
Bart DePalma
10:53 AM on 02/02/2012
Socialism is the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth from those who create it to those the government favors.

A public stadium is infrastructure, not socialism.

The way a business manages itself is not government direction of the economy. The NFL is an entertainment business competing with other forms of entertainment. The NFL's rules managing its franchises to create a competitive game is no government direction of the economy.
10:19 AM on 02/02/2012
As a free market libertarian, I hate taxpayer funding of sports stadiums, clearly a socialist enterprise we would do well to eliminate. The anti-trust exemption is another matter. The anti-trust laws themselves may not be socialist, but they are surely an intervention into markets by government. The exemption is not socialist, but rather a restoration of a right of association. To be clear, a government granted monopoly such as exclusive electric utility or cable right in a city are a different matter. No competitor can legally enter those markets. But potential competitors can and do start alternative football leagues - such as the old AFL or the WFL. Voluntary cooperation among businesses or other social institutions is not socialism - government enforced monopolies are. Despite my disgust at taxpayer funded stadiums, I accept that I live in this less than perfect world, and will enjoy the game (if the Giants win).
07:03 PM on 02/01/2012
Thank you for the strong argument against socialism. In this example we see a union get in bed with government approved entities at the expense of the taxpayer and consumer. The government excludes all other entrance to the market by providing legal framework that strongly favors the existing entity. The end result, hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars supporting a specially selected class and extremely high costs for the consumer, from merchandise, NFL network, and game tickets. This is what happens when business and government get into bed together.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kriggens
praying for a return of sanity.
06:41 PM on 02/05/2012
You seem to have mixed arguments going here. Yes, this us what happens when business gets in bed with the government. Business and unions are two different entities. Unions would be working for the players, arguing that players should be paid their value and protected against abuse. The business is the NFL and team owners. Two different things there.
02:24 PM on 02/01/2012
Also one more thought...What is the deal with blacking out games...seeing how the taxpayer has paid for the stadium in full or in part, how then is a blackout justified when a game is not sold out...?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
blueshield
01:17 PM on 02/01/2012
Thanks for a great piece.

Anti-socialists are never opposed to big government projects and spreading the wealth around.

Just who's getting it.
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
12:21 PM on 02/01/2012
Union Players, playing in TAX Payer stadiums...Making huge profits for Millionare owners...What makes you think thats Socialist...?...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
WilliamProc
Black Atheist Monotreme.
11:11 AM on 02/01/2012
Thanks for that article!

Sadly, most Americans(conservatives) assume that there are no socialist trappings within our society, yet when you point out that many of the nation's top corporations and organizations operate under a socialist model, their minds vapor-lock
10:53 AM on 02/01/2012
I was talking to a very conservative friend of mine and he was ranting on about Obama and socialism...I didn't try to point out why he was insane but I turned it on him using the NFL as an example of what socialism really is and where it is in America...he responded to me a few days later with this...

Colin,

You expressed a really profound concept in identifying the NFL as a socialist organization. The more I thought about it, the more I believe your core point is right: salary caps, schedules designed according to the performance of the team’s previous year and draft pick inversely proportional to the success of the team’s pervious performance….all aimed at balancing the teams.

Perhaps the strongest point is that the NFL is the strong business entity, not the individual teams. Consequently, we have an extraordinary mix of capitalism peering through a socialist structure.

Even the replay and photo rights, as well as the souvenirs and paraphernalia of the teams are managed by the NFL. The rules and the scheduling of the games are all the result of NFL socialism, i.e., balance the visibility, balance the opportunities.

As we discussed, probably the overriding characteristic of the NFL is that no one knows which team has a high probability of getting into the playoffs, playing in the Super Bowl, and certainly winning the Super Bowl……the ultimate prize of the NFL.

Bob
Lynette
Liberals have a lot more fun!
10:33 AM on 02/01/2012
It just might be, but it isn't going to change so, get over it. Oh and everyone is quite rich too, get over that also.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Akla
Leave No Trace, Just a Good Impression
10:33 AM on 02/01/2012
As I drive through our little Potemkin village each day, having watched the new stadium rise from the hole in the ground (I never heard what they did with the contaminated dirt they took out of the hole, piled in a huge pile on the lot to allow the wind to blow the dust around the city every day for months, and then trucked off to someplace) and traffic delays for the past several years, it seems a sad place of white tents and bland looking graphics wrapped around miles of chain link fence that has been put up to block the view of poverty and to herd people to the appropriate areas. Hope the wind does not blow hard (they had to evacuate two tents due to high winds and Indiana has a poor record of state approval of temporary buildings and stages--see State Fair problem) or snow piles up on those plastic tents. But they may have lucked out--nothing but warm temps and rain predicted. Gives the Potemkin village an even sadder appearance. We taxpayers will be paying for this party for a long time and have little to show for it.