Like many Americans, I have libertarian tendencies

[Albany,n.y.]

Find me any other entry level job where they throw millions of dollars at new people just out of college other than professional sports. An NFL rookie is an entry level job. All other professions make you prove yourself before they give you CEO pay.

[Trader]

and while it is impossible for me to feel much sympathy toward a college athlete about to sign a contract for more money than they have ever seen, it does bother me a bit when individuals are not allowed to sell their services to the highest bidder in a free market.

 

Thus, as the new CBA begins to take shape, one of the more troubling parts of it for me is the apparent abridgement of individual rights to participate in a free market which is going on in the NFL. The oddest thing about it is that the co-conspirators in this anti-American abridgement of individual abilities is not only the NFL (they are a corporation after all and due to the consistent taking advantage of the individual I have cone to expect bad behavior from them).

 

However, the NFLPA is joining toe to toe with the NFL in actions that flat out abridge the abilities of individuals to operate in a free market. These include:

 

1. The it seems to me outrageous agreement of the BFL and NFLPA to bar NFL teams from signing up adults who want to play the game. The NFLPA and the NFL have agreed to rules which not only ban the signing of minors to contracts (even with their parents approval (unlike other pro team sports and individual sports like golf or tennis allow even minors to sign contracts with their parents signed consent) but also bar adults from signing with individual teams until their age group reaches 21.

 

2. Even the draft itself abridges the ability of normal individuals to choose to live wherever they want to or can make a deal. Many folks falsely try to claim that an NFL worker is the same as a Ford motor company worker as they try to justify the NFL not letting their workers look at the books. This analogy not only falls apart in reality as the NFL worker and Ford worker simply operate under different economic systems, but actually the NFL worker has fewer rights that an auto worker takes for granted. An auto worker can choose to work in any city where he finds a job. If he worships the sun he can try to find a job in a plant in CA or if he likes having more than 2 seasons he can try to work in the midwest. However, an NFL player if he chooses to be an NFL athlete is assigned to negotiate with only one team without regard to where that player wants to live is irrelevant (whether he wants to live near his parents who are ill or always attend his games or he wants to live and raise his kids with a loved one near his hometown). Sure, NFL players get huge compensation to give up this right most Americans take for granted, but it amazes me that folks give up this principle so easily.

 

3. The worse thing about the draft is actually that it represents a huge taxpayer subsidy to the private business of the NFL. State run and taxpayer funded schools like football lineman mill U. Nebraska also are well compensated for their gleefully training student athletes for the NFL business at limited cost to the NFL (they do pay for the combine which allows them to abridge individual rights in an orderly manner) but this huge taxpayer subsidy to this private business is simply not the theory or principle we operate under as a country. Its no surprise to me that various travesties occur under this system which sees universities stand on their heads to in essence hire student athletes without paying them.

 

4. What also is outrageous is that traditionally the courts have been the protector of individual rights being ignored by the government or trampled on by corporations. The courts have correctly IMHO stood up for individual rights by only accepting the limited anti-trust protection the NFL enjoys if they negotiate in good faith with a representative of the players which is democratically elected. This is why the decertification threat by the NFLPA has proven to be so powerful. It is clear that with the union, that the courts (as reflected in the decisions by Reagan appointee Doty) stand by individuals to operate in a free market. In the face of this threat the NFL ran kicking and screaming to sign a CBA with the NFLPA which has now resulted in the players getting a majority of the total gross receipts of the NFL.

 

However, even if one accepts this system even if it goes against free market principles simply because it works to generate higher profits for both the players and the owners than if they used an actual free market (which was the ask of Brady et al. in their suit) it still does nothing to preserve the rights of young athletes.

 

These potential players have no representation and essentially no rights until they sign a contract. Its no wonder that that the NFLPA would agree to a rookie salary cap in exchange for more money for the vets and the retirement fund as young athletes are not represented at all in this "negotiation".

 

Overall, this fan is quite pleased to get this game back after it was held hostage in a fight between millionaires and billionaires. I am happy with any deal which the owners and players make to bring back the game!

 

However the principle still sticks in my craw that young athletes are having what most of us take for granted as rights to be stripped from them.

 

They are getting screwed in principle but at least they are well paid for bending over.

 

The NFL and the NFLPA deserve each other in their un-American actions to simply generate cash.

 

I also consider myself a libertarian. There is nothing in a collective bargaining agreement that would interfere with that philosophy. Any player or potential player can simply choose to opt out and so something else. Just like libertarians can choose to surrender some of their liberty when thy choose to marry for example. It's not a philosophical conflict.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I understand this though I am not sure you and others do.

 

If folks are fine with the social compact basis of the NFL instead of a free-market approach that is fine by me. I just wish folks would realize it instead of the bizarre insistence that the NFL team are the same as free market businesses like Ford motor company.

 

The NFL is much more like a socialist enterprise than a free market enterprise because the profits are much higher from this socialistic approach.

 

It seems vacuous to me that so many people do not seem to realize this.

Are you under the impression that the nonstatutory antitrust law exemption applies (i) only to business conduct authorized by the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the NFL and the NFLPA, but (ii) not to business conduct authorized by the CBA between Ford Motor Company and the UAW? Because if it applies to both situations, then the US auto business is based just as much on a "social compact" (to use your term), and is just as much a "socialist enterprise" (to again use your term) as the US football business.

 

If you dislike the whole idea of favoring labor laws over antitrust laws when the two are in conflict, that's arguably rational (even though it's not current US law), but the idea that the courts apply one set of legal concepts to football CBAs and a different set of legal concepts to auto industry CBAs seems like a flawed premise to me.

 

Wish I could find my vacuosity meter . . . I can never find the thing when I need it!

[bowery4]

Peronally, I am a libertarian socialist. I like hpls take on the nfl and ncaa compared to other sports with farm systems. But the very existance of different ways of doing these businesses in the US shows that there is no perfect model and plenty of liberty in choices available.

[Hplarrm]

Find me any other entry level job where they throw millions of dollars at new people just out of college other than professional sports. An NFL rookie is an entry level job. All other professions make you prove yourself before they give you CEO pay.

The NFL is an entry level job where you demonstrate you are worth a speculative salary based upon your performance in college.

 

Its actually a less risky proposition than most other major sports leagues such as hockey and baseball where many of the speculative contracts need parental permission to be entered into as these entry level jobs are often paid wildly for without the additional data provided by competition and training in college.

 

Even better the NFL pays virtually nothing for this training and evaluative service as colleges pay for this (including taxpayers like you and me subsidizing this service.

 

The NFL is paying a steep price for this gift right now though as the NFL players are adults before they begin to develop an affinity for a team that owns their rights. As adults a talented tenth of these athletes in the Gene Upshaw mode proved heady enough to organize as a union and today have forced an agreement giving them a significant majority of the gross take of the league.

 

They have proved their worth enough to command the outstanding contract.

[Shamrock]

The NFL and the NFLPA deserve each other in their un-American actions to simply generate cash.

 

You'd literally vomit then if you ever understood the Union of Socialist States of Australia or the good ol' USSofA!

[ropeerasers]

I didn't see anywhere in that PBS link that said the majority or even a sizable number of major football programs -- the ones consistently sending players to the NFL -- are losing money and are requiring significant taxpayer subsidies.

 

But beyond that the premise of your complaint is just so odd. You don't want colleges and universities assuming the cost of training the workforce for the NFL? That's a complaint about the existence of state-funded colleges, not athletics programs.

 

I hate to break this to you, but taxpayers are also chipping in on the educations of engineers, nurses, accountants and hundreds of other professions. On top of that, there is no tv deal, licensed apparel and ticket sales to help cover those costs.

[maryland-bills-fan]

Free market? Are you kidding a complete free market with no regulation leads to a monopoly where there is no choice. At best even with regulation the best we have in this country is an oligarchy. Try out looking for a cell phone contract and tell me how much competition there really is for your business.

 

 

Or maybe they have all lowered their rates as far as they can and still stay in business? I notice them doing a lot of advertising, special deals, different deals, lock-in deals and free phones trying to take the business from one-another. They wouldn't unless they were competiting. I wonder if you have bothered to look at their annual reports or company stock analysises before opening your mouth on this. You seem to have the following rational behind your statement: "Business make money and create wealth, they are bad. I am entitled to lots of goodies." Probably you also ignore the idea that business create wealth and the government (lately) sees it's job to take that wealth and redistribute it under its own direction and for its benefit.

 

The "company" here is the "NFL", not the individual teams. By themselves, the Chicgo Bears is not worth a dime, because they would have nobody to play. If they barnstormed, they would lose the interest (and ability to generate money) that the rivalries with the Packers, Vikings and Lions brings.

[Mickey]

Ive been digging through some marginally informative articles, considering you couldnt bother to link any real information in your response. I dont see anything about how that applies to the NFL workforce and the Union, or this made up "market within the NFL". It looks like it worked out for the American Needle company that was merely a vendor, but doesn't look very relevant to what the OP was talking about.

 

Feel free to post some better links if Im still wrong.

 

Sorry, I gave you the name of the case which I thought was sufficient as running a search on it pulls up the opinion quite easily enough. But for those of you out there who haven't mastered the use of google, here is a link to the opinion:

 

American Needle

 

 

The court recognized that with a business like the NFL, there are instances where cooperation is necessary to carry out the business. However, the possibility that a given practice might be needed for league success wasn't a shield against

the courts examining that practice to see if in fact it was absolutely necessary to the business. They rejected, by a vote of 9-0, the idea that the league was not an entity comprised of separate businesses and thus cooperation was not collusion between separate businesses. If you take the ruling in this case and then couple it with the White and McNeil cases the Supreme Court decided back in the early '90's and its pretty clear that the league would be crazy to ever let its system of restricting player movement from being ruled on in the Supreme Court. They've lost before and they would lose again. The only reason the owners decided to cut the players in for a piece of the take was because they lost in court and the only way to preserve their system was to essentially bribe the players to give up what they had won in court.

 

Labor Law imposes a whole world of other rules and possibilities and that is what governs things at the moment. But the players could eventually get the dispute out from under the labor law and back in to the courts under anti-trust law if they held out long enough. It is just a matter of time. How much time and how long could the players hang on without any income was always the major battleground in this current dispute. I think there is no way the league would have ever let things go long enough for anti-trust litigation to kick in.

[Mr. WEO]

 

I only ask folks to recognize that the NFL is nothing like a free market enterprise because it does things like collude with the NFLPA to require that if one makes a choice to enter into this social compact you give up certain things like what most of us Americans take for granted as the right to live where we choose.

 

 

 

I understand this though I am not sure you and others do.

 

 

It seems vacuous to me that so many people do not seem to realize this.

I think we all realize that the NFL is not a free market, chief. Vacuous? Holy s**t. How's the "NewNFL" coming along?

 

Anyway, a contract is an agreement to terms by both signees. One or the other may be willfully be giving up what you consider "rights" in order to benefit from the employment agreed to in the contract. The NFLPA is the sole representative of the players and has their complete support, so you cannot argue that the NFLPA is "colluding" with the NFL against the players.

 

Almost every job has an entry level pay scale that cannot be negotiated. You don't like it, don't sign the contract and then go try find a better deal in another line of work. It's a free country.

 

Many jobs in this very country mandate where you will live. Obviously the military. Many police and fireman have rules that they must live in the city which employs them. Many private sector jobs transfer workers to other cities (without a choice, other than leaving the company).

 

You've got to stop this stuff.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[Bill from NYC]

And don't say "many" Americans are liberatarian as a means to lead into you argument and flailingly attempt to justify it. The majority of americans aren't libertarians nor believe in it. Many are, but in a country of 320 million, many is relative and makes that ideology a minority and even fringe.

 

What leads to making your statement true is the fact that a majority of Americans might not understand the work "libertarian." Then, most others who do understand the word probably have different definitions.

For instance.....I am huge on people having rights, but I do not belong to the Libertarian Party. So, am I a libertarian or not? You see?

 

That said, I happen to agree with you. I think that today, people are far less concerned with the rights of others, unless of course it is trendy to support (or not support) one particular group. Even at that, the American public isn't too keen on rights these days. It took elected officials in NY to allow gay marriages, and it was interestingly voted down by the people in the "liberal" state of California.

 

Sorry to stray off topic, but again, I generally agree with your comments.

[metzelaars_lives]

Bill Maher had a take right before the Super Bowl about how socialism has become such an evil word in this country much like fascism or something (despite the fact that the Socialist Democratic countries tend to have the highest literacy, employment and quality of life rates and the lowest crime rates but that's a topic for another forum), but that the NFL, which is wildly successful in this country, has a lot of socialist traits- TV revenue sharing, salary cap, etc.

[The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ.]

I am a Libertarian through and through however this has nothing to do with big government therefor it is not a libertarian problem, no one is forced to be in the NFL. Your point about the draft is true with all companies as if you go to college get a job with IBM and they want you to work in Seatle you cant tell them no I am going to work in NY. You work with them where they want you and under both company and union policies or not at all. Each team is not an individual company but a franchise in a large company called the NFL. If I buy a pepsi franchise I still have to obey pepsi rules and give them a percentage of my profits, pay employees within company and union guidlines, and adhere to pepsi promotions and advertising.

[Mickey]

What leads to making your statement true is the fact that a majority of Americans might not understand the work "libertarian." Then, most others who do understand the word probably have different definitions.

For instance.....I am huge on people having rights, but I do not belong to the Libertarian Party. So, am I a libertarian or not? You see?

 

That said, I happen to agree with you. I think that today, people are far less concerned with the rights of others, unless of course it is trendy to support (or not support) one particular group. Even at that, the American public isn't too keen on rights these days. It took elected officials in NY to allow gay marriages, and it was interestingly voted down by the people in the "liberal" state of California.

 

Sorry to stray off topic, but again, I generally agree with your comments.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that people caring only for their own rights and not for those of others is anything unique to today. Every generation has had its share of selfish bast***s. I also would be less dismissive of the times when people have actually cared about the rights of others instead of chalking it up to trendiness. People involved in the Civil Rights movement of the latter '50's and through the '60's were bucking a "trend" of racism and violence that had endured for about a century. I understand that not everyone at Woodstock was there for music and peace, some were there hoping to get laid and probably were not disappointed. I just don't think we should lose sight of the fact that when properly inspired, people can quite genuinely act in the best interests of others. I know there is lots of evidence to refute that but there is just enough on the other side to make me an optimist.

[Mr. WEO]

Bill Maher had a take right before the Super Bowl about how socialism has become such an evil word in this country much like fascism or something (despite the fact that the Socialist Democratic countries tend to have the highest literacy, employment and quality of life rates and the lowest crime rates but that's a topic for another forum), but that the NFL, which is wildly successful in this country, has a lot of socialist traits- TV revenue sharing, salary cap, etc.

Bill should take a trip to Greece. Socialism at its finest. Broke, unemployment (16%) up 40% from a year ago. Brutal and regular street riots whenever entitlements threatened.

 

There is revenue sharing on this country. It's called the progressive income tax. Every level of government has a "salary cap" (budget--which includes municipal employees) that is routinely ignored.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[metzelaars_lives]

Bill should take a trip to Greece. Socialism at its finest. Broke, unemployment (16%) up 40% from a year ago. Brutal and regular street riots whenever entitlements threatened.

 

There is revenue sharing on this country. It's called the progressive income tax. Every level of government has a "salary cap" (budget--which includes municipal employees) that is routinely ignored.

 

That was my two cents, that's why I put it in parenthesis. All he did was talk about the NFL. That being said, there isn't a perfect system. By most standards however, the Scandinavian countries are the happiest, most crime-free, smoothest running countries in the world. Now, you could easily make the argument that they are smaller, less diverse and thus, easier to govern. But yes, to your point, every government in the world is Socialist to a certain extent

[Spiderweb]

Bill should take a trip to Greece. Socialism at its finest. Broke, unemployment (16%) up 40% from a year ago. Brutal and regular street riots whenever entitlements threatened.

 

There is revenue sharing on this country. It's called the progressive income tax. Every level of government has a "salary cap" (budget--which includes municipal employees) that is routinely ignored.

 

Hummmm, sound like you're picking and choosing. Europe in general has evolved with many programs this country has generally thought of as socialism, and to a lesser degree, so have we. Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc., are all in trouble fiscally, as are we. Yet Germany, seems strong and their individual tax rates are some of the highest in the world, so they do provide evidence individal taxation doesn't have to be low or extremely low to compete globally.

 

It should be noted that Bill Maher is easily far more intelligent than most around here, even though some of what he rants on about is a bit over the top.

[Rob's House]

Bill Maher had a take right before the Super Bowl about how socialism has become such an evil word in this country much like fascism or something (despite the fact that the Socialist Democratic countries tend to have the highest literacy, employment and quality of life rates and the lowest crime rates but that's a topic for another forum), but that the NFL, which is wildly successful in this country, has a lot of socialist traits- TV revenue sharing, salary cap, etc.

Iceland has one of (if not the) world's highest literacy rates. Kind of throws a monkey wrench into the whole theory that education is the economic panacea so many of us would like to believe.

 

Hummmm, sound like you're picking and choosing. Europe in general has evolved with many programs this country has generally thought of as socialism, and to a lesser degree, so have we. Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc., are all in trouble fiscally, as are we. Yet Germany, seems strong and their individual tax rates are some of the highest in the world, so they do provide evidence individal taxation doesn't have to be low or extremely low to compete globally.

 

It should be noted that Bill Maher is easily far more intelligent than most around here, even though some of what he rants on about is a bit over the top.

Bill Maher's politics are largely grounded in what he thinks will get him laid.

[Mickey]

Hummmm, sound like you're picking and choosing. Europe in general has evolved with many programs this country has generally thought of as socialism, and to a lesser degree, so have we. Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc., are all in trouble fiscally, as are we. Yet Germany, seems strong and their individual tax rates are some of the highest in the world, so they do provide evidence individal taxation doesn't have to be low or extremely low to compete globally.

 

It should be noted that Bill Maher is easily far more intelligent than most around here, even though some of what he rants on about is a bit over the top.

 

There are times I want to choke him but the guy is funny. He has a good head on his shoulders, a talent for pointing out the absurd and the chutzpah to tell us about it.

 

I think I read somewhere that the people of Denmark are consistently the happiest in the world. Lately, we seem to be the grouchiest.

[yungmack]

To paraphrase Anatole France, "The great thing about the libertarian free market is that the rich man has as much right as the poor man to live in a cardboard box on Skid Row."