Deficient Mode
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2011
- 60,348
- 2,397
That's economics.
No, it's ideological delusion. Consumers have little power in a "free" market.
That's economics.
However, at the end of the day why does it matter if the money goes to the players or the owners? Just curious. I mean, realistically speaking you're paying to watch your team, or be entertained. I'm sure for the fans of teams like United, City, Real Madrid, etc. it's great because they've always got the best players and most money regardless. The few players that make those teams definitely benefit financially.
It is if you figure all the stadium financing deals in too. Low price land, tax breaks, low interest bonds, to downright stealing tax payer money.
American sports teams are cash cows.
It is if you figure all the stadium financing deals in too. Low price land, tax breaks, low interest bonds, to downright stealing tax payer money.
American sports teams are cash cows.
No, it's ideological delusion. Consumers have little power in a "free" market.
It is the club owners who provide us entertainment, not the players.
They have the power to determine what products to spend money on or not. If they don't spend money on the product, then the product goes out of business. There is no problem if a group of other consumers decide to support a product and keep it profitable that other consumers would not support.
Sports is different because consumers act with emotion and they become irrational, but that's ultimately on the consumer acting irrationally spending money on a product that they otherwise wouldn't spend money on.
Name one time a corporation the relative size of say, Liverpool FC, went out of business because customers tried to boycott their product.
The only irrational thing here is to extend free market ideology to every aspect of our lives including entertainment - and to pretend that's normal.
Name one time a corporation the relative size of say, Liverpool FC, went out of business because customers tried to boycott their product.
The only irrational thing here is to extend free market ideology to every aspect of our lives including entertainment - and to pretend that's normal.
The only irrational thing here is to extend free market ideology to every aspect of our lives including entertainment - and to pretend that's normal.
So you don't like free market, you don't like salary cap, then what do you want?
In the sports world, you'll see teams move for good or bad reasons. The St. Louis Rams in my hometown are an example. They were an absolute terrible team, and the fans didn't show up like they did when they were good, and weren't going to put as much public money in a new stadium, so Kroenke moved them. He had every right to do it, ultimately most of the fans in St. Louis didn't care and moved on. We still hate Kroenke, but we weren't a big Rams town anyway.
The reason why should be very obvious. The players are the ones out there every day training and giving their life to wear the shirt. They are the ones that leave fans with the moments they remember for their whole life, they are the reason we are all on this forum right now.
If you want to take a more abstract approach, professional football creates a new class of rich people who can make money regardless of what background they came from. Those people are far more likely to put the money right back into the economy, so it is better for all the people in the communities that they're the ones getting the money.
If anyone thinks that some of those owners hang on for 20 years and claim they're bleeding cash the whole time, then believe they've actually been signing up to lose money for 20 years of their life, they are very gullible.
Seriously? I mean if you agree with boycott as in spending their money elsewhere, then there are plenty of examples. One of the top of my head is Circuit City with consumers deciding to go to Best Buy and online to places like Amazon.
So you don't like free market, you don't like salary cap, then what do you want?
Status quo of only the traditional big clubs can spend big and not upset the balance of power?
The reverse question could be directed at those who like the free market but have no problem restricting it when it fits the plans of NHL owners. But don't you dare suggest market regulations in favour of the general population...
I'll stop it right here before it gets too political.
No, that's not what I mean by boycott. People spend their money on Amazon because it's cheaper, not because Circuit City pissed them off. Finding a cheaper option is just the pressure of living in a society where the cost of living continues has risen dramatically but inflation-adjusted income hasn't changed. Finding a cheaper option is compulsory for most people.
And you're right, sports teams aren't comparable to corporations. People are loyal to them. They won't watch a different league because they have been priced out of their own club, or can't afford a tv package. In a huge number of cases, people are attached to the club, not the sport itself. That's why it's stupid to apply a model of "the consumer decides" to sports.
No, the system we have now is flawed, but a salary cap doesn't fix any of the real problems with it and only adds to them. What I don't want is for anyone to tell me that it's ok for long-time fans to be priced out of their favorite club because the market has decided that someone else is willing to pay more for their seat; to justify the owners' actions as they negatively impact the fans.
But that's the North American sports landscape. You can't move a Liverpool FC to Manchester and call them Manchester Liverpool FC like how Kroenke moved the St. Louis Rams to LA.
Plus the fan base is different in Europe compared to North America. European teams were built from the ground up. You don't really see that in North America so that's why there are a lot more bandwagonners in North America.
Well, sure, but I wasn't trying to say it was the same.
I think that's a misconception. You see bandwagonners on both sides. I'm a Chelsea fan, and there is a very legitimate point for there being a lot of bandwagonner fans for them. Or a bunch of bandwagonners during Leicester's run.
But you're arguing for a North American concept to be applied to a non North American sport landscape.
And the bandwagonners for Chelsea, Leicester, etc. are North Americans! Think of how relegated teams can still survive in the rest of the world vs. North America.
The idea that anyone has a say in their money once they spend it is idiotic.
I didn't say that there are no criticisms or that everything is perfect, but like I said it's idiotic to act like owners embezzle and steal money from things that they own.
The reason why should be very obvious. The players are the ones out there every day training and giving their life to wear the shirt. They are the ones that leave fans with the moments they remember for their whole life, they are the reason we are all on this forum right now.
If you want to take a more abstract approach, professional football creates a new class of rich people who can make money regardless of what background they came from. Those people are far more likely to put the money right back into the economy, so it is better for all the people in the communities that they're the ones getting the money.
Oh wow.
If you believe that, I beg you not to research the subject. The writings of David Conn from the UK's Guardian newspaper in particular you'd do well to avoid at all costs.
I fear the truth may explode your head.
Oh wow.
If you believe that, I beg you not to research the subject. The writings of David Conn from the UK's Guardian newspaper in particular you'd do well to avoid at all costs.
I fear the truth may explode your head.
Most players play for money. They get well compensated to play a game that a lot of us pay to play. As much as it is true that they're the ones playing the game realistically all they've needed to do is practice a lot at something, be atheltic and talented and play.