NFL

Starscream · 03-13-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Well for one, it'd be the Los Angeles Packers by now. There's no way that a publicly owned NFL franchise, let alone one in by far the smallest television market, would be able to compete (let alone operate) under the operating economic guidelines of MLB.

I don't know how luxury taxes or a salary cap relate to socialism, but I digress...

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.

VirtualSmitty · 03-13-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starscream

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.

Exactly. The NFL is a business and it's a business run in a very unusual way here. From websters:

Quote:

Socialism
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Outside of perhaps a few government positions I can't think of any other jobs in this country that limit what one can make. And I can't think of any single business outside of sports that has limits on what it is allowed to spend.

Stephen · 03-13-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starscream

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

Revenue sharing is much more a Socialist idea than a salary cap in which baseball participates in, and has done so for over a decade (even longer in other forms). Honestly, I can't envision a salary cap in MLB. The MLBPA doesn't want it nor do owners of major markets. Something radical would have to change, and I simply don't see that something radical on the horizon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starscream

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.

It'll either be the Chargers or the Jaguars. Write it down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Outside of perhaps a few government positions I can't think of any other jobs in this country that limit what one can make. And I can't think of any single business outside of sports that has limits on what it is allowed to spend.

Which doesn't change the fact that they're by far the most popular sport in the United States (and have been so for some time now) and it's a direct result of those economic principles being put into place.

Good discussion by the way guys.

VirtualSmitty · 03-13-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Revenue sharing is much more a Socialist idea than a salary cap in which baseball participates in, and has done so for over a decade (even longer in other forms).

Not exactly. How the owners spend the money they receive is up to them, baseball doesn't force them to reinvest it on the team. Teams like the Royals and Pirates collect this and are extremely profitable, despite not putting much effort into theirs teams until lately. It is in no way nearly as socialist an idea as capping what a team can spend. Penalizing a team based on where they play and how big their fan base is just seems wrong.

Bruins Fan · 03-13-2011, 01:41 PM

The Sox owner was just fined a half million for saying revenue sharing Suxed.
Some small market teams take the money and do nothing with it but put in their pockets.
True they can't chase the big money free agents,but at least they could build up the scouting and farm systems with all the high draft picks they get.
Look at the twins small market and field good teams.

loki · 03-13-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Not exactly. How the owners spend the money they receive is up to them, baseball doesn't force them to reinvest it on the team. Teams like the Royals and Pirates collect this and are extremely profitable, despite not putting much effort into theirs teams until lately. It is in no way nearly as socialist an idea as capping what a team can spend. Penalizing a team based on where they play and how big their fan base is just seems wrong.

the pirates do nothing with the money they're given other then pocket it.

kelmac07 · 03-13-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loki

the pirates do nothing with the money their given other then pocket it.

And they have 18 consecutive losing seasons to prove it.

VirtualSmitty · 03-13-2011, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loki

the pirates do nothing with the money they're given other then pocket it.

Exactly. It's a shame too, the Pirates are older than even the Yankees, but hey the fans keep coming.

Stephen · 03-13-2011, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Not exactly. How the owners spend the money they receive is up to them, baseball doesn't force them to reinvest it on the team. Teams like the Royals and Pirates collect this and are extremely profitable, despite not putting much effort into theirs teams until lately. It is in no way nearly as socialist an idea as capping what a team can spend. Penalizing a team based on where they play and how big their fan base is just seems wrong.

So would you be against a salary floor, or something stating that a certain percentage of shared revenues be reinvested in salary or other operating expenses?

VirtualSmitty · 03-13-2011, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

So would you be against a salary floor, or something stating that a certain percentage of shared revenues be reinvested in salary or other operating expenses?

Yea I would be against it. It's their business, let them run it into the ground if they want. If the fans stop coming it's their own fault. If the fans don't care and just keep going, what does it matter. Not all teams abuse the system, while I don't care much for revenue sharing, what they choose to do with it is up to them.

Stephen · 03-13-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Yea I would be against it. It's their business, let them run it into the ground if they want. If the fans stop coming it's their own fault. If the fans don't care and just keep going, what does it matter. Not all teams abuse the system, while I don't care much for revenue sharing, what they choose to do with it is up to them.

That's the rub for me. If you're going to share revenue, then it needs to be regulated. Otherwise, why share in the first place?

03-13-2011, 01:41 PM	#5
Bruins Fan Hooper drives the boat. Join Date: May 2009 First Name: John Location: Cape Cod Posts: 1,359 Trading: (0)	Re: NFL The Sox owner was just fined a half million for saying revenue sharing Suxed. Some small market teams take the money and do nothing with it but put in their pockets. True they can't chase the big money free agents,but at least they could build up the scouting and farm systems with all the high draft picks they get. Look at the twins small market and field good teams. __________________ Here's to swimmin' with bow-legged women.