I didn't read this idiotic thread, so i apologize if someone has made the obvious point. The whole argument rests on an assumed but unproven analogy between a professional sports league and our economy. In fact, the NFL is not at all analogous to the economy, a point that they make repeatedly to justify their so-called common enterprise exception to antitrust laws. Decades ago you would have learned this in Econ 101, but I suppose that has been pushed out of the modern university curriculum to make more room for the essential GLBT courses. Hint: next time get your economic arguments from someone more knowledgeable than a TV talk show host. You won't look so silly.
In short... liberals, pinko socialists think a monopolistic, limited partnership designed to present an entertainment product to consumers runs like our economy. Its like asking the producers of friends why they agreed to pay similar amounts to the cast members and split their profits according to a percentage formula.
The Houston Oilers and Baltimore Colts left. Now those two cities regained NFL teams. If big sports teams leave a city, there's a huge vacuum in tax revenues. I don't expect you leftists to understand. Why am I arguing with you. You leftists don't know how to run a country or city.
they don't have 100 teams because the talent level would be so diluted that fans would be less interested overall.
I don't recall socialist societies having organized professional sports in an intramural geographic setting - in fact, the only venue I could recall a facist or totalitarian or socialistic would be a nationalistic one. Remember the Soviet era Olympic teams with the "CCCP" logo ? This is why Bill Maher is an idiot: socialism as a collective society would not allow a person or city-state to accumulate enough wealth for such a frivolous pursuit as a professional sports league. The society as a whole must present a united and collective front against an external society. Maher can usually present a compelling arguement if viewed in a vacuum.
Erm, bone, I hate to be a bearer of bad news, but you are aware that this is incorrect? The Soviet Union had sports leagues in which teams representing various regions/professions/groups would compete. IMHO, I imagine the Soviet powers that be actually quite liked sports as the alternative "opium for the masses".
Martin, that is news to me and I stand corrected. I must also report that the US National Hockey League has lots of Russkies.
the way the NFL distributes wealth to the teams is indeed like socialism. however, this revenue sharing system and the salary cap have been in place since 1994 but the NFL was popular LONG before then. furthermore, small-market teams like the steelers and packers have been successful LONG before the NFL's era of socialism (1994-present). does this retard think that the NFL socialism is why the steelers are in the SB this year? does he not know the history of the steelers? another example: the bengals (very small market) were MORE successful before the era of socialism than since. in other words, socialism is irrelevant to the NFL's success. thank you, bill, for proving 2 points: one, socialism doesn't help. two, you're a moron.
Lot of good points here, esp. the ones working out the true business model of the NFL, which is not socialistic [I had never considered it before]. Maher's implicit argument, that if socialism works for an enterprise like the NFL, it could work for an enterprise like the United States, therefore doesn't hold up. Now, were the NFL a worker's cooperative, then of course the analogy and implication would better stand. Particularly since the US is not really a solely capitalistic economy but has, like the rest of the planet's, a mixed economy which includes socialistic elements. (Our recent troubles are examples of the downside of free trade, a free-market ideal, not the downside of socialism per se.) Thus we know that socialistic ideals cannot be "all bad". Furthermore, there are successful examples (their number is growing) of worker's cooperatives in the US.