Outlaw Heroes
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,403
- Reaction score
- 6,612
I keep seeing a number of posters posing the same question: "How can anyone support the owners?"
I have a simple response: "Because the owners' interests here are largely aligned with those of the fans."
Don't believe me? As a thought experiment, try to answer the following question: "if I really wanted to ruin fan interest in the game of professional football, what changes would I make?"
I'll tell you the first change I would make. I'd get rid of the salary cap. Presto. Just like that I'd infect the game with a number of the problems that are currently plaguing MLB. Within a few years there would be a two-tiered league. The first tier would consist of maybe five or six teams which, because of their far greater resources and ability to spend on the best talent, would be the only teams that would ever really have a chance at winning it all. Oh sure, every once in a while the stars might align just right for a small-market franchise (the NFL equivalent of the Oakland As of the early 2000s or today's Tampa Devil Rays) allowing it to crash the big boys' party for a few years. But for the most part the same 5 or 6 teams would be winning Superbowls by outspending everyone else.
Some of you might even think that all of this sounds pretty cool. After all, the Cowboys are the NFL equivalent of the Yankees. It's reasonable to suppose that no team generates more revenues and therefore that no team would be able to spend on talent like the Cowboys. Maybe it's just me, but that's not the way I want to see my team win. I'd rather know that the Cowboys are beating teams on a level playing field. I'd rather beat them with scouting and drafting, coaching and preparation and not by spending more money than them.
In any event, I'm pretty sure that fans of the 26 or 27 teams in the "have-not" markets wouldn't think that this was an improvement to the game, even if the odd Cowboy or Giants fan might.
But I digress. Do you want to know what else I'd do if I really wanted to ruin the game? I'd get rid of the draft. That would ensure that no small market team could make up for its competitive disadvantage in terms of resources through scouting and shrewd drafting. Nope. From the moment they left college, players would be free to go to the highest bidder.
In fact, I suppose if I really wanted to ruin the game I'd get rid of any concept of team ownership of player rights: not just draft rights, or things like the franchise player tag, but even any rights arising under player contracts. If the Commanders wanted to scoop a player from another team mid-season by offering to pay him more, I'd let them do it.
Now, for certain, I'd have ruined the competitive balance of the league and effectively killed the interest of fans in 26 or 27 markets. They wouldn't ever be able to rely on any of their good players sticking around for even a full season, so why form any attachments?
But you know what else I'd have done? I'd have created a perfectly free market for players' services. Make no mistake: the players would love my new league in concept (at least in the short term), since it would obviously maximize their freedom to choose where to work and under what circumstances, not to mention its effect on their pocket-books.
The upshot of all of this should be clear. Those of you arguing for player mobility and the right make whatever amount their services would command in a "free market" have overlooked the impact that this would have, taken to the extreme, on the competitive balance of the league. The NFL cannot be compared to most labor markets, where worker mobility and the lack of artificial constraints on wages are fundamental rights. At root, the NFL is an affiliated group of 32 businesses, each of which is in the business of selling a competitive spectacle. Keeping it competitive requires certain constraints on the rights of the players to move around and the rights of the owners to pay the players anything they want. Consequently, the players' don't operate in a "free market".
We, as fans, benefit from that because it allows the NFL to stage a more competitive spectacle than other leagues, like MLB. In that sense, our interests in these labor disputes are largely aligned with those of the owners, who maintain the competitive integrity of the league even as they benefit themselves financially by placing constraints on the players' rights as employees.
But don't worry. Ultimately, the players benefit just like the owners and the fans do. Indeed, the short-term constraints on their freedom and earning potential keeps interest in the game high, ensuring that butts are in seats and that the networks will pay those ridiculous amounts for TV contracts so that player salaries can can continue to rise at a mind-boggling rate over the long term.
I have a simple response: "Because the owners' interests here are largely aligned with those of the fans."
Don't believe me? As a thought experiment, try to answer the following question: "if I really wanted to ruin fan interest in the game of professional football, what changes would I make?"
I'll tell you the first change I would make. I'd get rid of the salary cap. Presto. Just like that I'd infect the game with a number of the problems that are currently plaguing MLB. Within a few years there would be a two-tiered league. The first tier would consist of maybe five or six teams which, because of their far greater resources and ability to spend on the best talent, would be the only teams that would ever really have a chance at winning it all. Oh sure, every once in a while the stars might align just right for a small-market franchise (the NFL equivalent of the Oakland As of the early 2000s or today's Tampa Devil Rays) allowing it to crash the big boys' party for a few years. But for the most part the same 5 or 6 teams would be winning Superbowls by outspending everyone else.
Some of you might even think that all of this sounds pretty cool. After all, the Cowboys are the NFL equivalent of the Yankees. It's reasonable to suppose that no team generates more revenues and therefore that no team would be able to spend on talent like the Cowboys. Maybe it's just me, but that's not the way I want to see my team win. I'd rather know that the Cowboys are beating teams on a level playing field. I'd rather beat them with scouting and drafting, coaching and preparation and not by spending more money than them.
In any event, I'm pretty sure that fans of the 26 or 27 teams in the "have-not" markets wouldn't think that this was an improvement to the game, even if the odd Cowboy or Giants fan might.
But I digress. Do you want to know what else I'd do if I really wanted to ruin the game? I'd get rid of the draft. That would ensure that no small market team could make up for its competitive disadvantage in terms of resources through scouting and shrewd drafting. Nope. From the moment they left college, players would be free to go to the highest bidder.
In fact, I suppose if I really wanted to ruin the game I'd get rid of any concept of team ownership of player rights: not just draft rights, or things like the franchise player tag, but even any rights arising under player contracts. If the Commanders wanted to scoop a player from another team mid-season by offering to pay him more, I'd let them do it.
Now, for certain, I'd have ruined the competitive balance of the league and effectively killed the interest of fans in 26 or 27 markets. They wouldn't ever be able to rely on any of their good players sticking around for even a full season, so why form any attachments?
But you know what else I'd have done? I'd have created a perfectly free market for players' services. Make no mistake: the players would love my new league in concept (at least in the short term), since it would obviously maximize their freedom to choose where to work and under what circumstances, not to mention its effect on their pocket-books.
The upshot of all of this should be clear. Those of you arguing for player mobility and the right make whatever amount their services would command in a "free market" have overlooked the impact that this would have, taken to the extreme, on the competitive balance of the league. The NFL cannot be compared to most labor markets, where worker mobility and the lack of artificial constraints on wages are fundamental rights. At root, the NFL is an affiliated group of 32 businesses, each of which is in the business of selling a competitive spectacle. Keeping it competitive requires certain constraints on the rights of the players to move around and the rights of the owners to pay the players anything they want. Consequently, the players' don't operate in a "free market".
We, as fans, benefit from that because it allows the NFL to stage a more competitive spectacle than other leagues, like MLB. In that sense, our interests in these labor disputes are largely aligned with those of the owners, who maintain the competitive integrity of the league even as they benefit themselves financially by placing constraints on the players' rights as employees.
But don't worry. Ultimately, the players benefit just like the owners and the fans do. Indeed, the short-term constraints on their freedom and earning potential keeps interest in the game high, ensuring that butts are in seats and that the networks will pay those ridiculous amounts for TV contracts so that player salaries can can continue to rise at a mind-boggling rate over the long term.
