tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post3287530848015873202..comments2023-06-24T05:10:48.660-04:00Comments on Biblical Conservatism: Are Salary Caps in Professional Sports Anti-Capitalist?Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-30280181835137848692011-04-07T08:38:10.491-04:002011-04-07T08:38:10.491-04:00I think the DC Comics analogy is great. The TV one...I think the DC Comics analogy is great. The TV one works too. <br /><br />I've been an advocate of two things in baseball: a salary cap of about $150 million and a salary floor of about $75 million. In other words, there would be the opportunity still to sign big ticket players, while disallowing one team from setting the market value too high (by that I mean the Yankees, of course). <br /><br />I made the analogy in the original discussion on Twitter that the Yankees driving up costs is akin to Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and several other millionaires/billionaires agreeing to pay $5000 to Apple for an iPad and then Apple raises the market value of an iPad to $5000 because they can now command that from a small segment of the market. <br /><br />Top baseball players now command far higher salaries from all 30 teams because one or two will sign a $25+ million contract with them. It throws the market out of whack.Christopher Bastedohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-25616915249938103342011-04-07T01:16:49.380-04:002011-04-07T01:16:49.380-04:00I think you and I had this conversation a year ago...I think you and I had this conversation a year ago. At the time, my position was basically against change because I didn't have any data. Actually, I dont really think that specific feature had changed, since I still don't have much of an opinion on what should be done.<br /><br />But I have thought a lot more on the capitalist question of the whole thing. At first glance, it does look anti-capitalist. However, the MLB is not a governing body in that it doesn't govern the players lives. It is an employer. <br /><br />It has to do with how your business model views the entity of a team. If you view a team is a distinct business from other teams, then yes it is anti-capitalist, regardless of whether the US gov't gets involved. The problem is that this is an incorrect model. <br /><br />A more correct model would be viewing the teams as different departments within the same organization. They are in competition with one another, but they are not in fiscal competition. The Yankees do not have more money because the Yankees produce a superior product (though this does affect money from year to year). They have more money because their home base is in New York City. They are not trying to get more customers for the Yankees, but they are trying to win ballgames. They aren't trying to get Red Sox fans to become Yankee fans; they are trying to get New Yorkers to watch baseball instead of basketball. <br /><br />Let us think of some similar examples. In comics, Superman comics are not in competition with Batman comics. They are both DC. They are in competition is manga and Marvel. However, the writers of Superman comics may be in competition with the writers of Batman comics for <i>company resources</i> but DC can dispense those resources however they want.<br /><br />Another example is TV stations. NBC is in competition is ABC. But NBC shows aren't in competition with each other in the market. They only compete with each other within the company for company resources.<br /><br />It is the same for sports teams. The company is the MLB, not the Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox. (I know that sports teams are more independent then the other examples, but no analogy is perfect)Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.com