Redistribution
and Equality: Football versus baseball example
By
Josh Sager
Those who study politics often look for models in
order to test the effects of policy in society as a whole in the micro scale.
Two important concepts, both politically and for the health of our nation as a
whole, are equality of opportunity and economic redistribution in order to
promote social welfare. The concept of equality of opportunity is simply “does
everybody in society have access to a chance for success given work”. The world
of sports in the USA gives us two great models of the effects of economic
redistribution and equality of opportunity.
Baseball and football are two of America’s most
beloved pastimes, having tens of millions of fans each, spread across all fifty
states. As I grew up in Boston, I have seen firsthand the borderline religious
fervor given to the sports of baseball and football; one only need attend a
single Patriots or Red Sox game in order to see the level of dedication some feel
towards their local sports team. Despite their mutual popularity, baseball and
football, are run in completely different manners and have the potential to
illustrate the effects of equality and redistribution on a society as a whole.
Major League Baseball is organized around multiple
competing franchises, funded primarily through ticket sales, private funds, and
advertising; as such, there are virtually non-existent levels of revenue
sharing (economic redistribution) and equality of opportunity between teams.
Each team is individually funded, thus the teams with larger venues (New York,
Boston, etc.) are able to raise far more money than those with small venues.
The teams that have access to more money are able to buy the contracts of the
best players by overbidding the smaller teams, thus these teams tend to get the
better players. Having a better pick of players in no way guarantees victory,
but it does give certain franchises a steep advantage over others by allowing
them to steal talent from the opposition (Not to hate on the Yankees, but they
are legendary for doing this, right back to the days of Babe Ruth.).
Baseball illustrates a society where those with
money and increased access are able to get advantages that those who don’t have
resources cannot. There is no redistribution of wealth from the richest teams
to the poorest teams, thus there is no guarantee of equality of opportunity.
The result of this social situation is that statistically the richer teams have
a far larger chance of winning the World Series than those who are poorer. If
we consider baseball as a microcosm of society as a whole, we see an
individualistic society where the free market controls all resources. While everybody
plays by the same rules of the game (analogous to our laws), some are able to
gain an advantage before the game even begins. The rich do not pay to advance
the interests of the poor, thus the poor are often unable to compete on a level
playing field with the rich in the competitive market. Baseball illustrates the
right wing concepts of a free market driven society, where the government (MLB)
does not interfere to make certain that everybody has equal opportunity.
Major League Football is based around a centrally
organized organization (The NFL) which operates using profit sharing and salary
caps in order to preserve fairness. While the revenue streams of football are
virtually identical to those of baseball, coming primarily from television
contracts, advertisements, tickets, and other merchandising, the distribution
of money is much more equitable. The money that comes from the NFL media
contracts is distributed equally among all teams, regardless of the size of the
venue; smaller teams receive the same amount of money from the NFL that larger
teams get despite their smaller profitability. When combined with the salary cap
on players, this redistribution policy prevents any one team from buying all of
the superior players’ contracts. Some teams do have superior talent, but this
is unlikely to be due to them spending several times more than any other team
to retain such talent. By promoting a level playing field, the NFL attempts to
give every team a fighting chance at the Super Bowl and thus advance the sport
as a whole.
When translated into a societal model, football is a
much more socialized society than that of baseball. In football, having access to
large venues and high profits is minimized by the redistribution of wealth
between teams, creating a situation where every team has a similar opportunity
for success. The most profitable teams subsidize the less profitable ones, thus
access to money is less important than teamwork, training, skill and coaching. The
NFL revenue sharing situation illustrates how taxes in society redistribute
wealth downward, as well as horizontally, so that those without money have increased
chances of success. Without the redistribution from top to bottom, the
teams/corporations with larger amounts of money reduce the competition in the
game/market in order to gain an advantage over others. A society with strong
redistributive programs which fund field-leveling programs such as
infrastructure, education and a social safety net, will, like the NFL, promote
increased equality and advancement based upon skill. The policies of the NFL
illustrate the left wing concept that income redistribution in order to boost
those with fewer resources can promote fair competition and increase the
welfare of society as a whole.
There is no objectively correct answer as to which
funding model is superior when we compare football and baseball, nor is there
one when we translate the sport models into politics. The argument comes down
to the debate between the political right, who want to operate under the
baseball model of condensing wealth under a few powerful entities, and the
political left, who want to spread resources out in order to promote equity and
fair competition.
Very interesting way to contrast the two!
ReplyDeletekind of a flawed argument. might work for a "fixed" (essentially the same teams will always be there). one of the key characteristics of capitalism is "creative destruction." if we applied the nfl model to society (and changed "teams" to "stores"), people would never be rewarded for good ideas and those with bad ideas (beeper stores in 2012) would always be subsidized by the profits of those with good ideas (smartphones). we would essentially be protecting the country from any innovation and progress, because we wouldn't want to hurt the beeper stores and their employees.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you got this whole idea from here:
http://vimeo.com/35003246
I agree with you that this comparison is extremely limited and cannot be directly applied to a working society; without risk, innovation and the phasing out of outdated technology, we would not advance as a society, but it can be used as a model to demonstrate the effects of equality of opportunity. I was using the sports analogy as a limited example of how the two extremes in redistribution operate (libertarianism versus socialism).
DeleteAs to the Bill Maher segment, I hadn't seen this before, but I really like it. This analogy is a fairly common thought experiment in political science courses (I first heard about it in my intro to public policy class at BU) because it requires little previous knowledge of economics and there are defined parameters for success (winning the game).
For a much more in depth analysis of this phenomenon as well as an addressing of your point on the correlation between effort and profit, go to the following address:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.203.5487&rep=rep1&type=pdf
In my opinion this is also a flawed argument because the NFL/MLB (the government also tells the Pittsburgh Pirates they may not move to a city where they would have equal opportunities. If the government told Starbucks that they could not open a coffee shop outside of Seattle I would agree that they would need to also take money from the coffee shops in New York to give to Starbucks because they would not have equal opportunity. The point is that MLB and NFL teams are not operating with the same rules as other businesses and people as people and businesses are not told which market they are allowed to be in.
DeleteHave you ever followed the NFL? Teams are rewarded for winning. Individuals are rewarded for playing well. Bad teams are ridiculed. Bad coaches are fired. Bad players are cut. Rather than limiting innovation and progress, the NFL has a long history of success with both team dynasties and "miracle seasons." Both methods of economic redistribution, like baseball and football, have their advantages and disadvantages. This is a very good analogy.
DeleteSorry, this was a reply to the Anonymous Jan 30, 2012 12:49 PM comment.
Delete