I agree with you but it is a fact of life. My point is that even government subsidies are made with the hope of generating some kind of return for the public money invested. Then I asked what kind of windfall a city can expect from hosting a successful franchise.
So is revenue sharing and the salary cap and the lottery.I agree with you but it is a fact of life.Not always, not by a long shot.My point is that even government subsidies are made with the hope of generating some kind of return for the public money invested.That's a good question. Books have been wirtten arguing both windfall and inevitable loss.Then I asked what kind of windfall a city can expect from hosting a successful franchise.
And how would that be different from the situation today?
Or maybe there would be 60 teams.
There's barely enough talent to spread over 30 teams.
Pro sports have a non-statutory labor exemption.
Oh, did the NBA decide to let anybody who feels like it start an NBA franchise? Are they waiving the expansion fee too?
The league controls entry, and erects significant barriers.
Yes, that is a common business practice to maintain monopoly power. The bad thing is that it leads to sub-optimal results for the consumer.
laissez-faire is the most efficient way for companies to make money. this actually rarely coincides with the most efficient way to do something.
Their motive is profit, not optimal results for the consumer.
A free-market system would be terrible in the NBA, as you'd see many versions of the New York Knicks/Yankees running around. Too many GMs would try to win "RIGHT NOW" and throw money away on over-priced/fading/hyped up players that don't fit.
You will then get the select few GMs that know they can't compete with the high rollas, similar to the Oakland A's. These GMs will have continuous success, but unlike the MLB, the NBA has a ty "minor-league" system where Billy Beane can't just stockpile cheap, young talent for years as a result of their better players jumping ship to other teams, giving Beane supplementary draft picks. Such picks do NOT exist in the NBA, as there's only so much talent that can be considered on the NBA level.
I'll say this though, and I'm sure this is an absurd conclusion to come out of a free-market system, but I could see these smarter GMs making the NBA a more Global product, beyond what any promotion ideas that Stern could come up with. These GMs would have to make a HUGE investment (basketballs, basketball courts, trainers in these foreign countries, translators, etc) but they could reap these profits years later.
Those are just my thoughts, I'm interested in Economics, but I'll be the first to say I don't have much knowledge in this.
George Bush hates Spurs people.
Easy explanation...
MLB
Montreal Expos
Kansas City Royals
Pre-Cap NHL
Winnipeg Jets
Quebec Nordiques
Hartford Whalers
All of these teams would have had AllStar rosters if they could hold onto their draft picks. All of these teams were sold and moved except for one (KC).
I included KC because of their track record. The team can draft, it drafts exceptionally well, yet all their picks eventually leave because larger markets are willing to pay way more $$ for their free agents. Theyre like the minor league team in MLB just grooming players to play somewhere else.
Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon, etc
Very true. The Devil Rays are another team. They've got a tremendous amount of raw young talent right now, but all those guys are gonna sign with the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox before the D-Rays get a chance to ever be good.
This is interesting.
So free market principles work well in providing consumers with innovative products and services year after year but these same principles cannot be trusted to allow a compe ive distribution of talent among a large number of NBA franchises.
Why is college basketball, which relies more on a free market system for distribution and development of talent, not a good example of how things could be? (I can't recall what Extra Stout said earlier).
How is the right of an individual to choose relevant in this? For example, if a rookie is drafted into an NBA franchise they don't particularly like, what options do they have?
I'll let someone else comment on the free market system. For NBA rookies, their contracts are generally low, and in cases like Chris Paul and Deron Williams, they are not compensated well at all. They do know that, once their rookie contracts are up, they're allowed to finally be paid what they're worth. If the player doesn't want to play in a certain city, he can always refuse to suit up and demand a trade (Kobe, Eli Manning, J.D. Drew). I don't know how it works when players go overseas to play in foreign leagues, as it hasn't happened that often to my knowledge. For me though, I can't see how rookies could complain that they're stepping into such a "terrible" position. With parity in the league, there are few cities that I could see are truly a terrible place to play without at least some perks.
*edit*I forgot your point about colleges. They have a completely different system to choose their champions, as the one and done type games that March Madness has plays to the favor of the hot, streaking team. You have your Cinderellas, but at the beginning of the year, you see the usual top 5 schools (UNC, , UConn, etc) who collect most of the All-Americans. There are few true contenders for the national championship, and if the system was replaced with a best of 3/5/7 series, this would cause the talent difference to be even more noticeable imo, as no longer can Cinderella teams rely gimmick offenses and hot streakers for that long.
There's work at the post office.
Sit out of professional basketball for one year.How is the right of an individual to choose relevant in this? For example, if a rookie is drafted into an NBA franchise they don't particularly like, what options do they have?
And I have no idea how amateur sports can be described using free market principles.
Or force a trade. (See: Francis, Steve)
And Bryant, Kobe.
I may be totally wrong, but the ultimate result of a free market is to weed out uncompe ive businesses, and retain the best of the best.
Now instead of the NBA being a self-enclosed economy that have teams compete against each other, we all know that the NBA is one en y with multiple franchises, fighting for slightly overlapping markets. The main compe ion is other sports (NHL, MLB, NFL, etc....), and the situation is close to say, a Starbucks taking out all the rules of franchising so that the franchises can compete against each other, rather than take on other coffee shops and fast-food restaurants.
The result would be dying of small market teams, not allowing the league to capture small market demographics, dilluting variety in offered products (Instead of having 30 teams to choose from, you have, say 8), and small revenue streams from merchandise sales and TV revenues.
It is not possible to have a league and a free market at the same time.
This is primo, Grade-A troll.
Too bad you targeted the wrong end of the audience speculum.
Actually, at the franchise owner or General Manager level, there are free-market principles incorporated in the league. An owner can trade players or draft picks with any other owner, much like any one of us can barter, trade, buy or sell our property. However, for the players themselves, there is no free market unless they have become free agents. This may be oversimplified but I hope my point comes across. So, the league is not entirely a free market but a hybrid with strict rules for its "economy" and high entry barriers.
<Congrats to the Spurs for their 4th!>
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
