Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great:: "socialism."

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Bill Maher's New Rules segment threw a curve ball (opps bad pun!)- instead of a tirade on big franchise sports, or the huge tax write offs that national sports teams receive for building stadiums (and costing localities huge amounts of money in the process), Bill Maher instead came instead to praise the NFL and condemn baseball, and used a rather clever analogy for our current political system.

New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.

It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.

Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.

That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."

Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.

So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie. But then again, they think they're macho because their sport is football, when honestly - is there anything gayer than wearing another man's shirt?

Video clip will not embed, but you can view here in another window. I included the text in case some of our over-seas friends will not be able to view the clip.


Personally, while I knew about the NFL "system" of draft-picks etc, the other statistics Mr. Maher mentions was definitely news to me; and I had never thought of the NFL vs baseball as a paradigm for describing our political system, but I think it works and comic embellishments aside, Maher has hit on something novel. But it's unfortunate that none of the people that really need to hear this, will not. I still oppose large franchise sports teams getting tax breaks though, and even though that was really a side topic to Mr. Maher's larger point, I wished he had said something about it.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The difference is that people freely associate with the NFL, while the government is predicated on force. Also, the government is not designed as a form of entertainment.

Regardless, the NFL is heading right into a terrible labor situation because the "socialist system" does a shit job protecting its players, but I wouldn't expect a guy who still believes that vaccines are bad to understand that.

[heirtoruin.livejournal.com]

This. Only this.

And the NFL has the freedom to follow whatever model they choose. And it's a microcosm.

And I recall the Pittsburg Pirates almost making to the World Series in 1991. ;)

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

The difference is that people freely associate with the NFL

You're missing his point. He's arguing that the reason football is successful is because it implements this model, not saying that now he's going to bring in the brownshirts and impose it on you.

But note that once they're in the system, teams have to play by the rules. The Redskins would probably love to not have a salary cap and not have to share TV revenue each year, but they entered into the agreement. Why? Well, first, because, "freedom" does you no good if nobody else will play along. You can't have a two or three team football league. So why would they agree to play in such a freedom-busting league? Because if the whole league is successful, they'll enjoy more profits than they would on their own, even with this draconian freedom-hating revenue sharing. Because, as in an economy, a model in which a few agents enjoy huge success in the short term while small teams founder can only work in the short term, not the long term.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, yes if you're going to use logic and reason to analyze a point made by a comedian that point doesn't exactly hold water. That's not entirely a new thing here Jeff.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I like to think of the difference between baseball and football as the difference between loving the sport, and loving to win. People don't appreciate the sport, they just want to win. They'll put on the jersey and paint their faces because they're winning. Not because they give a shit about football, but because they give a shit about winning.

The beautiful thing about the Kansas City Royals is that it helps to weed out the true fans from the followers of winners. Failure is an orphan, but success has a thousand fathers.

The last thing I want is people crossing over from football fandom to baseball fandom. Christ, it's obnoxious enough already. People lose baseball games and they go home. People lose football games and they go ape-shit.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

(Notwithstanding Maher's rather shallow and obtuse, one-off analysis of the competitiveness of football that simply mistakes one kind of dis-competitiveness as a form of actual competitiveness, because it isn't "like baseball".)

[404.livejournal.com]

Problem with Maher's analysis is that the NFL might push parity through revenue sharing, it does not guarantee success: in the last twenty years you have seen the many of the same teams over the years make it to the Superbowl, even with all the teams going once and that's it:

1) Bills (4)
2) Cowboys (3)
3) Giants (2)
4) Redskins (1)
5) 49ers (1)
6) Chargers (1)
7) Packers (3)
8) Patriots (6)
9) Rams (1)
10) Bears (1)
11) Titans (1)
12) Steelers (4)
13) Broncos (2)
14) Falcons (1)
15) Seahawks (1)
16) Arizona Cardinals (1)
17) Colts (2)
18) Saints (1)
19) Eagles (1)
20) Panthers (1)
21) Raiders (1)
22) Buccaneers (1)

That leaves out:
NY Jets
Browns
Dolpins
Bengals
Lions
Chiefs
Vikings
Jaguars
Texans

Even with money being spread out, many of the same teams are in the Superbowl, leading to the assumption that it's not the money that makes the team viable, but the way they use the money they have. The NFL's actions maybe confer for a "looking for equality of opportunity", but in reality it's not equality of outcome.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone who espouses socialism in the real world is actually gunning for equality of outcome. That's a goal for communists to pursue, but I think you'll find that equality of opportunity is enough to satisfy most socialists.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

In this vein, I've always been a bit bemused by the fact that Canadians, those alleged paragons of socialism and hockey fanatics, seem far more inclined to go all Hanson Brothers when politicians try to use tax dollars to build hockey rinks or subsidize hockey teams than Americans get when their local governments use tax dollars to subsidize local sports team or facilities.

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/pulse2010/story.html?id=3598962

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/930288--harper-risking-backlash-in-cash-for-sports-scheme

http://journals.humankinetics.com/ssj-back-issues/ssjvolume21issue1march/fromcorporatewelfaretonationalinterestnewspaperanalysisofthepublicsubsidizationofnhlhockeydebateincanada

[404.livejournal.com]

Are those the same Canadians that sit around all day, drinking Yukon Jack and complaining that Wayne Gretzky was traded to the LA Kings?

[404.livejournal.com]

Oh, and MLB has been doing many of the same things that Maher crows about: the last few years MLB has imposed a luxury tax on those teams going over a threshold decided every year, and that money going to the lowest income backet teams, almost...like...welfare...

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

Nobody ever mentions profits when talking about the economic power of MLB teams. It's always payroll, which really isn't a fair comparison when many baseball owners could easily afford to field a highly competitive team - if they'd only be willing to give up a piece of their own profits. It doesn't change Maher's analogy, but the method used to describe it really isn't sound.

And just to prove that it isn't my own bias speaking, here (http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=238635) is something I found on the Internet that analyzes data from Forbes.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that link, very cool stuff indeed!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Red Sox fan in me saw this a while ago with YES/NESN numbers included, and it made me realize the folly of trying to even begin to outspend the Yankees. It's simply impossible.

Yet the Yankees could very well come in third this year.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Here's some correlation data on payroll size and number of wins (remarkably weak correlation):

http://mijopo.blogspot.com/2010/10/payrolls-and-baseball-success.html

[thies.livejournal.com]

handegg is boring as hell

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Better than baseball.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

First, Maher's a comedian.

Second, this is not socialism by any definition of the term.

Third, GREEN BAY SUPER BOWL FTW!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah-- I think we all know the context of his editorial, and he's not writing in the Oxford Journal of Economics.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Brilliant, funny, clever analysis. I could live without the LOL GAY = FEMININE quip but I guess Bill can't help who he is either.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't get comments here to the effect, they're expecting him to be writing an article for the Oxford Journal of Economics-- so SCREW YOU MAHER!! I shouldn't be surprised though.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Sports are so very plebeian

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

You havent tried polo, have you. :p

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Curious analogies. In this line of thoughts, soccer is also more akin to the Republican ideology. There's no way Stoke City or Wigan Athletic could ever win the Premiership and/or participate in the Champions League. Its just that Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City steal all the good apples because of their immeasurably larger budgets. Free market FTW.

(And yet, who wouldnt rejoice when Stoke beats the crap out of some of the "Big fish"? The Schadenfreude of the poor man, i suppose.)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Boy, that's a bright shirt for your team ;) I like it !!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Hey, we can watch ANY videoclip here in BG. It's the pirates' haven.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Personally what I find odd in the system of many North American leagues is that almost none of them allow for a system of promotion/relegation. If you're the crappiest team for many years in a row, you'd still play in the same league, unless you go bankrupt (but that's an outside factor which is not decided on the actual field).

In most other places there's a hierarchical system of leagues: top league / A-group / premier league, you name it. And then a stream of lower levels. The 2-3 teams who finish at the bottom after the season are relegated, and substituted by the best teams from the lower division. This creates an incentive to excel, and bring out the best of your team, even if you're a middle-of-the-table team. Otherwise you could stay in that league forever, as long as you're not bankrupt, and suck on welfare benefit from TV rights, and even possibly "sell" some matches for money, since you don't care if you'd finish bottom or second-from-bottom.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

The incentive to finish at the very bottom is that you'd pick the best player at the next draft. That's some nasty prerequisite for rigged matches, methinks. ;-)

Good points about the usefulness of promotion-relegation. NBA doesn't have them. I'm not very familiar with NFL but from what I gather, it's the same. 32 teams stay there for ages. The MLS is different, it has picked the model of most soccer leagues.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I included the text in case some of our over-seas friends will not be able to view the clip.

Thanks!

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

The NFL Is about as socialist as Billy Graham is an Atheist.


The differences between Baseball and Football have very little to do with revenue sharing and a hell of a lot more to do with the fact that the NFL is run like a single corporation with 32 regional offices wheras Baseball is run like 32 independent city states.

Further the reason why the Superbowl has so many more viewers than the World series is that it is a single event. One game, 4 hours long. The world series stretches out over 10 days.

As far as every team in Football being competitive and only the rich teams in Baseball having a chance, again that is BS.

Sure in Football a small market team like Green Bay can be a periennial contender, but then again so can a small market team like Oakland.

The thing in both sports that sets organizations apart is the quality of the ownership/leadership of the teams. Sure, the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers are always going to be in the top 10 teams in the league but between them they will will less than 1/4th of the world series and yet a team like Minnesotta gets to the playoffs just as often and wins almost as many world series on a salary that is 60% of what those big spenders put out.

Now lets look at Football. Well the Salary Cap and revenue sharing makes all the teams payroll roughly equivalent but when is the last time the Detroit Lions won even half their games? How about Miami? Oakland? And yet the Colts have been in the playoffs for 10 straight years.

Really the difference in competitive balance between the 2 sports is massively overblown and to the extent that it exists revenue sharing is not the problem but rather the issue is that in Baseball there is no minimum salary that teams have to spend allowing crappy owners to take in more revenue sharing dollars than they spend on their players and pocket the difference.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Maher hasn't hit on anything novel, this has been a criticism of the NFL for some time.

It is also wrong. The NFL is acting more like a cartel than a bunch of socialists. They even got congress to give them an exemption. The customers that have to deal with the cartel are the TV broadcasters, whose bills are paid by advertisers, so the general public doesn't really care so much about the effects. If the ticket prices were set by the NFL, I expect people would be less happy with the arrangement.

The comment about wearing another man's shirt is pretty funny though.