I rarely find myself in agreement with Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter on much of anything, and even today he's right for the wrong reasons.
Specter wants to repeal the 1961 anti-trust exemption granted to the NFL (which set a precedent for other sports leagues) allowing the franchises to group themselves as one entity to sell TV broadcast rights, primarily because he objects to the fact that some games are not freely available over commercial airwaves. That's the right action for the wrong reasons.
Even the New York Sun, while opposing Specter's legislation (which also has no realistic chance of ever making it out of committee), admits that the current practice amounts to "football economic socialism," by allowing Green Bay or Nashville to reap the same financial rewards as New York or Los Angeles and thus achieve parity in terms of ability to recruit the best players.
The Sun argues that such a move would be costly for NFL fans, because the teams would move into restrictive pay or pay-per-view agreements with cable networks, and "The real gouging would come after the antitrust exemption is lifted."
This argument is a crock, for so many reasons. To begin with, Congress had no business whatsoever extending special protections or anti-trust exemptions to professional football during the Kennedy administration whether the league was struggling or not. At least with Chrysler and the airlines bail-out, the government could claim that there was some relevant employee, manufacturing, or transportation interest involved. No sports league--not even the NFL--has an inherent right to survive if it cannot compete fairly under the same rules that all other businesses are supposed to use. Just because "bread and circuses" are popular doesn't excuse stifling competition (think about what pressure established leagues brought against the World Football League, the American Basketball Association, and the World Hockey Association, none of which enjoyed the protection of preferential media legislation; had cable TV existed when they were created, one or more might have survived).
There is also the entitlement issue on the part of fans. Nobody has a God-given right to subsidized free sports broadcasts. On the other hand, teams have a vested interest in retaining fan loyalty so that they can merchandise over-priced logo sportswear, hit up municipalities for tax breaks on new stadiums, and fill the actual seats of those monstrosities, so I suspect that in a true free-market competition you'd see Green Bay or Cincinnati or Nashville coming up with some more innovative media strategies if the alternative was declining revenues and increasing inability to sign the best players.
Despite the fear-mongering on the part of billionaire owners for the extension of their corporate welfare, free agency did not ruin professional sports. Think about the off-season interest it has inspired in the Philadelphia area--who would replace TO? Will Ryan Howard be lured away? Who are you kidding? Free agency reinvigorated professional sports by introducing a new level of competition.
Elimination of professional sports' anti-trust exemptions will do the same, or some teams may not survive. You know what? That wouldn't be a tragedy, it's just the way a truly free market works.
Of course it won't pass, because it would be unpopular with people who vote but don't think, and with team owners who have millions available to spend on buying legislators.
But that doesn't make it right.
Specter wants to repeal the 1961 anti-trust exemption granted to the NFL (which set a precedent for other sports leagues) allowing the franchises to group themselves as one entity to sell TV broadcast rights, primarily because he objects to the fact that some games are not freely available over commercial airwaves. That's the right action for the wrong reasons.
Even the New York Sun, while opposing Specter's legislation (which also has no realistic chance of ever making it out of committee), admits that the current practice amounts to "football economic socialism," by allowing Green Bay or Nashville to reap the same financial rewards as New York or Los Angeles and thus achieve parity in terms of ability to recruit the best players.
The Sun argues that such a move would be costly for NFL fans, because the teams would move into restrictive pay or pay-per-view agreements with cable networks, and "The real gouging would come after the antitrust exemption is lifted."
This argument is a crock, for so many reasons. To begin with, Congress had no business whatsoever extending special protections or anti-trust exemptions to professional football during the Kennedy administration whether the league was struggling or not. At least with Chrysler and the airlines bail-out, the government could claim that there was some relevant employee, manufacturing, or transportation interest involved. No sports league--not even the NFL--has an inherent right to survive if it cannot compete fairly under the same rules that all other businesses are supposed to use. Just because "bread and circuses" are popular doesn't excuse stifling competition (think about what pressure established leagues brought against the World Football League, the American Basketball Association, and the World Hockey Association, none of which enjoyed the protection of preferential media legislation; had cable TV existed when they were created, one or more might have survived).
There is also the entitlement issue on the part of fans. Nobody has a God-given right to subsidized free sports broadcasts. On the other hand, teams have a vested interest in retaining fan loyalty so that they can merchandise over-priced logo sportswear, hit up municipalities for tax breaks on new stadiums, and fill the actual seats of those monstrosities, so I suspect that in a true free-market competition you'd see Green Bay or Cincinnati or Nashville coming up with some more innovative media strategies if the alternative was declining revenues and increasing inability to sign the best players.
Despite the fear-mongering on the part of billionaire owners for the extension of their corporate welfare, free agency did not ruin professional sports. Think about the off-season interest it has inspired in the Philadelphia area--who would replace TO? Will Ryan Howard be lured away? Who are you kidding? Free agency reinvigorated professional sports by introducing a new level of competition.
Elimination of professional sports' anti-trust exemptions will do the same, or some teams may not survive. You know what? That wouldn't be a tragedy, it's just the way a truly free market works.
Of course it won't pass, because it would be unpopular with people who vote but don't think, and with team owners who have millions available to spend on buying legislators.
But that doesn't make it right.
Comments
Territory rights in professional sports leagues are no different than in a business franchise. Or should Congress pass a law requiring McDonald's to allow anyone to open a McDonald's anywhere they want.
In the best interests of the business (major league baseball), individual franchises can be retricted in their rights whether it comes to who they are allowed to sign, where they can play their games, etc. Similarly, McDonald's franchises can be restricted in their locations and promotional campaigns, plus other things I'm not thinking of since I'm not an expert in fast food franchising.
Why should Congress be allowed to interfere in how the Major League Baseball corporation structures relations between franchises and not McDonald's? Or, more appropriately, why should they allowed to interefere in either case?