Income Inequality in the NFL
By Steven MalangaOwners in the National Football League made news last week when they decided to opt out of the final years of their collective bargaining agreement with the players? union. Complaining that they are being squeezed by rising costs, league owners want, among other things, to institute a cap on salaries paid to rookies and to extend the period of time a player must remain with one team in order to end what they say is a growing disparity of salaries among players.
The players? union has predictably balked at the owners? demands, claiming that they would penalize rank-and-file players, who haven?t shared equally in the growing pot of money being devoted in the league to player salaries. What both sides contend, in their own way, is that much of the astonishing $4.5 billion in wages the league pays to players is going to a relatively few stars.
(Back to Article)
Join the Discussion | 18 Comments | | | Post Comment |
|
May 28, 08:25 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
In a loose play on Juvenal, "panem et circenses" has become "beer and football." This formula hasn't requiring any retooling for centuries. Keep the masses consuming sensory-dulling substances and mindless entertainment, and you can do anything you want to them in the meanwhile, i.e., taxes, pointless laws, confiscation of property, etc.
I suppose it's neither right nor wrong, moral nor immoral for this to be true; it simply is. However, my older brother, a human geneticist at a major university in the field of breast cancer research, once mused at a gathering of eggheads: "What if we could replace the public fervor for mindless sports with a similar passion for science... salaries included. So many more kids would be reading textbooks than handling a ball, and we'd be so much further ahead in scientific progress." Just a thought.
But nothing will change. The world was ever made for the blissfully self-unaware.
I suppose it's neither right nor wrong, moral nor immoral for this to be true; it simply is. However, my older brother, a human geneticist at a major university in the field of breast cancer research, once mused at a gathering of eggheads: "What if we could replace the public fervor for mindless sports with a similar passion for science... salaries included. So many more kids would be reading textbooks than handling a ball, and we'd be so much further ahead in scientific progress." Just a thought.
But nothing will change. The world was ever made for the blissfully self-unaware.
|
|
May 28, 08:32 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
"What if we could replace the public fervor for mindless sports with a similar passion for science... salaries included. So many more kids would be reading textbooks than handling a ball, and we'd be so much further ahead in scientific progress." ...
Interesting but I would point out that the passion for sports is at least to a certain extent a passion for the drama and unpredictability of live competition, which isn't replicated in lots of other places in life, including the patient and dogged search for truth in a lab. And a passion for sports isn't necessarily exclusive of a passion for science. I just read this morning that one of the interviews that the next pilot of the space shuttle will be doing will be with an ESPN sports show of which he is a fan....
Interesting but I would point out that the passion for sports is at least to a certain extent a passion for the drama and unpredictability of live competition, which isn't replicated in lots of other places in life, including the patient and dogged search for truth in a lab. And a passion for sports isn't necessarily exclusive of a passion for science. I just read this morning that one of the interviews that the next pilot of the space shuttle will be doing will be with an ESPN sports show of which he is a fan....
|
|
May 28, 08:36 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
This essay is, well, just dumb. It shows a total and complete lack of market economic knowledge.
NFL player/stars get the big bucks because 75,000+ people will reliably trek to the stadium on a Sunday afternoon, plop down a minimum of $85 for a seat, park for $20, buy a couple of $8 beers and a $6 hot dog, and buy a $180 jersey on the way home with the NFL stars' name on the back.
Compare the "draw" of Brett Favre of the Green Bay Packers to Jay Cutler, QB of the Denver Broncos. Who has the greater visibility, fan support, marketabilitiy - and can fill up those seats? Who deserves the higher compensation?
The day that I, a lowly research chemist, can get 75,000 people to spend 6 hours of their Sunday free time to battle game day traffic, pay exhorbitant ticket fees, overinflated parking and food costs to watch ME do MY thing at work.... I'm going to be worth every penny I earn for my laboratory. (I'm not holding my breath)
Oh, and this isn't even counting all the TV revenue, the advertising dollars, and local economic stimulus that a Brett Favre or a Jerry Rice or John Elway bring in to their hometowns.
The NFL stars are worth every penny they're paid, as long as people will fill the seats and turn on their HDTVs to watch them work.
NFL player/stars get the big bucks because 75,000+ people will reliably trek to the stadium on a Sunday afternoon, plop down a minimum of $85 for a seat, park for $20, buy a couple of $8 beers and a $6 hot dog, and buy a $180 jersey on the way home with the NFL stars' name on the back.
Compare the "draw" of Brett Favre of the Green Bay Packers to Jay Cutler, QB of the Denver Broncos. Who has the greater visibility, fan support, marketabilitiy - and can fill up those seats? Who deserves the higher compensation?
The day that I, a lowly research chemist, can get 75,000 people to spend 6 hours of their Sunday free time to battle game day traffic, pay exhorbitant ticket fees, overinflated parking and food costs to watch ME do MY thing at work.... I'm going to be worth every penny I earn for my laboratory. (I'm not holding my breath)
Oh, and this isn't even counting all the TV revenue, the advertising dollars, and local economic stimulus that a Brett Favre or a Jerry Rice or John Elway bring in to their hometowns.
The NFL stars are worth every penny they're paid, as long as people will fill the seats and turn on their HDTVs to watch them work.
|
|
May 28, 08:45 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
It's interesting that the first three posts compare scientists' salaries to NFL pros.
As a scientist (who, interestingly enough, is doing cancer research with RNAi techniques), I don't begrudge professional athletes their salaries.
I find that many of my colleagues in academia have snooty, haughty disdain for "dumb jocks" and "the masses". Witness the Juvenal metaphor in Post #1 above.... ugh.
That attitude is stupid in the extreme.
I couldn't run a 50 yard-dash in 4 seconds, or slam-dunk a basketball, or hit for the cycle in a MLB game. Maybe John Elway couldn't figure out a cell signaling pathway - but - so what? We are each gifted in our own way, and as long as we're producing something of value, let's let the market sort it out.
BTW: I have a great idea for a new microbiological product, and am filing my first patent next week. Someday I, too, hope to make NFL-player-like big bucks!
As a scientist (who, interestingly enough, is doing cancer research with RNAi techniques), I don't begrudge professional athletes their salaries.
I find that many of my colleagues in academia have snooty, haughty disdain for "dumb jocks" and "the masses". Witness the Juvenal metaphor in Post #1 above.... ugh.
That attitude is stupid in the extreme.
I couldn't run a 50 yard-dash in 4 seconds, or slam-dunk a basketball, or hit for the cycle in a MLB game. Maybe John Elway couldn't figure out a cell signaling pathway - but - so what? We are each gifted in our own way, and as long as we're producing something of value, let's let the market sort it out.
BTW: I have a great idea for a new microbiological product, and am filing my first patent next week. Someday I, too, hope to make NFL-player-like big bucks!
|
|
May 28, 10:21 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Truly -- a comparison of the NFL as a microcosm for society-wide economics? This is hardly a nuanced discussion of what's going on today. It's more of the old, corporate, Libertarian "the market will take care of everyone...eventually..." reasoning for doing nothing about what's happening in today's economy.
If the NFL owners were attempting a hostile takeover of MLB at the players' expense, and then reaping massive profits from the legal wrangling because their friends and families owned the law firms doing the work, while paying for the legal fees out of the players' salaries, that might be a more accurate comparison. If the NFL owners were raising their salaries at the same time, and cutting players to pay for it (while having all the front-office functions done by someone in India or the Philippines who'll take one-tenth the pay for the same work), and then reassigning former players and office staff to sell hotdogs, beer, and jerseys part-time in the stadium (all the while calling it "improved capitalization" and "creating more jobs"), THAT would be a comparable situation to the current economy.
To quote "Clear-Eyed Realist" in #3, "this essay is, well, just dumb" -- but for different reasons. The writer admits early on that the rules in the two are different and that his comparison is weak -- but slogs on, anyway. Oh, and Mr. Malanga needs a grammar editor.
If the NFL owners were attempting a hostile takeover of MLB at the players' expense, and then reaping massive profits from the legal wrangling because their friends and families owned the law firms doing the work, while paying for the legal fees out of the players' salaries, that might be a more accurate comparison. If the NFL owners were raising their salaries at the same time, and cutting players to pay for it (while having all the front-office functions done by someone in India or the Philippines who'll take one-tenth the pay for the same work), and then reassigning former players and office staff to sell hotdogs, beer, and jerseys part-time in the stadium (all the while calling it "improved capitalization" and "creating more jobs"), THAT would be a comparable situation to the current economy.
To quote "Clear-Eyed Realist" in #3, "this essay is, well, just dumb" -- but for different reasons. The writer admits early on that the rules in the two are different and that his comparison is weak -- but slogs on, anyway. Oh, and Mr. Malanga needs a grammar editor.
|
|
May 28, 10:32 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Why not do a truly honest comparison and compare NFL team owners' pay to their employees-the players?
|
|
May 28, 10:58 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Ha, ha, ha - just got my daily laugh today from Mr. Malanga's gibberish.
His poorly-written, illogical essay is a typical example of Libertarian/GOP "thought". Kudos to the commentator who suggested remedial grammar help for Mr. Malanga.
Mr. Malanga is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a right wing haven of "I've got mine, screw you buddy" Libertarian/GOP economic policy.
If Malanga were playing baseball, he'd be riding the pine with a .002 batting average. Send this guy down to the bush (Bush?) leagues where he belongs!
His poorly-written, illogical essay is a typical example of Libertarian/GOP "thought". Kudos to the commentator who suggested remedial grammar help for Mr. Malanga.
Mr. Malanga is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a right wing haven of "I've got mine, screw you buddy" Libertarian/GOP economic policy.
If Malanga were playing baseball, he'd be riding the pine with a .002 batting average. Send this guy down to the bush (Bush?) leagues where he belongs!
|
|
May 28, 11:17 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Colette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truly -- a comparison of the NFL as a microcosm
> for society-wide economics? This is hardly a
> nuanced discussion of what's going on today. It's
> more of the old, corporate, Libertarian "the
> market will take care of everyone...eventually..."
> reasoning for doing nothing about what's happening
> in today's economy.
>
> If the NFL owners were attempting a hostile
> takeover of MLB at the players' expense, and then
> reaping massive profits from the legal wrangling
> because their friends and families owned the law
> firms doing the work, while paying for the legal
> fees out of the players' salaries, that might be a
> more accurate comparison. If the NFL owners were
> raising their salaries at the same time, and
> cutting players to pay for it (while having all
> the front-office functions done by someone in
> India or the Philippines who'll take one-tenth the
> pay for the same work), and then reassigning
> former players and office staff to sell hotdogs,
> beer, and jerseys part-time in the stadium (all
> the while calling it "improved capitalization" and
> "creating more jobs"), THAT would be a comparable
> situation to the current economy.
>
> To quote "Clear-Eyed Realist" in #3, "this essay
> is, well, just dumb" -- but for different reasons.
> The writer admits early on that the rules in the
> two are different and that his comparison is weak
> -- but slogs on, anyway. Oh, and Mr. Malanga
> needs a grammar editor.
You poor leftists. You just don't get it. It is not the purpose or responsiblity of our government, and it never has been since the Founding Fathers created our government, for it to determine how much someone gets paid and whether it is fair. Our free market does that. Our government has no business trying to make things "fair" and "equal". That is called Marxism and history has proven that ideology to be a loser. The left just does not want to admit it.
This article is an excellent article to point out that the market determines how much someone should get paid. The NFL is a great analogy to our market in general. Great article.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truly -- a comparison of the NFL as a microcosm
> for society-wide economics? This is hardly a
> nuanced discussion of what's going on today. It's
> more of the old, corporate, Libertarian "the
> market will take care of everyone...eventually..."
> reasoning for doing nothing about what's happening
> in today's economy.
>
> If the NFL owners were attempting a hostile
> takeover of MLB at the players' expense, and then
> reaping massive profits from the legal wrangling
> because their friends and families owned the law
> firms doing the work, while paying for the legal
> fees out of the players' salaries, that might be a
> more accurate comparison. If the NFL owners were
> raising their salaries at the same time, and
> cutting players to pay for it (while having all
> the front-office functions done by someone in
> India or the Philippines who'll take one-tenth the
> pay for the same work), and then reassigning
> former players and office staff to sell hotdogs,
> beer, and jerseys part-time in the stadium (all
> the while calling it "improved capitalization" and
> "creating more jobs"), THAT would be a comparable
> situation to the current economy.
>
> To quote "Clear-Eyed Realist" in #3, "this essay
> is, well, just dumb" -- but for different reasons.
> The writer admits early on that the rules in the
> two are different and that his comparison is weak
> -- but slogs on, anyway. Oh, and Mr. Malanga
> needs a grammar editor.
You poor leftists. You just don't get it. It is not the purpose or responsiblity of our government, and it never has been since the Founding Fathers created our government, for it to determine how much someone gets paid and whether it is fair. Our free market does that. Our government has no business trying to make things "fair" and "equal". That is called Marxism and history has proven that ideology to be a loser. The left just does not want to admit it.
This article is an excellent article to point out that the market determines how much someone should get paid. The NFL is a great analogy to our market in general. Great article.
|
|
May 28, 11:23 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Sure doesn't stike me as writing from the right wing. I guess it's a matter of the lens you're looking through. The free market works whether we're talking pro sports or oil and gas. What's you're proposed alternative? Socialism? Equal opportunity does not imply nor approach equal outcome.
The way I see it, NFL players and NFL owners are two monopolies who must share to gain. It's not surprising to me that a large percentage of the salaries go to a small percentage of players-- they call them stars.
The comments of #3 pretty well summed it up for me. And I'll take #4's "aspiring" over and attitude of envy any day.
The way I see it, NFL players and NFL owners are two monopolies who must share to gain. It's not surprising to me that a large percentage of the salaries go to a small percentage of players-- they call them stars.
The comments of #3 pretty well summed it up for me. And I'll take #4's "aspiring" over and attitude of envy any day.
|
|
May 28, 11:24 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
RWers Are Fools Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha, ha, ha - just got my daily laugh today from
> Mr. Malanga's gibberish.
>
> His poorly-written, illogical essay is a typical
> example of Libertarian/GOP "thought". Kudos to the
> commentator who suggested remedial grammar help
> for Mr. Malanga.
>
> Mr. Malanga is a fellow at the Manhattan
> Institute, a right wing haven of "I've got mine,
> screw you buddy" Libertarian/GOP economic policy.
>
>
> If Malanga were playing baseball, he'd be riding
> the pine with a .002 batting average. Send this
> guy down to the bush (Bush?) leagues where he
> belongs!
It is called free market capitalism and if you don't like the system that made our country the most prosperous, most mobil, most free country in the world, then move back to whatever socialist hole that you came from.
It is pretty funny that you bring out the ad hominem "grammar" attacks. That seems to be the typical leftist phony way of debating an issue when you have no logic and thus cannot debate the issue on the merits. What does grammar have to do with anything? What is your point? This is not an article about grammar.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha, ha, ha - just got my daily laugh today from
> Mr. Malanga's gibberish.
>
> His poorly-written, illogical essay is a typical
> example of Libertarian/GOP "thought". Kudos to the
> commentator who suggested remedial grammar help
> for Mr. Malanga.
>
> Mr. Malanga is a fellow at the Manhattan
> Institute, a right wing haven of "I've got mine,
> screw you buddy" Libertarian/GOP economic policy.
>
>
> If Malanga were playing baseball, he'd be riding
> the pine with a .002 batting average. Send this
> guy down to the bush (Bush?) leagues where he
> belongs!
It is called free market capitalism and if you don't like the system that made our country the most prosperous, most mobil, most free country in the world, then move back to whatever socialist hole that you came from.
It is pretty funny that you bring out the ad hominem "grammar" attacks. That seems to be the typical leftist phony way of debating an issue when you have no logic and thus cannot debate the issue on the merits. What does grammar have to do with anything? What is your point? This is not an article about grammar.
|
|
May 28, 01:20 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Critics of the article like Colette appear to me to be levelers--they want to enact laws to take money from "bad" people and give it to "good" people, so that everyone earns the same thing. They then appoint themselves responsible for deciding who is bad and who is good, and become rich taking a percentage for performing this noblest of acts. Like the John-Edwards type of personal injury lawyer. He gets to keep his immense fortune because he is "helping people." After all, he wants to raise our awareness of American poverty, and in so doing becomes entitled--entitled! I say--to his own lucre, however ill-gotten. By contrast, CEOs of companies (all of them) are "bad" people from whom Colette can steal with impunity to reward her followers. There is no end to the good that she, HillBilly and B.O. can do with their money. They just have to shove their version of morality down our throats and then start arranging the wire transfers. As this article indicates, in a free market economy the money goes to the innovators, the talented, and the just plain lucky. In Colette's economy, it goes to the shrillest guilt mongers, the most conniving purveyors of covetousness, and the self-declared prophets of "decency." But their grammar is impeccable.
|
|
May 28, 01:42 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Just checked back to see how my comments (#3 and #4 above) went over.
Interesting.
I am a well-educated, politically active (left-center) scientist. I'm also an NFL and MLB fan in my hometown.
I will be voting for the Democratic nominee, whether it is HRC or BHO.
I'm grateful for the opportunities that I've had as an American citizen; what success I have had is due to a good (free) public education. From K-12, college, and graduate school, I was educated in what Libertarians like to call "government schools."
I realize that the roads I drive to work, the police and firefighters, the water I drink, and the clean air I breathe come to me from the taxes I pay.
I'm not a greedy sort; I feel like paying taxes buys me a decent infrastructure. I've never bought into the dogma of conspicuous consumption; I prefer to live modestly and sock away a tidy nest egg.
I see people my age (50+) ranting and raving about the taxes they're paying, about "government schools," and I think they're pretty pathetic. I don't ever intend to become one of those "greedy geezers."
Interesting.
I am a well-educated, politically active (left-center) scientist. I'm also an NFL and MLB fan in my hometown.
I will be voting for the Democratic nominee, whether it is HRC or BHO.
I'm grateful for the opportunities that I've had as an American citizen; what success I have had is due to a good (free) public education. From K-12, college, and graduate school, I was educated in what Libertarians like to call "government schools."
I realize that the roads I drive to work, the police and firefighters, the water I drink, and the clean air I breathe come to me from the taxes I pay.
I'm not a greedy sort; I feel like paying taxes buys me a decent infrastructure. I've never bought into the dogma of conspicuous consumption; I prefer to live modestly and sock away a tidy nest egg.
I see people my age (50+) ranting and raving about the taxes they're paying, about "government schools," and I think they're pretty pathetic. I don't ever intend to become one of those "greedy geezers."
|
|
May 28, 02:13 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Hear the code word greed in an economic discussion and you already know the socialist argument that government is all-knowing and all-caring is coming. Okay, so some people want to keep all they earn and not share it with freeloaders - go ahead and call them greedy geezers. At least acknowledge that if it weren't for those highly productive members of society that your "free" education, roads, etc. wouldn't have been engineered, built, or funded. When you reward dependency on government "help" to make the most of your life, you're left with no individuals willing to pursue scientific discovery or athletic excellence. We need government leaders (and educators) that see the potential for greatness in people and inspire them.
|
|
May 28, 02:30 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
MBA,
Why do you make the assumption that I am not paying taxes?
What do YOU think that a Ph.D. scientist, running a research lab a biopharma company with yearly bonuses and profit-sharing makes? And pays in taxes?
(more than the average MBA, I'm betting.....)
I am very aware that, if not for the free K-12 public school system, a good state college, and the NIH stipend for my grad degree, I'd probably be working as a subsistance farmer, like my grandparents did 100 years ago.
Of course, the $100-150,000 in "free" education that I received was paid back, in the form of my federal taxes and contributions to the American economy (I supervise a lab of 20+ workers, and have 3 of my own employees) long ago. Investing in education, in those Libertarian-hated "government schools" is a cornerstone of the American ideal.
I don't call the elderly on Social Security "freeloaders," even though SSI takes a big percentage of the GDP. I don't consider the military a bunch of bums "depending on government 'help'" (your words). If a big chunk of my paycheck is going to support the elderly, the infirm, and those who are making sacrifices on my behalf (e.g., the armed forces), so be it.
Call it socialism if you want (I don't consider myself socialist, never have voted for a Socialist candidate, and have seen failed European-type socialism firsthand), but I think it is simply common decency.
Why do you make the assumption that I am not paying taxes?
What do YOU think that a Ph.D. scientist, running a research lab a biopharma company with yearly bonuses and profit-sharing makes? And pays in taxes?
(more than the average MBA, I'm betting.....)
I am very aware that, if not for the free K-12 public school system, a good state college, and the NIH stipend for my grad degree, I'd probably be working as a subsistance farmer, like my grandparents did 100 years ago.
Of course, the $100-150,000 in "free" education that I received was paid back, in the form of my federal taxes and contributions to the American economy (I supervise a lab of 20+ workers, and have 3 of my own employees) long ago. Investing in education, in those Libertarian-hated "government schools" is a cornerstone of the American ideal.
I don't call the elderly on Social Security "freeloaders," even though SSI takes a big percentage of the GDP. I don't consider the military a bunch of bums "depending on government 'help'" (your words). If a big chunk of my paycheck is going to support the elderly, the infirm, and those who are making sacrifices on my behalf (e.g., the armed forces), so be it.
Call it socialism if you want (I don't consider myself socialist, never have voted for a Socialist candidate, and have seen failed European-type socialism firsthand), but I think it is simply common decency.
|
|
May 28, 08:14 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
feral1404 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a loose play on Juvenal, "panem et circenses"
> has become "beer and football." This formula
> hasn't requiring any retooling for centuries.
> Keep the masses consuming sensory-dulling
> substances and mindless entertainment, and you can
> do anything you want to them in the meanwhile,
> i.e., taxes, pointless laws, confiscation of
> property, etc.
>
> I suppose it's neither right nor wrong, moral nor
> immoral for this to be true; it simply is.
> However, my older brother, a human geneticist at a
> major university in the field of breast cancer
> research, once mused at a gathering of eggheads:
> "What if we could replace the public fervor for
> mindless sports with a similar passion for
> science... salaries included. So many more kids
> would be reading textbooks than handling a ball,
> and we'd be so much further ahead in scientific
> progress." Just a thought.
>
> But nothing will change. The world was ever made
> for the blissfully self-unaware.
If your brother is that upset with his lack of pay and/or notoriety, maybe he should go into a different profession. Don't whine to us about it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a loose play on Juvenal, "panem et circenses"
> has become "beer and football." This formula
> hasn't requiring any retooling for centuries.
> Keep the masses consuming sensory-dulling
> substances and mindless entertainment, and you can
> do anything you want to them in the meanwhile,
> i.e., taxes, pointless laws, confiscation of
> property, etc.
>
> I suppose it's neither right nor wrong, moral nor
> immoral for this to be true; it simply is.
> However, my older brother, a human geneticist at a
> major university in the field of breast cancer
> research, once mused at a gathering of eggheads:
> "What if we could replace the public fervor for
> mindless sports with a similar passion for
> science... salaries included. So many more kids
> would be reading textbooks than handling a ball,
> and we'd be so much further ahead in scientific
> progress." Just a thought.
>
> But nothing will change. The world was ever made
> for the blissfully self-unaware.
If your brother is that upset with his lack of pay and/or notoriety, maybe he should go into a different profession. Don't whine to us about it.
|
|
May 29, 12:31 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Somehow, my portrayal of the reality of today's economy gets labeled "leftist" and "leveling" when it's simply a description of what happens in today's economy.
I didn't advocate anything taking money from one party and giving it to another, remotely -- if that's what you have read through your filter, that's fine.
What I *do* favor is an end to a small minority of society manipulating the rules of the game to fill only their coffers. There is an argument that "the market will take care of everyone" (that Libertarian, laissez-faire bit that fiscal 'conservatives' use to justify gorging at a buffet they've changed the rules to create while ignoring what happens in deregulated markets) and this insane return to Reaganomics, with the same disastrous results for much of the population, amplified by a power and money-grab by people who learned just enough from the mistakes of the 80s to make sure they safeguarded their haul this time.
And no, I'm not a leftist. Beware when the larger proportion of Christian conservatives realize what useful idiots our movement has been to the corporate elite. The wave that follows may cut the Republican party off at the knees.
I didn't advocate anything taking money from one party and giving it to another, remotely -- if that's what you have read through your filter, that's fine.
What I *do* favor is an end to a small minority of society manipulating the rules of the game to fill only their coffers. There is an argument that "the market will take care of everyone" (that Libertarian, laissez-faire bit that fiscal 'conservatives' use to justify gorging at a buffet they've changed the rules to create while ignoring what happens in deregulated markets) and this insane return to Reaganomics, with the same disastrous results for much of the population, amplified by a power and money-grab by people who learned just enough from the mistakes of the 80s to make sure they safeguarded their haul this time.
And no, I'm not a leftist. Beware when the larger proportion of Christian conservatives realize what useful idiots our movement has been to the corporate elite. The wave that follows may cut the Republican party off at the knees.
|
|
Jan 18, 07:46 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
This article concludes that the NFL "employs a variety of rigorous mechanisms to redistribute income, yet it hasn’t done a very good job of smoothing out the rough edges of income inequality. They’re all getting richer in the NFL, just not at exactly same rate."
The analysis and the main point are so ridiculous that I don't know where to begin. First of all a salary cap is NOT a income distribution. It is an income ceiling.
The only mechanism in the NFL that you could construe as "income redistribution" would be the revenue sharing amongst teams. But revenue sharing does NOT redistribute income amongst players. It simply redistributes income amongst teams.
That's like a federal program that redistributes income amongst states. Does that lead to income equality? Of course not! LOL
The analysis and the main point are so ridiculous that I don't know where to begin. First of all a salary cap is NOT a income distribution. It is an income ceiling.
The only mechanism in the NFL that you could construe as "income redistribution" would be the revenue sharing amongst teams. But revenue sharing does NOT redistribute income amongst players. It simply redistributes income amongst teams.
That's like a federal program that redistributes income amongst states. Does that lead to income equality? Of course not! LOL