Sports to be Ruled as Exempt from Anti-Trust?

[-Jrabbit]

Just saw the lit-crit article. It's late, so I'll use it for a work break tomorrow.

Thanks for posting.

[notyoueither]

I don't see any harm.

Those consumers who choose to will pay the price for the merchandise. Those leagues that price themselves too highly will lose minds to other leagues that are willing to be more competitive.

Pro sports is not even close to a monopoly a la Microsoft or AT&T, and it is not possible for them to be so as the market currently exists or can be forseen to exist.

[notyoueither]

Just saw the lit-crit article. It's late, so I'll use it for a work break tomorrow.

Thanks for posting.

OK. Cheers and g'night.

You might want to follow the link. Cut and paste lost the formatting that makes it easier to follow who is saying what.

[Zkribbler]

OK. Cheers and g'night.

You might want to follow the link. Cut and paste lost the formatting that makes it easier to follow who is saying what.

Here's a statistic that'll make you widdle your britches.

Neil deMause testified before Congress in 2007, that government subsidies of sporting arenas amounted to $2 billion per year.

Major League baseball makes a profit of $496 million a year; professional basketball $207 million a year; the NFL $832 million a year; and ice hockey $125 million a year. That is, in the U.S., professional sports has a yearly operating profit of $1,660,000; but it is subsidized $2,000,000 -- which means it's really losing $340 million a year.

[notyoueither]

Yeah, I've read a lot of criticism of public funding for sports arenas.

It is a very charged debate, from what I can see. A lot of axes to grind, and some truely ridiculous assertions. Sports have attracted the attention of some economists who would rather not see a penny spent on public projects.

Can you spot the obvious flaw in those figures, zkrib?

[Kuciwalker]

Anything that weakens professional sports leagues is good in my book. **** them for taking billions of our tax dollars.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A ruling either way on the bigger issue of single entity vs competative franchises isn't going to necessarily "weaken" the leagues, they are just going to be shifting power from one side to the other (players to owners if the SCOTUS buys the league argument).

And besides, why blame a business for getting all it can within the law?

[-Jrabbit]

I don't blame them in the slightest. But I don't have to like it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fair enough, but that is a different argument, IMO.

[-Jrabbit]

It's definitely related. The fact that merchandise with individual team logos are controlled by the league is clearly relevant to the court case as an example of how the league is acting as one body (vs 32 cooperating entities). Heck, that's in both articles quoted.

The fact that this has resulted in exorbitant pricing isn't really a side issue, especially considering that we're talking about legal monopolies and how they do business. The initiating court action is, after all, from a merch manufacturer/vendor.

True, the fact that the market will bear the higher prices and that the fans are being raked over the coals isn't particularly relevant. But it's certainly within earshot of the discussion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh... how does any of that has to do with sports leagues "taking billions of our tax dollars"?

[-Jrabbit]

Sorry, didn't realize you were talking to Kuci. I just ignored his troll.

[notyoueither]

I don't buy the $billions subsidy... hogwash.

Take the case of Winnipeg. They had the Jets of the NHL. The problem was their building was old and small and nobody wanted to own the Jets playing there. The economics of the size of the market did not justify private financing 100% for a new facility. The 'no public money' crowd won the political day and neither the city nor the province would help.

The Jets get sold and moved.

The City of Winnipeg still needed a new facility for other commercial/civic reasons, so they built a building without the benefit of a major anchor tenant within 5 or 10 years of the Jets leaving, with significant public subsidies from three levels of government.

Football stadiums may be a different matter, given there are a limited number of dates/uses. However, the arguments over pro sports teams and facilities do not normally take into account differences in use or individual geographic considerations.

From what I recall, it is an agenda pushed by a 'school' of economic thinking where public expenditure is bad. <- period

Of course I am grossly exaggerating, but so are the proponents of the theories that all the money spent on facilities are subsidies of pro sports, and the related lunacy that pro sports have no significant economic impact for the jurisdictions where they exist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The studies are actually that the economic impact is outweighed by the costs in the construction, maintenance, and infrastructure costs.

[notyoueither]

I doubt it, for arenas. Possibly for outdoor stadiums and ball parks.

Cities with no major sports teams as tenants build large exhibition halls for the purpose of trade shows, fairs, entertainment, etc.

Having a professional basketball/hockey team as major tenants is gravy for another 50 to 60 dates per year.

As I pointed out, Winnipeg did not want to spend while they had a hockey team, and then it was decided after they left that yeah, the building was actually needed and the public had to cough up the dough.