Do you think salary caps make professional sports more competitive?
Would you advise instituting this policy in a league that currently does not have an upper limit on wages?
How do you reconcile competition with a club's freedom to invest in accordance with their means?
Yes.
If the club doesn't like it, they are free to start their own league.
Regulus:How do you reconcile competition with a club's freedom to invest in accordance with their means?
Competition is the freedom of each club (or individual or institution) to invest in accordance with its means. If one entity (individual or institution) doesn't like the terms of dealing with another entity, they are free to take their business elsewhere.
So, you and I get together to play checkers. We both have perfect freedom. We agree to follow rules for our mutual enjoyment: checkers go only on black squares, move diagonally but only forward, etc. None of that takes away my freedom.
You learn that I insist that a player must take a jump if there is one available to him. That's standard checkers rules, but you've never played that way, and you don't like it. (I didn't play that way when I was little.) You get up and leave the table and go to another table where free people are getting up a game of Monopoly. You all agree what rules to play under, and you have a good time. That's competition.
Addressing the situation this post obviously is referencing:
The yankees are part of MLB. If MLB decides, according to their contracts, that they want to add a salary cap, the yankees must follow it. They are free to leave and form their own baseball league, sure. They wouldn't, because its crazy to do so as no one would join them. The only other team that could compete with them money wise, the Red Sox, would relish in having MLB without the yankees to get in their way. So the yankees would lose. When the day comes that MLB puts in a salary cap, it will help as far as parity goes, at least a little. The prestige of the yankees/sox would still pull in much of the top talent, but there would be much less incentive ($$) to go to them over your home team. This would make the game more fun, entertaining, and therefore make the game as a whole worth more. So long as the yankees are free to leave the league, and the league follows its own rules, I see no issue in a private corporation having rules about its members actions.
Byzantine: Yes. Yes. If the club doesn't like it, they are free to start their own league.
The league obviously has the right to - but if the league wants to make money through pleasing customers, then don't institute a wage cap.
The Premier League in Britain has ridiculously inflated salaries and arguably is fairly uncompetitive (two teams have a good chance of winning, another two have a fair chance of winning, and the rest have almost no chance), but nevertheless is watched widely all over the world, including in many countries whose leagues are more competitive (e.g. Italy, Germany).
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Oddly enough, I have always hated salary caps/any given sunday mentality. Economicaly speaking it may be better for a league not to have them. Baseball is popular in New York, the fans are more fanatical than say fans in Florida. Why the hell cater to apathetic baseball fans in Florida when in New York you have rabid fans (I hate all New York/New England teams by the way).
But to answer the question (which has already been answerd) salary caps by a private company to its employees is fine. Truth be told everyone but owners have a salary cap
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Thedesolateone: The league obviously has the right to - but if the league wants to make money through pleasing customers, then don't institute a wage cap.
Why is this a certainty based on one league in one extremely tedious sport?
If we agree that salary caps could benefit a league by making it more competitive, then could this argument extend to other industries?
For example, consider the case of four firms dominating an industry with 16 smaller competitors. The best employee candidates go to the big four because that is where they can earn the most. Smaller firms, with corresponding smaller budgets, are unable to tap into this pool of talent and decide to lobby their government officials to impose a salary cap in the name of competitiveness. Would it be wise to regulate this industry-punish those with larger capital reserves to reward those with less? In addition, what about the freedom of the employee to maximize his/her earnings?
Regulus: If we agree that salary caps could benefit a league by making it more competitive, then could this argument extend to other industries? For example, consider the case of four firms dominating an industry with 16 smaller competitors. The best employee candidates go to the big four because that is where they can earn the most. Smaller firms, with corresponding smaller budgets, are unable to tap into this pool of talent and decide to lobby their government officials to impose a salary cap in the name of competitiveness. Would it be wise to regulate this industry-punish those with larger capital reserves to reward those with less? In addition, what about the freedom of the employee to maximize his/her earnings?
The league is it's own business, like Wal Mart or the mom and pop store you shop at. Every business has salary caps, they just aren't advertised the way they are in sports. The league the as far as I know uses more of a decenteralized franchise system, so different stores (or teams) can make a different profit. It is just like Wendy's for example. Don't mix this up with government type thinking. These are business decisions to increase the appeal of their product. The NFL likes to advertise the "any given Sunday" thing to show that all teams have a shot, The MLB uses a different system (a luxury type "tax"), a different league could have pure lassiaz-faire. Any league could spring up with any sport at any time and do their own rules, like instead of a Wendy's franchise you would have a more centerally planned/beaurucratic White Castle corporation.
Also in this franchise I believe any team can split and start it's own thing if it wants (don't quote me on that)
Apples to oranges. The league is a co-op that is selling a product: sporting contests between its constituent teams. If the contests are lopsided, people will leave the stadium or change the channel after the first half, which means less sales of all the other revenue-generating items. So, the league enforces parity among its members to deliver a superior product that generates more revenue for everybody.
To simplify the discussion, let us look specifically at the English Premier League.
The league is a business just as the clubs participating in it.
It is fair for clubs to choose to invest in accordance with their means and players to maximize their earnings to the extent that their employers are willing to pay.
We can think of this in terms of a society outlining its rules for competitiveness and its impact on business participating within.
Regulus: It is fair for clubs to choose to invest in accordance with their means and players to maximize their earnings to the extent that their employers are willing to pay.
Fairness is irrelevant. The decision on which business model to pursue is a matter of pure preference as negotiated by contract. The NFL is one of the most successful business models in the world with its enforced parity. If the EPL can let two teams dominate all the rest and still stay afloat, then that's their preference.
Salary caps are pursued by firms with lower capital reserves because they are unable to pay the wages that those with larger pools of wealth can afford.
Their argument essentially boils down to their inccorect notion of fairness, but is carefully disguised via the trojan horse of competitiveness.
In any industry, surely employers will want the freedom to invest in what they believe will add good value for money.
If we think competition is best when firms are constrained and talent is spread, then I think we are failing to grasp what the term actually means.
Byzantine: Thedesolateone: The league obviously has the right to - but if the league wants to make money through pleasing customers, then don't institute a wage cap. Why is this a certainty based on one league in one extremely tedious sport?
Could I not say the same thing back to you?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap