EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is the Super Bowl Socialist?
By any definition, the February 5 Super Bowl in Republican-dominated Indiana is socialist from head to toe.
Is the Super Bowl a socialist enterprise? Yes the language is provocative but not, I believe, inappropriate. After all Indiana, the site of the next Super Bowl, is currently governed by those who insist government should play a minimal role and the word they, and their Republican counterparts around the country use to describe those who disagree is socialist.
By any definition, tomorrow's Super Bowl in Indianapolis is socialist from head to toe.
Start with the venue. Governments paid for over 80 percent of the new $750 million Lucas Oil Stadium. The Colts chipped in about 15 percent, an investment they probably recouped in inflated asset value the day the stadium opened. Governments are also covering the estimated $20 million a year in operating deficits.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The NFL itself is a government creation.
Back in 1961 Commissioner Pete Rozelle convinced Congress to grant anti-trust immunity to the NFL to allow it to negotiate with broadcast companies as a single entity. Its first contract with CBS proved so lucrative that each team had $332,000 in the bank at the beginning of the season, a sum that exceeded most team payrolls at the time. Flush with cash, team owners might have started a bidding war for players if a truly free market in labor prevailed.
But having eliminated a free market externally in the broadcast marketplace, this new government sanctioned monopoly proceeded to eliminate a free market internally in the labor marketplace. The NFL imposed a rule allowing any team losing a free agent to another team to receive something of equal value from that team. Few teams were willing to risk signing a high profile free agent only to see their own rosters depleted.
Free agency came about only in 1993 after a jury ruled in favor of the players in a restraint of trade lawsuit brought by a group of NFL stars. That verdict and the threat of a class action filed by Reggie White of the Philadelphia Eagles on behalf of all NFL players led the league to the bargaining table. Still the owners refused to allow a completely free market by demanding and receiving a salary cap.
Back in 1961, to gain the support of all the owners, the NFL decided to distribute the revenue equally to all teams. Nothing more socialist than that! But this created a problem. The Green Bay Packers were (and are) a non-profit team whose community ownership structure prevented it from blackmailing cities into giving it huge taxpayer subsidies by threatening to leave. Equal revenue sharing could result in other communities opting for the Green Bay model. The NFL quickly closed that door by amending its constitution. Article V, Section 4, often called the “Green Bay Rule,” declares “charitable organizations and/or corporations not organized for profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the National Football League.”
Some might justify the huge subsidies to football stadiums because of their purported equally huge positive local economic impact. The evidence does not support that argument. Numerous researchers have examined the question and in virtually every case found no statistically significant positive correlation between sport facility construction and economic development. As for the Super Bowl itself, a study of six Super Bowls from 1979 to 1998 by economist Phil Porter found no increase in taxable sales in the host community compared to previous years without the game. Economists Robert Baade and Victor Matheson found that hosting the Super Bowl was associated with an increase in employment in host cities of a paltry 537 jobs.
Not that any of this matters a whit to a true blue football fan. I myself look forward to sitting back and enjoying a hard fought game.
But this is an election year. A year in which the role of government will be vigorously debated. The Super Bowl is a reflection of governments aggressively intervening, not on behalf of the poor or the consumer or the worker but on behalf of the 1/10th of 1%. Eighteen of the 32 NFL teams are owned by billionaires. Perhaps during the interminable commercials we might pause a moment and reflect on the fact that we are watching a truly socialist spectacle.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
65 Comments so far
Show AllWow. In these days of "austerity" are we planning to cut these sorts of subsidies? I never hear this discussed when we talk about cutting entitlements. How can taxpayers afford this? I don't watch football, but I do listen to NPR. And it seems football is much more expensive than non-profit radio.
You might want to see this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/banzai7s-sopa-bowl-warm-2012
Here in Indianapolis, they've cut library hours. Indiana cut education funds. Although Metro buses are free during super bowl week, they're talking about additional cuts in bus services after super bowl. After all, austerity has to come from somewhere as long as it's not for the super bowl.
Get ready for another example of how football in this country marries that sport with super patriotism as will be seen tomorrow by the unfurling of a gigantic American flag, the playing of the national anthem and the roaring of military jets over Lucas Oil Stadium. Perhaps members of the military will be brought out onto the field before the game so that the fans can honor "the troops". Undoubtedly the viewer at home will once again see commercials which will try to entice the average youthful gullible football fan to sign up for the military as the military recruiters understand that the youth of today think more with their hearts than with their heads. Thankfully I will have my DVR on pause tomorrow while recording the Super Bowl so that I can skip by those insipid commercials.
While Mr. Morris's point about socialism being present in tomorrow's Super Bowl probably does have some validity one also has little doubt that the average football fan would be aghast at the thought of the word socialism being discussed in a sport which minimizes any attempt to get their fans to think about a political ideology which is the antithesis of corporatism and capitalism, as exemplified by those who own the stadium in Indianapolis and that would be Lucas Oil.
I am sure it's going to be a mega recruiting tool. Perhaps we should ask why the Tillman family won't be officiating.
gardenernorcal
Excellent observation.
Cut to the core: The stupor bowl IS a day long propaganda orgy of fascist military, chest thumping propaganda, with heavy doses of sexism, consumerism, and amerikan elitism !
Yes, it's awful that there are millions of morons and idiots who like the "stupor bowl" and football in general. Millions of elitist fascists. It's a good thing that there are a few intelligent people such as yourself.
Please don't do this strawman crap. He never ever said what you insinuated he did. The poster only referred to the super bowl event, not to the people watching it.
You might have a point there. Still, what sort of person enjoys " a day long propaganda orgy of fascist military, chest thumping propaganda, with heavy doses of sexism, consumerism, and amerikan elitism" ? So it is possible that there is a judgment being made here on the millions of people who watch this football game. Some people who hate all of the above stuff like football, believe it or not.
I don't think it's that difficult to acknowledge that someone you like might not actually be completely awesome without any faults. People are not perfect and their individual enjoyment might be abused by bigger powers, so what could be harmless in one society can be a very important part of a system of exploitation in another. For example, while I don't like competitive sports, I do like video games, and while we may have Tetris and Super Mario games, which are just harmless fun (although of course they all have their dangers) but we also have the Call of Duty Modern Warfare complete with an AC-130 simulation stage and so on - one of the best recruiting tools the armed forces have.
I don't think either completely hating these potentially harmful things (video games or competitive sports or whatever) or loving them without any criticism makes sense. Everything that goes on such a large scale can be dangerous or helpful to society and individuals, we just have to grow up to be able to handle them responsibly. To answer your question, a perfectly good intentioned and nice person can easily enjoy an event (or a video game) which is in effect a day long orgy of propaganda etc etc. Their personal enjoyment is, on the other hand, often (but not necessarily) abused and exploited by larger scale social forces.
Hey, wading in here, to me personally, the stupor bowl is all i said and mas, so i do not watch it.
Watch, fine, enjoy the football, but hopefully the mindsucking "stuff" surrounding the game can be avoided; tho no doubt many are pulled into the propaganda, young minds for the cannon fodder of imperialism.
paz, siempre; tiozapata
never have so many been so excited about viewing the throwing an oval leather bag of air across a field.
they even have a pseudo-holiday for it- this throwing of the leather bag of air which must get across the line the most times- for that somehow means victory.
Personally, I like to refer to it as the Stupor Bowl.
So much money has been spent to excite so many. Don't they deserve a return on their investment? It's the American way. Media covers it like it's as important or more important than a war.
What would you prefer? Chess?
They only throw kings. When resigning.
Madonna doing the half-time show at a chess match ?
I find it ironic that the Super Bowl -- a popular refuge for the guns 'n' god 'n' Obama-is-a-Kenyan crowd -- showcases one of the most vociferous and successful groups of unionized workers in the USA (NFL players).
It would be cool if the NFL Union ran a few Super Bowl ads tomorrow emphasizing the success that they've had collectively bargaining for a fairer share of the (disgustingly massive, taxpayer-subsidized) wealth of the NFL. Such ads might make the average NFL viewer shit their pants, but they would ultimately do more good for this country than another GoDaddy or US Marine Corps spot.
Moreover, all those couch-potato viewers shitting their pants would provide a valuable economic boost to dry cleaners everywhere.
Great thoughts. None of the millions of people who like football know that there is a players association that engages in collective bargaining. Only intellectuals such as yourself know about that.
Government programs that benefit the wealthy few are not "Socialism." They are the opposite of Socialism.
Socialism does not mean "government spending."
Libs and progressives with truth, justice and fairness on their side don't stand a chance against conservative morons with money on their side.
Don't forget that other bastion of socialism... the U.S. military. Where else can Americans get lifetime job security, free healthcare, free dental, guaranteed pensions, free housing, free legal and a host of other 'socialist' benefits? I guess the absence of a socialist component to the military would seriously hamper recruiting efforts. Minimum wage with no benefits wouldn't even attract Mexicans to join up despite the promise of being a U.S. citizen someday... provided they don't get shot in the meantime.
It should be pointed out that there are two types of socialism. One in which the average taxpayers use their treasury to reinforce the 1% as in the United States. Feudalism, fascism and other forms of a plutocracy are all good examples of this type of regressive socialism.
The other type of socialism is the one in which taxes are used to benefit society as a whole (the 99%) as we see in countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Most countries practice a hybrid somewhere in the middle like Canada and England in which the rich still get their unfair portion of benefits, but some leftover cash still trickles down to the general public.
You are calling Socialism a form of Fascism.
Fascism and feudalism are not a "form" of Socialism.
"Regulated" Capitalism is not a "form" of Socialism.
The NFL is not in any way "socialist". Anyone who thinks so either does not understand what "socialist" means, or how the NFL works. The NFL's raison d'etre is in essence to concentrate as much as wealth as possible in the hands of the owners of the teams. That is not socialist
The 1%ers are working on reducing the money spent on job security, free healthcare, free dental, guaranteed pensions and similar benefits by cutting down on the number of troops but increasing the amount spent on hardware. Soon they'll get rid of the troops in favor of a private military force (already happening) and these benefits will disappear.
All wealth is created by the infrastructure paid for by governments.
That depends on the type of infrastructure development undertaken.
Roads and highways, yes. High speed rail and efficient public transportation in large cities, yes. The list could go on.
The argument you make, relative to infrastructure that would support super wealthy sports organizations, was made in San Diego, most recently, for the then proposed new stadium for the Padres baseball team. Supposedly, huge investments of revenue, that would otherwise go to building different types of infrastructures, like say, fixing potholes in the streets, was going to, as the proponents of the stadium asserted "help everyone" in San Diego.
The stadium was built, in what was then, an area of town deemed "blight", which I truly miss. It was an area, that was once filled with defunct warehouses, some of which had been turned into design firms, funky art galleries, homegrown music venues, by San Diegans who's own personal vision, and whose sweat, tears, and personal investment, made East Village, an interesting place. The proponents of the stadium, would consistently point out, that East Village was a disgusting place that tourists and suburbanites wouldn't venture, because of the blight and homeless people. Imagine that, homeless people in America! Noooo!
Well anyway, the stadium was built, and yes, that redevelopment money, went to some big players in San Diego, who envisioned building a lot of tall buildings where the 1% could live and walk to the new East Village full of restaurants and clubs that the 1% can utilize!!!
Sure, it is true, that the new businesses supported by the patrons of the Padres, hire people in the community to serve the wealthy folks that love hanging out in East Village, and the Gaslamp district, eating overpriced food. However, I can't help but think of the stadium, when I'm driving through my favorite center city areas, or large parts of downtown for that matter, dodging potholes, or the growing communities of homeless, who are persistently shuffled away from East Village, so the 1% don't have to be bothered by that "aesthetic".
Gone is the funky East Village, with the Sushi Gallery, and the organic coolness of artists trying to make something out of nothing, and now it is a place I NEVER want to go near, especially on game days, as the parking downtown is horrendous.
Also, whenever one drives downtown, once you get around the East Village, or any of the other areas where glitzy high rise apartments and lofts still sell roughly at a million or more each, the streets are fine. Anywhere else downtown, or in greater San Diego in general, take your four wheel drive.
It matters WHAT governments spend their revenues on.
with money taken from the private sector
The private sector would have no money without government.
And that money is merely a symbol of the wealth extracted from the working class public and from the environment. I doubt that you would dispute that - how can it be disputed? The only question then, the only possible area for disagreement, becomes should we allow that to happen or not? You probably would say "yes." Many of us say "no."
Almost everyone, given the opportunity to clearly see the reality of what is happening, and excluding those who are benefiting from the existing order of things, would say "no." Your job then, should you wish to prevent that, if you do in fact answer that question with a "yes" and wish to avoid all contradiction to your view, is to throw up a smoke screen and do everything you can to confuse and mislead people and obscure reality from them. You cannot argue honestly and openly for a "yes" on that question from people with any success.
Our job, on the other hand, is to aid and assist people wherever possible to accurately perceive, analyze and describe objective reality. That means that we will win and you will lose, because sooner or later objective reality will make our case for us, through the collapse of economic and ecological systems, which people will directly experience as great suffering and deprivation. The question the is not who will ultimately win this argument, but rather how much suffering there will be before you eventually and inevitably lose.
Corporate welfare is an important topic, even though this author, actually perpetuates the misuse of the word "socialism", and what would be better described as more evidence of a government wholly owned by, and in service of, large corporations, which AINT socialism.
Nietzsche was wrong when he called religion the worlds biggest narcotic (or something to that nature). Pro sports in America has religion beat hands down. Where else will you find conservatives and liberals side by side cheering on their favorite corporate welfare sponsored teams?
Where else will you find the super rich and the desperately poor on Sunday wearing the same clothes (jerseys), attending the same church (tax-payer funded stadiums), praying the same prayer---that their team makes it to the promised land.
A truer sucker you'll never find.
For somebody who runs an institute that focuses on local economic and social development you would hope that he had a better understanding of what the actual definition of socialism means. What he describes is simply an example of state-capitalism in action, and NOT "a truly socialist spectacle."
The only thing remotely socialist about the NFL is the aforementioned Green Bay Packers, the likes of which has been prohibited from ever occurring again.
Soaking taxpayers for 80% of the funding for a stadium on which The Person "Lucas Oil" can imprint its name? There's another word for that.
"Linguist at MIT" ? Do you mean Noam Chomsky? You think he is a "whore slave of Rome" ?
I bet your Super Bowl party is the best.
Go out there Green Bay and win one for Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson, the "first Communist president" as the John Birch Society called him.
Socialism in a “right-to-work” state?
DAVE MORRIS is, as always, right on target.
the key distinction is between national socialism, as expressed in the super bowl and, dare we say it, WW2, versus democratic socialism, as espoused by eugene v. debs et al.
debs was the greatest quarterback to ever play politics in this country. we need him back!!!
Fascism is not a form of Socialism.
The rabid right considers things like unions and worker associations to be at best socialism, at worst communism. Makes one puzzle over the rabid right wing fans of the NFL spending a ton of money to sit in luxury boxes and otherwise support a sport etc so they can watch card carrying NFLPA members play football - and not emit one peep about it. Ah! The money is to good......
The NFL players and their organization, the NFLPA, to their credit, have come out with statements condemning the recent "right to work" (Orwell would be so pleased) legislation passed in Indiana.
What makes you ( and many other commentators on this site) think that everyone who watches football is a right wing nut? And clueless about the NFLPA as well. Here's some reality for you: there are many who watch this sport (thousands, tens of thousands, more?) who are on the correct side (not the "right" side) of political issues, who ignore the flag waving and bomber flying that goes on and who are both aware of the players' union and support it.
Also, the NFLPA supported the protestors who occupied the capital building in Wisconsin last year.
Nothing. You're misreading posts and misattributing intentions to posters. Thing is, this isn't exactly helping improve people's opinion on football fans.
I think you mean your opinion of football fans. But, again, you have a point here.
Bagenal Harvey inquires "What makes you ( and many other commentators on this site) think that everyone who watches football is a right wing nut?"
Perhaps not everyone but I certainly believe that the vast majority of football fans as well as the players and coaches are overwhelmingly right wing.
@ Bagenal Harvey - No confusion was intended, football fans come from all walks of life and there is nothing wrong with being a football fan, hell, I'm a huge fan, NFL and CFL. What I implied was I don't hear the far right side of the fan spectrum attack the NFLPA as they attack unions or any other kind of labour organization. And, let's be honest, it is the very wealthy (individuals and corporations) who purchase the rights to private boxes and the most expensive seats in the house (I have NO problem with this either) and on the whole, they are not likely to support organized labour, lol. It is these people from who I hear no condemnation of the NFLPA, the players' union. And yes, I am familiar with the NFLPA.
@Atomsk - thanks, you didn't leap to a conclusion. I do see how others might have though. Football has great fans, nothing like bread & circuses to get everyone on the same page, so to speak, lol.
Go Pats!
Ok, point taken. You are right about the right wing fans and unions and you are also correct about the corporate sky boxes. I'll go one better......ALL the seats in the house are expensive and so's the food, drinks, etc. So if you want to be at a pro football game, it's a big outlay of money. And certainly this and professional sports generally have a bread and circus aspect but so do rock concerts, movies and so forth. We could grimly denounce all spectator entertainment as a ruling class plot. (And I know you aren't.) But I think an event can be a spectacle and even include things we oppose (military hoopla, flag waving,etc.) and still be something people can legitimately enjoy. And I think there are some CD commentators (again, not you) who would make England under Cromwell look like a party.
Did anyone else see the lengthy report in the past couple of days on TV about the level of "security" provided for the Indy Super Bowl? Massive! All nearby trucks to be x-rayed, overhead security, on the ground security, a perfect opportunity for all those local law enforcement agencies to practice coordinating with Homeland Security and the military. And of course, overtime pay. Is the NFL paying for all that? I also heard that some seats sold for around $20,000! (Do they get a police escort to their skyboxes?) Sort of reveals some people's priorities...
.... -30-
No it is not socialist.
It is crony capitalist. A perfect symbol of the American economy.