Of course, I understand what you are saying but it doesn't follow to the next logical step which is that the subsidy is making it possible to offer larger salaries to players. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing the larger salaries.
That isn't the next logical step for a couple of reasons.
1 - The teams/owners are subsidized not the players.
That's important why to the point I am trying to make?
Should the fact that the new Yankee stadium (not yet built) will receive a subsidy mean that A-Rod isn't allowed to pay his babysitter well above market rates, because you can argue that the money indirectly comes from government subsidies?
A-Rod can pay his babysitter whatever he wants. However, I don't want taxpayers subsidizing his salary which is what is happening.
If the higher salaries mean the players buy more Ferraris does that mean that the government is subsidizing Ferrari? If Ferrari buy more components are subsidized by the local governments who help build the stadiums? Are shareholders of those companies subsidized? What about the people who sell things that the shareholders buy with the profits from their shares (assuming they sell them or get dividends)? Giving the subsidy in the first place is a very bad idea IMO. But the fact that the government should stop giving the subsidies doesn't justify the government taking control even of the teams/owners, let alone downstream of the people who actually receive subsidies. If I write you a check for $5000 that doesn't mean I get to order you around (unless you agreed to it in exchange for the money), it certainly doesn't mean I get to order around someone you hire with that money.
None of the above is germaine to my point.
2 - Not all teams play in a subsidized stadium.
In any case remove all the subsidies and the superstars will still make massive salaries. You seemed to find those salaries to be an injustice. Would you be fine if they where cut by ten or twenty percent? I doubt it.
Not an injustice....but a negative reflection on our culture.
How would you structure things so they don't?
The owners pay for the building of the stadiums.
Establish competing leagues.....after all, free markets like competition. Don't you agree?
That's rather problematic. But lets assume you do manage to get a new baseball league that has as good of players as the major leagues. There is a pretty good chance that it will struggle, and/or merge with the current major leagues, and you might just be increasing the demand for subsidies. More teams would be trying to get them, and the new league might need them to compete. OTOH the states and localities could try to play one team off against the other.
Most likely it would not be allowed to merge due to issues re. monopolies.
To the extent that it could happen it would probably result in higher salaries for the top players, which you've been consistently arguing against, but I don't think that any such system is likely.
Why? Increased demand would grow the supply.
To an extent it probably would, but not by as much as the increase in demand. Top quality baseball (football, basketball etc.) players aren't like cars. You can't just build a new plant and crank them out.
Actually, I think sports are only slightly more hit or miss than entertainment when recruiting..........American Idol has proven there is considerable undiscovered talent in the US. Given that perspective, I have to believe there are great athletes who are never seen by scouts. |
