movielib

What monopoly? Anyone is free to start a rival league., In fact, it's been done at least four times.

The All-American Football Conference started in 1946. It was somewhat successful and three of its teams merged with the NFL, most notably the Cleveland Browns. The American Football League started in 1960 and was very successful and all of its teams eventually merged with the NFL. The World Football League started in 1975 and was a flop. The United States Football League started in 1983 and was a flop.

You can start your own league tomorrow if you want.

You are confusing monopoly with success.

BKenn01

No, they are a Capatalist organization that chooses to operate that way. I actually like it the way it is. Under the current system, the best managment wins, not the biggest checkbook.

I am for anything that holds back the Dallas Cowboys.

movielib

Yes, a nice thing about (true) capitalism is that private organizations or groups of people are free to form associations in any noncoercive manner they want.

The Bus

The NFL, with its unions and salary caps, is socialist. For a free-market equivalent, you'd have to look at the Champions League in Europe.

movielib

See Post #28.

wm lopez

Just like there are people who protest if Disney releases SONG OF THE SOUTH on dvd, but have let all the rap,gangsta stuff get published and put on the airwaves. That is an o.k. look at the African-American race.

rw2516

The NFL is an oligopoly. An industry controlled by a select number of companies(franchises in this case) with entrance barriers so high nobody can start a rival company. Just like other sports leagues, automakers, broadcast networks.

movielib

And yet at least four rival leagues have started, one of them very successful. And if another can't make it it's because the NFL (which includes the old AFL) is super successful. Sorry, I just can't see that as a problem or "market failure" of some sort.

Likewise, automakers (the old "big three") and broadcast networks (the old "big three") have had successful rivals. If there are not legal barriers prohibiting others from entering, there is no "monopoly" or "oligopoly" in truth.

There is nothing wrong with a "monopoly" or "oligopoly" (if you want to call it that) that is earned through honest, noncoercive success.

Venusian

XFL gets no love?

JasonF

You are using idiosyncratic definitions of "monopoly" and "oligopoly." By any mainstream economic definition, the NFL is an oligopoly (if you view the individual teams as separate entities) or a monopoly (if you view the league as a whole.

Monopolies and oligopolies -- even ones that are earned through honest, noncoercive success -- raise prices and reduce output. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal, but it does mean that we shouldn't kid ourselves that they are costless.

eXcentris

The NFL is a capitalist monopoly based on socialist practices.

BKenn01

And I would be more than happy to see it stay that way.

movielib

As long as you agree they shouldn't be illegal I have no problem with semantic differences we may have. And I never said the market always finds the most efficient way in every single case. But overall, and in the long run, I'll take it over any other system.

movielib

Oh yeah, I entirely forgot about those clowns.

I did say "at least" to cover my ass.

kvrdave

If I were the NFL, I wouldn't want Rush to be an owner. He doesn't bring anything but money, and they have lots of money. And they could potentially have to listen to him talk about the NFL in a way that wouldn't be good for them. He isn't worth the risk and the NFL doesn't need him.

However, it is fun to watch liberals get undies up their crack about these kinds of things. The only Limbaugh news I get is from this forum, and it is always outrage at the stupidest shit imagined, where someone has to really stretch something to make it kind of bad.

kvrdave

I find it far more offensive when the Democrats hold all the power but find ways to blame Republicans for the inability to pass legislation. If you are going to be outraged by stupid stuff, watch the Democrats, as they are parading.

But then, they aren't an evil radio talk show host. That is where true rage should be directed, instead of our actual leaders.

Red Dog

"Socialist organization."

creekdipper

theyhatehe

General Zod

Seems like Rush isn't as bad as some other co-owners.. but the NFL looks the other way for them. Why do you suppose that is?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sr...ants-on-stage/

mgbfan

I don't care if Rush gets his team. But blaming Obama? Moron.

General Zod

Obama and his goons haven't gone after Limbaugh for anything outside of Limbaugh's control either.. right? Or is a talk show host expected to operate on a higher level than the president?

mgbfan

"the liberals"

Isn't it just possible somone other than a liberal could find this asinine? I'm the OP and not a liberal. Or better stated, I'm economically conservative, socially liberal.

I just thought the notion that it's Obama's fault to be absurd and worth a post. And I don't despise Rush because he's a conservative. I despise him because he's caustic, abrasive, and purposfully devisive.

But hey, go on stereotyping to your heart's content.

DeputyDave

I didn't see how Rush blamed Obama. He said “Obama's America”. Meaning the way America has become since Obama has become president. There is a big difference which I would think the OP should have been able to see, but far be it from me to stop anyone from creating a sensational yet inaccurate thread title.

I'm not saying I agree with Rush but I can see his point of view.

sracer

Exactly what has America become since Obama became president?

Rockmjd23

Racist?