Krellin I am probably the most free market guy here, but the argument that capitalism has propped up the sports industry is dumb founded and simply false, and this is coming from a fan of capitalism.

Hockey was just as big of a sport in USSR as it was in Canada.

The USSR and East Germany are the two nations with the highest average gold medal counter per Olympic game they participated in (with America coming in 3rd) so in reality you get the opposite.

A country were the future sports starts are thrown into brutal training exercises at a young age and would be a clear violation of human rights in our countries without a doubt produced stronger and faster athletes.

Its why North Korea won 4 fold medals last Olympics, why China, despite a fraction of the budget, can compete with the US team and why a majority of the over performing teams (# of gold medals compared to budget of the olympic team) are forming soviet countries like Kazakhstan, Ukraine etc.

Capitalism doesn't produce sports franchises and there is no evidence to suggest it does.

fuck green bay STEEL WALL BABY

A coupe of typos
that (not and) would be a clear violation...
4 gold (not fold) medals

If sports franchises were dependent on capitalism for their creation, we wouldn't have any franchises in Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Miami (mostly just the Marlins), New Jersey, Carolina, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Nashville, Memphis, and many other places whose professional sports franchises are propped up by revenue sharing.

Big sports franchises are entirely dependent on governments and dumb local politicians. For all the recently built sports stadiums constructed since 1991 (with the exception of the Barclays Center, Cowboys Stadium, Yankee Stadium, and MetLife Stadium which were built with mostly private money and actually go to prove my point), 78 stadiums were built or were renovated at a public cost of $61 BILLION. For our neighbors to the north who are still enjoying their big empty Olympic Stadium in Montreal that ruined Vlad Guerrero's knees (bastards), built for the 1976 Olympics, it was FINALLY paid off in 2006 at an inflation-adjusted cost of $2 fucking billion dollars. For an empty stadium.

My point is that professional sports franchises and stadiums do NOTHING for local economies except burden them with costly debt and unfulfilled promises of "economic development" that are completely bullshit and utterly self-serving to the multi millionaires who convince local politicians to build themselves lavish arenas with decades of tax breaks and hundreds of millions in muni bonds. The new Marlins Stadium, for example, cost $634 million, 80% covered by muni bonds, which will cost Miami taxpayers a total of $2.4 BILLION after compounded interest payments. Utter madness.

I think Krellin just got pwned

Am I the only one that stopped reading this thread once I arrived upon a krellin post?

@Fasces - That is an invalid comparison. Amateur sports and pro sprts are two *very* different things. Capitalism very *much* makes pro sports teams. Want to do that comparison in Olympic basketball where the US team is made of professional atheletes? Or how about European football? Money makes the pro sports happen. Those franchises were built on capitalism. Period.

Me and 2WL clearly didn't but I am sure many did.

FC Barcelona.

Owned by the people.
Symbol to the Catalan nation.
Only professional team I know that had it's whole roster composed of players coming out of their own farming system (La Masia) for an official game.

Oh! And they play the best fucking football on the planet.

@2WL - In general I agree about the franchise and politican aspect, btu that doesn't make it any less capitalism. It just makes it government sanctioned and backed capitalism. And the one good thing about government owned stadiums is that the local governments canr ent them out in the off season for concerts and such. Cincinnati is better off for having funded the two stadiums that replaced Riverfront Stadium (I refuse to call it Cinergy Field!) as they along with the new convention center have brought in business during the off seasons. During baseball season, the city uses PBS for concerts and festivals that do bring in the cash and help the local economy. Not much happens at GAB as it is too cold int he winter for an open top stadium to host concetts, but by having that separate stadium, PBS is empty and gets used.

@Draugnar: But culture is more important then economics when it comes to pro-sports. Canada and Russia have and always will produce the best hockey players, Europe and Brazil has and always will produce the best soccer players. India and Pakistan will always produce the best cricket players. Japan and USA have and always will produce the best baseball players.

The # of fans of the sport in a country correlates nicely with the future chances of producing super star athletes and economics has nothing to do with that.

"FC Barcelona.

Owned by the people.
Symbol to the Catalan nation.
Only professional team I know that had it's whole roster composed of players coming out of their own farming system (La Masia) for an official game.

Oh! And they play the best fucking football on the planet."
I don't follow La Liga at all, but I know Thierry Henry was their striker for a bit because I use to be a gunners fan, thus proving you wrong.

"t just makes it government sanctioned and backed capitalism."
State Capitalism<Liberal Capitalism and I doubt Krellin (or you for that matter) would advocate for state capitalism, which is the model China uses as an economic system.

Fasces, I think he means that they played a game with farm system players at one point in time, not currently. Messi originally played in Argentina so it's obviously wrong.

<sigh...> Anyone that thinks you can flip on your TV and watch the Green Bay Packers play football and thinks this would happen WITHOUT a capitalist profit motive is helplessly niave.

First of all, you can play all the cultural sports you want, but if you want promoted and put on TV -- and THAT is what the NFL is: it is a MEDIA industry, not a sport -- then you need a profit motive.

Hell, from a cultural standpoint, millions more people play chess and checkers than will ever throw and catch a football...but it ain't on TV, because you can't sell tickets.

I have *hardly* been pwnd....there are simply a great number of delusional people around here that dont' really understand that the NFL, NBA, MLBA and the NHL are. They are ENTERTAINMENT businesses that utilize sports as their means of making cash. It has nothing to do with culture, per se, but the culture of <fill in the blank> made it easier to promote and sell tickets toe <fill in the blank> Spot looking at things with such a narrow focus and you will understand this.

Alternate point -- culturally speaking, video games are a worldwide phenomenon, crossing Country borers to create a global cultures, in a manner of speaking. Why is there not an equivalent to the NFL, and a “Green Bay Packers” franchise that owns a team of 15 year old kids with twitchy thumbs that can shoot first? Because there is no profit in broadcasting Call of Duty matches on NBC…not because there is a lack of cultural interest in video games.

The Green Bay Packers are *purely* the result of capitalism.

"but it ain't on TV, because you can't sell tickets."

Does this mean the Jacksonville Jaguars and Buffalo Bills don't count as NFL teams?

I don't know what I'm wrong about or where...

Messi actually is the product of La Masia: he's been with them since the age of 11 or so.

And yes, I meant that Barca had 11 players from La Masia on the pitch in ONE GAME against Levante (2 or three weeks ago).

As for T. Henry, he's a turd I've never liked and thankfully only spent a season and a half or so with the club.

So... because the turd played with Barca, I'm just generally wrong? And you actually are able to play diplomacy with such intellectual skills?
And because Messi is Argentinian he's necessarily not the product of La Masia and, again, I'm generally wrong? Really? What school did you go to in order to learn such flawed logic?

As for Detroit being propped up by revenue sharing....and thus the league not being "capitalist"....sigh....again....come on, really?? Who the hell do you think Green Bay is going to play. To Green Bay and the profitable franchises, it is the COST OF DOING BUSINESS to share revenue with losing teams such that you have someone to play.

Are you guys seriously that narrow minded and naive? GM produces the VOLT...and huge financial loser...does that mean GM is not a capitalist company? they *keep* making it for PR purposes. Look at any automotive manufacturer, and you will find vehicles that lose money, but are produced to keep a full spectrum of vehicles for the consumer to buy FROM THEM. Loser-leader...it's a common business concept. I sell you my losing small car so that you buy a truck from me later..

@ 2WL

Actually, I'm terrified of the Giants. That giant potato you call a head coach has McCarthy's number, no doubt about it. Your D line is very tough, and Eli is underrated. All braggadocio aside, I think the teams are fairly equally talented/coached, but the individual matchup between them is not in GB's favor.

Now, braggadocio re-inserted, any temporary advantage you have shown recently is just that, and time will tell which franchise is superior. Oh wait, it already has :P

I'm not going to look this up, because it's the internet, but I believe: actually, no you cannot just get a group together and buy an NFL team. The No Fun League has actually instituted rules so it can avoid the kind of community ownership that Green Bay has. They would have been in Los Angeles a long time ago otherwise.

The profit motive, in my opinion, generally hurts professional and especially college sports. I'm glad that they make enough to play pro players, or to be able to field a college team and get people into school who might otherwise have been unable, but that's about as far as I want it to go.

Detriot is the 5th most profitable team in hockey, so they aren't always being propped up...

@Chachimbo: I'm sorry but diplomatic skills and intellectual capacity don't correlate well with knowledge of La Masia. I don't think anyone could argue that. (although you are implying it)

And the language you are using would hardly be considered diplomatic, is it?

I even said that I don't follow La Liga and so no very little about Barcelona. Maybe you should be put up to your own test.

In any case hockey teams have consistently done that in the past (especially my Leafs) so I don't consider doing it for a single game to be that impressive, and the Montreal Canadians of the 60s and 70s (especially Montreal Canadians in the 60s and 70s since they played entire seasons with nobody but players from Quebec) and the Detroit Red Wings of the 90s and early 2000s were heavily reliant on their farm teams for their success. Maybe the sport I follow is an exception to the rule but for Hockey strong farm teams aren't unusual given that, at least on hockey's case, strong farm teams correlates well the probability of the team becoming the dynasty

ckroberts: I don't believe you. There is no reason the NFL would do so.

I could be wrong.

"Profits motive hurts professional sports"

Can someone with a dictionary *please* point out the OBVIOUS fallacy in this statement.

^^^Miami Marlins

The Marlins support krellin's point? I don't see how o_O

No, that's the obvious example that proves the fallacy in krellin's argument

Like a good grade school teacher, I'm going to make the assignment easy:
1. Please look up and write the definition for "professional"
2. Please look up and write the definition for "profit"
3. Extra Credit: Please tell me the relationship between "professional sports" and "profit motive"
4. Extra, extra credit: Please tell me why "professional sports" can't exist without "profit motive"

Sigh....we have sports without profit motives...it's what we do on Saturday afternoon when 36 parents gather around a field and watch their kid play soccer, football, etc.

Whooppeee!!!

Tell me the Green Bay Packers could exist without a profit motive for the NFL...and then prove it with a real-world example of a comparable franchise in a non-profit league.

Hey Krellin, I don't think you know what fallacy means, so maybe you should stop claiming it.

I also don't think you know what dictionary means.

2ndWhiteLine...narrow minded, anyone? Lack of reading ability, anyone? They exist IN A PROFIT-MAKING LEAGUE. They would NOT EXIST without the profit-making league...

That's like saying "GM didn't make a profit last year, therefore they are no longer a capitalist, for-profit corporation".

Every time you people make your insane arguments and demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of business and economics, I know why our country is failing so badly...