The article doesn't mention salary caps which are used in some leagues to try to make sure most teams are competitive. Are salary caps socialist? Putting a hard cap on the total amount of wages that all workers put together can earn doesn't sound socialist to me. Doesn't sound capitalist either, sounds like a cartel.
Salary caps do seem to make for parity in the sports leagues that use them. Your medium size market team has a legitimate chance of winning a championship at some point in your life. The trade-off is that you never get to see the best players in the world playing for a championship. You see one or two of the best players on each team, and whatever other players the team could afford under the cap.
I wouldn't want there to be a salary cap on the company designing my next laptop.
Players in the leagues with caps are in a union. In exchange for the salary cap in question, they have things like minimum salaries, health benefits, guarantees about their working conditions, etc.
If you could guarantee that you and your colleague's salaries represented 50% of the revenue that the company collects, you would be in a much better place than many companies without a cap. If you and your colleague's could guarantee minimum salaries that can't be changed, you'd be in a good place. If you could guarantee working hours and conditions, you'd be in a good place.
Now, are there downsides? Absolutely! But those are the tradeoffs of union labor.
Ultimately sports makes money from entertainment which derives from competitiveness of the teams. If a team always dominates, it makes it predictable, no one watches their team fighting over second place. It’s a game and cap balances the game.
I feel like both outcomes are equally boring. Even as a New Yorker, you eventually get tired of the Yankees winning the World Series. On the other hand, the Giants, Jets, and Bills blowing it every year is also not that fun.
Salary caps aren't there to make teams competitive, it's to limit player expenses.
They also don't have the secondary effect of making the teams competitive.
Take a look at World Series Champions (MLB -- no salary cap) [1]; everybody memes that the Yankees win all the time but they haven't won since 2009 and before that 2000. There have also been 16 different winners in the past 23 years.
Take a look at Superbowl Champions (NFL -- has salary cap) [2]; 14 different winners in the past 23 years.
Take a look at Stanley Cup Champions (NHL -- has salary cap) [3]; 13 different winners in the past 23 years.
Only the league without a salary cap has the most different winners.
Whatever the richest team in the league pay in salaries, half this value must be donated to the poorest team. Same for the second richest and the second poorest and so on.
Richest means the biggest payroll after the players are subscribed.
This could create a balance, since you can't spend too much without consideration the +50% penality. And the teams paying these values should consider it an investment in the quality of the league, which will increase overall returns.
Whilst I'm not proposing a salary cap on companies. I also certainly wouldn't want all the world's best talent operating under the same company. There'd be no competition.
You'd also be restricting the capabilities of the talent themselves, since they're naturally going to have conflicting ideas and in a company with no competition, there's little incentive to try multiple approaches.
rufus_foreman|2 years ago
Salary caps do seem to make for parity in the sports leagues that use them. Your medium size market team has a legitimate chance of winning a championship at some point in your life. The trade-off is that you never get to see the best players in the world playing for a championship. You see one or two of the best players on each team, and whatever other players the team could afford under the cap.
I wouldn't want there to be a salary cap on the company designing my next laptop.
antasvara|2 years ago
If you could guarantee that you and your colleague's salaries represented 50% of the revenue that the company collects, you would be in a much better place than many companies without a cap. If you and your colleague's could guarantee minimum salaries that can't be changed, you'd be in a good place. If you could guarantee working hours and conditions, you'd be in a good place.
Now, are there downsides? Absolutely! But those are the tradeoffs of union labor.
m3kw9|2 years ago
jrockway|2 years ago
lesuorac|2 years ago
They also don't have the secondary effect of making the teams competitive.
Take a look at World Series Champions (MLB -- no salary cap) [1]; everybody memes that the Yankees win all the time but they haven't won since 2009 and before that 2000. There have also been 16 different winners in the past 23 years.
Take a look at Superbowl Champions (NFL -- has salary cap) [2]; 14 different winners in the past 23 years.
Take a look at Stanley Cup Champions (NHL -- has salary cap) [3]; 13 different winners in the past 23 years.
Only the league without a salary cap has the most different winners.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_champions
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions#S...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stanley_Cup_champions#...
haolez|2 years ago
Whatever the richest team in the league pay in salaries, half this value must be donated to the poorest team. Same for the second richest and the second poorest and so on.
Richest means the biggest payroll after the players are subscribed.
This could create a balance, since you can't spend too much without consideration the +50% penality. And the teams paying these values should consider it an investment in the quality of the league, which will increase overall returns.
Benjamin_Dobell|2 years ago
You'd also be restricting the capabilities of the talent themselves, since they're naturally going to have conflicting ideas and in a company with no competition, there's little incentive to try multiple approaches.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
ebiester|2 years ago
Labor is guaranteed a percentage of revenue by the league. Caps are normalized against the total percentage. Salaries past minimums are estimates.
So, not quite socialist but closer than the European model.