Comments on: NBA Star Explains the Economics of Collusion

By: test

test — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:33:28 +0000

test

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 23 May 2011 16:51:17 +0000

Why is there no FBI or Congressional investigation? Does the NBA lobby any of these agencies in their favor? Stern, from what I have read, condones the practice of players talking with each other. That means the league is potentially rigged for marketing purposes, in my opinion. High market teams, Boston, Dallas, LA, Miami, and New York seem to control the NBA. Free agents colluding with each other on price and team fixing, in my opinion, unethical, and possibly a federal crime if other persons have to go to jail for collusion. They are undermining any legitimacy of the NBA after the Daugherty scandal.

By: whohohmann

whohohmann — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:09:47 +0000

To allow three NBA to collude with respect to their respective NBA playing contracts is apparently a violaton of US Antitrust law. The latest admitted collusin between D. Howard; C. Bosh and L. James regardless of whch team they ultimatiely signed with is something the needs to be investigated by the U.S. Justice Department, or the FTC. It is also an apparent violation of NBA Regulations and the NBA should impose sanctions on the parties responsible. Although I am from Cleveland, I recognize that in order for the NBA to survive it must remain competitive and the admittd acts of colluson are anticomptive and will be a disastor for the weaker teams. There is no real advantage to one team being dominant as the fan interest in the othe cities will evaporate and pretty soon the NBA will disintigratedue to fan apathy.
Those identified of colluding should be investigated and the maximum possible fines and othr consequences imposed, including the same sentences being handed out in the business community. The players involved should be taken from the team to which they arrived by colluding and put into a lottery with weighted numbers. For example: the old team and the lower place finishers with cap space can be weighted more favorably in the draft. But to the averave fan what is happening is unacceptable.

By: Doctors vs. Ballers – Under Penalty of Catapult

Doctors vs. Ballers – Under Penalty of Catapult — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:01:20 +0000

[...] back at the Mises Blog, I suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that a proposed “summit” between NBA free agents LeBron [...]

By: Clock Ticks Towards… NBA Collusion Period? « Attorneys Directory

Clock Ticks Towards… NBA Collusion Period? « Attorneys Directory — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:07:07 +0000

[...] I was able to find a guy that makes an argument that the players could be in trouble. From the Ludwig von Mises Institute: Scoff if you will, but if four firms in any industry meet to discuss what customers they plan to [...]

By: Roundup – Kid Business! « The Heat Death Hour

Roundup – Kid Business! « The Heat Death Hour — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:13:31 +0000

[...] NBA Star Explains the Economics of Collusion [Skip Oliva via Mises Institute] [...]

By: Vanmind

Vanmind — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 03:59:43 +0000

No, collusion is collusion. Talk of “money” is a common but not a necessary aspect.

By: STB

STB — Mon, 31 May 2010 22:56:18 +0000

This is not companies or service providers colluding to set a price, it is unemployed workers forming a union to discuss labor practices. These players are not coming together to determine the price of their product. In fact, the salaries they’ll get are basically already determined. They are coming together to talk about which companies they want to work for. A friend and I are both looking for work. Is it a violation of antitrust laws for us to talk about which companies and cities we’re interested in?

Granted, I have little sympathy for professional athletes and their multi-million dollar contracts that often seem to be handed out regardless of performance (Oliver Perez!), but this article is a bit backwards. The fact that the salaries are basically predetermined for the “max contract deals” is closer to an antitrust violation than the players deciding where they want to create their dynsasties.

By: S.M. Oliva

S.M. Oliva — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:19:59 +0000

It’s also notable that “professional” services like physicians and attorneys were not directly subject to the Sherman Act until the Supreme Court one day decided they were.

By: Sgc

Sgc — Mon, 31 May 2010 14:54:41 +0000

The Sherman Act specifically exempts labor because (as the Clayton Act clarifies) “labor is not a commodity or article of commerce.” What strikes me as funny about that is that if labor is not a commodity or article of commerce, how is restricting its price anti-competitive?

The answer is essentially that “labor is a commodity when we want it to be one.”

By: Art Thomas

Art Thomas — Sun, 30 May 2010 14:16:49 +0000

How right you are. Envy and/or economic ignorance oozes from the anticapitalist mentality.

By: NBA Star Explains the Economics of Collusion « Economics Info

NBA Star Explains the Economics of Collusion « Economics Info — Sun, 30 May 2010 13:02:43 +0000

[...] Source [...]

By: Ke

Ke — Sun, 30 May 2010 00:47:45 +0000

Ah, my apologies for reacting too hastily before understanding what you are trying to point out. I totally agree. I think antitrust laws should be abolished. I completely disagree with Stern and his fines on Steve Kerr and Mark Cuban. I mean, come on, these guys stated the obvious and Kerr was blatantly joking!

By: S.M. Oliva

S.M. Oliva — Sun, 30 May 2010 00:41:49 +0000

Well I agree it’s absurd. I’m certainly not suggesting the players should be charged with violating the antitrust laws. I’m simply pointing out how in other contexts, the same behavior is condemned as collusion.

Now to your specific point — Even if the players were colluding to suppress their own salaries, I don’t think that matters from the antitrust point of view. This is perhaps more a hypothetical case of “group boycott” rather than “price fixing.” If Wade and Bosh, for example, said they would only agree to be signed together, the antitrust regulator would have to condemn that even if one player, say Bosh, agreed to a less-than-maximum salary.

By: Ke

Ke — Sun, 30 May 2010 00:35:52 +0000

I often read Mises, but this is absolutely absurd. These NBA players are “colluding” to suppress their own salaries in order to be together on one team to win a championship. They are GIVING UP money; they’re not trying to extort money from the organizations like what the Players Union is doing.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 29 May 2010 20:50:07 +0000

ESPN just ran a story demanding the NBA crack down on the conspiracy!

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5229374

By: Weekly Diagnosis: 5/28 « The Sports Doctor

Weekly Diagnosis: 5/28 « The Sports Doctor — Sat, 29 May 2010 01:00:18 +0000

[...] increased the power of the Eastern markets. I had to travel via Web all the way to Austria for a thorough, academic explanation of the staged, contrived horror of it all. I’m all for wanting to catch up with your friends and [...]

By: Ivan

Ivan — Fri, 28 May 2010 20:22:16 +0000

No, no, you don’t get it. Labor is allowed to collude because they’re not the evil exploiters; they’re just trying to get their fair share, the just wage ($50,000,000 a year?). But colluding capitalists should have the book thrown at them!

By: S.M. Oliva

S.M. Oliva — Fri, 28 May 2010 20:21:41 +0000

Larry —

Excellent point. I’ve raised First Amendment concerns many times before in the antitrust context. The government’s position is consistent: The First Amendment does not protect “anticompetitive” behavior. Yes, I’ve got that from them in writing.

By: Larry Ruane

Larry Ruane — Fri, 28 May 2010 20:04:14 +0000

Of course, the other thing that should always be mentioned when discussing these situations is — what about the First Amendment freedom of speech? (I think it’s worth bringing up this point even if, like me, you side with Lysander Spooner on the Constitution.)