1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15562/behind-the-lockout-part-ii/

Behind the Lockout, Part II

February 4, 2011 by

In April 2009 NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell made the defining statement of his five-year tenure: “We have not found a saturation point for pro football, which is a good thing. I don’t want to be around if we do.” Gregg Easterbrook, the pseudo-intellectual ESPN.com writer, replied at the time with some uncommon wisdom:

[W]e don’t want to find the NFL saturation point. Better never to know. To tamper with the current super-successful NFL formula is asking for trouble. The current formula is exciting and profitable. Let’s leave matters as they are.

Notice the key words used by each man. Easterbrook spoke of the NFL being “profitable”; Goodell spoke of “saturation.” This is the key to understanding the current labor dispute between the league’s franchise operators and its players union.

The NFL encapsulates, perhaps better than any other single business entity, the popular conceptions — and misconceptions — about capitalism and the nature of markets. The league is the epitome of statist “crony” capitalism. Its franchise operators demand huge government subsidies for stadiums while jealously guarding its prerogatives as a “private” business. Governments (and their media enablers) largely go along with this because they’ve been led to believe the NFL’s popularity is so immense that no respectable city can go without a franchise.

Professional football is the ethanol of the entertainment industry. Since 1990, nearly every NFL franchise has either opened a new stadium, made substantial renovations to existing stadiums, or is currently in the process of obtaining a new stadium. Over this 20-year period the league’s franchises obtained over $7 billion in taxpayer subsidies raging from direct taxes to publicly backed bonds. Ten stadiums are 100% government-financed, while another 19 are at least 75% government-financed. Every single franchise receives some amount of government subsidies.

Welcome to Jerry World

This year’s Super Bowl is most notable for its location, Cowboys Stadium, a $1.3 billion facility opened in 2009. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones built the stadium with “help” from $325 million in taxpayer funds from the Dallas suburb of Arlington. It is the largest domed stadium in the world and may hold as many as 111,000 people for Sunday’s Super Bowl.

Mark Thornton of the Mises Institute wrote a few years ago about the “skyscraper index,” a correlation first studied by economist Andrew Lawrence, which purports to connect downturns in the business cycle with the construction of the world’s largest skyscraper. Thornton did not suggest the “skyscraper index” was an infallible predictor of economic downturns, but there was ample empirical evidence to suggest “the cause of skyscrapers reaching new heights and severe business cycles are related to instability in debt financing and that the institutions that regulate debt financing should be reevaluated, if not replaced with more efficient and stabilizing institutions.”

Cowboys Stadium may prove to be the NFL’s version of the Chrysler Building, where the groundbreaking occurred a month before the stock market crash of 1929. By most accounts “Jerry World” is the most opulent, luxurious stadium ever built for an NFL team. Not surprisingly, it is also a debt-ridden project that exists only because Jerry Jones had easy access to a government-backed credit card.

The question is: Why did Jerry build it? Indeed, what drove this rapid buildup of football stadiums over the past two decades?

Television to the Rescue

The NFL is really two distinct products. There’s the in-stadium product represented by Jerry World and its taxpayer-financed brethren. And then there’s the way most people consume football, the television product produced by the major broadcast networks and ESPN. NFL-TV is a great product whose popularity remains high. NFL-Stadium is struggling to pay the mortgage.

Originally, of course, the NFL was purely a stadium product that relied on ticket sales and concessions. Television was viewed with skepticism and hostility in the early days, to the point where the NFL of the 1950s banned all telecasts of a team’s home games for fear of cannibalizing live attendance. A few decades later, television has proven to be the lifeblood of NFL expansion.

The stadium boom that started in the 1990s was not inevitable. In the late 1980s there were many NFL observers who saw the Roman Empire in decline. The league suffered two major labor strikes and courtroom defeats in antitrust litigation brought by Raiders owner Al Davis and the defunct United States Football League. One contemporary book I reviewed postulated the NFL was in its declining years because the television network money would start to dry up; the existing networks wouldn’t continually increase their payments for a stagnant product.

What this author couldn’t account for at the time was a little something called the Fox Network. In 1993, the still-fledgling network paid a premium to wrest away half of the NFL’s Sunday afternoon contract from rival CBS. It was a loss leader for Fox, whose immediate goal was not to profit from football, but provide an attractive carrot for independent CBS stations to switch their affiliation to Fox. And it worked.

This, along with the rapid growth of ESPN in the 1990s, created a rising tide that lifted the NFL’s ship — not the other way around. The NFL took advantage of the more competitive television market by undertaking a questionable round of expansion. In 1993, the NFL announced new teams for Charlotte and Jacksonville. The latter was particularly dubious. Jacksonville’s selection had little to do with the merits of the city as a viable NFL market (it’s currently the 49th largest television market) and more to do with then-Commissioner Paul Tagliabue’s desire to bring Wayne Weaver, the head of the Jacksonville group, into the league as an owner.

As the credit-fueled booms of the 1990s and 2000s came and went the NFL brought in new owners. In 1999 the Washington Redskins sold for a record $800 million to Daniel M. Snyder. Snyder assumed $155 million in debt on the Redskins stadium, which was built two years earlier, and obtained an additional $340 million in credit to finance the overall purchase.

Of note is Snyder’s background. He rose to wealth and prominence as the CEO of Snyder Communications, a marketing company that rode the 1990s credit booms as well as any. The company used its successful IPO — and boom-inflated share prices — to acquire a host of smaller companies through stock swaps. Snyder was lucky enough to cash out of the market in early 2000 and acquire the Redskins when he did.

He wasn’t the only one. In 2002 the NFL awarded an expansion team to Houston’s Bob McNair, who in 1999 sold swapped his company for Enron stock and promptly cashed out to the tune of $1.5 billion, which helped finance the $700 million “expansion fee” he offered to the NFL owners just to get a seat at their table. And of course, McNair built a shiny, new $449 million stadium — with 57% government financing — to house his new toy.

The NFL doesn’t just insist on majority-government financing for its stadiums; it demands the beneficiaries of these stadiums are primarily wealthy individuals. The NFL bans corporate ownership (with one exception). The NFL Constitution limits the number of members of a franchise ownership and requires the controlling partner own at least 30%. The league also bans most cross-ownership of football and other types of sports franchises.

What this means is NFL teams can’t rely on one of the most common form of financing large capital projects like stadium construction — public offerings of stock. The NFL simply forbids it. The exception is, coincidentally, one of this year’s Super Bowl participants, the Green Bay Packers. In the 1920s the Packers were organized as a non-profit stock company that sold shares over the years to help finance the club (although the Packers also receive taxpayer funding). Today there are about 112,000 shareholders, although they earn no dividends and any profits are put back into the team or its charitable foundation.

Stock companies, of course, would mean a loss of control for 32 oligarchs who currently run the NFL as “owners,” although in reality most of them own little more then massive debts. A free market in NFL ownership would open up poorly managed franchises to “hostile” takeovers. In the current system, however, incompetent ownership can persist for decades without consequence — the taxpayers will usually make up for it with additional funds.

The only real asset most NFL teams have is their 1/32nd share of the league’s massive television contracts — the rights fees paid by the four major networks to broadcast games. As long as this revenue stream holds steady, it almost doesn’t matter what the franchise operators do. The broadcasters have proven time and again to be innovative and entrepreneurial, qualities the majority of NFL “owners” lack.

Bureaucracy and IP: Partners in Freedom

The NFL’s massive popularity is also a testament to other outside, non-ownership forces, such as sports-talk radio, the Internet, gambling, and gaming. Once again, the 1990s proved to be unintentionally beneficial to the NFL, as “fantasy football” began to spread, first through individual grassroots leagues, and then through the Internet into a standalone industry. The NFL’s leadership couldn’t plan this. Customers simply found a new way to enjoy the game.

Gambling certainly has been synonymous with professional sports for over a century. Like most leagues, the NFL officially opposes all “legal” gambling on its product. Ostensibly there’s a fear of gamblers corrupting the integrity of the game. While that’s a slight risk — whether or not gambling is approved by the state ­— the real issue is that the NFL opposes any revenue stream it cannot directly control. For example, NFL teams routinely sponsor state lottery games, while simultaneously lobbying legislatures (and courts) to oppose the de-criminalization of other forms of sports wagering.

There is, in fact, a strong “intellectual property” mentality throughout the NFL. Literally this is reflected in the league’s fanatical prosecution of its trademarks and copyrights. But on another level, there’s a belief in “The Shield,” the image of a league that must be protected at all costs from any hint of negative press.

When Roger Goodell became commissioner, he took this idea to laughable excess. No longer content to enforce the league’s on-field rules, Goodell anointed himself a crusader against all perceived wrongs. He routinely suspends players for off-field incidents – even mere allegations — that have nothing to do with the actual game of professional football. His rationale is that any action by an NFL player that may reflect poorly on him also hurts the league somehow. (Of course, that doesn’t apply to Goodell’s employers, the franchise operators, who are free to be sleazy, racist, and dishonest businessmen, e.g. Daniel Snyder).

Then again, as a lifelong NFL bureaucrat, Goodell is simply extending the league’s on-field thinking to off-field situations. The NFL product is increasingly bureaucratic and not very “consumer friendly.” The league obsesses over trivial matters — fining players $5,000 for wearing the wrong socks, banning all truthful criticism of officiating mistakes, changing rules on the fly in the middle of the season — to the point where we’re no longer talking about private businessmen but quasi-governmental officials. Indeed, what private business outside of professional sports has a “Commissioner”?

Not that any of this is surprising. When the majority of league stadiums are government finances, that mentality seeps into the league’s operations. When you attempt to circumvent the laws of economics by continually subsidizing poor management, what you’re left with is a even poorer management.

A Labor Drama in One Sentence

I began this piece by mentioning the ongoing NFL-NFLPA dispute, yet I have yet to mention anything having to do with the union or labor agreements. Well it’s simple really: The owners overspent on unnecessary stadiums, and now they want the players to work more for less pay to help pay down the debt. That’s your entire labor dispute in one sentence. The league expects — nay, demand — the NFLPA to act like a local government in a stadium dispute and simply give the franchise operators what they want for little or nothing in return. Maintaining the “owners’” social standing is of paramount importance.

Of secondary importance is the “saturation” that Roger Goodell spoke of two years ago. The franchise operators don’t just want to maintain their status quo, they want to maintain the illusion that their product has inelastic demand and they can continue consuming at will from local governments, fans, television networks, etc. This isn’t about maximizing profit. It’s about maximizing consumption for the sake of consumption. That’s why places like “Jerry World” exist, not to satisfy customers but to satisfy the egotistical lunatic who manipulated easy credit.

I suspect most NFL fans were more satisfied in the “old days” of 20-or-so years ago, when stadiums were smaller, more centrally located, and the emphasis was on the field and not on secondary marketing. And obviously the price was a lot lower. But today’s NFL is about the debt-manufacturing bureaucrats, not the customers.

Indeed, Goodell’s “saturation” remark was a harbinger of what has become the public centerpiece of the current labor battle: the franchise operator’s proposal to expand the number of regular season games from 16 to 18. Goodell and company spin this as a mere adjustment to the present “20-game schedule” where currently four games are “preseason” exhibitions. Why not simply “convert” two preseason games into regular season games? The union, quite reasonably, notes that the added stress of two more “real” games will increase the number of player injuries and decrease the overall quality of the on-field product.

The truth is that Goodell has little concern for product quality. Yet again this is an attempt to get others to pay for the mistakes of the franchise operators. NFL clubs generally bundle their preseason and regular season games together in a single “season ticket” package. In other words, you pay for eight regular season and two preseason home games. Fans would obviously prefer to not pay for the preseason at all in most cases. A customer-friendly NFL would simply unbundle the preseason and regular season games. Heck, given the television and concession revenues, the NFL could simply give away their preseason tickets and likely enjoy increased attendance and profits. But don’t hold your breath on that.

Adding two games to the schedule is also a backdoor form of expansion. There’s no Bob McNair available right now to give $700 million in free money to the owners for a new team, and aside from Los Angeles, the NFL is running out of cities to fleece. An 18-game schedule would have the same impact on the inventory of available games as adding two expansion teams. Nevermind the lack of consumer demand.


The NFL produces three things: stadium debt, intellectual property, and bureaucracy. None of these things should be confused with “free market” values. The league is a prime example of what happens when you mix politically influential egos with easy credit and a media environment that largely promotes economic ignorance. You have the perfect boom business.

But all booms eventually end. NFL acolytes — and they are presently the majority — will insist, as Homer Simpson once did, that “everything lasts forever.” One media writer I correspond with insisted to me recently the NFL will be even more popular in 20 years then it is today. Go back to 1991 and think about all of the businesses you could have said that about, incorrectly, at that time.

That’s not to say professional football will cease to exist, nor even that the present labor situation will yield some disaster beyond imagination. What I am saying is that all the positive, pie-in-the-sky press in the world can’t alter economic reality. The NFL isn’t just a house of cards. It’s a house of cards built atop a pile of toxic waste. The only thing keeping the house from sinking is a support structure composed of television contracts.

But the networks face their own economic challenges, and unless you can guarantee that Fox, ESPN, CBS, et al., will be stronger then they are now in 2031, then you can’t say with any confidence the NFL will survive and thrive indefinitely. The league is built on consumption, and when you adopt that model, eventually you’ll eat yourself out of your $1.3 billion house and home.


J Cortez February 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm

Excellent article. Thank you.

Rick February 4, 2011 at 2:17 pm

One media writer I correspond with insisted to me recently the NFL will be even more popular in 20 years then it is today. Go back to 1991 and think about all of the businesses you could have said that about, incorrectly, at that time.

Not long ago two of the most popular sports in America were horse racing and boxing.

Good article S.M., a lot can be learned by studying the sports entertainment business.

Braden Talbot February 4, 2011 at 3:37 pm

Leave it to the Mises Institute to challenge all my economic a childhood ideas.

I used to worship the NFL. I’d watch those glorified “NFL Films” flicks religiously in the winter dubbed with the legendary voice of John Facenda (I still do sometimes). But all you have to do is question it. It’s amazing how many people think a big sports franchise helps a local economy.

I could happily live the rest of my life without another NFL game.

Braden Talbot February 4, 2011 at 4:12 pm

Did anyone read Bill Maher’s latest post (I doubt many, if any, did)? I got in an email I used to subscribe to (then unsubscribed shortly thereafter). The title is “New Rule: Americans Must Realize What Makes NFL Football So Great: Socialism.” I know Bill’s economic understanding is flawed at best, but this post made me laugh. It’s loaded with fallacies and a few ironies. Check it out:


Rick February 4, 2011 at 8:27 pm

The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play.

I guess Bill Maher forgot that last years World Series teams were Texas and SF, and that in 2008 Tampa Bay went to the series, and other WS winners from the 2000′s were Arizona, the Angels (a “small budget” team at the time), and the Florida Marlins. Detroit even got to the series once.

But he does have a point in that mess somewhere. There are a lot of conservative types who gripe about “socialism” in government yet don’t seem to mind taxpayer funded football stadiums and attempts at “parity” in sports. It is a strange contradiction in voter/consumer relativity.

El Tonno February 5, 2011 at 7:44 am

Sad to say, I actually read that article a couple of days ago.Didn’t make sense though so I dumped it from short-term memory quickly.

While on the NFL theme, we get Football as the Circus of the Dying Empire:


Not much Economics, instead Politics, except for the last paragraph:

“Lest you consider this enough piling on the all-American game, labor troubles loom with a lock-out possible in March. Because the main issue is money — the teams want to share less revenue (currently 60%) with the players — the media tends to characterize the conflict as “billionaires versus millionaires.” Actually, most owners are rich from other businesses and would not have been allowed into the NFL unless they were financially secure, while few players survive more than about three years in the league. The owners also want to increase production (adding two games to the regular season) without taking more responsibility for health-care costs.

If any of this sounds depressingly like real life, how could you not watch what might be the last Super Bowl, the endgame of empire, the two-minute warning before America finally beats itself?”

Capt Mike February 4, 2011 at 4:18 pm

In Philly, in the day, we could listen to John Facenda read the news every night. Seriously, we’d watch (and listen) for that reason only! How lucky we were.

Sione February 5, 2011 at 3:31 pm

Bread and circuses indeed! Awful that the sport of American Football (known locally as Grid Iron) is little more than an artifact of socialist mass entertainment. Yuck! You’d be better off with something better than that.


BuckeyeChuck February 7, 2011 at 2:46 pm

Since personal valuation of a game is subjective, it seems that the NFL’s popularity (envied by NASCAR, MLB, NBA, and the NHL) is because so many of us religiously tune in to watch the weekly injury festival pitting our favorite team against that week’s opponent. Actually, I understate the case. The popularity of the NFL is because so many of us will tune in to watch *any* contest between any of the league’s two teams, regardless of our affiliation. The initial ratings for yesterday’s Super Bowl say that 71% of all televisions in the U.S. in use were tuned to that game, even though Christina Aguilera botched the national anthem, the Black Eyed Peas gave a dreadful halftime show (aided by a stage that didn’t work properly and the world’s worst sound engineer), and the commercials were crass and generally uninspiring.

Personally, I have trouble enjoying a game in which…

… only one player can use his hands.
… scoring may never occur.
… players writhe around in pain on the pitch hoping to evoke a colored card from a lone official whose job is to monitor no fewer than 22 players at one time. (I know he can solicit some assistance from the linesmen.)

However, it seems well over a billion of my fellow humans on this planet disagree. To them I say, “Enjoy, friends.”

Flacotex February 13, 2011 at 8:04 pm

How silly. The sport isn’t even a part of this article and it is slammed. Grow up. If you would like to read about a spot that is steeped in a tradition of free markets, then read about European football. There is no socialism there. The teams thrive or die based on their revenue, if you don’t win enough you are eliminated from your league. Need more revenue? If you win enough you get to the Champions league and make millions of dollars more then your competition. The don’t have arcane and byzantine profit sharing rules like American sports do.

J. Murray February 5, 2011 at 5:48 pm

I would hope that LA takes the Jaguars off our hands. One less tax-sucking enterprise in town that way.

And some six years ago I made the decision to refuse to consume any professional sports related products. I don’t by Madden, don’t buy merchandise, and I won’t even watch the Super Bowl tomorrow. Ya, it doesn’t stop them from getting my money via taxation, but at least I can sleep at night knowing I’m not perpetuating their existence voluntarily.

Daniel Coleman February 6, 2011 at 11:06 am

Excellent analysis. Thank you, Skip!

Lenny February 14, 2011 at 11:17 am

First they took away Santa, then they put a hit on the easter bunny, now you rub out the NFL. Great write!

Steve February 14, 2011 at 2:23 pm

“There are a lot of conservative types who gripe about “socialism” in government yet don’t seem to mind taxpayer funded football stadiums and attempts at “parity” in sports. ”

Parity WITHIN a sports league is not the same as parity amongs individual businesses.

CyniCAl February 15, 2011 at 2:29 pm

Rick February 4, 2011 at 2:17 pm — “Not long ago two of the most popular sports in America were horse racing and boxing.”

I tuned into “Here Comes Mr. Jordan” the other evening, a 1941 film that was remade in 1978 as “Heaven Can Wait.”

In the original, main character Joe Pendleton was indeed a boxer. In the remake 37 years hence, main character Joe Pendleton was an NFL quarterback.

Art imitates life.

If a remake of the remake were made in 2015, it would be most interesting to see what sport Joe Pendleton played.


John Q. Galt February 15, 2011 at 4:48 pm

“Professional football is the ethanol of the entertainment industry.”

Oh give me a break. Save the ethanol-bashing until after you get your agronomics degree.

Jess February 15, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Is this kind of like having to become a chiropractor before criticizing chiropractic as quackery? Like having to buy all the sets of holy underwear before learning the cult’s deep dark secrets? If ethanol made sense, it wouldn’t require subsidies and quotas.

marcos February 15, 2011 at 8:27 pm

the nfl is the most efficient and profitable sporting enterprise in the world. each year its product is of the highest quality, exciting and in huge demand. over investment and excess capacity installing mistakes are a reality, but these befell entire countries (spain, iceland, qatar) and industries, not exclusively the nfl. other sports with the very same easy access to credit and tv money are faring much, much worse because of real poor management. i ask of the author, -which are the presumed management foibles nfl owners have been guilty of?- this is a ruthless league, and its the end product and its quality that have it atop its perch. and much of it has to do in effect with the quasi socialist practices the nfl undertakes such as revenue splitting, reverse draft order, free agency and so on.

economics and free marketing are very limited tools, and babbling ideology and trying to sound very righteous shed no real light on the phenomena being analyzed. why do people consume sports? why do people consume the nfl’s product? in times of expansion, can businesses be restrained from installing excess capacity? and, how could nfl owners be policed and brought to a more equitable agreement?

Anthony Brancato February 19, 2011 at 3:56 am

But what about the benefits that would accrue not only to (obviously) the owners, but also to the fans, and, as it turns out, the nation’s businesses and governmental entities at every level, from transferring two games from the exhibition schedule to the regular-season schedule?

Virtually all 18-game schedule proposals include a second “bye,” or idle week during the season, for each team. This means that the actual number of weeks of regular-season play increases by three, not two, from the present 17 weeks to 20.

Currently, the Super Bowl is played on the first Sunday in February. This date would be moved two weeks later if the 18-game schedule is adopted, meaning that the game would henceforth be played on the third Sunday in February instead (with the present idle week between the semifinal, or conference championship, round and the Super Bowl itself being abolished). The day after this new Super Bowl date is a national holiday, known colloquially as Presidents’ Day, upon which virtually all government offices – federal, state and local – and large businesses, are closed. Because of the many parties, etc. that are typically held on the day of the Super Bowl, the following day has far and away the highest worker absentee rate of any workday in the entire year; having this day fall on a national holiday renders this moot and saves governments and businesses massive amounts of money in terms of lost productivity, sick pay and overtime pay (the latter to cover work left unperformed by employees who have called in “sick”).

In passing, beginning the regular season on an earlier date is not an option, considering the fact that the owners moved the start date to the week after the Labor Day (first Monday in September) weekend in 1999, citing abysmal television ratings on that weekend, which had marked the start of the regular season since 1978, when the league last transferred two games from the exhibition to the regular season (these having spanned six and 14 weeks, respectively, from 1961 through 1977).

Furthermore, in most variations of the plan at least, the 18-game schedule would come bundled with two changes designed to promote more competitive balance, or “parity,” among the teams: First, the two newly-created games are to be awarded on a weighted basis, a team that finished first in its division the season before acquiring two more games against correspondingly-placed teams from other divisions, with teams having finished second, third and fourth doing the same; and second, due to there now being only two exhibition games, coaches would have to make hasty decisions on which players to retain, and which to release; and conceptually at least, a valued player inadvertantly released would be acquired by one of the teams that finished near the bottom of the prior year’s standings, pursuant to the league’s “waiver” procedures.

Another change arising from the move is that it would give teams that get off to a poor start a better chance to overcome such a start and salvage their season: No team in NFL history that has started a season 0-3 has ever even so much as reached the conference championship round, let alone won the Super Bowl; and only one team that has opened a season with two losses, both at home, has ever qualified for the postseason in a year not disrupted by a strike (the Philadelphia Eagles did this in 2003).

So far, the owners have done little in the way of citing these factors as attractive reasons for making the move to the 18-game regular season; but just because they have not done so does not mean that these factors would not have a significant impact on the fates of many different teams, in many future seasons, should the 18-game season become a reality.

Marty February 27, 2011 at 2:57 pm

Shouldn’t these people be crediting your excellent journalism?


Kevin the Chiropractor September 9, 2011 at 1:31 pm

It’s unbelievable that the US can even support 3 (4) major sports! I just came back to the US from Turkey – and there the only real major sport is Football (soccer).

It’s only a matter of time before people find better things to do with their time than sycophancy for their favorite teams.

- Kevin

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: