-
It’s About the Legacy, Not the House
April 16, 2013 | 43 comments
-
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
March 13, 2013 | 205 comments
-
An Elite That Still Reject Him
December 24, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Why Rice?
December 11, 2012 | 31 comments
-
Never Has Less Cost More
November 19, 2012 | 28 comments
A Further Perspective
Football, Fairness, and Hayek
In an age of no progress, the Super Bowl becomes bigger still.
As we await Sunday’s Super Bowl, we should be grateful America’s football does not follow its politics. Comparing their prevailing trends clearly explains their standing in the public’s opinion. It also explains why they are producing such different results.
The dichotomy could not be greater between America’s favorite sporting event, the Super Bowl, and its politics’ growing prevalence, class warfare. We find the celebration of excellence juxtaposed to the politics of envy.
If professional football has “one-percenters,” the Super Bowl is where they live. Where is Occupy Wall Street? Where is the outrage? If our national politics were foisted onto our national obsession, these teams, which so disproportionately benefitted from the current system, would be forced to give back a large share of their “excessive” wins to the Commissioner — and feel guilty about it in the process.
The very existence of a gap between teams — those making and those missing the playoffs — would be cause for concern. The question would certainly arise whether this gap was growing. Teams coming up short in the regular season would have their envy stoked by accusations that Super Bowl teams had benefitted unfairly from a rigged system.
Would not such actions promote “fairness”? Why should a handful of playoff teams be further rewarded because they won a disproportionate share of games? Why would redistributing some of those wins to other teams not be a good idea? Would it not be better if all the teams were 8-8 and everyone made the playoffs?
Taking off our national political hat and putting on our national football helmet, such sentiments seem absurd. They fundamentally violate the essence of football. The very reason we watch is to see a system in which teams are striving to be the best, not entitled to be mediocre.
But there is a bigger and far more important reason why applying politics’ growing trend to our football would be misguided: It would be bad for football itself. Teams having wins stripped away would stop striving, since they were going to be taken from them. Teams having wins given to them would do likewise, since they would get wins anyway. Quickly, football itself would deteriorate.
Nobel economist Friedrich Hayek made the same points over 50 years ago in The Constitution of Liberty. Writing about nations and the premise of wealth redistribution between them, he observed: “But most of the gains of the few do, in the course of time, become available to the rest. If we abandoned progress, we should also have to abandon all those social improvements that we now hope for… We have only to remember that to prevent progress at the top would soon prevent it all the way down, in order to see that this result is really the last thing we want.”
Hayek’s point: We all benefit from the excelling of a few. Counterintuitive as this might seem, and as contrary as its short-term effects may initially appear, its long-term outcome leads to more rapid economic growth through the creation and dissemination of products we would not otherwise have.
While this may not appear so clearly in our economics — and our growing political trend certainly aims to obscure it — its truth is quickly evident when applied back to football. Football would deteriorate if the politics of envy were applied to it. Fans of all those non-Super Bowl teams, even non-football fans, tune in to this game. A majority wish their teams were in it — and hope they will be next year — but they still want to see the best this year. They benefit from it.
And football itself does as well. It has advanced on the innovations of the excellent. Dynasties have benefitted for a while, but before long their innovations are commonplace throughout the league. As a result, the entire game and all its fans have benefitted. There is a reason why the tactics of 40, or even 10, years ago no longer prevail in today’s NFL. Nothing prevents teams using them now… except their desire to win.
When we compare our football to our politics, we see the two dominated by different goals: seeking to promote opportunity, versus seeking to dictate outcomes. The NFL does many things to promote equal opportunities for its teams — most notably having teams with the worst records having the first chance to pick the best players.
However, there is a big difference between seeking to promote opportunity, as football does, and seeking to dictate outcomes, as our politics increasingly seeks to do. And there is an economic danger in the latter, just as Hayek stated.
Instead of a Super Bowl economy, we have an also-ran one. It smacks of being an end-of-season game between two losing teams. There is a reason such games are not showcased on a special Sunday. Just like the enormous audience tuning into Sunday’s Super Bowl, we all want to participate in a winning economy.
It can be easy to overlook the obvious, especially when there are those telling us to do just that. So sometimes we need to look from a different angle to see it, especially when it offers us unfiltered facts we intuitively know.
Photo: UPI
About the Author
J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
More Articles by J.T. Young
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/01/football-fairness-and-hayek
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- The End of the Castros?
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 2.1.13 @ 7:18AM
As an example of what happens when socialist ideas meet sports, I give you the Toronto Maple Leafs. They have not won a Stanley Cup since 1967 and it's a race to see if they'll win another one before that entire winning team is dead of old age; they have missed the playoffs for the past 8 years; and they sell out every single game. Not only that, but if anybody who spent most of his career with this team of losers is entering the last lap of his career anywhere, the Leafs try their best to hire him so he can end his career with a farewell tour of love, worship and champagne on the way to yet another losing season. That's what socialism does to sports. Oh, and Canada doesn't have a World Cup Finals worthy soccer team, but the USA does -- because anybody in Canada who actually knows how to play World Cup quality soccer plays for his home country, which even if he was born in Canada, is Somewhere Else.
C.B.| 2.1.13 @ 7:37AM
I want my click back. I thought you were going to talk about Selma Hayek...
Dukehoopsfan| 2.1.13 @ 4:52PM
You beat me to it, great minds and all that.
Waccamaw| 2.1.13 @ 10:06AM
The GODS of FOOTBALL
Super Bowl Sunday is the most important Sabbath of the year. It trumps Easter anyday.
At my church, Sunday night service has been canceled for the ALMIGHTY FOOTBALL FANS.
Waccamaw| 2.1.13 @ 10:11AM
My wife and I, however, will be watching Puppy Bowl on Animal Channel.
What Would Jesus Do? I think he would watch Puppy Bowl. Jesus would be offended by those vulgar commercials, but his followers seem to love them. The more profane, the better!
spike59| 2.1.13 @ 2:26PM
My wife, Trevor, and I, however, will be watching Puppy Bowl on Animal Channel. That will be a good way to unwind after a "greuling day of antiquing"
there, Doris-fixed it for ya
cicero| 2.1.13 @ 10:29AM
The socializaton of a pollitical entity is not about equality for everyone. It is about equality of poverty for everbody else. The ruling elite deserve to be better off - much better off, because they know better than the rest of us how things should be. And they can prove it. Stalin showed that his ideas were so much better than anyone elses because the guys with other ideas just didn't survive very long. Its the Darwin thing. Mao proved the same thing. Oh, and Pol Pot proved the same thing. They must have something there, eh?
Our political ruling class, from the executive, to the legislative, to the judicial, all know that they are entitled to live better than the rest of us, with much less economic uncertainty. They are so much more deserving that even the wealthy shower them with money to keep them where they are. You my call that bribery, but they know it is tribute for their high mindedness and wonderfulness.
So, we watch our games, and the poor get their free bread, and everything will be fine in the morning. Wait, what is that sound at the gates? ? ?
MacWell™| 2.3.13 @ 3:34PM
cicero oh cicero, how could you be so astute?
cicero| 2.1.13 @ 10:29AM
The socializaton of a pollitical entity is not about equality for everyone. It is about equality of poverty for everbody else. The ruling elite deserve to be better off - much better off, because they know better than the rest of us how things should be. And they can prove it. Stalin showed that his ideas were so much better than anyone elses because the guys with other ideas just didn't survive very long. Its the Darwin thing. Mao proved the same thing. Oh, and Pol Pot proved the same thing. They must have something there, eh?
Our political ruling class, from the executive, to the legislative, to the judicial, all know that they are entitled to live better than the rest of us, with much less economic uncertainty. They are so much more deserving that even the wealthy shower them with money to keep them where they are. You my call that bribery, but they know it is tribute for their high mindedness and wonderfulness.
So, we watch our games, and the poor get their free bread, and everything will be fine in the morning. Wait, what is that sound at the gates? ? ?
markenoff| 2.1.13 @ 10:46AM
The barbarians are already inside.
Al Adab| 2.1.13 @ 1:15PM
More bread and circuses to keep us distracted. Simple.
BTW I'm giving even money that Harbaugh will win it all.
markenoff| 2.1.13 @ 10:47AM
The stadium where they will play on Sunday is the Mercedes-Benz Superdome. Talk about 1%.
Al Adab| 2.1.13 @ 1:15PM
Heck, you could buy a good used one for under 10K
Doctor Right| 2.1.13 @ 11:23AM
Ray Lewis.
Butch| 2.1.13 @ 6:00PM
"We all profit from the excelling few." It never seemed counterintuitive to me. In American history classes in school, I would read and hear about "Robber Barons" as bad guys and crusading journalists as good guys. It never made sense to me. I wasn't old enough to understand "infrastructure," but I was old enough to comprehend communications, transportation, steel, finance, and energy. I always thought we'd all been given something wonderful, and to this day I can't figure out who they "robbed."
Bob K| 2.2.13 @ 1:38AM
Did you know that if a company or product is not an official Super Bowl Sponsor they can't say "Super Bowl" in an ad that features the Super Bowl?
If you don't believe this look at the ads in your local papers from businesses like Bars and Restaurants seeking business during the hours that the game is to be played.
They have to say instead "Big Game." No kidding.
A Beer Distributor in Northeast Pennsylvania where I live put a quarter page ad in the local paper to this effect.
Here are the 1st lines of the ad: "Did you notice that if a company or product is not an official S---- B--- Sponsor they can't say "S----B---, they have to say Big Game. Dundee Beverage is not an official S---- B--- Sponsor so we are having a B-- S--- for the S---- B---. Major brands like B--, C----, M------- and Y-------- are all on sale for the S---- B---.
Bob K| 2.2.13 @ 1:44AM
He finished his ad with this comment:
"This reminds me of when George Carlin pointed out you can't say ----, ----, ----, ----------, ------------, and ---- on Radio and TV."
I'll bet he never heard of Hayek but I think he understands him better than Mr. J. T. Young does!
JD| 3.13.13 @ 12:13PM
Group topic here:
I've been reading books on the subject of health care lately, and I encountered statistics that I'm looking to verify.
On the topic of America's "uninsured", I've found the following claim:
American Leftists claim that 50 million Americans lack health insurance. But of those 50 million...
About 10 million actually do have health insurance, but are misreported.
10 million are not US citizens.
Of the 30 million remaining, 17 million are eligible for taxpayer-funded health insurance through the government, but have not actually claimed it. In most cases, they simply aren't consuming health care, but if/when they do, they'll just be handed some enrollment forms and then become insured at no cost to themselves.
There are only 13 million US citizens who lack health insurance and cannot get it without out of pocket costs.
Of those 13 million, 10 million are part of households earning at least $75,000/year. They could afford it, but choose not to.
There are only 3 million US citizens who do not have insurance, are not eligible for government insurance, and are part of households making less than $75,000/year.
There are a number of citations in the book for this data, but I'm looking for more. This is powerful evidence if true.