30
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 82:
Line 82: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
American sports are the most socialist of all! Hear me out, please. First of all, the worst teams get first pick at the best players in the draft. If this isn't Socialist, I don't know what is. And this is exclusively used by all four major sports in the United States. In Soccer, it's a free market, with teams able to bid as high as they want for the best players with little regulation or intervention by their respective leagues. Of course, this creates a lack of parity such that leagues tend to be dominated by a small subset of teams (see: Barca/Madrid, ManU/Chelsea/Arsenal, etc.). Of course, I think the American system is better, as it gives all teams a better chance to compete. (Note: THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A SOCIALIST.) In a way, sports exhibit possibly the ONLY proper application of "socialist" policies, and it only works because of the small scale of sporting leagues. Jeez, there are so many more examples it's ridiculous. Like this: The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have salary caps, which are designed to ensure super rich teams can't dominate year after year. The NBA has a "soft" cap, which means they can have payrolls above the salary cap, but for every dollar the Lakers spend above the salary cap, they have to pay a "luxury tax" which then gets distributed to teams with lower payrolls. For Heaven's sake, it's a "tax" that goes to less wealthy teams! It's LITERALLY designed to "spread the wealth." So, in summary, while socialism is certainly not something that can work on a national scale, it has and does work in American sports. So for the sake of not insulting the intelligence of sports fans who happen to read this site, I suggest removing this section entirely. Thanks. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 5:16, July 06, 2011 (PDT)
American sports are the most socialist of all! Hear me out, please. First of all, the worst teams get first pick at the best players in the draft. If this isn't Socialist, I don't know what is. And this is exclusively used by all four major sports in the United States. In Soccer, it's a free market, with teams able to bid as high as they want for the best players with little regulation or intervention by their respective leagues. Of course, this creates a lack of parity such that leagues tend to be dominated by a small subset of teams (see: Barca/Madrid, ManU/Chelsea/Arsenal, etc.). Of course, I think the American system is better, as it gives all teams a better chance to compete. (Note: THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A SOCIALIST.) In a way, sports exhibit possibly the ONLY proper application of "socialist" policies, and it only works because of the small scale of sporting leagues. Jeez, there are so many more examples it's ridiculous. Like this: The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have salary caps, which are designed to ensure super rich teams can't dominate year after year. The NBA has a "soft" cap, which means they can have payrolls above the salary cap, but for every dollar the Lakers spend above the salary cap, they have to pay a "luxury tax" which then gets distributed to teams with lower payrolls. For Heaven's sake, it's a "tax" that goes to less wealthy teams! It's LITERALLY designed to "spread the wealth." So, in summary, while socialism is certainly not something that can work on a national scale, it has and does work in American sports. So for the sake of not insulting the intelligence of sports fans who happen to read this site, I suggest removing this section entirely. Thanks. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 5:16, July 06, 2011 (PDT)
::Here's what you should know. Liberalism is a waste of words. Review the chart [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/06/basketball-play.html] and get back to me BC.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:43, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You're right about liberalism, but I don't think I understand your point. Besides not refuting or arguing any of my points, I think you're just implying I'm a lib because I know about basketball. You're wrong. Basketball fans tend to be libs because many of them are black (who vote overwhelmingly for dems). I'm neither black nor liberal, so your whole point is moot. Either way, MLB also has a luxury tax (they call it a "competitive balance tax") and a revenue sharing program that works very similarly to the NBA. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:21, July 07, 2011 (PDT)
::::I understand your point- American sports are the most socialist. We are not going to remove the reference to soccer because of your argument. Also, when blacks only make up 14% of the population, the popularity of basketball reaches far beyond skin color. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:28, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I don't mind if you don't remove it. I'm just content with you acknowledging I'm right. But you seem to have a very limited knowledge of statistics, so I won't try to beat it into you. If you want to think that only 14% of basketball fans are black simply because 14% of the population is, I won't stop you. Do you think 14% of all sports' fans are black? Nascar? Tennis? I seriously hope you don't think that. I will say one last time that if anyone with the most basic knowledge of sports read this article, they would laugh hysterically like I did. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:46, July 07, 2011 (PDT)
::::::Yes, you lost me there ''sport''. Sorry I don't understand your rant. What do you expect, I'm a little slow. Great job on reducing your reply to a few sentences. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:11, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
== Where the socialism thing came from and why it's there. ==
Let me explain where the socialism section came from. I had seen on the main page that day, there was a front page news entry from a blog (possibly two or three blogs) comparing soccer to socialism. I don't remember if the blogs were being serious or satirical, but it was on the front page of Conservapedia. I then happened to stumble on the Soccer article and noticed it had been changed to "a popular Socialist football sport" with no explanation given. As the front page gets replaced with new news, I took the Socialism into its own section, sourcing the original blogs, to avoid the Soccer article not making sense and sounding silly. As this has become quite a topic for debate, I just thought I should mention what the section is about, and where it came from, before we make any decisions. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 00:22, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
== Reasons for being socialist ==
Alright, I'm new here, so please be understanding. I'm not sure how some of the reasons listed even begin to make sense. The number of words necessary to play soccer? What about baseball or NASCAR? Do players or drivers need an extensive vocabulary in either of these sports? I think that, and the fact that trophies going to everyone seems to happen in all youth sports in general make it a bit contrived. If no one objects I will remove them. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 13:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
==Violence==
*Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights.
Don't know what that has to do with socialism, but it should be put back (somewhere) in the article. Maybe "Latins" are more hot-blooded? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:42, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Football Hooliganism here in England was largely down to far right neo-nazi groups. Thankfully it has now all but been eradicated but the philosophy remains. Many former thugs have turned up as leaders and agitators of the English Defence League. A far right protest group, a groups that invited "pastor" Terry Jones to speak at one of there rallies. Thankfully that nasty slimeball of a man was banned from entering the UK.
Football hooliganism is NOT SOCIALIST.