Steinbrenner and socialism

[Tilted]

Hank Steinbrenner: 'Socialism' won't fix MLB issues - ESPN New York

TAMPA, Fla. -- Yankees co-chairman Hank Steinbrenner says baseball's revenue sharing and luxury tax programs need changes, and that commissioner Bud Selig is open to the idea.

...

"At some point, if you don't want to worry about teams in minor markets, don't put teams in minor markets, or don't leave teams in minor markets if they're truly minor," Steinbrenner said. "Socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is never the answer."

<!--columnistprofile is null-->

 

[swm462]

Nfl

 

[Larry Gude]

What a crock.

"Socialism is never the answer...except when it comes to maintaining our monopoly status!"

If he really wants a survival of the fittest, free market, let me know when he calls for congress to remove their protected status. Until then, he, they, have a special status and with that comes special responsibilities and part of that is to look after the overall health of major league baseball and that is not always going to be the same as what's best for the Yankees. At last check, they don't do so bad anyway.

It's fine for him to fight for his teams interests within that system but, when some (many) of the benefits to his team accrues due to their special status then he's obligated to share that as a condition of membership in a protected class and if it makes sense to get rid of some of the really bad teams in really bad towns then, sure, advocate for that but, do it in context of what is best for the league and not some laughable faux opposition to 'socialism'.

 

[Tilted]

What a crock.

"Socialism is never the answer...except when it comes to maintaining our monopoly status!"

If he really wants a survival of the fittest, free market, let me know when he calls for congress to remove their protected status. Until then, he, they, have a special status and with that comes special responsibilities and part of that is to look after the overall health of major league baseball and that is not always going to be the same as what's best for the Yankees. At last check, they don't do so bad anyway.

It's fine for him to fight for his teams interests within that system but, when some (many) of the benefits to his team accrues due to their special status then he's obligated to share that as a condition of membership in a protected class and if it makes sense to get rid of some of the really bad teams in really bad towns then, sure, advocate for that but, do it in context of what is best for the league and not some laughable faux opposition to 'socialism'.

I agree that his 'socialism' characterization doesn't fit very well, but probably not based on the specific reasoning you are suggesting.