Search Tools and Maps

  • Google

    WWW Market Power

  • Locations of visitors to this page



  • eXTReMe Tracker

« Two on Beer Companies | Main | Port Au Prince Before and After the Quake »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I gotta think about this more and maybe write something about it. My views seem to clash with all sports economists, though. I don't have a problem with having a franchisor tell franchisees what they can and cannot do. And even if there is problem, I can't imagine the social cost is very large. So Reebok won a contract and American Needle is using the gubmnt to try to win it back. The major social cost is the use of the gubmnt and the courts, not the deadweight loss due to whatever monopoly power the franchisor might have.


What is the firm in sports? Is it an individual team, a pair of teams (since it takes two to play a game), or the entire league?


Phil, I'd say it's the entire league. That's why I think it's laughable that Jerry Jones rages against "socialism" in the NFL. The Cowboys would have no business were not not for the Eagles, Giants ... even the Lions and Redskins!


The "Peculiar Economics of Team Sports" rears its head. True, it takes at least two teams to produce a game and having more teams, to some point, increases overall interest. But why is it that this condition trumps interteam competition between teams in various product markets?

Chicago Bears Hats Fan

To be honest, I wish reebok didnt get the contract. I don't care much for their designs.

The comments to this entry are closed.