View Single Post
11-15-2012, 12:10 PM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,784
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
But are they exploiting it or is it the PA that expects them to exploit it or otherwise it cries "collusion"? That's really my question here. Has it gotten to the point where businesses are expected to do whatever there isn't a rule against doing, or else, in the case of a League, it will be considered to be collusion if teams choose not to do it, regardless of the rationality that doing it could be considered bad for them in the end?

Are some of these very specific rules meant to protect the owners from themselves or to protect them from accusations of collusion? In either case, if teams/owners decide not to want to do something because they don't believe it to be good for the League or good for them as owners, then it seems all messed up that they should need protection from themselves or collusion accusations simply because they're choosing what's the best thing to do. Do they really need established rules in order to be able to do the "best or right thing"?
Collusion cannot be the case if businesses have standards and practices in place. It would be easy for any team to show, if there was such an accusation, that spending more money than they get in revenues is a bad idea. They can probably pick a point to which they want to spend based on their income.

One problem is that many teams budget under the assumption that they'll reach the second round of the playoffs. Obviously, making the playoffs means a lot more revenue. Well, if you consider the odds of getting that far, most teams will lose that bet.

Collusion can only be proven if the teams, as a group, conspire to set pricing or adopt practices which end restraining player salaries. Sticking to a budget is not collusive behavior.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote