They redistibute their wealth. When the NFL sells patriots merchandise money goes to Jacksonville. Are you saying, under free enterprise the owners of the Jaguars just coincidentally make as much for the jerseys with their team name as the Patriots or Cowboys do?
Owners have agreed to redistribute wealth from the popular to the unpopular teams period. What do you call that?
That isn’t redistributing wealth. It’s nit even close to that
The patriots don’t give part of their money to poor teams.
The owners agree, democratically by their own will, not by force of some controlling organization that the best way to sell merchandise is to consider that all merchandise sold by teams within the league belongs to the league and gets split equally.
That isn’t anything resembling redistributing wealth.
Redistributing wealth would be making kraft split the money 32 ways if he sells the team. But that STILL wouldn’t be redistribution of wealth because the owners in their capitalist organization agreed to handle ownership that way.
32 men forming a billionaires investment club and working together to maximize profits and making rules about how they handle it (such as pooling money so the poorest guy has the same buying power as the richest guy, fit example) is textbook capitalism and about as much the antithesis of socialism as you can get.
You are looking at profit motivated agreements among capitalists and saying wait there is a cooperative function therefore it’s socialism. You couldn’t be more wrong.
It like saying a billionaire capitalist who gives money to charity is therefore a socialist.
As we started out you really need to go learn the definition of socialism. For a guy with an economics degree it’s shocking to me that you think drawing an incomplete parallel out of context and ignoring everything that goes into and flows out of it represents an ideology.
We should move on.
