Exploring the Anti-Competitive Myth: Why Collective Bargaining Agreements in American Sports are Necessary

North American professional sports are a world of their own when it comes to labor relations. The cause and effect of professional sports bargaining arrangements can be traced back to the unified interests of the league owners, who aim to maximize revenue through competitiveness rather than exclusivity. This article will delve into how collective bargaining agreements in American sports are not viewed as anti-competitive and will explore the reasons behind this.

The Uniting Interests of Sports League Owners

It is a common misconception that pro sports leagues are akin to a competitive environment where owners strive to put each other out of business. Quite the opposite, the owners are united in their shared interest: to sell tickets, merchandise, and media rights. This is best illustrated through a contrasting scenario: the competition for ticket sales and viewership is not another team, but rather non-sports entertainment options such as concerts or beach activities. The Los Angeles Dodgers, for instance, don't compete directly with the Los Angeles Angels; instead, they compete with other forms of entertainment and leisure activities.

There are several instances that demonstrate this unified interest among ownership. Shared media and marketing agreements are a prime example. Take, for instance, the constant drive for expansion, which opens up the league to new owners. In 2010, David Braley owned two of the Canadian Football League's ten teams: the Toronto Argonauts and the BC Lions. The sale of the Montreal Expos to the owners of other Major League Baseball (MLB) teams in 2005, with Jeffrey Loria taking ownership of the Florida Marlins, is another example of this common interest.

The Result of Collective Bargaining Agreements

Over the years, the maturing of collective bargaining arrangements has led to increased competitive parity within most leagues. Expanding free agency rules have meant that big money teams cannot dominate leagues as they did in the 1960s and 1970s. The era of teams repeating as champions five times in a row is over, and now, repeating as champions is as rare as players spending their entire careers with a single club. This greater parity enhances the overall market and leads to a more engaged and diverse fanbase.

For instance, in the National Football League (NFL), the 1990s saw the Pittsburgh Steelers achieve a remarkable five championships in a row. However, with the advent of collective bargaining agreements and expanded free agency, the New England Patriots and the Kansas City Chiefs have both won multiple Super Bowls in the past decade, showcasing increased parity. Similarly, in Major League Baseball (MLB), the 1990s saw the Atlanta Braves win four consecutive World Series, but since the 2000s, the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, and others have also achieved significant success.

Conclusion: Supporting Oligopolies through Collective Bargaining

Collective bargaining agreements and the resulting competitive environment within sports leagues actually support the oligopolies that control North American professional sports. By ensuring a more competitive and dynamic league, these agreements enhance the overall economic framework and revenue streams for all teams within the league. This, in turn, benefits all stakeholders, including the fans, players, and owners. As such, collective bargaining agreements in American sports are not a hindrance to competition but rather a crucial tool for maintaining a healthy and vibrant sports ecosystem.