The Super Bowl is a super lesson in "socialism"

Today, at your caucus-themed Super Bowl party, as the 49ers try to hold back the Chiefs, you needn't bother to watch the game itself. Why? We already know who the winner is: the political principles of Senator Bernie Sanders.

That's right. The sport you thought you could rely on as the most 'Merican, capitalist flag-flyin,' Big Gulp guzzlin', red-meat, whitey-tighty, blue-collar battle of uncoddled smashmouth neo-gladiators – and where, might we add, Super Bowl ads cost a pretty $175,000 per second – is, today, an organization committed at its core to the redistribution of wealth. Take from the rich, give to the poor – that's the most socialist of all socialist socialisms, right? Feel the Bern.


Consider: each year, the league seizes money from the richest winningest teams, and redirects it to the poorest losingest teams. So, whoever scores the most points on Sunday will get a bittersweet trip to Disneyland: you may win the game, comrades, but by coming in first you lose millions in league-re-distributed funds. Off you go into the long hard winter of the NFL spring, punished for your success. Call it a wealth tax.

Why does the NFL do this? Out of compassion for teams that fall too far behind. And by compassion, we mean "concern for TV ratings." Lopsided seasons would be bad for viewership, which would be bad for revenue, which would be bad for everyone from the nosebleeds to the skyboxes. Keeping things competitive means tackling inequality on the gridiron.

Not that the NFL has a clean record on competition, of course. Back in '66, the NFL and the AFL merged into a one-state, ahem, one-league, system specifically to keep star players from leveraging contracts between competing leagues. Sure, that was a clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but – quiet, the game's on.

Now, we're not breaking news here. Journalists have pointed out this irony. Comedians too. Even the host of American Idol (not that one, the other one.) Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell decried the NFL as an outfit run by "a bunch of fat-cat Republicans who vote socialist on football." (I'm Bernie Sanders, and I approved this message.)

But before you pigskin pinkos demand every Cheesehead become a dyed-in-the-wool Bernie bro, consider where this comparison falls short. For one thing, wealth redistribution isn't actually socialism. For another, sports leagues are zero sum – you win, I lose – in a way that economies and societies really aren't. And plus, if the NFL were really socialist, it would give workers control over the means of production: if that were the case Patrick Mahomes would be Most Valuable Executive Vice President by now.

The touchdown: This analogy doesn't quite hold up, despite it being a perennial claim. It's like Tom Brady's footballs – seemingly airtight, yet deflates somewhat upon further inspection. But our prediction is you'll hear it again next year.

Our other prediction: Chiefs by 9.

Kevin Bleyer is an Emmy-winning veteran of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Dennis Miller, and the author of Me the People: One Man's Selfless Quest to Rewrite the Constitution of the United States.

Howard University President Dr. Wayne A. I. Frederick joins That Made All the Difference podcast to discuss how his career as a surgeon influenced his work as an educator, administrator and champion of underserved communities, and why he believes we may be on the cusp of the next "golden generation."

Listen to the latest podcast now.

It's been a bad week at the office for President Trump. Not only have coronavirus cases in the US been soaring, but The New York Times' bombshell report alleging that Russia paid bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan has continued to make headlines. While details about the extent of the Russian bounty program — and how long it's been going on for — remain murky, President Trump now finds himself in a massive bind on this issue.

Here are three key questions to consider.

More Show less

Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, discusses technology industry news today:

Do some of the Facebook's best features, like the newsfeed algorithm or groups, make removing hate speech from the platform impossible?

No, they do not. But what they do do is make it a lot easier for hate speech to spread. A fundamental problem with Facebook are the incentives in the newsfeed algorithm and the structure of groups make it harder for Facebook to remove hate speech.

More Show less

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:

Yes, still in the middle of coronavirus, but thought I'd give you a couple of my thoughts on Russia. Part of the world that I cut my teeth on as a political scientist, way back in the eighties and nineties. And now Putin is a president for life, or at least he gets to be president until 2036, gets another couple of terms. The constitutional amendments that he reluctantly allowed to be voted on across Russia, passed easily, some 76% approval. And so now both in China and in Russia, term limits get left behind all for the good of the people, of course. So that they can have the leaders that they truly deserve. Yes, I'm being a little sarcastic here. It's sad to see. It's sad to see that the Americans won the Cold War in part, not just because we had a stronger economy and a stronger military, but actually because our ideas were better.

Because when those living in the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Block looked at the West, and looked at the United States, they saw that our liberties, they saw that our economy, was something that they aspired to and was actually a much better way of giving opportunities to the average citizen, than their own system afforded. And that helped them to rise up against it.

More Show less

Jon Lieber, managing director for the United States at Eurasia Group, provides his perspective on US politics:

How likely is bipartisan action against Russia in light of Taliban bounty reports?

I think it's probably unlikely. One of the challenges here is that there's some conflict of the intelligence and anything that touches on the issue of President Trump and Russia is extremely toxic for him. Republicans have so far been tolerant of that and willing to stop any new sanctions coming. I think unless the political situation or the allegations get much worse or more obvious, that stalemate probably remains.

More Show less