WWE & antitrust

**Next Big Thing** · 05-05-2010, 04:22 PM

I know this is a stretch so don't jump down my throat. I'm not really serious, I just want to get the perspective of you guys on this.

Antitrust laws are supposed to prevent a business from monopolizing a given market. There was a lot of bitching about how baseball's antitrust exemption prevented upstart competitors from even getting off the ground, but the courts held that baseball was not the kind of commerce that federal law was meant to regulate (and this was in 1972 before the steroid boom and congressional hearings). Also, from a macro perspective, the competition between the teams and existence of a union provides competition in terms of contract length and salaries that prevents the players from being forced to accept certain terms and gives the audience diverse choices in terms of what they watch. Finally, MLB competes with the NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, and NCAA for ad revenues, sponsorships endorsements, etc.

Hypothetically, is WWE approaching monopolistic status. The "violent" nature of the sport, the "rampant" drug use and "shocking" death rate (trying my best at Fox News sensationalism) already provides the government with enough incentive to at least regulate it. They've said it themselves that they're entertainment not sports, so they can't avail themselves to the multiple league defense. There is no union and any wrestler wanting to earn a decent wage already has to go through WWE. Finally, if TNA folds, it would provide further evidence that Vince dominates the market and has 100% control of the product presented to the public, and the workers themselves.

05-05-2010, 04:22 PM	#1
Next Big Thing Posts: 4,839	WWE & antitrust I know this is a stretch so don't jump down my throat. I'm not really serious, I just want to get the perspective of you guys on this. Antitrust laws are supposed to prevent a business from monopolizing a given market. There was a lot of bitching about how baseball's antitrust exemption prevented upstart competitors from even getting off the ground, but the courts held that baseball was not the kind of commerce that federal law was meant to regulate (and this was in 1972 before the steroid boom and congressional hearings). Also, from a macro perspective, the competition between the teams and existence of a union provides competition in terms of contract length and salaries that prevents the players from being forced to accept certain terms and gives the audience diverse choices in terms of what they watch. Finally, MLB competes with the NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, and NCAA for ad revenues, sponsorships endorsements, etc. Hypothetically, is WWE approaching monopolistic status. The "violent" nature of the sport, the "rampant" drug use and "shocking" death rate (trying my best at Fox News sensationalism) already provides the government with enough incentive to at least regulate it. They've said it themselves that they're entertainment not sports, so they can't avail themselves to the multiple league defense. There is no union and any wrestler wanting to earn a decent wage already has to go through WWE. Finally, if TNA folds, it would provide further evidence that Vince dominates the market and has 100% control of the product presented to the public, and the workers themselves.