Comments (8)

• Ulrich Hobelmann

  Good point.

  Quite often people see something that's government-funded and say "hey look, the state is good to us." What is always overlooked is the possible competition that's effectively shut down.

  Want private education: too bad, you'd have to pay for it *in addition* to high taxes in Germany, while state-funded education is free.

  The point isn't even who funds something (if people want it, it will get funded), but of what kind the provided product or service is. If there's only the state-funded kind, there's no diversity at all. We are victims of a planned economy then, if only in certain parts of our lives. Boring homogeneity rules, with the obvious effect that it also diminishes creativity, if everything we ever see is the product of a government committee.

  Published: July 5, 2006 11:22 AM

• TGGP

  Where is state force used against competitors of the Boy Scouts? I think including them sounds like a bit of a stretch.

  Published: July 5, 2006 11:22 AM

• Tim Swanson

  TGGP,

  "That the purpose of this corporation shall be to promote, through organization and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods which are now in common use by Boy Scouts."

  From Sec. 3, federal charter, Boy Scouts of America on June 15, 1916, by the US Congress.

  See also the history of the BSA at Wikipedia.

  Back when in the BSA was first created there were a half-dozen other organizations that promoted the same kind of endeavors. Once it was given the federal charter it began to crowd out others, which it still does to this day (an Eagle scout certificate is also signed by whomever the sitting President is).

  This would be a good article to write on... along the lines of Mr. Rogers and the State.
  

  Published: July 5, 2006 11:24 AM

• JCR

  Excellent! I cannot agree more. To add a piece of news related to that very good article. Federal Finance Minister of Canada, so-called conservative Jim Flaherty, has just agreed to kick in up to $27 million towards building the National Soccer Stadium in Toronto.
  

  Published: July 5, 2006 2:51 PM

• Tim Swanson

  Update to article. A reader sent me the following correction to the story:

  To claim that the Ghanaian players receive income from coerced tax is incorrect to play in the World Cup is incorrect. The government received $18 million for their appearance in the World Cup Final and so the payment the players receive is their share of the prize winnings which is part of a voluntary contractual arrangement they have with the Ghanaian Football Federation.(GFT). The GFT is a private organization that receives some subsidy from the government but this is not controlled by the government. In fact the appearance of the GFT requires it to be part of the private FIFA organization. This may be why football is the most popular world game. It is essentially run privately. - EE

  Published: July 7, 2006 12:08 PM

• Leonard Nieman

  I was a little confused on the point of the article. Maybe it is just me. My best guess was that it was intended to show that Governments should not support athletic (or many other types) of events. Those who see them as beneficial should be able to monetarily support them enough if they are to be viable. Is that Correct? I think I lost you around the unbundling part. Maybe it is because I went to private schools (elementary, high school, and college). Maybe you were simply referring to public schools. But then, isn't the argument that those schools should really be privatized as a whole in the first place, as opposed to simply privitizing portions of them. Of course, once schools are completely privatized, some would be "bare bones" schools that would have only reading, writing, and arithmetic, and others would be more "full service" with extracurricular activities including sports, drama, etc.
  
  
  
  It was my choice to go to Kettering University and pay for the school's services which included funding many different clubs and organizations. Having a single fee and then allowing students to do as much as they choose, promotes higher involvement by all students. By choosing to go to Kettering, I chose to pay all applicable fees associated with that college. Some of those fees at certain colleges may pay for intercollegiate and intramural sports, just as some of those fees may be used for computer and engineering labs. If I do not agree with how my tuition will be used if I go to a specific college, I should choose a different one. There is definitely competition between colleges for my business as a student. Most colleges recognize this and as such do things to try to attract students, including spending money on getting certain students there (such as good athletes) so that others will follow (those that want to have good sports teams at their college). If this is not important to me, as a consumer, I would go to a college that does not have such a fee. It should be the consumer's choice as to whether the money collected is well spent on athletics as opposed to in another fashion.

  Published: July 7, 2006 2:22 PM

• separationofsportandstate

  I am opposed to any for-profit company profiting when governments pay for professional sports stadiums.
  
  
  I contend that there is no real difference between a modern church and a modern professional sports team.
  
  
  To this end, governments should not give money to these companies, just like they don't give money to churches.
  
  
  Governments do and should promote sports among the youth, just like the government supports the arts.
  
  
  
  
  separationofsportandstate
  

  Published: July 12, 2006 2:41 PM

• olmedo

  If there is an private organization in this world that can consider itself "soveriegn" and with the power to deter goverment intervenation, that is the FIFA and, if there is an sport that can actually function independentdly from government, that is soccer(at least compared to baseball, athletics and American football).

  there recently was a case in my country (panama) where a player of one the local teams wanted to demand its team, on a labor distpute, using panamanian labor legislation, well, to make the story short, as soon FIFA heard what was happening it inmadiatly send a fax stating "local labor legislation does not supersede FIFA contracts". End of the matter, the player had no other choice but to accept FIFA rules.

  
  As some say , FIFA is the closest thing to a world government but at least this is voluntary and convinient to all its members.

  
  Another thing is that members does not pay FIFA (at least no more than a nominal fee) Members are actually paid by FIFA. Panana receipt 2.5 millions from FIFA just for participating on the clasifiying games for the world cup.

  The World Cup is by far the largest and most watched event in the world. It has at least 10 times more viewership than the olympics. It is whatched all aver the globe( there is actually a very nice movie on Tibetan monks living in the indian himalayas a their strugle to get the TV signal to watch the 1998 world cup in france, a true story). FIFA had revenues of at least 2.5 billions for this event alone (not including ticket sales) that plus all the sponsorships that the individual participants receive.(Brazil, 150 millions a year from Nike).

  
  FIFA and its structure is actually a very interesting case of study for any libertarian.

  
  olmedo

  ps. must stadiums in europe are mostly privatly own and financed unlike manny baseball stadiums in the USA. no "pyramids by th Nile" in the soccer world.

  Published: July 12, 2006 11:47 PM