I'm with you when it comes to professional sports teams forcing public engagement, especially when they take government funding to build new stadiums.

By accepting taxpayer money, they’re effectively taxing the population without consent, which amounts to coercing us into supporting them (forced engagement).

However, I think I see the last point differently. It sounds like you're saying that anyone who works for someone else is unfree because they have to follow their employer’s rules. But doesn’t that overlook the employee’s choice in the matter? If someone voluntarily chooses to work for an employer and accepts the terms, isn’t that an exercise of freedom?

No one is forcing the quarterback to play in the league or for the team they signed with.

Novak Djokovic wasn’t forced to compete in the tournament, he simply said no, exercising his freedom to choose.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

i hear you!

think the whole point of the sports analogy is that: the leaders of the “show” do whatever suits them at the end, doesnt really matter who you and I cheer for - at the end of the day the time we spent trying to convince each other which side is the better side, the owners enjoy the profits of the show (politics & nations at war, sports & rivalries)

All good points. I will add that the players have power in the dynamic though. It’s not just the owners with power. This is why the league continues to change. For example, the NFL has made a large effort to reduce the number of head injuries in the sport. This is better for the players and the league in general. The incentives align. So although it isn’t perfect, the league typically tends to improve for everyone involved.