The Church, the NFL, and Socialism

Over a decade ago, Steve Kroft of CBS’s Sixty Minutes mainstreamed an allegation about the National Football League that has long had currency, but not in as public a forum as that news show. ‘The NFL is a socialist enterprise,’ he remarked – with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in agreement. (It says a lot for Kroft’s reporting that I recalled it all these years later. We need more good reporting like this!)

So you won’t think I am taking anyone’s words out of context, here is that part of the interview. After agreeing with Kroft, Goodell said, “How can we socialize our revenue in a way that will allow every team the ability to compete?”

Steve Kroft pointed out that the NFL had (then) thirty-two teams that split 80% of all revenues generated evenly. Owners relied on cities to provide public funding for stadiums. The league imposed salary caps. Said Kroft, “The result is a financially engineered equality that allows a small town team in Green Bay, Wisconsin to compete with a metropolis like New York.”

I doubt that many Americans would wish to see it otherwise. Sunday afternoons and Monday nights wouldn’t be nearly as much fun if year after year, only the wealthiest teams posted winning seasons. Nor would fans be able to afford tickets if “government” did not prop up this most-lucrative industry. (And can you imagine the dumpy stadiums if cities did not bear that expense? Not saying it’s right, but it’s reality.)

Nor does anyone allied with the nation of Israel have any problem with Israeli kibbutzim. The purest form of socialism – if not outright Communism – a kibbutz is a collective community, usually established for agricultural development. Although in the modern era, some kibbutzim have undergone partial privatization, most still retain that sense of communal purpose.

Newt Gingrich insists on pointing to Norway as example of how-to-do-things, especially as it involves offshore drilling. This bee has been stuck in his bonnet for many years. Generally Gingrich prefers extracting elements of Norwegian law or culture that suit his purposes, ignoring the big picture.

Gingrich’s philosophy regarding offshore drilling: “Drill now and drill often.” He has seemed to think that that is also Norwegian philosophy, failing to mention the reams of regulation that accompany offshore drilling rights in that country. Norway is a leader in corrosion monitoring equipment because it’s part of their law – not deemed government interference in big business, but rather sanity.

Gingrich also conveniently overlooks Norway’s socialist principles when speaking so fondly of that country. Their success can partly be attributed to a reasonable minimum wage (around $30,000+ annually) and a progressive tax rate that wipes out earnings over a specific amount, preventing huge wage disparities like the ones we know here in the United States.

Most Americans are quite comfortable with “socialism” in familiar forms. We like having a single post office, instead of having letters delivered by multiple services. We mostly believe in public education and the right of every child to go to school. The religious among us see nothing wrong with government subsidy of religion, with tax-exempt status for our houses of worship and clergy.

I cannot think of a single person who doesn’t use (and complain about) the roads government builds, or search-and-rescue available to endangered citizens, or of course our wonderful national park system.

So why is it that when Democrats mention a new way of looking at things, an approach that embraces the “social” aspect of our great country, the word “socialism” is spat out by the opposition as if it were the vilest epithet? As if there were nothing lower on the face of the earth?

While working on Middle Earth Houston [social media working title], the history of my Sachs forebears in my hometown, I fortuitously ran across a long article in the New York Times. Entitled “Church View of Socialism: Speakers Before the Episcopal Congress Yesterday,” the reporter narrated the events of the second day’s proceedings of the Protestant Episcopal Church Congress. Various clergymen (nary a woman in sight) presented differing views on the value of incorporating socialism and socialist views into American politics and religion.

Few speakers agreed with one another’s ideas. Each came at their understanding of socialism and its possible integration into American thought from different backgrounds and philosophies. Remarkable, however, is the civility of the discourse. Common cause: The welfare of fellow Americans.

I will highlight some of the best discussions below. In so doing, I am not suggesting that any of these ideas is worth pursuing “as-is” – this post is neither for nor against socialism.

What this post strongly recommends is a return to polite debate about serious topics. Meaningless labels must be removed, no longer used as silly epithets to wound or vanquish. We need to start pulling together as one nation. If success depends on adopting elements of parliamentarian or federalist or even socialist political systems, we should focus more on success than on ideology. (Note: In these United States, some political systems should always remain off the table, e.g., fascism, anarchy, theocracy, as they violate the very spirit of our Constitution.)

After all, we can see in the NFL that “socialism” works – it spreads talent around and literally levels the playing field. If it’s good for the NFL, why is it otherwise deemed so toxic?

So now to these words first printed on November 18, 1891.

Dr. Reese F. Alsop, Brooklyn, New York: “The present system of social economics should be adhered to. If labor forces a change, it may kill the goose and lose the golden eggs. … There are abuses under the present system, such as vast monopolies and trusts, that lead to illegitimate profits, but they are the disease of the system, and to eradicate it will not be to destroy the body.”

Prof. Gould of the Philadelphia Divinity School: “Business is deception and fraud under the competitive system, and labor suffers, for the weak must, under such a system, be pushed to the wall. Wages tend to a bare living rate. Those of band labor give a man but the merest necessities of life for the laborer and his family. That is the operation of the law.

“What do men and women tend to become under such a system? If a man is held down all day under the grindstone he has no time for spiritual growth. People have got in the habit of reading the New Testament and closing their eyes at convenient places. There is one line they fail to see, ‘How hardly shall those that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The pulpit should condemn constantly the moral evil of the present system, and men should be taught to live in a state of freedom according to the Master’s teachings.”

Rev. H. M. Bartlett of Montchanin, Delaware: “Given Christianity, democracy was sure to come. After democracy, socialism would come. … It is impossible to say what forms Socialism in its development will take. It may be sometimes ridiculous and sometimes dangerous. That has been true of religion and of all reformatory growths.”

Rev. P. W. Sprague of Charlestown, Massachusetts: “The fundamental principle of the old system was selfishness; every man was to look out for himself and think only of himself. That was the business maxim. Socialism wants not only the best men, but it wants to go further, to build them into the great social fabric – a temple to the glory of God. Socialism says, we are not to carry on business for individual profit, but it demands the best service from all. Herbert Spencer’s objection to Socialism was that it substituted the family for the individual in the struggle for life. Which is the ideal of Christianity – is it not family, brotherly love, and mutual endeavor rather than individual strife and warfare?

“Can any Christian hesitate to believe that the principles of Socialism are the ideals of Christianity? We have come to know that the most essential quality of humanity is humanity, and that a man is not himself when he thinks only of his own interest. Men want to know whether God has stultified himself by laying down a law that we cannot observe – ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Socialism insists that He has not.”

Dr. Kirkus of Baltimore: “Competition does not mean selfishness; everybody knows that the seller fills as useful a part as the buyer. A most radical and stupid interpretation has been given to the Scriptures. Religion was never less than common sense. It never taught that A must give if B is asked and B in turn must give to C, and so on, zigzagging back and forth. People could not live a week on that principle. When people do not understand the Sermon on the Mount, they cannot be expected to understand John Stuart Mill’s political economy.”

Rev. William Pratt of Detroit, Michigan: “The aim of Socialism is justice, equality of opportunity, and possession. The duty of the Church is to teach men to be good. Not good for nothing, but good for something; good to help their fellowmen.”

For any Texans reading this, please note that I fell down this rabbit hole because in the late 1890s and first decade of 1900, citizens in the town of Taylor, Texas greatly admired and campaigned on behalf of Eugene Debs. The socialist candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while.

2026 note: Because of recent developments, I feel it is necessary to state that I do not agree with the DSA platform regarding: Dissolution of the Senate and presidency; privatization of production; elimination of all borders; disbanding of all forms of immigration enforcement, law enforcement, and prisons; and, wiping the nation of Israel off the map. All of these policies are wrongheaded and do not represent the "social safety net" we generally mean when we speak of socialism (not Socialism).

And while I do like the idea of "Medicare for All," I also believe it is necessary to be honest with the American people about what that would cost by way of taxes. Yes, I know that taxes raised to pay for it would be less than the cost of healthcare-for-all... over a person's lifetime. The same people who speak in glowing terms of healthcare in Canada or Germany rarely mention the taxes it takes to support those systems.

Questions? Comments? Speak your mind below. Before doing so, please log in using the email address that corresponds to your orders or newsletter subscription. Note: MARKDOWN is the app's label for formatting shortcuts.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to leave me a tip, I would be grateful! Buy Me A Coffee!

Return to Policies, Not Politics index. Return to Thinking out loud index.

Image credit: Shopify, public domain for platform users.

No part of this post may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the copyright holder, except for the “fair use” of quotations that are properly cited and credited, including identification of the translator if applicable. No part of this post may be included in any Large Language Model without proper licensing from the copyright holder, Denise Elaine Heap.