This paper addresses four interrelated economic and regulatory questions. It evaluates whether FCC initiatives — particularly the Connect2Compete broadband program — genuinely promote competition in U.S. communication markets. It then considers the economic consequences of a single monopolistic provider of post-secondary education. Next, it analyzes how reorganizing one of the four major U.S. sports leagues into a single-entity league would create oligopolistic market conditions affecting players and fans. Finally, it explores the economic impact on owners, players, and fans if sports leagues were prohibited from operating as cartels, finding that competitive markets would largely benefit players and fans while reducing owner revenues.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has over the years been involved in various initiatives to ensure fairer play and a more level field for communication companies operating in the United States. Though some critics argue that the FCC has paid little more than lip service to the idea of encouraging competition, it is apparent that several of its efforts have produced a more competitive environment, particularly in broadband provision.
One key reason the United States lags behind many other countries in broadband is a striking lack of competition in this market. A small number of players dominate the industry, and rather than opening the market to new competitors, they tend to consolidate their positions. This freezing of competition diminishes the urgency to expand broadband access (Mike Masnick, 2011). Recognizing that competition drives broadband development, the FCC has pursued a range of endeavors, including its Connect2Compete initiative, with the goal of bringing internet access to every person in the country.
The aim of the Connect2Compete project is to ensure that the millions of families who cannot afford broadband rates of up to $150 per month are able to access the internet at a subsidized price of $10 per month. In addition to affordable connectivity, the program provides an opportunity to purchase a netbook or a PC for less than $150, along with digital literacy resources made available through the FCC (JSI Capital Advisors, 2011).
This initiative can be regarded as one of the most significant steps the FCC has taken to encourage competition. By dramatically reducing access costs, the program creates pressure on other market players to lower their prices and make broadband more affordable for the average American consumer. In this way, Connect2Compete functions both as a social equity measure and as a catalyst for broader market competition.
A single organization holding a complete monopoly over all post-secondary education would be analogous to a natural monopoly in economic terms. With no possibility of a competing provider entering the market, the monopolist would have the freedom to charge exorbitant fees without concern for how clients respond, since students would have no alternative institution to turn to.
Beyond the direct financial burden on students, such a monopoly would also reduce the quality of educational offerings. In the absence of competition, there would be little incentive for the monopolist to strive for the highest possible standards of teaching, research, or student support. Dissatisfied students would have nowhere else to go, removing the primary market mechanism that otherwise pushes institutions to improve. The result would be both higher costs and lower quality — a combination harmful to students, the workforce, and the broader economy.
If one of the four major U.S. sports leagues reorganized into a single-entity league, this would produce what economists refer to as an oligopoly. A small group of participants would gain the ability to control and exert significant influence over the forces of supply and pricing within this market.
In practice, the newly formed dominant entity would make it extremely difficult for the remaining three leagues to operate independently. Player pay would be heavily influenced by the single-entity league, as most teams would fall under its umbrella, leaving players with few alternative employers and limited bargaining power. Fans would similarly be affected, as the dominant entity and the remaining leagues — facing reduced competitive pressure — could agree on uniformly high ticket and viewing prices, leaving audiences with little choice but to pay or forgo attendance altogether.
"Single-entity league creates oligopolistic market"
"Competition benefits players and fans most"
You’re 69% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.