DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

In a way. They (the MLB at least) do enjoy anti-trust exemptions (ie, government protection and sponsorship, in the form of paying to build stadiums. One of the most wasteful signaling devices people can engage in, and one of the more common eminent domain abuses available, large powerful corporations using government allies to seize property).

But they also don't exclude competition and are not the only suppliers of the "product" being consumed or purchased. Pro sports leagues have other levels, other countries have their own leagues (along with international competitions), and even rival leagues have risen or fallen alongside them, particularly true with the NBA or NFL, and "lesser" leagues like the MLS or the PGA tour.

Still at least you guys identified something that smelled like a classical monopoly. Somebody must have looked up an economics textbook finally. But the only one that actually fits is the MLB. And it should be noted that this is because the government helps enforce the monopoly. It didn't evolve naturally that way and it doesn't exist on its own naturally.

Don't know much about Baseball, do you?

The two leagues exist on the sharing of the gates(aka tickets sold at stadiums), television contracts(which amount to many millions of $), endorsements of sports product companies and other endorsements. Uncle Sam stopped its subsidies to MLB, which FDR started in the 1930's, in 1960. But then, as young as you are, you wouldn't know that.

MLB doesn't need subsidies and I didn't say, or even suggest, that it gets any. What it gets is legal enforcement preventing a competing league from cropping up in the form of an anti-trust exemption, much like states will give cable or utility companies in some states. It's the only professional sports league that has such an exemption and it uses it vigorously. There's nothing stopping anyone from forming rival basketball or football leagues (as the XFL or Arena leagues should demonstrate) other than accumulating enough capital in enough locations to start such a league. There's an actual law being enforced to prevent anyone from forming a competing baseball league. (also, technically the MLB does get subsidies in the form of cities and states paying to build stadiums at public expense rather than through private loans and development, but this is not the MLB's fault as it happens in every professional sport and indeed with other large corporate projects. Plus it isn't the sort of bs you were suggesting I said they get.)

The "two leagues" are both part of MLB, AL and NL are both part of the same entity. I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Even the various minor leagues are affiliated with the same system. The last time there was a distinct competing major league was in 1915, the Federal League. (Negro leagues would also be a possible competitor here, but this was only because the MLB excluded the talent base for this league for decades and this too ended in the 1950s and ceased being relevant post-WW2). Prior to that there were other leagues, the American Association for about a decade (1882-1891), the Union Association for half a year (1884), the Players League for one year (1890), and one could probably make a case for the independent leagues in Mexico or the Pacific Coast League as being major leagues as well back in the early part of the 20th century especially. All of these either failed over a century ago or were absorbed into the current structure. Meaning it's now a monopoly with no competition.

Just because I wasn't born doesn't mean I can't know anything about the past. And on this topic… you don't want to go there old man.

Quality professional … There are a a lot of extra organizations that offer the high-end uniforms which in addition hold various other sports clothes. Speak to these concerning the …