The recent post by @erikhane.bsky.social, in which he humorously dismisses the "Green Bay Packers are socialist" trope, highlights a fascinating intersection of sports, economics, and political rhetoric. The Packers' unique community-owned, non-profit structure stands in stark contrast to the single-owner or corporate-owned model of every other major American professional sports team. This has led to the "socialist" label being applied, often pejoratively, to the organization.
This label, however, is a misnomer. The Packers are not a state-owned enterprise, nor do they advocate for the abolition of private property. They are, in fact, a powerful example of a successful cooperative, a business model in which the organization is owned and controlled by its members rather than by outside investors. The team's shares do not appreciate in value, cannot be traded, and pay no dividends. They are, in essence, a form of social capital, a tangible representation of community pride and ownership.
The "socialist" accusation, then, reveals more about the accuser than the accused. It reflects a deep-seated American anxiety about any economic model that deviates from pure capitalism, and a tendency to use "socialism" as a catch-all term for any form of collective ownership. The Green Bay Packers, far from being a radical political experiment, are a testament to the power of community and a reminder that there are viable alternatives to the prevailing economic orthodoxy.