IPL and capitalism

IPL showcased two problems in capitalism.

1. Monopoly and lack of competition are facts in some fields of life. Franchises paid huge franchisee fees just to ensure that players will be available to them. The stranglehold of BCCI on players ensured that wannabe owners of teams with international players had 2 options- play huge rent to BCCI or start a completely new league of their own without any links to BCCI and ICC. Even for a completely new league, it is difficult to get players. As the normal source of employment is close, and the sustainability of new venture is doubtful, players would want a huge risk premium in addition to their normal wages. ICL reportedly offered Warne a million plus dollar but even for a retired player, the premium was not enough. To recover the premiums, the number of playing days has to increasse greatly. This increases the overall riskiness of an inherently risky (due to its newness) venture and and adds up the operating expenses.
   
2. Ignoring the interests of minority shareholders: In Indian capitalism, promoters own more than 50% of shares. If a company buys a team, the promoter would get publicity but all the shareholders would have to fit the bill. Given the media madness around IPL, the promoters like Mukesh Ambani were assured publicity. The billionaire promoters could easily trade some extra millions for fame. It was the minority shareholder whose money was invested in ventures of doubtful financial viability and who did not become any more famous in the bargain.