SACRAMENTO -- With Zohran Mamdani now mayor-elect of NYC and promising bold socialist-style measures at City Hall, you might wonder: which of the two New York pro-football franchises is truly living the socialist dream? And if you peel back the veneer of equality, what does it say about the model?

Case for the Jets: Redistributing Assets (Because Why Not?)

The Jets’ recent offseason and trade activity scream of redistribution except instead of wealth, they’re handing off star players.

They just traded away two-time All-Pro cornerback Sauce Gardner to the Indianapolis Colts in exchange for first-round picks in 2026 and 2027. 

In the socialist ideal, redistribution means everyone gets a piece. In practice: the Jets aren’t giving wins to the people they’re giving away cornerstone pieces.

Under Mayor Mamdani’s hypothetical “everyone deserves equal access” banner, the Jets are more like: “Everyone share in the losses equally.” Because after trading away Gardner, their corner room suddenly has rookies stepping up. 

The Jets’ franchise is promising to give future picks (future value) to fans in lieu of present results. That’s akin to a utopian policy of “we’ll fix things eventually” socialist in promise, shaky in delivery.

Case for the Giants: Committee Socialism… With No Results

The Giants present a different flavor: lots of shared responsibility, decision-making committees (owner, GM, coach), and distributed failure.

The Giants fired head coach Brian Daboll after a 2-8 start this season and 20-40-1 over his tenure. 

The outfit’s structure: GM remains, coaching changes come mid-season, players publicly express frustration. It’s a unit that promises equality (everyone has input, everyone shares the pain) but lacks leadership or clarity. 

Under a so-called socialist city administration that champions collective good, the Giants are a more literal match: no one star dominates, the load is shared unfortunately, that load is the blame.

A More Critical Take on the “Socialist Sports Franchise” Idea

Socialism promises distribution of resources for collective benefit. Neither team is really doing that: Jets are giving away stars, Giants are distributing chaos.

The underlying assumption: “We’ll spread things out so everyone wins.” Instead what happens: Jets lose their star, future is uncertain; Giants lose faith in coaching and stability.

In a sports context, results matter. Equal access is cute, but if you redistribute mediocrity, you end up with nothing but equality in irrelevance.

With Mayor Mamdani’s policies in the real world promising free services, rent freezes, city-run enterprises the metaphor is compelling but also damning: if everyone gets the same mediocre output, what incentive remains for excellence? The Jets and Giants both show that problem.

The People’s Verdict

Jets: “Let’s tear down the star, promise future picks, hope for better days.” Socialist in rhetoric, but arguably reckless in outcome.

Giants: “Let’s share leadership, share responsibility, share losses.” More structurally socialist, but lacking in performance or visible benefit to the supporters. If you ask which is more socialist, the Giants take it because they embody the “everyone has a part, everyone pays a price” model more fully. But that’s faint praise when the price is losing and instability.

Final Score

Giants 1.0 | Jets 0.9, because yes, equality is nice, but if that equality is equally bad, what have we really achieved?