The league's ability to pool television rights and merge with the rival AFL—actions illegal for most businesses—was only possible through specific legislation. These government-granted antitrust exemptions became a core, unassailable competitive advantage.

The most effective way to challenge the power of mega-corporations is not through taxation but through antitrust action. Billionaire founders like Jeff Bezos are more concerned about their companies being broken up—which introduces competition and erodes their strategic monopolies—than they are about paying a higher tax rate.

Before the 1970s, antitrust law was used to prevent large corporations from exerting excessive control over small businesses. A franchisor dictating prices or suppliers to a franchisee was considered an illegal restraint of trade, a stark contrast to today's legal landscape.

Technology like broadband-connected POS systems gives modern franchisors a real-time data stream and surveillance capability over their "independent" locations. This allows a degree of centralized control that exceeds what was possible for classically integrated corporations like U.S. Steel.

While a direct no-hire agreement between two franchisees is illegal, a franchisor can impose the same rule "vertically" from headquarters. This legal distinction allows them to create a system-wide cartel that limits worker mobility and suppresses wages across the entire brand.

In its failed merger attempt, Cisco argued its market competitors included Sam's Club, a claim regulators rejected. This illustrates that the core of an antitrust case is often not the raw market share number, but the highly debatable and often opaque definition of the market itself, which can be skewed by paid economists.

Legal battles won by franchisors in the 1960s-70s weakened antitrust laws against "vertical restraints." This created the legal precedent allowing companies like Uber and Amazon to exert tight control over independent contractors without incurring employer liabilities.

With prices, products, suppliers, and even staffing levels dictated by the franchisor, franchisees have almost no operational discretion. Their primary path to profitability is suppressing wages and maximizing worker effort, making them risk-bearing middle managers rather than entrepreneurs.

Founders often see franchising as a way to scale without managing more employees. However, it shifts the people problem to managing franchisees. This requires enforcing brand standards and managing underperformers who are also business owners, a group that can consume 80% of your time.