Fortune magazine was founded by Henry Luce, one of the most famous Republicans of the 20th century, and yet has a long history of employing left-wing writers. Without getting into my personal politics, I’ve debated with friends the difference between “leftism” and “liberalism” and even been called a capitalistic “neoliberal” a few times as a slur by people in my social circle claiming to be more radical than me. As added context, my own grandfather, the former Bryn Mawr professor Philip Lichtenberg, was once labeled “the red doctor” during the McCarthy era because he supported the college’s hiring of the Marxist historian Herbert Aptheker. It’s from that context that I’ve been watching the significance — and the failure — of Mamdani’s $50 World Cup jersey, which none of my leftist friends could actually get.
The jersey stunt is more than a jersey stunt. Zohran Mamdani won New York’s mayoralty in November 2025 largely by running on “affordability” — freezing rent, free buses, city-run grocery stores, a $30 minimum wage by 2030 — a message that resonated in a city where working- and middle-class residents have been squeezed by years of rising rents and stagnant wages. That victory wasn’t an isolated one, as the much more moderate Mikie Sherrill was elected governor of neighboring New Jersey on a broadly similar affordability pitch. And this summer, Mamdani continued his winning streak by backing upstart congressional candidates in successful primary challenges that rattled the mainstream of the Democratic Party, a sign that his brand of democratic socialism is evolving into a broader midterm-year insurgency.
This makes the city-backed World Cup jersey a rare acid test for what “affordability” solutions look like in practice, and whether democratic socialism is a buzzy phrase or a genuine agenda. In other words, you can say you want “affordability,” but do you actually know how to deliver it? This preview, playing out in miniature, in public and especially on Reddit, is resulting in a real-world collision with the exact economic mechanism that critics warn will complicate democratic socialism in practice: price ceilings colliding with real-world demand.
The drop
On June 12, Mamdani’s administration released a limited run of 1,500 NYC-themed World Cup jerseys — 500 each in three colorways — hand-produced by the local business Mazzi Sports at its Brooklyn factory in the gentrifying Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. The jerseys were priced at about a third of an authentic Adidas or Nike World Cup kit, and were (initially) available only in person at the NYC City Store at One Centre Street starting at 9 a.m. “Jerseys symbolize much more than just the team you cheer for,” Mamdani told GQ. “They embody pride in your origins and identity. With this limited run, we are offering New Yorkers an affordable jersey made for New Yorkers, by New Yorkers.”
The response was immediate and outsized: fans lined up before dawn, some calling out of work, with waits stretching two to three hours or more as the queue wound around the block. Business Insider called it “swag socialism.” Others on social media called it “total socialist economics” — a frustrating failure to deliver at scale, with a lucky few getting a bargain and a massive rush-in effect of black-market privateers.
The entire 1,500-unit run sold out in about an hour after the doors opened. Within hours, jerseys began appearing on resale platforms including StockX, eBay and Facebook Marketplace, with asking prices ranging from roughly $400 into the $900s — or more. Rather than treating the sellout as a one-time event, Mamdani’s office announced a second run and, weeks later, moved distribution online — an attempt to fix the access problem that had put scarce jerseys in the hands of whoever could physically stand in line the longest. Starting July 8, the city released 500 jerseys online each weekday through July 16, requiring buyers to first create an account at nyc.gov/citystore, select a colorway and size, and then pick up the jersey in person, since no shipping was offered.
The shift to e-commerce didn’t solve the underlying shortage — it just moved the bottleneck from a physical line to a digital one. Many apparent buyers on Reddit described the online drops selling out in “under a minute,” encountering CAPTCHAs moments before checkout, and having purchases vanish mid-transaction even after successfully adding an item to their cart. One commenter summed it up by posting, “For everyone complaining about bots and scalpers… do the math, there’s 500 in a drop, 3 color ways and 8 sizes of each… that’s only 20 in each size! The odds are extremely stacked against you.”
The jersey drop isn’t an isolated gesture. Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, has made World Cup affordability a signature cause since his mayoral campaign, calling FIFA’s dynamic ticket pricing “absurd” after final-match prices jumped from under $200 in 1994 dollars to more than $6,000 this year. In May, his administration secured a rare concession from FIFA and the NYNJ Host Committee: 1,000 tickets priced at $50 each for New York City residents, allocated via lottery for five group-stage matches and two knockout-round games, plus free round-trip bus transportation to MetLife Stadium. That program capped entries at two tickets per winner and made them nontransferable specifically to prevent scalping — a design choice that anticipated the same resale dynamics now playing out with the jerseys.
To be clear, the jersey promotion is a single City Store retail event, not city policy or legislation, and it’s a far smaller test case than the ticket program or any citywide economic policy Mamdani might pursue as mayor. But as an illustration of what happens when a price cap isn’t matched by adequate supply, the $50 jersey that flipped for 10x its price offers a tidy, low-stakes preview of a debate that has shaped economic policy fights for a century: it’s textbook price-ceiling theory.
Criticisms out of the Austrian textbook
The pattern is well established: when a price is fixed below the level at which quantity demanded equals quantity supplied, a shortage results, and the market rations the scarce good through non-price means — in this case, hours of waiting — while a secondary market absorbs the excess demand at market-clearing prices. Economist Ludwig von Mises, a founding figure of the libertarian “Austrian School” that stressed the importance of the collective, subjective choices of many individuals, warned as early as 1944 that price-fixing efforts “do not attain the ends which the authorities wish” and in fact, “result in a state of things which from the point of view of the government and of public opinion is even less desirable than the previous state which they had intended to alter.”
Although seen as heterodox by today’s mainstream economists for its rejection of statistics, the Austrian School is still massively influential for its insight into the stubbornness of individuality as an economic force and is often cited in criticisms of price controls, a solution that left-wing politicians have historically favored in fighting inflation. (For what it’s worth, Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Donald Trump have flirted with price controls to combat inconvenient market forces.) Some longstanding features of New York City political economy, notably rent-controlled apartments, have persisted for decades, producing what many economists call significant market distortions.
But the more interesting critique of the jersey drop — and the one with more direct implications for Mamdani’s broader agenda — isn’t coming from the right. It’s coming from an internal debate within the left.
A growing movement of center-left policy thinkers, associated with the “abundance” framework popularized by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson in their book of the same name, argues that the fundamental affordability problem isn’t price — it’s supply. Housing is expensive in New York, they argue, not primarily because landlords are greedy but because regulatory barriers, zoning restrictions and political opposition to development have made it structurally impossible to build enough units. The solution, in this framework, isn’t to suppress prices. It’s to remove the barriers to producing more of what people need.
Applied to the jersey drop, the abundance critique isn’t “the market should have priced it at $500.” It’s “you needed 150,000 jerseys, not a $50 price tag on 1,500.” Supply was the problem, not price. After all, no price ceiling has ever created more of what it is meant to control.
This is the fork in the road between Mamdani’s democratic socialism and the supply-side progressive tradition. Democratic socialism, as Mamdani practices it, treats affordability as a price problem: rent is too high, so freeze it; jerseys cost too much, so cap them. Perhaps the most vivid bottleneck is Mamdani’s proposal to create one city-owned supermarket for each borough, meaning the city will have five places to buy cheaper groceries in a city of more than 8 million people — that’s over a million shoppers per location. The abundance movement treats affordability as a production problem: we don’t build enough of what working-class people need, and the fix is expanding supply rather than controlling prices on whatever scarce supply exists.
These approaches aren’t easily reconciled. Democratic socialists have largely dismissed supply-side progressivism as “neoliberal” — market-friendly thinking dressed up in center-left clothes. That tension spilled into the open last fall when Lina Khan, advising Mamdani’s transition, proposed requiring stadiums to lower beer prices — and Matt Yglesias and Jason Furman immediately argued that cheaper beer would just mean higher ticket prices. Tim Wu called that dumb.
It doesn’t help that abundance liberals are echoing ideas that date back to a libertarian economist like von Mises. On today’s left, the politics of who’s saying something increasingly drowns out the substance of what they’re saying — after all, Mamdani has an “it” factor and these jerseys are genuinely cool. But the economic fallout of this exercise in democratic-socialist affordability suggests that when you fix one price, the market finds another way to clear. Is it “neoliberal” of me to point that out?
