The second is the absence of non-economic considerations such as the preservation of the family farm and less concentrated market structures at other levels, and the third is the spread of contract agriculture. The argument seems to be that the agencies are concerned only with monopoly power one or a few sellers which results in higher prices to consumers. Somehow, the interest of suppliers has been forgotten only consumers count. But in fact, the reverse is true. When firms with monopsony power drive down supplier prices, they do so by restricting their purchases of those inputs.
Less inputs means less output.
Less output means higher prices to consumers. The gross margin of the monopsonist increases both because the price he charges for his output goes up and the prices he pays for his inputs go down. Many fans support this, believing, erroneously, that this somehow results in lower ticket prices. Unfortunately, it only benefits the team owners. But, second, both are opposed equally under current Agency antitrust merger policy.