Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Oct '09 21:28
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28188.html

    Apparently Al Sharpton, among others, is objecting to Rush Limbaugh buying the St. Louis Rams based upon the notion that he is a racist. First of all, can these charges be corraborated? Secondly, if they can, is this enough reason to stop him from buying the team?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Oct '09 21:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28188.html

    Apparently Al Sharpton, among others, is objecting to Rush Limbaugh buying the St. Louis Rams based upon the notion that he is a racist. First of all, can these charges be corraborated? Secondly, if they can, is this enough reason to stop him from buying the team?
    I was also going to bring up this issue. It seems to be settled that the owners would have stopped him from doing so and Rush seems to be out of the running.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4562338

    Personally, I think it's reprehensible that the NFL owners get to decide who owns their competitor franchises. I think it's even more reprehensible that they would keep out a buyer because of his political beliefs.

    I hope they get sued for antitrust violations. How they can get away with choosing their competitors is beyond me. And, I'd say that whether it were Rush or Keith Olbermann trying to buy a team.
  3. 15 Oct '09 22:11 / 1 edit
    the main controversy goes back to when Rush claimed that the media was giving Donovan McNabb favored treatment just because he was one of the relatively few black QBs.

    whether or not Rush's claim had any merits, he was clearly making the case that racism of any kind is bad - and that it's bad even if happens to be discriminating in FAVOR of a minority group.

    I can understand that Sharpton probably disagrees with Rush about almost anything imaginable -- but again, this by itself does not make Rush a racist. It just makes him a passionate conservative. But we all knew that already.

    sh76 raises a very good point. Why exactly do any of the other owners get to have any say whatsoever? It would be like Microsoft having to approve who gets to own Apple or Google.

    I'm extremely disappointed about all of this.
  4. Standard member Fleabitten
    Love thy bobblehead
    15 Oct '09 22:16 / 1 edit
    Only the NFL can and should decide whether Limbaugh can buy the Rams or not (or, more accurately, be part of the group attempting to buy the team). They don't have to sell to anyone that they don't want to.

    Edit: The owners get a say because, while the teams are considered franchises, the league itself is actually more akin to a limited partnership.
  5. 15 Oct '09 22:24
    Originally posted by Fleabitten
    Only the NFL can and should decide whether Limbaugh can buy the Rams or not (or, more accurately, be part of the group attempting to buy the team). They don't have to sell to anyone that they don't want to.

    Edit: The owners get a say because, while the teams are considered franchises, the league itself is actually more akin to a limited partnership.
    but it would be better (and a lot more fun) to just let each franchise sell to whomever it wishes.
  6. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    15 Oct '09 22:25
    from what I understand the NFL is a franchise, like Mcdonalds. The company can pick and choose who the owner of a store is. It is not like the NFL owns all the means to sports franchises in the US. It might be more complicated then that when it comes to stadium building and public funds, but that may be more of a state by state issue. The debate on Rushes racism is for another thread.
  7. Standard member Fleabitten
    Love thy bobblehead
    15 Oct '09 22:32
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    but it would be better (and a lot more fun) to just let each franchise sell to whomever it wishes.
    Maybe more fun, but not necessarily better from the fellow owners' point of view. Like the McDonald's franchise analogy St. Tito used, the league has a stake in protecting its product.

    Personally, I don't think Limbaugh's views should be a disqualifier to ownership simply because I don't think he being a minority shareholder in the team would negatively impact the value of the team, or the league as a whole, in any material way. Players are going to play, the games will be on television, and fans will be in the seats regardless.
  8. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    15 Oct '09 22:38
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    sh76 raises a very good point. Why exactly do any of the other owners get to have any say whatsoever? It would be like Microsoft having to approve who gets to own Apple or Google.
    This argument would hold water only if it could be shown that all the other Team owners always only ever thought and acted as one monolithic bloc. The fact that there are many owners all protecting their own self interest, surely provides enough diversity of interest for this not to constitute an anti-trust issue.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Oct '09 22:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by StTito
    from what I understand the NFL is a franchise, like Mcdonalds.
    That, I believe, is incorrect. The NFL is a business, but the individual franchises are competitors who play within the NFL framework. The Jets and Patriots are more analogous to Burger King and McDonalds than to two branches of McDonalds.

    Yes, they cooperate in making the rules under which they compete; but only as part of a collective bargaining agreement reached between the league, the teams and representatives of the players.

    The fact is that ever since baseball was granted an absurd antitrust exemption by the Supreme Court (the logic was that baseball was a game and not a business... LOL), which Congress actually went so far as to reverse by legislation in 1998, sports leagues have continued to get the kid gloves treatment on antitrust issues.That is, except when the players have challenged the owners. In those cases (at least in baseball), the gloves come off.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Oct '09 22:43
    Originally posted by kmax87
    This argument would hold water only if it could be shown that all the other Team owners always only ever thought and acted as one monolithic bloc. The fact that there are many owners all protecting their own self interest, surely provides enough diversity of interest for this not to constitute an anti-trust issue.
    How they actually act is irrelevant. GM and Ford have diverse interests to be sure. But, if they colluded (maybe with Toyota and Honda thrown in to make it relevant) to keep car prices up... are you kidding? The feds would be up their asses in a nanosecond.
  11. Standard member StTito
    The Mullverine
    15 Oct '09 22:49
    Originally posted by sh76
    That, I believe, is incorrect. The NFL is a business, but the individual franchises are competitors who play within the NFL framework. The Jets and Patriots are more analogous to Burger King and McDonalds than to two branches of McDonalds.

    Yes, they cooperate in making the rules under which they compete; but only as part of a collective bargaining agreement ...[text shortened]... players have challenged the owners. In those cases (at least in baseball), the gloves come off.
    Yeah after I wrote that I had some doubts. It is hard to follow the money to pinpoint what kind of buiness model sports teams are. I mean who gets the merch money? the broadcast money? ticket sales? Is the safety equipment all made by the same company or does each team get to determine their own supplier? And most importantly, for this argument, where does the money that the owners earn come from?
  12. 15 Oct '09 22:53
    I was hoping (but fully not expecting) him to be allowed to buy the team. But this is only because I don't like the Rams or Rush Limbaugh, and I'd get a two-fer.

    The Rams would go down because so many players would refuse to play for him (especially black players). And Rush Limbaugh because of how that would make him look, especially when he tries to portray the NFL as being part of this great Liberal conspiracy.
  13. Standard member Fleabitten
    Love thy bobblehead
    15 Oct '09 22:54
    Originally posted by StTito
    Yeah after I wrote that I had some doubts. It is hard to follow the money to pinpoint what kind of buiness model sports teams are. I mean who gets the merch money? the broadcast money? ticket sales? Is the safety equipment all made by the same company or does each team get to determine their own supplier? And most importantly, for this argument, where does the money that the owners earn come from?
    Check out this link. It specfies which revenues are shared, and which aren't:

    http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Oct '09 22:57
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    The Rams would go down because so many players would refuse to play for him (especially black players).
    Dubious assumption.

    You think a player is going to turn down more money because Rush is a minority owner of a team?

    Marge Schott didn't seem to have problems attracting players to the Reds.
  15. Standard member Fleabitten
    Love thy bobblehead
    15 Oct '09 22:58
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    The Rams would go down because so many players would refuse to play for him (especially black players). And Rush Limbaugh because of how that would make him look, especially when he tries to portray the NFL as being part of this great Liberal conspiracy.
    Ridiculous assertion. If the Rams pony up the money, the players will play for them, regardless of who is signing the checks.