Rushing Towards Antitrust?
ESPN reports that Rush Limbaugh has been dropped as a limited partner from a group bidding for the NFL's St. Louis Rams. This follows public opposition to Limbaugh from at least one NFL owner and lukewarm comments from the league's CEO.
A couple of post-mortem points. First, it's interesting that not a single media outlet -- as far as I could find -- mentioned the fact that one of the NFL's most prominent owners, Dan Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers, is a major supporter of Barack Obama:
During the 2008 US Presidential campaign, Rooney publicly presented Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, with his own personalized Pittsburgh Steelers jersey while at a campaign rally. This act infuriated many Steelers fans who flooded the conservative-leaning Pittsburgh Tribune Review editorial board with letters on October 31, 2008. Many of these fans stated that politics has no place in the world of sports. Others stated that Rooney must understand that the Pittsburgh Steelers franchise represents the entire city of Pittsburgh, not just his own personal beliefs. Even though Rooney was a life-long Republican, many in the media have long described him a "Republican In Name Only" (RINO) because in the past he has advocated for tax increases on Pittsburgh residents to pay for Heinz Field, an amphitheatre, and a future "T" subway service.
Obama rewarded Rooney by recently naming him U.S. ambassador to Ireland. Somehow it's okay for an NFL team to be owned by a partisan government official but not a partisan talk show host. Personally, I don't care about the double standard, but if the NFL's opposition to Limbaugh is based on a desire to avoid mixing sports and politics, as has been reported, then Rooney's politics is clearly relevant to the story.
Additionally, there's a chance the NFL's anti-Limbaugh stance will come back to bite it in court. The NFL has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the league is a "single entity" -- rather then a collection of competing teams -- for federal antitrust purposes. If the justices rule against the NFL, Limbaugh might have one heck of a Sherman Act lawsuit. He could allege "collusion" by the owners and league officials to exclude him from ownership for non-business reasons. It's not a slam-dunk case, but it probably wouldn't get laughed out of court either, especially since there were public statements from an owner and the league's CEO opposing Limbaugh.
Mind you, I'm not calling for or endorsing such antitrust shenanigans. I merely point out the perils of "not mixing sports and politics." And at least one NFL observer thinks the coordinated opposition to Limbaugh actually furthers the NFL's quest for "single entity" recognition. But I suspect the NFL isn't quite that clever.
UPDATE: As Columbo would say, just one more thing on Mr. Rooney. Last year, the NFL "bent" some of its ownership rules to accommodate a "restructuring" of the Steelers. Dan Rooney and his brothers simultaneously co-owned the Steelers and certain gambling interests, which is prohibited by NFL rules. The restructuring allowed Rooney to retain control of the Steelers without meeting the NFL's requirement that a majority owner have at least a 30% stake. So while Rush Limbaugh was excluded from even pursuing ownership despite not violating any actual league rule, Rooney was able to disregard at least two clearly established ownership rules without penalty.
Comments (24)
BioTube
Single-entity status might not help it none: it's setting itself up for a monopoly case. I'd love to see those fireworks.
Published: October 14, 2009 6:29 PM
Fallon
That politics would be played is a given. It is that the opposition levelled accusations of racism which, even with his talent and appeal, Limbaugh has been unable to trump. It all seems a bit Machiavellian and I do not feel for any of the parties involved.
Published: October 14, 2009 6:46 PM
K Ackermann
It wasn't the NFL that dropped him; it was the investment group.
In other words, money trumped any sense of right or wrong. He was not conducive to the deal, so they threw him under the bus.
Did he really think there would be no repercussions when he says some of the things he says? He's made a lot of money being a racist; he should probably invest in companies that he has not directly insulted using racist terms. I wouldn't feel too bad for him; there are plenty of investment opportunities out there. Just pick some that he has not trashed.
It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about his investment partners.
Published: October 14, 2009 8:07 PM
damocles
The investment group dropped him only because the League said he was not acceptable, mostly due to various slanderous and completely untrue statements invented on CNN and other Obama-controlled media. The NFL, at least, was not dumb enough to repeat any of the libelous statements; Lindbaugh could probably bankrupt many of the people involved if he chose to bring suit.
Published: October 14, 2009 8:22 PM
damocles
K.Ackerman should submit a verifiable example of the alleged racist statements, since the networks have not come up with anything. His vague accusations are also libelous unless he can provide support. By the way, Lindbaugh has good friends among Black NFL players.
Published: October 14, 2009 8:27 PM
K Ackermann
damocles - in my comment, you will notice that the word "racist" is a different color than the other words in my comment. If you move your mouse over that word and press the left button, it will take you to a Top 10 racist comments by Limbaugh article. In that article, they source each comment.
Published: October 14, 2009 10:19 PM
K Ackermann
damocles - in my comment, you will notice that the word "racist" is a different color than the other words in my comment. If you move your mouse over that word and press the left button, it will take you to a Top 10 racist comments by Limbaugh article. In that article, they source each comment.
Published: October 14, 2009 10:21 PM
hayesy
Actually, they don't source each comment, in the sense of placing the quote within the context of a larger transcript. They cite other sources. Who probably cite other sources. One "source" is a link to a book being sold on Amazon. I mean, c'mon... quit being so gullible.
Published: October 14, 2009 10:41 PM
Russ
The irony in this is that one of the people who made the biggest stink about Rush was Al Sharpton, who's a much bigger racist than Rush, in my opinion.
Published: October 14, 2009 10:44 PM
mpolzkill
Al Sharpton has infinitely more style than Rush Limbaugh. Sharpton could never be so dreadful.
Silliness, Russ. Minus State power, the hoi polloi does indulge not in "racism", they indulge in "racialism". As a species we are given to prejudice. As long as our masters don't seize upon our weakness to their advantage, prejudices regarding skin color are no more consequential than those prejudices regarding Titian's models vs Twiggy.
"damocles", don't fall into Ackerman's game of holier-than-thou. Don't tie yourself in any way to the beached white whale, Rush.
Published: October 14, 2009 11:03 PM
Russ
mpolzkill wrote:
"Al Sharpton has infinitely more style than Rush Limbaugh. Sharpton could never be so dreadful."
??? Sharpton looks like a pimp, and unlike Limbaugh, if Sharpton didn't race-bait, he wouldn't have a schtick left. You call that style? I suppose you're an admirer of Louis Farrakhan too?
"Minus State power, the hoi polloi does indulge not in "racism", they indulge in "racialism"."
Sorry, I've heard this theory of racism (from a black man) 20 years ago (except his version was that blacks can't be racists because they don't have institutional power), and I didn't buy it then, either. You're just putting an anti-statist spin on it. If a group of white citizens hang a black man just because he's black, that's racism. If a black man stabs a Jew just because he's a Jew, that's racism too.
Published: October 14, 2009 11:54 PM
Hierophant
Rush's "racism" debunked.
http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=2963
Whether you're a fan of Limbaugh or not, I would've expected the majority of Mises readers to be a little more skeptical of what they hear in the mainstream media, particularly against a public figure who happens to be very critical of the government.
Published: October 15, 2009 12:40 AM
iamse7en
The most popular Rush quotes are absolutely false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84v7GP8WPUk
Rush's own call-screener and good friend (pseudonym Bo Snerdley) is an African American. Rush is very good friends with many African Americans associated with the NFL. Besides all that, if you listened to his show for extended period of time, you'd know he very far from a racist.
Donovan McNabb quote: Rush was trying to say that the MEDIA was racist.
Crips & Bloods quote: probably a bit distasteful, but does it make him a racist? I mean, let's be honest, he's basically saying NFL players look like thugs... Is calling someone a gangster RACIST? That makes Rush a RACIST?
Give me a break. This whole thing is just an opportunity for the media to attack Rush.
Published: October 15, 2009 2:04 AM
iamse7en
And, K Ackermann must really feel like an idiot to have posted a site with some absolutely false quotes.
I would, at least.
Send your apology to elrushbo@eibnet.com
Published: October 15, 2009 2:10 AM
AynRand
All the "racist" qoutes are fake.
Lies and race-baiting won , next the'll come for you.
Be a happy serf.
Published: October 15, 2009 6:04 AM
KP
I think people are being blindsided by this... Rush though immensely popular with talk radio and their subscribers have a large group of individuals that are offended by him and his comments.
I'm sorry to say but the vetting period raised certain issues and the investment group saw their potential capital gain in the long run diminish with Rush part of their group.
Let alone, the NFL has an ordinance to vote on who can be an owner of a club which to me is contrary to the idea of free market. The slim fact that they could not get approval in my opinion is enough to raise serious doubts on rush being electable to become a owner.
So until the removal of the NFL own practices I believe this is a null issue.
Published: October 15, 2009 6:36 AM
mpolzkill
Russ says, "You call that style?"
Well it's subjective (and kind of a joke), but, he's the only guy I've ever seen win the crowd in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, and he didn't do it with anything but character. (Pimps don't have style? Not saying I agree with that, smacks of racialism. And have you seen Calypso Louie play the violin?)
What exactly is your idea of Rush's style, btw? The man is a cretin. (I was going to post pictures of his clothes and his home, but I got too depressed looking at them and quit my search)
Russ says: "Sorry...that's racism too."
An ugly, violent mob does not have any "distinctive doctrine, system or theory." Are they all ignoramuses with idiotic prejudices? Of course. My definition of racism is that it *is* systematic prejudice based on the nebulous and fallacious concept of "race".
The black guy you mention was wrong because many Black Americans have institutional power (think of the obscenely racist black social workers who admittedly keep black orphans from being adopted by "white families"). Also many (along with many imbecilic White Americans, known as lefties) have for some time now successfully petitioned the Feds to discriminate against White Americans on the basis of skin color.
Anyway, my real point was that racism (as I define it) is an abomination, but racialism is on all sides, is ineradicable, and is often not even pernicious (minus violence, of course). What is pernicious to me is this eternal battle of saying who is and who is not "racist". For instance, I'm convinced that the main disconnect on how it is that Hitler is considered the far worse villain than Stalin who murdered 3 times the number of people is all due to this modern rage for denouncing all things "racist". Watch Quentin Tarantino's new gore-fest for example. In this universe he's created, hating the wrong "race" is apparently the *only* sin in there is. (It's not as if movies are beamed in from the moon, either: this piece of trash is the product of one twisted society. I could go on and on but I guess I'll quit)
- - - - - - - - - -
iamse7en says: "Ackermann must really feel like an idiot to have posted a site with some absolutely false quotes"
He never does. He is in fact a shameless propagandist.
Published: October 15, 2009 8:41 AM
mpolzkill
* "petitioned the Feds to discriminate against White Americans [full stop]"
(sorry for the redundancy)
Published: October 15, 2009 8:53 AM
Horst Muhlmann
I, for one, am now boycotting the NFL.
So you can run dog fighting rings, beat your wife and kill people and be a member in good standing with the NFL. You can have teams that are basically criminal enterprises, and that's just fine and dandy.
Warren Moon and OJ Simpson are still in the Hall of Fame.
But say "socialism isn't so hot", and you're persona non grata.
Published: October 15, 2009 10:01 AM
Horst Muhlmann
Oh, and speaking of racism in the NFL, I wonder how is it that Marvin Lewis has a job coaching?
Isn't Andy Reed a swell dad?
Published: October 15, 2009 10:09 AM
Horst Muhlmann
Yes, I misspelled "Reid" in the last post. And I missed it in "Preview". Sorry.
Published: October 15, 2009 10:14 AM
8
It's not as if Rush lent his name to a newsletter that actually had racist content in it...now you know what would have happened to GOP candidate Ron Paul had he won the primaries.
Wake up and smell the power in the morning! You don't have it and you're never going to get it, so shut up with your complaints about media, politics, universities, and society, or we'll make your life miserable. The harder you try, the more total the destruction of your life. -TPTB
Published: October 15, 2009 10:33 AM
Renegade Division
Isn't it the best thing for a known 'racist' guy to buy the team and invest money in to the exact opposite group of people?
I mean I would love to have a white supremacist buy my team up(where the majority of the people are of my ethnicity), and have his money tied to us. What is he going to do? Fire all the members of other ethnicity to bring only white players, well then Market will beat the crap out of him and giving him a major blow to his racism, or he will start wishing well to the people of other race, try to pick more guys of that race(remember he is racist he might just think that Blacks are naturally good football players, so he will try to fill up his team with only black players going to ghettos trying to recruit good football players, that is if he really is racist).
The only reason why left doesn't want him to own a black majority team so that he doesn't get the protection of 'oh yeah, Rush is racist, then why does he own the 60% black majority football team?'.
Published: October 15, 2009 11:14 AM
Walt D.
There has to be something more to this. We Have the usual Black Bigots - Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackass, Sheila Jackass Lee, grand standing and posturing, over what? Who cares if "whitey" wants to buy a minority share in a football team? Why all the phony Rush Limbaugh quotes? "Deep Throat" said follow the money. Where is the money here?
Published: October 15, 2009 6:46 PM