Category Archives: Sports

Why Host Olympics and World Cup … Money

Posted on by

sepp-blatter-fifa-scandalHosting major international sporting events like the Olympics and the World Cup is an enormous money loser for the country that takes on the task. So why do countries bid for and apparently bribe officials to get the right to do so?

The common rational is that the prestige of such events brings the spotlight to a nation. That might be true but while I was working out and watching yet another story about the institutionalized corruption in the Federation International Football Association (FIFA) the reality suddenly dawned upon me. It’s all about the money.

Why do countries pay what appears to be tens of millions of dollars in bribes to organizations like FIFA and at least fete members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to host such events when they know they will lose hundreds of millions of dollars?

If we understand the question more fully the answer becomes evident. The question should be: Who is it exactly that loses money?

Let’s take it back a notch. You go to Tutti Frutti frozen yogurt right down the street from where you live and purchase $5.00 worth delicious frozen dessert. As you are walking out the door you trip and spill your ice cream all over the raging hot cement where it instantly melts. You sigh sadly, turn around and purchase $5.00 more of yogurt because you have a problem with ice cream. Mmm, ice cream.

At first glance you have lost $5.00. But the reality is more complex. Yes, you have $5.00 less than when you started but Tutti Frutti now has $5.00 in sales more than they otherwise would have. The gain balances the loss. That is the nature of transactions.

In the case of the Olympics the nation in question is spending billions of dollars building stadiums, hiring thousands of people and paying their salaries, working with local businesses from restaurants to garbage disposal who see massive revenue from spectators. If a nation loses billions of dollars that money goes somewhere. It goes to the business owners who happen to be lucky enough to get the construction contract, have the license to sell their wares near the venues, and get the waste disposal bid. How does such fortune fall into their laps? Take a guess.

The politicians bribe FIFA with a percentage of the money they anticipate getting in bribes from businesses that want to make money during the event. Then the nation awards bids to these companies to the tune of billions of dollars which they pay off with taxpayer revenue.

So all this lost money belongs to taxpayers. The gained side of the equation are politicians and corrupt business owners who share the spoils. Those companies that choose to be honorable get no bids and are driven out of business by the unscrupulous operators.

Crony Capitalism on a level so enormous it’s difficult to fathom.

That’s why politicians want to host such events. My advice? Vote for better politicians.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Will Smith and the Foreign Substance Hypocrisy

Posted on by

Will-Smith-Foreign-SubstanceMost of you probably haven’t heard that a Milwaukee Brewer reliever named Will Smith was recently suspended for eight games because he had a foreign substance on his arm while pitching.

There are a lot of things wrong with what happened and the least villainous, in my opinion, is Smith. I’m a St. Louis Cardinals fan and I have no love for the Brew Crew but the blatant hypocrisy that is baseball in regards to pitchers and foreign substances is so egregious that it rouses my ire nonetheless.

The undeniable fact of the matter is that new baseballs, even when “rubbed up”, can be difficult for a pitcher to grip and the situation is made worse in cold weather. To counter this pitchers use various mixtures that allows them to grip the ball a little better and thus control it out of their hand. If the ball slips out of their hand a little too early or stays in just a little too long the pitch can go anywhere. This extra control allows them to keep the ball over the plate instead of in a  hitter’s ear. Everyone wants the pitchers to have this extra control and every player, umpire, manager, and coach is well aware of the practice.

The rule against foreign substance was largely designed to keep pitchers from putting something on the ball or scuffing the ball in such a way as to make its motion unpredictable and more dramatic. That’s not what is happening here. Everyone knows what is happening. I remember back in the 2006 World Series when pitcher Kenny Rogers left an obvious blob of goo on his hand. The Cardinals reaction? Manager Tony LaRussa quietly told the umpire to ask him to wipe it off between innings. No big deal, no accusations, no suspensions. On with the game.

The bottom line is quite simple and any number of baseball analysts have suggested it. MLB needs to find an acceptable substance and delivery system and allow the pitchers to use it legally. Problem solved, hypocrisy resolved, game on.

What bothers me most about all of this is the sanctimonious eight game suspension. It’s simply for show and it’s completely unfair to Smith and the Brewers. The people who suspended Smith know it’s common practice and not designed to alter the flight of the ball. The umpires know it. The Atlanta Braves, who reported Smith and asked the umpires to act on it, know it, the commissioner knows it, everyone knows it. It’s arbitrary enforcement of a ridiculous rule by a governing body that is exerting its power because they can; rather than using such power to create a better game when such is easily within their reach.

It’s abuse of power and that’s something that pushes my Libertarian buttons.

Free Will Smith!

Tom Liberman

Personal Responsibility and Deflategate

Posted on by

deflategateAll right, enough, I’ll blog about it but it’s going to be a short one.

The equipment managers took footballs into the back room after the referees had inspected them and then deflated said footballs. They did this at the behest of Tom Brady.

End of story.

Tom Brady? Fuck you. Robert Kraft? Fuck you. Proof, schmoof. We all know what happened and everything else is just an attempt to confuse the issue along with an utter and complete lack of Personal Responsibility.

End of story.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

 

Fabiano Caruana and Nerd Poaching

Posted on by

Magnus Buying Up NerdsOver the last few years a very wealthy fellow by the name of Rex Sinquefeld has been making St. Louis the chess capital of the United States and his progress in that regard continued when he convinced the third highest rated player in the world, Fabiano Caruana to come play here at the St. Louis Chess Club.

The unarguably best chess player in the world, Magnus Carlsen, made the following comment on his Twitter account: … so they are indeed buying nerds.

I’m certain Carlsen was taking a humorous and good natured jibe at Caruana and Sinquefeld and I took no offense at the statement but I did want to examine the idea that Sinquefeld is indeed buying up all the world’s best chess players and loading Team United States to become a dominant player in the world. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? No thing at all?

The fact that an extremely wealthy person bought the land and a building which he turned into one of the finest chess clubs in the world is undeniable. That he lured Hikaru Nakamura to St. Louis with a contract that pays him well is a fact. That Sinquefeld also managed to convince the 7th highest rated player in the world, Wesley So, to come to Webster University to play college chess is undeniable. That Sinquefeld hired Susan Polgar away from her chess coach job at Texas Tech is a fact. That she brought her entire NCAA Championship team with her and won the title in 21013 cannot be denied.

None of these people was born in the United States and here they are leading the charge of U.S. Chess. What Sinquefeld set out to do and what he has accomplished are simple facts.

I’ve got an oar in this boat as they say because I live in St. Louis and belong to the local chess club Sinquefeld started. I love playing chess and having such luminaries around certainly makes things very nice for me. But is it good for someone to be able to essentially purchase the best players and thus championships?

It’s clearly been good for St. Louis. It’s clearly been good for Caruana, Nakamura, So, Polgar, Webster University, The Central West End (where the club is based), and a host of others. Money is willingly being exchanged for services and all parties seem satisfied. Of course what is good for one group is often times bad for another. Italy loses its finest chess player. Texas Tech loses its championship chess team, the Philippines loses its best chess player (So).

It is clear that this unbridled capitalism has victims as well as beneficiaries.

My bias is undeniable but I still think what Sinquefeld is doing is not only perfectly acceptable but largely beneficial. He is bringing tremendous publicity to the game of chess although certainly the amazing Carlsen is doing that as well. It’s a golden era for chess as computers have found new and exciting variations that liven up the game. The internet has brought players from all over the world together to enjoy the game they love.

What Sinquefeld is doing by assembling this group of players is good for chess in the long run but I do see the danger. There are competition laws for a reason. What if Sinquefeld were to pay all the top players in the world to join his club? What if he exerted such influence that anyone who didn’t join was colluded against? What if he then started charging exorbitant rates for appearance fees and tournaments because he controlled all the best players?

My argument is that he has yet to do those things and therefore I don’t have a problem. Absolute power leads to absolute corruption as they say. It bears keeping an eye on.

Welcome to St. Louis, Fabiano! See you down at the club.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Sergio Garcia and Heckling Fans

Posted on by

Sergio GarciaI was watching the Player’s Championship golf tournament this weekend when I became more aware of golf fans attempting to intrude upon the game. In this case a group of hecklers continually shouted at Sergio Garcia as he was swinging at the ball.

Garcia is no stranger to controversy and his attempted humor about fried chicken and Tiger Woods engendered a great deal of ill will from various fans. Garcia and Woods were engaged in heated competition and Garcia made the comment when asked if he would be seeing Woods later in the week. He apologized afterwards but this did not appease fans who have been giving him a difficult time ever since.

The level of heckling at the Player’s Championship came to my attention, and I think everyone else’s, because Garcia was involved in a playoff with Ricky Fowler and Kevin Kisner. In the Player’s Championship they play a three hole playoff instead of sudden death so the three players played three full holes together in front of the entire crowd and exclusively on camera for every shot. It was then that the heckling became painfully apparent.

Those who dislike Garcia attempted to disrupt him in the midst of his swings. They shouted in the middle of his backstroke as he putted. According to Garcia it had been going on for much of the round and he refused to blame the behavior for not winning the tournament. He parred all three holes in the playoff and was eliminated.

Shouting at golf tournaments has gotten progressively more intrusive but this was the first time I’ve seen a concerted effort to disrupt a player by yelling in the middle of the swing. It was disturbing to witness. This was clearly an effort by fans to alter the course of the tournament. If this sort of behavior is allowed to continue it is only a matter of time before fans of Garcia begin to attempt to disrupt his opponent and before fans of all players do the same to anyone competing against their favorite.

It’s rude, it’s selfish, and it’s just plain ugly.

There are those that argue the crowd is loud and rowdy at football games, baseball games, and other sports and the golfers should just adjust. I have no doubt the golfers will adjust if this behavior becomes more common but I still don’t like it. Individual sports like tennis, golf, bowling, pool, and others require great focus and the crowd has traditionally been quiet during the preparation and execution of shots.

Society has changed in this regard. It seems to me that fans are more selfish. Not only do they hurt the player but they ruin the enjoyment of the game for the other spectators.

What’s the solution?

I’m not about passing draconian laws that banish spectators for any sort of boorish behavior. I think the real solution is to teach people to respect themselves, other spectators, and the game itself. Anyone who truly respects the effort required by professional athletes, who respects the other fans at the game and values their enjoyment, and who, most of all, respects their own integrity won’t behave in such a manner.

Not an easy solution but the best long-term one.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Paying the NFL for Military Tributes

Posted on by

military tributes at NFL gamesAs anyone who reads my blog on a regular basis knows; I’m from St. Louis and a huge sports fan. In the last few years I’ve noted a hefty increase in the amount of time spent honoring military veterans during the games. At every Blues, Rams, and Cardinals they take time to honor a soldier in the stands and run some tributes on the video screens.

It turns out that, in at least some of those cases, the military is paying the team to run the tribute. They consider it advertising and money well spent. I can’t tell you if that’s the case for my hometown teams, the article only mentions the contract between the National Guard and the New York Jets, but I did want to examine the idea of my tax dollars going to sports teams in order to honor veterans.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that when the Cardinals, Rams, and Blues give up time during the game to talk about a veteran they are potentially suffering a financial loss. That time would have otherwise gone to paying advertisers. The second thing I think about is that it’s quite good advertising. Young men and women at the game are probably inspired by the tribute and want to join the military because of it.

The military spends plenty of money on advertising outside of sporting events so it shouldn’t come as a huge shock that they are behind the tributes, at least financially.

I think the problem comes from the fact that there is a general impression that such tributes are done out of respect for the military and our veterans, not because they are paid advertisements. The reality is that on the whole these days sporting events are largely just giant paid advertisements. Anyone who’s gone to a game in the last ten years has seen every open surface of the stadium splattered by ads and had their eardrums assaulted during every break in the action by advertisements.

I suspect most people thought the teams were doing the military tributes out of the goodness of their hearts and the various leagues certainly did not do anything to dissuade us fans from such notions. That would certainly describe my understanding of events prior to reading the article.

That being said, I don’t have a problem with it. It’s capitalism in action. The team gets good will for doing it while the various military branches get return on their advertising investment.

What do you think? Are you upset and angry that such tributes are merely paid advertising? Do you feel deceived? Or are you more like me and accept events for what they are?

Tom Liberman

When is the Suspect the Victim? La’el Collins and the NFL

Posted on by

Lael-CollinsThe National Football League just held their annual draft and a particularly unfortunate series of events led to a young man named La’el Collins remaining undrafted despite the fact that he was considered a First Round talent. It illustrates an interesting reality of this world in which we live.

Collins is being questioned by police in relation to the murder of a pregnant woman. The police state that Collins is not a suspect in the murder of Brittany Mills but did have a previous relationship with her. They plan to question him about his relationship.

This was enough for every team in the NFL to pass on Collins through all seven rounds of the draft. If Collins was not being questioned in this case it is most likely he would have been taken as one of the top ten picks in the draft. The NFL uses a system whereby the position you are drafted in determines your rookie contract to some degree. If he had been drafted in the tenth slot Collins would likely have gotten a contract worth about $12 million. As an undrafted free agent he stands to earn about $500,000 per season for his first three seasons.

The difference is clearly enormous.

NFL teams are under no obligation to draft anyone. Because Collins is involved in an extremely serious legal situation, each team chose not to draft him. Collins asked the NFL to allow him to enter what is called the Supplemental Draft at a later time after he had time to clear up the current issues. The NFL refused. Collins said that he would refuse to sign with a team that drafted him after the third round and wants to enter the draft next season, this is currently not allowed by NFL rules.

What does all this teach us? That life isn’t fair.

The police stated pretty clearly they do not consider Collins a suspect in the murder but with the recent events in the NFL regarding Aaron Hernandez the teams in the league were immediately wary.

There are a lot of losers here. Mills is dead, Collins is out a lot of money; his reputation is forever sullied, and the NFL team that would have drafted Collins won’t have his services.

Was there a better way? Could the police have waited until after the draft to announce they planned to question Collins? I’m not sure. It’s a murder investigation and I’m sure the family of Mills wants the police to move with all haste. It’s possible Collins is involved in the murder and the teams were right to avoid drafting him.

Hopefully the police will find the murderer and Collins will have nothing to do with it. Collins will sign as an undrafted free agent and perform remarkably on the field and get a huge contract in three years.

Still, it does make me wonder about the nature of the world. It’s quite possible Collins did nothing wrong and is being significantly punished for it.

Sometimes there are no easy answers, or answers at all.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

 

Cheating to Win – Kendall Schler at the St. Louis Marathon

Posted on by

kendall-schlerI have several friends who run marathons and specifically St. Louis area marathons so when I saw a story about how a woman cheated to win this year’s GO! St. Louis Marathon I was intrigued.

The story gets even worse because the woman, Kendall Schler, apparently successfully cheated to finish third in last year’s race. When she won this year a more thorough investigation was performed and it was determined that she did not run in the race at all. She simply jumped in right before the finish, reminiscent of Rosie Ruiz in the 1980 Boston Marathon.

At first I thought it was a rather amusing story because her attempt to cheat was relatively laughable in that she tampered with electronic tracking equipment but when I learned that she managed to pull off the trickery the previous year and I got a little upset. I’m not going to try and analyze why Schler cheated. I play online chess and cheating is epidemic in that milieu. People cheat for reasons that seem bizarre to me but they still do it.

What I want to analyze today is the overall anti-Libertarian effect that cheating incurs and how a society of Libertarians would deal with such things. The thing about being a Libertarian is that you largely believe people should succeed through their legitimate efforts. When one person cheats to get ahead that not only subverts society by putting a lesser qualified person into a position of power but also denies more highly qualified people at every level.

The person who finished in second should have won, yes, but the person who finished  in eleventh place would have finished in tenth and gotten some particular reward. The cheater cheats every other person behind them and society as a whole. I’m thinking rather broadly here, not just about a race but about business, relationships, and life in general.

Let’s imagine we Libertarians have taken over the world. We have in place a society where achievement is the highest goal and the majority of people simply do their best at everything they attempt. How do we deal with people like Schler? In a Libertarian society there might not be electronic tracking in race bibs because we assume people will not cheat. How do we safeguard our society from such as Schler without becoming the authoritarian state we so detest?

It’s not an easy question to answer. In my opinion we actually must allow Schler to win. Our suspicions aroused, we (all the other racers and officials) now watch her more closely next time. When we try to create rule after rule to safeguard against Schler and her ilk we end up creating a system designed to thwart cheaters rather than promote achievers. Sure, Schler gets the win but does she benefit in the long run in a Libertarian society. My answer is no. She is quickly discovered and shunned.

However, in a non-Libertarian society with millions of rules the cheaters, provided they are stealthy enough, can prosper, as did Schler last year. No one watches too closely because they assume officials and existing rules will eliminate cheaters. Meanwhile the cheaters know the rules and use various methods to skirt them. How many cheaters are out there right now, unbeknownst to the rule makers?

It’s a tough question and the Libertarian answer is not easy to digest and understand. Still, I think it’s the right answer for society and for the world.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Is the Chelsea Football Club Responsible for Fans Racism?

Posted on by

Chelsea-racist-victimThere’s a fairly big story making the news in the Barclays Premier League this week. After a game between Chelsea and the French Paris St. Germain club fans from Chelsea refused to allow a black French-Mauritian man to board the train while making racist chants. The man wasn’t a football (soccer for my U.S. friends) fan at all but happened to be boarding the train heading home at that moment.

Officials for Chelsea immediately stepped up by condemning the fans, giving out lifetime ticket bans against fans identified in the video, and inviting the victim of the incident to come to a game and experience “true” Chelsea spirit.

I think we can all agree that the football club is not responsible for the actions of all of its fans. If a Chelsea fan raped a woman or murdered someone it’s not the club’s responsibility to apologize for such an attack. This situation is somewhat different in that it was a group of Chelsea supporters riding public transportation after a game which involved the club. They wore Chelsea gear in support of the team and identified themselves as both proud Chelsea fans and proud racists in their chants.

Even with that said I’m still of the opinion that Chelsea has no real responsibility or obligation in the matter. If they don’t want to apologize, issue ticket bans, or offer seats for their game I’d say they were well within their rights. I do think Chelsea’s stance is admirable. They are not hiding behind the reasonable excuse that their fans are not in any way their responsibility but are willing to stand up and condemn the attack. They are making clear and bold statements to their supporters.

Some might argue that this is merely propaganda by the club to get good publicity but I don’t see that. I see genuine anger at the incident and I can sympathize. I’m a Libertarian and I’m not responsible for all Libertarians or those who claim to be Libertarians. However when I see a supposed fellow Libertarian espousing nonsensical conspiracy theories about the terror attacks on September 11th or claiming that the vile Sandy Hook murders were somehow a hoax I do feel a responsibility to stand up and denounce that person.

As a Libertarian I have voluntarily identified myself with a group of people. When a member or members of that group of people behaves in a disgusting fashion I do think it’s my responsibility to say something. It is certain that I cannot control their behavior. Likewise I can say unequivocally that they and they alone are the responsible party. Just as I can say that the Chelsea football club bears no responsibility for the racist nonsense a few of their fans espouse.

I think the club stepping up and doing what they are doing is entirely appropriate. It is leadership by example. The racist fans are not their responsibility nor was the incident their fault in any way. The fans themselves are solely responsible but the fact that a good person is not guilty of wrong-doing doesn’t mean that person should stand by silently either.

Good for Chelsea. I hope the victim of the racism accepts their offering, attends a game, becomes a fan, and that much good can come from this incident. That would be a win.

Do you think officials of the Chelsea club should apologize or do you think it’s not their fault or their responsibility?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Misleading Headline – Bill Walton calls Michael Jordan Average

Posted on by

Bill-Walton-Michael-JordanI woke up this morning to find an no-brainer addition to my misleading headline of the week collection.

Bill Walton thinks Michael Jordan was just an Average Athlete blare the headlines from stories across the sporting world.

Anyone who follows basketball knows that Jordan is arguably the greatest player in the history of the National Basketball Association (NBA). There are those who will argue for Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Lebron James, Bob Cousy and others but no one would exclude Jordan from the conversation. He was great, not average, and no one, including Walton, thinks otherwise.

Walton is saying that what made Jordan great was not his athletic ability but his desire to win, his preparation, his ability to elevate those around him, and stamina earned through a tremendous practice ethic. Jordan was 6′ 6″ tall which is not particular large for the position he played in the NBA. He was not the sort to physically push anyone around in comparison to those around him. I think Walton more than pushes the point that Jordan was average but it’s also clear that Jordan was not a dominant physical player. He had good speed and very strong jumping ability but that was not the heart of his game.

Walton has it right. What made Jordan great were other things. His mental toughness, his work ethic, and what I consider the absolute key to greatness, making those around you better. It is all but impossible to win championships, Jordan won six in the NBA and one in the NCAA, without such an ability. You must be a team player who gets those around you to reach their maximum potential and Jordan did this with players like Scottie Pippin, Steve Kerr, Horace Grant, John Paxson, and others.

The thing about the headline that is misleading is that it attempts to paint Walton as claiming Jordan was an average player. Walton meant nothing of the sort. He recognizes Jordan’s greatness and attributes it to something besides simple athletic ability. In other words, Walton was giving Jordan a tremendous compliment.

So, there you go.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Football Recruit Feels Misled – the Mike Weber Saga

Posted on by

Mike Weber and The Ohio StateI’ve found an interesting story in the world of sports that I think illustrates one of the issues with college football as it currently exists. A highly recruited young player from Michigan named Mike Weber chose to go to school and perform as a running back at The Ohio State University.

The coach who was primarily involved in recruiting Weber just took a new job for the Chicago Bears in the National Football League (NFL) and Weber now feels betrayed. He thinks the coach, Stan Drayton, knew all along he was leaving the job.

Before we fully understand whether what Drayton did was wrong we have to understand how college football operates. Each year the coaches seek to bring in the most talented young players from all over the country and this process is called recruiting. The schools are not allowed to pay the athletes so they do this recruiting by promising the player certain things. Playing time and coaches who will develop them for the NFL and an eventual payday among other things. They show off their facilities and promise the parents of the recruit how they will take care of their boy. They build relationships with the high schools so that the high school coach will advise the young players to go to their college.

What’s important is that once a player signs a contract, commits in the vernacular of the NCAA, they are bound to that school. They cannot change their mind once what is called the Signing Day passes. This is a legally binding contract. If the player wants to change schools they must sit out an entire season, they can never play for another school in the same conference, and the coach of the original school has veto power over what other school the young player attends even after sitting out a year.

The coach, on the other hand, can leave at any time for a higher paying job without any repercussions. That in itself is obviously not equitable.

In this case Drayton announced that he was moving almost immediately after the all important signing day. After Weber was legally obligated to stay at Ohio State.

I’m not decrying Drayton’s move. Changing jobs is a tricky business and you don’t know if you are going to be hired for the new position or not. It’s reasonable that you don’t announce it before it is a done deal. That being said I’m absolutely certain the Chicago Bears and Drayton intentionally timed this announcement to come after Signing Day. The NFL understands their players largely come from colleges and the teams of the NFL want to behave in such manner as to keep the colleges happy. This means announcing that they have signed college coaches after Signing Day when possible.

What upsets me is that Weber is bound in a way that Drayton is not. The circumstances have changed enough that I think players like Weber should be allowed to change their mind. Frankly, I think Weber should be allowed to change his mind any time his contract has expired. Players essentially work on one year contracts, called scholarships. The school pays for tuition for a year and if they decide the player is worth such payment they renew the contract at the end of the season.

Weber should be able to pack his bags and go off to whatever school desires his services. In this case The Ohio State has no damages. They paid for no tuition, no room and board, and no coaching. Weber should be allowed to leave. The NCAA doesn’t want this because it would likely become somewhat chaotic as players backed out of contracts because of changing circumstance. However, the teams are allowed to do this. If a player, for whatever reason, is deemed undesirable the school simply doesn’t offer them a scholarship the next year. This happens all the time. The player is injured or new recruits push the player deep onto the depth chart and the school needs to free up a scholarship. It’s the nature of the business.

I think it’s unfair that players do not have the same freedom.

In reality coaches are not even bound by their contracts. The coach buys out their existing contract and moves on. Any coach, even if under contract for five years, can simply leave. Generally the new employer pays some compensation for the move but not always. By this logic a player should be able to pick up and leave for another school at halftime of the game if they reimburse the school for the remainder of their tuition and sundry other expenses.

I don’t begrudge coaches here, I’m angry about the fact that there are clearly two sets of rules of conduct and the people who are getting the short end of the situation are the young players.

Free Mike Weber!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

 

Caddie Bibs and Capitalism Collide

Posted on by

Caddie BibsI just finished reading a story about how the caddies on the Professional Golfer’s Association (PGA) tour are suing the PGA because they are forced to wear sponsor’s logos on their bibs and are not compensated for it.

The idea is that each PGA tour event has a corporate sponsor and that company pays the PGA a fairly hefty sum of money in order to have exclusive naming rights. The PGA collects an estimated $50 million in such funds each year. For this payment the company in question gets to splash their logo and name over everything involved with the event and this includes the bibs that the caddies wear.

Sponsorship on the PGA is big money. A player sponsored by a particular company gets paid for every second they are on television wearing that business’s brand on their apparel. The caddies are essentially walking billboards for whatever company paid exclusive naming rights that week and they think they deserve some of the money. I agree.

If the caddies wear the sponsor’s branding and it is part of what the companies are paying, then the caddies clearly deserve part of the money. It’s a shame that something reasonable couldn’t be worked out by both parties although it’s not too late for such an agreement. Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to get dialog started.

There are a number of ways this could go. The caddies might get some money. The tour might simply tell the caddies not to wear the logo on the bib anymore and the companies might pay less for sponsorship. The caddies might sell bib space to the highest bidder with the caddies for the better golfers earning more money.

I wouldn’t mind seeing it make its way through the courts so we could get a definitive legal decision but I suspect it won’t get that far.

What do you think? Are the caddies right or is the PGA tour?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Josh Gordon’s Alcohol Suspension – Big Brother?

Posted on by

Josh GordonThere’s a fairly major sports story being reported all over the internet right now and it raises some interesting Libertarian questions for me. A football player named Josh Gordon is being suspended for one full season because he tested positive for … alcohol.

At first glance it would seem a severe punishment but there are some circumstances that make it more reasonable. The question it brings to my mind is that perhaps we as a society are too interested in the private lives of people and in the long run it does us no good. Let me detail the situation completely.

Gordon went to Baylor to play college football and received his first suspension when police found he and a teammate asleep at a Taco Bell with marijuana in their car. A year later Gordon tested positive for marijuana and was kicked off the team. He then sat out a year and became eligible for the NFL draft where the Cleveland Browns selected him in the second round.

He had an excellent rookie season and a spectacular second season making the NFL all-star game, the Pro Bowl. He was widely considered one of the best young wide receivers in the league. During that off-season he was arrested for driving while impaired and suspended for ten games during the 2014 season. When he returned he played well although had some internal discipline issues with the Browns. Because of the DWI arrest he became subject to an NFL policy where they are allowed to test him for alcohol in his bloodstream. If he is found to have such he then becomes a second time offender by the rules and is suspended for the season. That is what just transpired.

The rules were clear and Gordon apparently drank when he knew doing so would make him subject to severe penalties. That’s his responsibility and his mistake. I don’t exonerate or excuse him. What troubles me as a Libertarian is the policy itself. I can understand an escalation of penalties for criminal activities or methods taken to gain a competitive advantage on the field of play. The entire NFL anti-drug policy started out as a way to test for Performance Enhancing Drugs but it now reeks of Big Brother.

Why would Gordon be banned from ever drinking? How does that serve the NFL? I understand he had a DWI and if he did it again I would absolutely agree with the suspension. But drinking is not drinking while driving.

I find it to be a microcosm of what is going on in the United States. A person’s entire life is somehow open for review. Anyone who tells a joke that doesn’t come across as it was intended is vilified. While our government is busy finding a plethora of things to make illegal it seems we ourselves are finding new ways to judge one another negatively. We rule people out for jobs not based on their talent and ability but simply because they said or did something that some people find offensive.

It’s my opinion that we should be judged on our actual performance. If someone is a racist but makes hiring and firing decisions solely on performance then their racism is not my business. If someone is a drunk but does their work in superior fashion then their drinking choices are their decisions. If someone is gay, an atheist, an evangelical Christian, a Muslim, spends their free time watching porn, eats only fast food, drives a gas guzzler, drives a Prius, plays with dolls, or anything else legal that doesn’t effect their performance then I need to mind my own business.

Do I have to be friends with a racist? No. That’s my decision to make.

I understand the counterpoint. If a person is a racist I don’t want him working for me. If a person drinks I don’t want her working for me because my values are different. It’s my business and my rules.

I certainly think the NFL has the right to make their work policies and enforce them.

I’m just asking if all this judging is making us better or not? Are we eliminating highly qualified people from jobs because of things that are completely irrelevant to their performance? I’m of the opinion that we are and it’s not healthy. I can see how people will disagree.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

162 – 2 Basketball Game Suspension for Coach – What does it Mean?

Posted on by

162-0 scoreI’m a sports fan and I’ve written about lopsided victories in sporting events before. There’s a new one in the news and this one resulted in the coach of the winning team being given a two game suspension by school administrators.

What I want to talk about today is not the nature of a lopsided loss and the responsibility of the coach of the dominant team. If you want my opinion on that please read my other post on the subject. What I want to talk about today is the general tone in the comments section. There is a sizable percent of people who find the suspension of the coach to be an example of the downfall of the United States. They argue that the point of a game is to win and if your opponent can’t stop you from scoring you shouldn’t stop scoring.

They point to this idea as why the United States is growing weaker in the world. That the proper attitude is to attempt to crush your opponent and that in the good old days of our country no one would have blinked at such a humiliation. They would have told the opposition to get better.

I have some sympathy for this idea in that if you lose a game your reaction should be to attempt to get better. You should work harder and learn from the defeat. However, I completely disagree with the idea that in years past such behavior would have been cheered on and that destroying an obviously inferior opponent was proof of your strength.

It’s my opinion that such behavior is actually proof of your weakness.

I think that previous generations knew that strength came not from humiliating those weaker than you. Strength came from not humiliating them. That a good coach, a strong coach, knows immediately that his team is superior and gives younger players a chance to play. Such a coach does what she or he can to limit the damage and embarrassment. Perhaps this means waiting until the shot clock runs out. Forcing the players to pass a certain number of times before shooting. Putting players in unfamiliar positions. I think there was a time in this country where we were secure enough in ourselves that we didn’t need to prove it with ostentatious displays.

There was a time when winning wasn’t everything. When sportsmanship ruled. We still applaud sportsmanship when we see it. Contrary to what Charlie Sheen and most of the United States seems to think anymore, life shouldn’t be measured in wins and losses. I think truly strong people understand that and in generations past a life was not so judged. Integrity, honor, courage, kindness, generosity. These were words we used to measure a life. Not some sort of count of wins or of money accumulated.

Those days appear to be gone. Now the more massive the victory and the more we destroy and humiliate our opponent the better we somehow feel about ourselves. It’s not my job to worry about the other guy seems to be the message. If you’re looking for a reason our country is becoming weaker, then look no further than our vainglory.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to win. It’s great to win the game, to give your best effort, to defeat a worthy opponent. I’m just saying there is no strength or glory in defeating those who cannot compete against you.

Tom Liberman

I hope so too, Movie Monday – Vision Quest

Posted on by

Shute Vision QuestI happened upon a movie, Vision Quest, I saw long ago and realized it has more to say to me now than when I was a foolish young college student. Not to say I didn’t love the movie then, I did.

Vision Quest is a movie about a young man on a mission. It was filmed in Spokane, Washington in 1983 which was just down the road from where I was attending college at the University of Idaho from 1982 to 1985. So people were pretty hyped up about it. I was a cynical and unhappy person back in those days and I wanted to dislike the movie because all my friends loved it. Even then I came out of the theater realizing it was a good movie, now I realize it is a great movie.

It’s the Journey

It tells the story of an accomplished young wrestler named Louden Swain, played by Matthew Modine, who wants to wrestle against the reigning state champion from a lower weight class. An already legendary wrestler named Brian Shute. Modine’s character must make-weight to wrestle in the lower class but this is not the driving force of the movie. During the course of the movie he falls in love with a young woman, played by Linda Fiorentino, who is staying with he and his father as she makes her way to San Francisco.

There are a couple of things in this movie that make it a Libertarian story. In the beginning of the film when Modine states his intention to drop a weight class and wrestle against Shute they do not gloss over the fact that this means he must displace the current wrestler at that weight class. This wrestler is played by Michael Schoeffling as Kuch. Here we have the first fantastic message of the movie. Louden defeats Kuch but Kuch does not go off into a corner and weep. He does not plan and plot against Louden. He helps his friend in the quest. He realizes he was defeated and goes about his business like a man. That’s a fantastic message. A message which doesn’t focus on revenge but simply doing the best you can despite any setbacks life throws your way.

The movie, based on a book by Terry Davis, slowly and beautifully shows us that it is Louden’s attempt that makes him a winner. He sees something that will be very difficult and takes the steps necessary to succeed. Will he succeed? Will he fail. In the book we don’t find out because it ends just as the match begins but the movie, of course, had to give us closure. I prefer the book’s ending. It is the journey, the Vision Quest, that makes us better. Not winning or losing.

I Hope So Too

The greatest and most important point in the movie, from my perspective at least, is when Louden and Kuch go to visit Shute as he is working out. Louden shouts out to Shute who looks up and they engage in a short but astoundingly powerful conversation. Shute asks Louden if he will make weight, thus enabling the match between the two. Louden says he hopes so. Shute replies, “I hope so too.”

That right there is everything I try to convey in all my blogs, in all my novels. “I hope so too.” In most movies Shute would be portrayed as the bad guy. We’d see him hitting his girlfriend or bullying a smaller kid. Not in this movie. In this movie Shute, the bad guy, is looking forward to the tough challenge as much as is Louden. Why? Because he also knows that to be strong you must test yourself against others who are strong. Man, what a scene! That’s the kind of writing I strive to achieve.

That’s a motto to carry forward in life. Welcome the challenges and strive to win but don’t be despondent in defeat. You will live to fight another day, another battle, and you will be the stronger for it. This message that victory is everything corrupts. It is a bad message, a wrong message. Fight hard, fight fair, do your best and you’ll be a winner, even in defeat.

Tom Liberman

Stan Kroenke and the St. Louis Rams

Posted on by

Stan-KroenkeAnyone who reads my blog with any regularity knows I’m from St. Louis, a huge sports fan, and holder of Rams season tickets. The big story around here the last few weeks involves the owner of the Rams being part of a group that is building a new football stadium in Los Angeles.

It’s no secret that the NFL would like to have a team in the largest market in the United States. It’s also no secret that Stan Kroenke is unhappy with the stadium here in St. Louis and is in the middle of negotiations to build a new one. He wants the city to provide much of the money while the city would prefer he funded the effort.

The implicit threat is that if Kroenke doesn’t get his way he will move the Rams to Los Angeles. There’s nothing new going on here. Mr. Kroenke has been playing this game with the city of St. Louis and the state of Missouri since he purchased controlling interest in the team back in 2010.

What I want to talk about today is a recent news story that’s been making the rounds. Since the announcement of the stadium plan in L.A. there has been a lot of hand-wringing here in St. Louis. State and city leaders joined the fray when they announced to the press that Mr. Kroenke wasn’t returning their calls and they were taking their case directly to the NFL.

Let me preface my comments by saying I’m a huge Rams fan. I love the team and think they are on their way back to the elite in the NFL. Maybe I’m delusional but I want the team to stay in St. Louis so I can cheer them onto to their next Super Bowl victory. I am rooting for the community leaders and Mr. Kroenke to work out a plan. That being said ….

Boo hoo, Mr. Governor, Mr. House Majority Leader, Mr. Mayor. When you encouraged Mr. Kroenke to purchase majority ownership of the Rams you invited a tough businessman to the table. When you’ve got a man like Mr. Kroenke opposite you it’s time to put on your big-boy pants. I’m of the opinion that Mr. Kroenke would like to keep the team here in Missouri. It’s his home state. His family is from here and many of his friends. Mr. Kroenke doesn’t let that change his game face.

What’s the biggest card in the deck for those who want to pressure Mr. Kroenke to stay? Hey, Stan, there ain’t no stadium in L.A. so your threats to move don’t scare me. Well, boys, Mr. Kroenke comes to play.

He’s not returning your calls? Then stop calling him.

Going behind his back to the NFL to plead with them not only doesn’t make you look strong but I also think it’s a stupid play. The NFL cares a lot more about keeping Mr. Kroenke happy, he’s the second or third wealthiest owner in the league, than it does about any Missouri politicians or a fan like me. I doubt seriously Mr. Kroenke would have gone ahead with this L.A. stadium plan if he didn’t have solid backing from the other owners about bringing a team to L.A. whether it be the Rams or someone else.

What Mr. Kroenke did was take away a chip from his opponents and potentially make a lucrative deal to lease the new stadium to whatever team moves there even if he gets the stadium he wants in St. Louis. Tough, good, business. I’ll tell you this, I wouldn’t want to be on the other side of the negotiation table from Mr. Kroenke. And if I found myself in that position I’d certainly be making my plans with great care. Not whining about how he won’t answer the phone.

You want the team to stay in St. Louis. Hammer something out. Don’t give away the farm, because Mr. Kroenke won’t respect that either. There’s money to be made by everyone when it comes to the NFL. No doubt there’s more money in L.A. than St. Louis but L.A. has failed to support a team before. There are dangers in the move. There is stiff competition from the City by the Bay, Alameda County, and down Route 1.

Don’t whine, don’t run to the press, don’t look to the NFL to save you. Figure out a plan that can work for the city, the state, and for Mr. Kroenke. Give his executive assistant a call and invite him to a dinner next Thursday at Tony’s. Call ahead and make sure Vince is there to make Bananas Foster table-side for dessert. A round of Booker’s bourbon, with a splash of water of course, might not hurt negotiations either.

Go Rams!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

 

Kobe Bryant Doesn’t Like the AAU and Corporate Profiteering

Posted on by

kobe-aauThere is an interesting sports story making its way through the various news outlets and it brought something to my attention of which I was unaware. All-time NBA superstar Kobe Bryant recently made some comments about the way young U.S. basketball players are being coached and prepared for the future. He didn’t pull any punches. He also talked about treating the young players like “cash cows”.

He suggested that the Amateur Athletic Union’s (AAU) Basketball arm was largely encouraging young players to perform highlight reel plays rather than learn fundamental basketball skills. That this leads to a lack of basic skills in players all the way up the chain to the NBA. When Kobe talks about the AAU he is also speaking of some leagues you have likely never heard of called EYBL, Adidas Uprising, and the UAA. He lamented that players coming from Europe have better team skills than young U.S. players and this was going to have a long term negative effect.

What I want to talk about today is his “cash cow” comment. It ties back to what he was saying about the lack of fundamental skill but also goes very strongly towards my Libertarian ideology. You have to understand what is EYBL, Adidas Uprising, the UAA, and the new model of the AAU based upon the existence of these other leagues.

Let’s jump back into our time machine to examine youth sports fifty years ago. There was little in the way of traveling teams and the vast majority of players learned their skills from local coaches with a few making select AAU teams. That world no longer exists. EYBL is a Nike organized youth league. Uprising is Adidas and UAA is Under Armour. The main purpose of these leagues is to make money, not develop overall player skills. These corporate leagues do focus on highlight reel plays although there are certainly good coaches in their ranks who work on fundamentals. The players in the leagues travel all over the country to sold-out stadiums to play in All-Star games and one regional “Championship” after the next. The parents of these players shell out big bucks to play in the league. These leagues quickly sucked up all the talented players leaving the AAU to follow the business model or die.

Agents associate themselves with the brightest young talents and their parents. Corporate sponsors make friends with the players who will journey on to college and potentially the NBA with an eye towards the bottom line for Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. They are, for all practical purposes, professional development leagues making money and channeling players towards their agency and products.

What Kobe Bryant says is absolutely true. The players are focusing on big plays to the detriment of their fundamental skills and corporate sponsorship is making big bucks while the players provide the entertainment. Certainly the top level players are gaining keen competitive advantages by playing against the most talented young athletes from other parts of the country that they would never otherwise have competed against. This does serve them well when they transition to high school, college, and potentially NBA careers. So they are profiting to some degree.

Is this corporate takeover of youth athletics a bad thing? A good thing? I think there are arguments to be made both ways.

People are paying to see these young athletes play. Parents are willingly forking over big chunks of cash to allow their children to play even if their dreams of eventual professional stardom and return for their investments are unlikely to be realized. The kids are traveling the country playing a sport they love.

On the other hand the kids are being used to generate large sums of money while getting very little, and no actual payment, in return. This runs counter to my capitalistic ideology. Those who do the work should be getting a share of their profits, as do those who run the league. Parents are being manipulated by promises of eventual college scholarships and huge paydays in the professional leagues. Only a small percentage of these promises are met.

We see this same corporate takeover with Marching Bands, Cheer Competitions, and a variety of other youth pastimes. Things that used to be for kids are now for adults and focus largely on profits. Various companies create artificial “championships” in which parents pay for uniforms, travel, tickets, and sundry other items which all generate profit for the corporations.

I’m not against making money. I think if kids want to participate in these leagues, if parents want to shell out money to have their kids play, and if spectators want to watch then that’s fine.

What Kobe doesn’t like and where I agree with him is that the kids seem to be getting the least from all of it. I don’t think corporate leagues are going away simply because of the profit involved. I do think the kids doing the work should be compensated just as you are paid for working at your job. The kids doing the work should be treated as employees, not cash cows. They should be paid either directly or in some deferred manner. After all, we are not communists.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Ndamukong Suh and Aaron Rodgers

Posted on by

suh steps on rodgersThis past weekend in the NFL I saw my downtrodden St. Louis Rams end yet another losing season but I also witnessed one of the most despicable acts in sports that I’ve seen in many a year. There is some controversy over the play in question but I have no doubts.

Detroit Lion’s defensive lineman Ndamukong Suh stepped on Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodger’s leg. Not such a big deal you say? I beg to differ.

Before I go on, I’d like to say that I’m no Cheesehead. The Lions are, like my Rams, the ugly step-child of the NFL. I watch as year after year the favored sons (Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and New England) have every marginal call go their way. It’s infuriating as Rodgers gets away with rule-breaking that is called on whoever is quarterbacking the Rams. That being said I have a huge problem with what Suh did in the game.

Rodgers hurt his leg early in the game but returned to play. I may hate him for getting all the calls but there is no denying his toughness and talent. In the incident in question Suh stepped on Rodger’s hurt leg twice. At first glance of the replay it looks like it could easily have been accidental, it wasn’t. If you watch the incident closely you see that Suh only managed a glancing shot the first time and came back for more. The second time he paused, lifted his other foot, and pushed down with all his weight on Rodger’s calf. Rodger’s swats at Suh who then walks off apparently not realizing what has happened. Ha.

Here’s what happened and why I think it’s so horrible. Suh knew that Rodgers was injured. He knew that there would be an opportunity to hit the injured leg and he made his plans. When that opportunity arose he stepped backwards with cool and calculated nonchalance. He missed and took another crack at it. Then he pretended nothing happened and walked off feigning ignorance to the event. That is calculation, that is malice, that is intent to injure.

The natural reaction when accidentally stepping on an opponent is to immediately put the opposite foot on the ground and take weight off the standing foot. I played rugby, I was stepped on and stepped on others. When stepping that obviously on an opponent you know it. Suh knew it. There is no way he didn’t realize it but he pretended he didn’t. That’s a dead giveaway. Had he turned and feigned an apology I would have some doubt about if it was intentional or not. He didn’t do anything of the sort. He wanted to hurt Rodgers and he wanted to pretend it was unintentional.

Last week a teammate of Suh stomped an opponent in a fit of anger. I have no sympathy for Dominic Raiola but I at least understand rage. I’ve been angry and I’ve wanted to stomp an opponent for a moment before reason prevailed. But to plan, wait, and execute an attack like that with such cool disregard for another man’s livelihood? Disgusting.

Professional football is a tough game. I remember Stephen Jackson breaking his thumb and talking about how players on opposing teams squeezed it in pileups. I have a problem with that just as I have a problem with Suh. On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with attacking an injured player’s weakness within the game. If Rodgers is having trouble running then adjust your pass rush to force him from the pocket. If you tennis opponent has a weak backhand, hit it to their backhand over and over and over again.

Suh has been suspended for one game for his actions which is the playoff game next week. Personally I think he got off too easily. There are plenty of opportunities to hit an opponent legally in the NFL. I don’t have a problem with players who go at it hard and to the phantom of the whistle. That’s the game. I cannot and will not excuse such a calculated and cool attack.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Does Joe Wickline Call the Plays? It shouldn’t Matter!

Posted on by

joe wicklineI just found out about a situation that’s been brewing in NCAA football for a while now. For once it’s not about screwing over the players, everyone’s favorite whipping boys. This time it’s about a coach.

A fellow by the name of Joe Wickline worked for Oklahoma State as an offensive coach. In that capacity he advised the head coach and the offensive coordinator on what plays to run but did not make the final call. The nonsensical question the court faces is whether Wickline is calling plays for his new school, the University of Texas. Why is this such a crucial question? Because of insane employer contracts.

You see, Wickline was only allowed to leave Oklahoma State without paying a $600,000 penalty if he took a promotion at his new school. If the move was lateral, or technically a demotion, then he would be forced to pay the penalty. Insanity. I will never understand how a business can penalize an employee in the United States of America for taking another job. It’s our right to work where want and when we want as long as an employer is willing to pay us. No one should have any say about that except me and the person who wants to hire me. If I steal company ideas or clients that’s another matter but if I simply want to move from one company to another it’s completely and totally my decision.

You might wonder the point of the clause in the contact. I’ll tell you. It’s a nasty, and in my opinion clearly illegal, way to make other schools pay when they hire someone who works for the first school. In the article I’ve linked the lawyers for Oklahoma State lament the fact that Texas is not paying the fee because everyone does it! Madness. It puts a huge chill on the ability of any employee to actively sell their services. If a potential employer has two candidates but one comes with a half a million dollar fee associated with him or her that clearly effects hiring practices. How this is not illegal mystifies me.

Shame on the anyone who writes such a contract. Shame on any judge who upholds it. Capitalism depends on people being able to sell their services to the highest bidder. It’s not just about making an environment where competition thrives and government doesn’t stifle it. It’s not just for the company, it’s all about the employee as well. Contracts like this stifle capitalism and the free market.

In the immortal words of Mr. Mackey, “m’kay?”

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

Character Above all Else in the NFL

Posted on by

Roger GoodellThe National Football League suffered a serious blow to their image over the Ray Rice incident. I wrote about it back in September of 2014. Now the Commissioner of the League, Roger Goodell, has come out with a statement that he hopes will alleviate some of the damage.

It goes on for a bit but the part I want to discuss today goes like this: Character and values sits above everything else …

I have a thought about that: A ha ha haha haaaa haaa, a haa haaaaa haaaaaa!!!

I do not laugh because it’s a funny situation. It’s not. Ray Rice knocked out his wife with a single punch. She precipitated the blow by yelling at him, punching him, and spitting on him. The league suspended him for two games initially but months later increased the suspension because people saw the video. The arbitrators between the union of players and league ruled that Goodell had violated the rules and reinstated Rice (something I argued for in my original post). It’s far from funny. It is disturbing in many ways. Today’s blog isn’t about that. It’s about the blatant lie that Goodell just told.

The NFL is about a lot of things but the character of the players does not come before everything else. The league wants to make money. The various teams want to win games and make money. The players want to succeed, win games, and get paid more money. What comes first? Winning and with it money. Now, I fully understand that if the league fails to punish players who do things that society abhors that might cut into their profits. Therefore the behavior of players, management, and owners is of some importance. I don’t dispute that members of the NFL organization would like to eliminate domestic violence completely. They would like to end serious head injuries. But to say character and values sit above everything else is rank hypocrisy. It almost makes my ears bleed.

Almost all athletic endeavors place the ability to play the game well above everything else. Who was chosen first in grade school gym class? The smart kids? Of course not. There are plenty of intelligent and ethical athletes who play football at every level. If a team refused to play anyone with character issues they wouldn’t win a game. You’re good to your wife and kids, you’ve never broken the law, you have an ethical code? Whoop Dee Doo, can you ball?

I love my St. Louis Rams. I truly do. Janoris Jenkins was drafted after having been kicked off his college team for marijuana use. He was a 22 year old kid with multiple children from different women. Don’t be fooled though, he can play. Every year teams draft players who were involved in domestic violence incidents, who failed drug tests, who have a difficult time keeping their pecker in their pocket. But they can ball. And that’s what is most important. It’s not just players. Coaches and owners have broken the law and done unethical things. Can they bring home a winner is the question most asked of such people.

I’m bothered by such blatant falsehoods. It’s as if he thinks he can look us right in the eye and lie knowing we don’t care as long as it’s what we want to hear. It’s as if the truth doesn’t matter.

As Master On says in my novel The Black Sphere: What you wish to be true is irrelevant. Only a child believes what they desire to be real is actually so. 

I have but a single question for Commission Goodell: Do you consider getting up on a podium and telling obvious lies to a national audience be a trait of those with character and value?

Tom Liberman