Should Rush Buy an NFL Team? Why Not?
This is the question on the lips of both sports aficionados and political pundits alike this week. Rush Limbaugh is looking at the possibility of purchasing (or at least co-owning) the National Football Leagues St. Louis Rams franchise. At the heart of the controversy are a number of comments Rush has made over the years which some observers felt were racist in nature, particularly one 2003 show where he said that some people in the sports media were overly interested in seeing Donovan McNabb succeed because he was an African American quarterback. (For the record, I always thought McNabb was overrated, no matter what his skin color is.)
I should state right up front that I don’t listen to Rush. (This may come as a shock to some of our more liberal readers who assume I’m a member of a vague, conservative boys’ club which must all march in lockstep, so I’ll give you a moment to grab the smelling salts.) I find Rush to be an unabashed hyper-partisan with no interest in fairness, frequently incorrect, and in general… a blowhard. But Rush is an entertainer, no matter how much that statement may enrage some of my conservative friends. Much like Howard Stern, Ed Schultz or any other radio talking heads, he has a lot of time to fill and a lot of advertising space to sell. He does this by being as shocking as possible and appealing to the more base instincts of a niche audience, albeit a rather large niche. The man has every right to make a living and he seems to do so quite nicely. I just don’t care to listen.
But should his comments and opinions bar him from spending his money as he chooses and purchasing a sports franchise? I don’t see why. It’s a business, and as such, anyone with the money to do so should be able to bid on it, providing they don’t have other interests (owning a competing team) or criminal problems (e.g. sports gambling, etc.) which would preclude such an investment. If Rush wants to buy the Rams, I say go for it.
Of course, the fans and players are equally free to express their displeasure with his ownership if they wish by voting with their feet and wallets. In fact, a number of players have already come out and said that they would leave the game of football altogether rather than play for a team owned by Limbaugh. This is, as I said, their right as well. Nobody is forced to play, just as nobody is forced to buy a ticket and attend the games. It’s similar to the Eagles when they chose to put a convicted animal abuser in as their backup quarterback. It’s their right to do it and it’s our right to root against their team and not attend their games if we object.
Rush Limbaugh is a controversial figure and there’s no doubt about that. But I’ve yet to hear any convincing argument that he shouldn’t be able to invest his money in that business interest if he wishes. Let’s not confuse partisan political arguments with private investment, folks.
Share This
This is analogous to the property rights debate. One point of view is that if you own some property you should be able to do what you want with it. The counter view is that other people's property may be damaged by what you do to your property. That's why most communities don't allow trailer homes parked next to high end neighborhoods.
The concern is that Limbaugh's ownership of an NFL franchise would be bad for pro football in general. Many of his statements have been offensive to a large number of players, and I can understand how they might resent playing for someone who they may have a visceral contempt for.
Furthermore one of the great things about sports is that it can unify a community, but Limbaugh has made a living creating controversy and polarizing people.
I can't see Limbaugh as being good for the NFL as a whole, so in this case I fell that the NFL has a limited right to control who owns a team, and reject any bid by him.
I agree with ElZagna above. Limbaugh has made his fortune by being a divisive figure. While he has every right to do so, the consequences of that are he may not be suitable to own a team in a league that stresses unity and wants to appeal to a wide range of fans.
jazz
You mentioned the primary reason not to allow this purchase. The value of the franchise will go down due to the fact that existing assets state they will not play for the Rams with Rush's partial ownership and future draft picks could well refuse as well.
Dave Checkets, the principal partner in this proposed purchase, currently owns the Blues hockey team, and he would not have made that purchase a few years ago if Canadians had publicly stated they would refuse to play due to contentious statements made by a co-owner.
Free speech is a right, but what you say has a cost. Maybe if Limbaugh hadn't amassed his fortune by belittling a quarterback via racial overtones, then he'd not have to face the blow back caused by his intemperate words.
I agree with everyone. There are consequences for establishing yourself as a polarizing figure.
Already, many of the players are going on record saying that they would refuse to play for Limbaugh. He gave an interview recently which seemed to be trying to create the impression that he's largely been misunderstood by the public at large and the MSM. Would he have given the interview if he wasn't trying to acquire ownership of the team? I strongly doubt it, just as I doubt that we have misunderstood his motives or political impact.
Rush has been saying that in interviews since he got famous in the 90's. Much like him saying he is a comedian it tends to be used when he feels he needs to soften his image a bit, of course without actually making any changes.
IMO, Rush can buy whatever he has the money to buy.
“Rush has been saying that in interviews since he got famous in the 90's. Much like him saying he is a comedian it tends to be used when he feels he needs to soften his image a bit, of course without actually making any changes”
I realized the part about him being an entertainer. It also helps his listeners justify their choice of radio stations. I mean who would want to admit that they listen to a hardcore, race-baiting, misogynist?
“At the heart of the controversy are a number of comments Rush has made over the years which some observers felt were racist in nature…”
Rush can buy any team he wants.
I'm sure he would save the team lots of money by cutting salaries of certain players to be 60% of the salaries of other players on his team. Saving money in business, especially these days, is very important.
Rush is free to try to buy whatever he wants, but buying an NFL team isn't like going to Wal-Mart. The purchase has be approved by the NFL owners. I seriously doubt that they feel his ownership would be good for the NFL. It will be a publicity nightmare that will damage their product. A very valuable product that they are trying to take international. The last thing they need is a publicly racist owner.
There is no way they will allow Rush to become an owner.
Yeah, sure this bloviating racist pig can buy whatever he wants. Gonna be hard to make any money from his investment without any black players or fans though, isn't it?
It's hard to leave politics out when he is such a polarizing figure. If it is good for the NFL is something for them to decide, if it's good for the Rams? We have a team who has lost 15 straight and is only being looked at to be moved. Rush is from the area, doesn't want to move the team, big sports fan, new money and new enthusiasm. It would be a positive move for the Rams. As to players leaving, well most of them suck and the rest would probably be talked into staying.
It's another low moment for the Left. One expression after another of hatred toward Limbaugh (who is a well-known dissenter from the Pee-Cee Conformity Uber Alles) is hypocritically made in the name of fighting “hate” [sic], and yet another thing is being politicized (at the expense of ethics and morality as well as logic) by the Left.
Normal people instead wonder — if he or if others buy the team, which is for sale, will it stay or leave?
(Orlando is a long-growing, overdue Florida city still awaiting an NFL team, and LA is still the Holy Grail.)
Considering the motivation factor of playing a team that is owned by a racist that every opposing player will have, I can see a string of 0 win seasons for the Rams if they allow Rush to buy the team.
They won't be able to sign free agents and their draft picks will either sit out and get redrafted or bail as soon as their contracts allow. The good players, the ones that win games, will always find a way to leave.
They will be the whitest team in the NFL…which is fitting for a state that has a highway adopted by the KKK.
“The concern is that Limbaugh's ownership of an NFL franchise would be bad for pro football in general.”
Or merely for the Rams. The thing to do is to find out what consequences may actually be serious — removed from the resentful kids' stuff we're routinely seeing, which is largely a temper tantrum and another eruption of viciousness underlying political correctness and similar politics. Would there be refusals of players actually to play? (They should be banned from playing anywhere, not only on the Rams, if they refuse to play for or against the Rams.) Would there be boycotts, losses of sponsors? Think here of Glenn Beck and the diseased hatred directed at him from so many, versus true effects on the programming's ratings and any true, real-world loss of sponsorship and advertising and other revenue.
The main issue with the Rams remains as before: Once it is sold, will the team stay in St. Louis (which I hope it does; I do wish the club could exchange name, insignia, etc., with the Phoenix Cardinals someday, though, and return these “Cardinal” things to St. Louis), or will it be moved, such as to LA?
Oops — the following may be too challenging, but some need to learn from it if they can, nevertheless.
Should Greg Louganis be stripped of his Olympic awards and gays prevented from Olympic participation on “morality” or other “socially conservative” grounds?
LA is only used as a threat by the NFL to convince host cities to build new stadiums instead of new roads. LA isn't an NFL city. The NFL doesn't like being a second class sport in any town. In LA, they would be behind the Lakers, USC football, UCLA basketball and the Dodgers.
We are getting ahead of ourselves. Limbaugh and Checketts are one of a variety ownership groups, and to be honest I think the odds are against Rush. If one of the other bidding ownership groups offers the same type of money and the guarantee of remaining in St. Louis, I would be surprised if NFL owners don't select the lower risk and less controversial investors.
Of course, the Dittoheads and others supporters will probably scream the NFL is being PC or its too scared. What they fail to realize is that perception and the dreaded PC does in fact impact business and the bottom line.
If Limbaugh/Checketts do offer more cash and location guarantee, it will be interest to see how much of a public role Rush will take as liberals and Dems money is just as valuable as Republicans money, and St. Louis continues to be a very Dem town.
Personally, it doesn't really matter to me. I am a Seahawks fan… so I already root against the Rams.
They should definitely get the Cardinals nickname back. It is a crucial part of the city's sports history.
And I really truly don't care if a bunch of NFL owners allow Rush to join their elite little group, especially if he get out of Checketts way and let him run day-to-day operations.
Maybe Rush can prove the superiority of the white race by hiring the only all white team in the NFL:-(
“LA isn't an NFL city.”
I know. Even before I lived there for a while, I knew. It's not only the Holy Grail (because of the size of the broadcast market as well as the metro area and potential attendence, on paper), but as I have written elsewhere, a city of “perpetual promise” or something like that (evoking post-World-War-II idealists' views decades ago about Brasil, such as during the time of creation of Brasilia as the capital, but which for so long has been met with reality that deflates the idealism — it “has great promise and it always will,” which remains the cynical view of LA). There's so much to do in LA that football is just one of many options, and there hasn't been that much interest. That's why Al Davis's sojurn failed, and why the Rams left. That is also why I have not only thought about LA, but about other cities, and why I have used Orlando as an example of an alternative growing, probably-ambitious Sun Belt destination for the team. Los Angeles? Good luck; others have tried, and they have failed. Even if the NFL (all the clubs and all the people paying extra for tickets to attend games everywhere) builds the new team a brand new stadium, there's no guarantee of success.
“If one of the other bidding ownership groups offers the same type of money and the guarantee of remaining in St. Louis, I would be surprised if NFL owners don't select the lower risk and less controversial investors.”
Certainly the children would cheer Limbaugh's Defeat if that were to happen. [rolling eyes] But the most sound decision is what should be made, in an ideal world. If Limbaugh, fine, if others, fine, too.
Insofar as staying in St. Louis, would the new owners try to hold up the city (as has already been asked aloud by one writer) for a new stadium?
I would prefer the team stay there, as I like St. Louis, and I wish it would get its Redbirds stuff back.
[NFL going to Los Angeles]
“It's not only the Holy Grail”
It's like the Westerners going to China with dreams of getting rich from the World's Greatest Market.
I'll just add (I waited for someone else to have the chance to post it first) that last night's game was a reminder again about hypocrisy — it's okay for some celebrities to be team owners, so long as they aren't objects of liberal-orthodox hatred. Who are the owners of the Miami Dolphins football club?
What? Not a J-Lo fan?
Let's see. The Rams have about 17% as much talent as the average NFL team. Rush is the ideological darling of about 17% of the population. Match made in heaven!
Well, I don't listen to Rush's radio show, so can someone tell me what “racist” comments he has made that A: were not taken completely out of context or B: made up on wikiquote and then cited by idiots like Jack Huberman.
His comments on McNabb alone smack of racism. White kids in Obama's america…. he's a racist. That being said, he hasn't publicly said, “I hate black people”. He says enough to get his point across without actually saying it…which is why the NFL won't allow him ownership.
If Rush's comments about McNabb weren't enough there are rumors he is planning on renaming the team the 'St. Louis Monkeys' which has come under fire from NFL.
http://wp.me/pBfFK-fv
If not a racist, a race-baiter, which is even worse.
He actually mainly satirizes race baiters (as in the comments that shannonlee alluded to about 'white kids in Obama's America.')
The trouble is though that like all celebrities, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He enjoys stirring the pot, and profits by the publicity it gets him to say provocative things. The things themselves, when properly understood, are not racist (I don't believe he is racist at all, to be frank.) But he deliberately frames things in a way that is easily misunderstood, so that lines taken out of context are used against him (by which he profits from the extra media attention.)
But now that the media narrative and image that he's built up is hampering his attempt to buy this team, he is playing the victim. It's a lot like general celebrity love/hate relationship with paparazzi. I don't have much sympathy with them because they reaped the benefits and then also have to pay the price.