They follow the money, but the NFL protects its brand. Andrew Brandt
The “rush” to judgment by Dave Checketts and the potential ownership group trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams was certainly swift and decisive. In the face of a swirl of negative attention this week, Checketts bailed on Rush Limbaugh.
APDave Checketts dropped Rush Limbaugh from his bid to purchase the Rams.
In the end, this “Limbaugh episode” brought out some emotions that -- depending on one’s view of things -- were either raw and bubbling under the surface or were simply politically correct, something Limbaugh certainly is not.
Players immediately came forward to say they would not play for him, with the inference being that the Rams would become a team that would have to overpay to sign free-agents, assuming they would be willing to play there at all.As to that argument, well, no. It’s nice that Bart Scott, who just received the largest contract ever given to a linebacker, could say that he would never play for Limbaugh. However, like Scott, who shunned his old team to go for the bigger deal with the Jets, players want to go where there is (1) money and (2) opportunity. Having recruited players to Green Bay -- certainly not the most geographically desirable place to live for young black players -- for nine years, I found that the way to overcome any problems with location was simple: Show them the money.
Do we really think that Jason Brown, who on Feb. 28 received by far the largest contract ever given to a center (five years, $37.5 million, with $20 million guaranteed), would not have signed with the Rams if Limbaugh were part of the ownership group? Please.
Reggie White was the first premier free agent in the NFL and was recruited by multiple teams. As we know, he signed with the Packers, who were offering considerably more than other teams. In 2006, I recruited Charles Woodson to come to the Packers so hard I felt like the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce. In the end, the financial package ruled the day. Terrell Owens went to Buffalo this spring for one reason: an offer superior than anyone else offered. Players would have gone to the Rams with or without Limbaugh in the ownership group. They follow the money.
APLimbaugh's return to the NFL conversation was brief.
On the ownership side, Colts owner Jim Irsay denounced the potential bid, delivering the first shot across the bow to Checketts, as if to say, “Don’t expect my vote in your attempt to get two-thirds of the clubs to support your bid.” And Commissioner Roger Goodell chimed in with a more moderate, although impactful, comment: “We’re all held to a high standard here, and I think divisive comments are not what we’re all about, so I would not want to see those comments from people who are in responsible positions in the NFL. No, absolutely not.’’
Translation: We have one of the most respected brands in all of sports and business. We are in a challenging environment for fans and sponsors, and the last thing we need is a polarizing figure to potentially tarnish our brand.
And, of course, the usual suspects -- Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton -- took their place on the bully pulpit with outrage, leading a chorus of boos against Checketts for including Limbaugh and setting the stage for further action if the process moved forward.
Faced with an onslaught of negativity from players, owners, the NFL, community leaders, fans and media, Checketts buckled to the mounting pressure and released Limbaugh from his ownership team, setting him free to pursue other interests should he so desire, and removing a potential obstacle in the bid to purchase the Rams.
The lingering question I have after this little episode: What was Checketts thinking? Did he think this would be kept quiet by Limbaugh? Did he think this polarizing figure would not affect his bid? Did he not foresee the issue of race coming front and center with the addition of Limbaugh?
In the end, the NFL did what it had to do -- through its discouraging comments about the bid -- to protect the brand. Checketts did what he had to do to protect his attempt to buy the Rams. And Limbaugh will continue to do what he does, with a profile raised even higher through another immersion -- however brief and uneventful -- into the consciousness of NFL fans everywhere.
Follow me on Twitter: adbrandt
Jay-Z was rumored for a long time to be interested in purchasing the New Jersey Nets - while it was just rumor, there was never any speculation as far as whether or not Jay-Z would be able to get 'approved' Can we imagine what would have happened if David Stern had been quoted in regard to Jay-Z using the same logic?
“We’re all held to a high standard here, and I think "violent and misogynistic rap lyrics" are not what we’re all about, so I would not want to see those comments from people who are in responsible positions in the NBA. No, absolutely not.’’
What if Keith Olberman wanted to buy in? Or Bill Maher?
I think the most interesting aspect of this whole thing is how horrendously Checketts has botched this whole episode. This guy is supposed to be some sports business guru but didn't forsee an issue here? Now there are rumors flying that George Soros is a potential investor for this group, yet another controversial political activist?
What gives the entire episode a very shady appearance was the lack of any attempt whatsoever by Checketts to step up to the plate in defense of his own personal decision - to bring Rush into his group. Checketts isn't after business partners in this venture - he just wants a Sugar Daddy to pay for the shiny new toy he wants to buy.
The reality is that at the end of the day, Andrew is correct - Rush as an owner would not have prevented players from playing on the Rams. If Al Davis can still get players, any potential owner could. But this Checketts character looks like bad things waiting to happen.
Scott-
You bring up a good point about the Raiders. We hear every year about how no one wants to stay with them or sign with them, yet they retain most of their pending free agents -- Asomugha, Lechler, etc. -- and are able to sign free agents. The reason: follow the money. Al Davis will pay players.
I find it interesting that the NFL somehow was "protecting its brand" when it cravenly kowtowed to some of the most divisive and intolerant figures in america, eg Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Maybe the league was acting to ensure that leftwing sportswriters would not attack them, but I have to wonder how the vast majority of fans and ticket buyers feel. They've just been told that their money will be accepted, but that their political opinions are unacceptable to the princes of the NFL.
Of course, the Irsays weren't all that concerned about fans when they sneaked the Colts out of Baltimore under cover of darkness. Now they are too good for the likes of Limbaugh. As for people speaking out on controversial issues, obviously Goodell must not have had a problem when league icon Dan Rooney effectivley accused other owners of being racists when he forced through the league's version of affirmative action, the Rooney Rule.
This episode is not about avoiding controversy. That is unavoidable. It's about picking sides. The league has made a choice and or at least a couple of loudmouths made the choice for the rest of the owners. Now they will have to live with the consequences.
Andy,
You're hilarious.
Papa Rush begs to play the victim and you're only too glad to help him. Makes one wonder about your financial dealings. Andy, be sure to post all of your financial holdings, both onshore and offshore, for the past five years. Not the ones you give to the IRS, but the real deal. Include all the LLCs and LLPs. If there's no shame in your game, and none of Rush's green in your screen, it shouldn't be a problem.
So Al Michaels, Limbaugh's longtime drinking and Dominican buddy, and Bob McNair, the second-largest NFL contributor to the Cheney Administration, are whining that Rush got dumped. And to think some of us used to believe in miracles.
Keep propping up your financial sugar daddy, Andy. With each keystroke, you only reveal your blind lust for money and the forfeiture of your integrity.
Or don't you guys believe in personal responsibility anymore?
Al Davis proves my point. The Raiders have a hard time putting together a complete and competetive roster, and have to overpay to retain their own players. There are some players who will follow the Money, but when was the last time you saw a pro bowl quality free agent from another team choose to go to Oakland? Warren Sapp? How'd that work out for him?
The weird thing is that Rush didn't say anything racist. He said McNabb was over-rated. That doesn't mean he's bad or inferior or whatever. It just means he's improperly rated, in Rush's opinion. He wasn't saying that McNabb was good or bad, let alone good or bad because of his race. If anything, he was perhaps accusing the NFL of being racist. That was the point of his comments.
So, I don't think it's about race. It's politics. Bart Scott and Jim Irsay are lefties, and if you're thinking you might like to buy the Rams someday, you might want to stay away from making lefties angry. That's what we learned in this.
Thanks for saving me some time. In the future, I'll just skip right over anything with your name on it.
Barack the Magic Negro. That's all you need to know. Limbaugh can't put that genie back in the bottle. He panders to the worst instincts of the worst members of society. There is a long list of published comments from Limbaugh that declare his racism. And he stands by all of them. So don't blame the league or some "angry lefties" for Limbaugh's failure. He owns that all himself. A lot of people just don't like a$$holes, and don't want to work with or for them, no matter how much cash is on the line.
...and a lot of people have no use for a$$holes like Keith Olbermann and Bart Scott... I'm guessing if Bart Scott's overated a$$ was cut and the only owner out there was Rush Limbaugh, he'd take the money in a heartbeat....
Let Andy Brandt tell you about his ties to AIPAC, Heritage, WINEP, and AEI. And his family's holdings (you don't think Andy got this gig or into Wharton on merit? get serious) in certain Israeli defense companies.
The Brandts have long had financial allegiances with Limbaugh and his ilk on the far, far right.
Disagree with the author. Regardless if it is right or wrong, there would have been so much crap stirred up about Limbaugh, that many black (and some whites) would have been under immense pressure not to play for the Rams. Yes, some would have, especially those near the end of their careers, but the superstars ? They'd have to be way overpaid. In some ways it reminds me of South Africa during the 1980's. A lot of pro boxers and entertainers did play at the Sun City Casino (can't remember the phony country it was in), but few of them were the major stars (Larry Homes and John McEnroe could have made millions by going to Sun City). They were under pressure not to go. Not saying Limbaugh compares to the South African government of the 1980's, but a boycott's a boycott. And the one in St Louis would have gained a lot of steam. It would have been a mess, something the league wouldn't want or need.
What Brandt failed to realize (or didn't want to acknowledge) is that there would have been pressure to boycott playing for Limbaugh's team. Whether that is right or not is irrelevant, the fact is is that it would have happened. As far as I know there wasn't any pressure for black players not to play in Green Bay or for the Raiders. So his comparrison doesn't make much sense
Hey Mark:
"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
- Amos Bronson Alcott
Dumping Rush wasn't about left or right politics or racism. The NFL has a team called the 'Redskins', for cryin' out loud. Goodell stated is best: They are a brand and they don't want the brand tarnished. Rush would have hurt business by distracting from the product on the field. Can you imagine El Rushbo using his radio show to slam the current CBA negotiations or if the Rams were in a heated contract dispute with a star player? Mark Cuban would never be allowed to buy into an NFL team for the same reasons. The league has enough problems with blowhards like Jerry Jones and Al Davis.
Money is not the only criteria for ownership. Rush owning a part of the team simply would have created more problems than the NFL wanted to put up with. Yes players do go where the money is. Yes some players would not have played for the Rams if Rush had been allowed to be a part owner. There is some truth to the article, the % will never be known.
I could care less about political ideologies when it comes to football. And as Andrew pointed out neither do the players. They care about money firstly and secondly, being on a good enough team that they will get noticed so they can get that all important second contract.
As for what PEOPLE want, thats a heck of a lot different. I think what we learned through all this is not that lefties think one way or righties are racists, but that people are segregated by whatever it is that they choose to segregate themselves by be it political affiliation, racist comments, or even being an ignorant a$$hole.
"Players immediately came forward to say they would not play for him, with the inference being that the Rams would become a team that would have to overpay to sign free-agents, assuming they would be willing to play there at all."
um..... what are you trying to say..... they'll follow the money.... so wouldn't this inference be true? isn't that how the Raiders keep players? by overpaying them?
| powered by TheSeats.com |
NFP's President was featured on...
Vikings and Dolphins probably...
Packers washout now starts for...
DeMaurice Smith lays out the stakes....
As uncapped year approaches, both...
Oct 15, 2009
03:21 PM
Andrew, your premise is a little unclear? Obviously Limbaugh would have some effect on free agency. Yes some players will always go where the most money is, but there are lots of other examples of players taking smaller deals for favorable conditions, or not wanting to go to certain places at all. The question is not whether a specific player would have said yes or no to a deal. The Question is whether any desireable player may be harder to sign because of Limbaugh. Teams are already competing hard for free agent signings. Why add such a big negative to getting players to sign?