Mailbag: Does the league need a respectable team in Washington? Robert Boland
A reader post in response to my story last week about the mess in Washington made an interesting connection. Whether cause and effect are present may never be proven, but it made me think. It’s the second time I’ve noted a comment from “GC in DC” so he (or she) is a very insightful reader and has raised something worth talking about more.
GC in DC wrote:
“Got question for you -- given the importance that the NFL has always attached to its relationship with Congress, is it important for the league to have at least a respectable franchise in the DC area?
APWashington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder
“If I were the league, looking at the prospect of a nasty labor fight in which my antitrust exemption could potentially be used as leverage to get me to do things I don't want to do (i.e., open up my books), I'd generally be trying to be seen as fair with my players and my fans. Snyder gives the exact opposite impression, and his team is the only one that gets daily coverage in the only paper that every single Senator and Congressman reads when Congress is in session.”
Is it merely a coincidence then that Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to be spending more time in front of Congress lately than he has at the league offices at 280 Park Ave. in New York? I don’t think GC in DC thinks members of Congress have some conspiratorial inclination toward helping the Redskins. Rather, the more nuanced question seems to be: Does perception of the Redskins influence Congress’ inclination to the league as a whole? In other words, if the Redskins are sucking wind, as they are now, does this influence how the Capital and the Congress feel about the NFL?
The answer seems a definite maybe. The NFL has come before Congress recently to ask it to close a loophole under state law that has allowed four players who tested positive in the StarCaps supplement case to avoid punishment under the league’s drug policy in its Collective Bargaining Agreement. And Goodell has also been grilled by Congressional probers about things as diverse as head injuries and Rush Limbaugh. Is Congress taking out its frustrations about the Redskins on Goodell? Probably not. But the degree of respect and even awe that Congress as a body gives the NFL is quite possibly down because of the PR mess the Redskins have become.
APCommissioner Roger Goodell
It’s true of any business that’s doing well that elected officials generally are supportive. Politicians often need to bask in the reflected glory of others for their own success. But the minute the tables turn and the business is on the defensive, the more Congress thinks it can score points by roughing up the leaders of that business. Remember when baseball had no answers to the steroid question and how poor answers begat more adversarial questions? Remember how embolden Congress was when it had the Big Three auto executives in its crosshairs after their arrival in Washington on private jets?
You may ask what the NFL needs from Congress, especially since nobody in the league is expecting a federal bailout. But the NFL depends on Congress for a variety of protections for its business model, including most importantly, the legislation that allows the league’s teams to maximize leverage by pooling their individual broadcast interests into a single unit. The NFL also depends on remaining in the good graces of Congress for a range of labor and antitrust protections. And as GC in DC points out, with a labor war in the offing, it’s important for the league and its owners to appear reasonable and fair, especially in the eyes of an overwhelmingly labor friendly Congress and Administration.
No, having a winning team in Washington doesn’t matter a lick to Congress, but having a team in the nation’s Capital, one that dominates its sports media, looking in disarray and out of balance certainly diminishes the carefully polished image of the National Football League. It makes the league a potential target of some tough questioning by members of Congress looking to get on the evening news and SportsCenter.
Check out our innovative new team pages, where your voice is heard.
Yeah, everybody's gonna' just trip over each other in their hurry to defend the honor of Rush Limbaugh...
As Nipsy Russell said in Wildcats: "Riiiiight"
Dan, Goodell already was excoriated at a committee hearing over the limbaugh deal. Of course there are plenty of democrats who like goodell's approach, but how many of them are going to be willing to go against their union consituency to make it easier for employers to fire union members over drug useage? It's an issue the league will need to appeal to republicans for help on, and many of them will either still be chapped over the Limbaugh incident or will be wary of alienating Limbaugh by carrying water for Goodell.
Goodell made a strategic error in even approaching congress. The last thing he should want is for them to get the idea they should be involved in league matters, but he is too dim to appreciate that.
Since the NFL enjoys certain anti-trust exemptions (especially, as is my understanding, related to TV), I see no reason why Congress can't grill the commish on any number of issues. Hell, I'd be glad to see them go after him on an annual basis. I think the league's TV policies are crappy and non-competitive, and I want to see the players get a square deal in the upcoming CBA.
Limbaugh is a non-issue, though ...
Robert -- thanks so much for the shout-out. I actually have an interesting background in this field... if you want to discuss, send me an email.
| powered by TheSeats.com |
Says he hasn't spoken to Lerner...
Running back has hip injury
Will miss Sunday's game vs. Atlanta
Two Titans combined for $17,500...
Heap has sore ribs, Ngata has...
Nov 04, 2009
11:25 AM
I would say having an obvious moron as Commissioner probably will end up hurting the league far more than anything the Redskins do. This is not the 1970's or 80's, when DC's power elite vied to sit in the owner's box at RFK Stadium. Most congressmen and their staffs regard the Redskins as basically irrelevant.
Goodell however has made waves. His clumsy handling of the Limbaugh affair made him a target for republicans, who owe Limbaugh big time. Goodell's inept performance when questioned about it only added to the perception he is far out of his depth.
I fully appreciate that his stance pleased liberals and the media, but the NFL is now asking congress to preempt state laws that grant additional job protections to drug users. Is that an issue liberals will rally behind? Doubtful.