RSS
Home
NFL: Noisily Flushing Limbaugh
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Rush Limbaugh is as controversial a figure as there is in American media today. Some of that controversy he has earned by being an outspoken conservative willing to skewer the Left's sacred cows with aplomb and skillful comedy. Some of it is manufactured by people who don't listen to him, take quotes out of context or, according to Rush, fabricate them in an attempt to marginalize him and destroy his career. Regardless of one's politics, Rush is an undeniably massive success.
Yet several NFL luminaries have spoken out against a group assembled to buy the St. Louis Rams featuring Rush as a limited partner. It appears that Rush's dream to own an NFL franchise will die prematurely since the most recent reports are that he has been removed from the group.
Rush is a big boy and can take care of himself. And personally, I couldn't care less whether he owns an NFL franchise. But he has the money to contribute and he's part of a group wants to keep the team in St. Louis. As I understand, he would be a limited partner. If you know anything about partnerships, you'd know that typically a limited partner has no control over the partnership or the daily operations absent an agreement to the contrary. Rush would have owned a financial stake in the partnership, which would own the team, and that's about it. Group leader Dave Checketts admitted as much when severing ties with Rush earlier today.
Now the NFL has done an amazing job of growing the league's popularity. It is the quintessential successful professional sports league and a model for the other major sports. It is also run by the commissioner and owners who are a very exclusive club. They can accept or deny prospective owners from purchasing franchises for ostensibly any reason.
The league also takes much pride in its image. But only selectively so it seems, which makes this kerfuffle about Rush harming the NFL as a minority owner, because of things he may or may not have said (and, if so, without proper context), simply a canard.
And almost everyone who has stepped into the fray has stumbled.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell waded into the Rush controversy by saying, "I've said many times before we're all held to a high standard here, and I think divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL, absolutely not."
Ah yes, them high standards. Must be for what people say, not what they do, right Commish? Has the league investigated its owners and ownership groups to see if they continuously eschew controversy? Probably not.
After all, several franchise owners packed up and moved their teams from their historic city homes for better digs (Art Modell and his Cleveland Browns (now Baltimore Ravens); Bob Irsay and the Baltimore (now Indianapolis) Colts; the Adams family's Houston Oilers (now Tennessee Titans); and Al Davis and the Oakland (then Los Angeles, then Oakland) Raiders). No doubt all in the name of bigger bucks higher standards.
Current Colts owner Jim Irsay, who said he would vote against a Rush ownership interest, reportedly had a well-documented addiction to prescription pain killers. Some reports suggest there is evidence that the league knew for a decade or more about Irsay's condition but did nothing. So Irsay and Rush have at least one thing in common but not enough, apparently, for Irsay to stomach Rush joining his club.
It also seems them high standards don't apply to players either, at least to the same degree. Yes, the NFL sometimes punishes players that break the law--and that's a long list that includes, for example, Michael Vick (dog fighting), Donte Stallworth (DUI manslaughter), Travis Henry (drug trafficking), Plaxico Burress (weapons charges), Donte Whitner (charged with aggravated disorderly conduct), Aqib Talib (arrested for battery and resisting arrest), Anthony Mix (arrested for having sex with a 15 year old girl), and Charles Grant (indicted for involuntary manslaughter),* not to mention the scores of DUIs, drug offenses, assaults, domestic violence incidents, disorderly conduct and weapons charges, and other crimes. I'll bet these players probably haven't met the high standards. Of course, players aren't owners but they are ambassadors for the league and their respective teams. Don't these illegal activities have a greater negative impact on the game and league than anything Rush has said? Don't actions speak louder than words?
Several players have even said they wouldn't play for a team that had Rush as an owner, including New York Giant Mathias Kiwanuka and New York Jet Bart Scott. Kiwanuka went so far as to say he'd stay a free agent if a Rush-owned team was the only offer on the table. So let's see: he'll turn down millions in guaranteed money, and lose one of his very few playing years, because a minority owner who doesn't run the organization or write the checks is a meany. Yeah, right. That's one lofty standard, Mathias. Forgive my healthy skepticism.
Funny, too, but I haven't heard any NFL executives or players criticizing Keith Olbermann for his incendiary rhetoric, even as he continues to host Sunday NFL pre- and post-game shows on NBC. True, Olbermann is not trying to buy a team but shouldn't the high standards still apply to commentators?
And, of course, when there is a perceived race controversy, the race-hustling reverands Al "diamond merchants" "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton and Jesse "Hymietown" "Duke lacrosse" Jackson can't be long to get out in front of the parade. And surprise!, both have spoken out against Rush owning a part of the Rams. Something tells me an ownership group headed up by Hymietown or Tawana would sail through without so much as a whimper from those protesting Rush now.
Again, I'm not defending Rush or his statements (or alleged statements). He can defend himself. And I'm sure he'll continue to address the quotes attributed to him. But he's also a shrewd businessman. Does anyone who truly believes Rush is a racist seriously believe that he would want to draft or sign only white players, or would treat black players with contempt? In a league with about 70% of the players being black, that would be as asinine as it would be fiscally suicidal.
What bothers me is the silliness and overreaction, a tempest in a teapot, full of boistrousness, pretense and grandstanding, but ultimately lacking in any real substance. If the NFL is truly so image-conscious, it should make better efforts to clean up its own house and the behavior of its players. These problems preexist and will remain regardless of whether a controversial talk-show host is a passive part-owner.
*Note: I chose these individuals as a representative sample of various crimes and recognize there are plenty of white players who also have had legal troubles including tight end Jerramy Stevens, former quarterback Ryan Leaf, and kicker Sebastian Janikowski.
Related Articles:
Comments
