Did somebody say "Why hasn't Dave added any poorly-thought-out and rambling incoherent crap to the internet lately"?



Why is the United States Congress investigating Major League Baseball and the National Football League? I think it is ridiculous that the legislative branch of government is involved with private enterprise, let alone one as unimportant (albeit lucrative) as entertainment. Wasn't there a European nation last century that had government-run films? Did we think that was okay?

Yes, sports (especially football) is big money in America. But don't think Arlen Spector (R-Pa) is investigating the NFL and its commissioner to just make sure the Patriots didn't cheat. Spector isn't interested in the integrity of the game. If anything, he is trying to undermine the credibility of the League and turn the fans (the consumer) against the NFL. He is looking for any excuse to knock down the NFL he can find. He has been after them for years, harping on their anti-trust exemption. I submit that just yelling "The NFL shouldn't have anti-trust exemption" is accidentally vague at best and more likely intentionally misleading.

The anti-trust exemption has nothing to do with there only being one Professional Football League. In fact, there is more than one Pro Football League in America. Both the All-American Football League and the United Football League are positioned to be Major leagues, the former carrying the hook that all of its players graduated from college and the latter boasting Mark Cuban (billioniare owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks) as a team owner. No no, the anti-trust in question is whether the League can sell its League owned games to broadcaster companies in packages, as opposed to individual teams selling individual games to individual stations for broadcast. Yes, there is actually a law that had to be passed to allow this (The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961). Logic wasn't able to carry the day, someone had to write this down and they had to vote on whether it was fair for the league to sell its product in bulk. And Arlen Spector (R-Pa) doesn't think its fair.

Now, Mr. Spector is almost certainly a Steelers fan, and I understand that he assumes that everyone watches the Steelers (which they do - no team in the NFL has more fans in cities other than their home than the Pittsburgh Steelers) and therefore other cities would buy Steelers games, but who in Oakland is going to buy a Toronto, I mean Buffalo Bills game? Would people in Yuma care about the Bills? Would they play in Peoria? Ultimately, the idea of the NFL's television packaging is to share the revenue between the teams, and for the teams to gain exposure throughout the country. I have no football numbers to support this, but remember last season, when 5 of the top 7 hockey jersey sales from NHL.com were Sabres? Do you think that would have been the case if the Sabres weren't on TV?

But take the reasoning for the packaging out of the equation. This is a classic example of my personal political view: get the government out of free enterprise. Network doesn't want to pay the arguably exorbitant amount the NFL wants to charge, they don't have to. I'll bet you a nickel, some other network will step up. But what if the NFL decides to create their own network and broadcast games exclusively? Why the Cable and Satellite providers could simply refuse to carry the network, couldn't they? But I'll double down on that nickel that someone else will pay the money and carry it.

And the fans (the consumers) lose in the end, you say. But wait - when Walmart refuses to carry a record album with swearing on it, does Congress get involved, or do they just let the market adjust, trusting that if the demand is high enough, someone will supply the product? When I worked at a sports bar that carried all of the football games that weren't being broadcast in everyone's homes, the place was packed. The consumers sought out the suppliers that provided the product. And they spent money at the sports bar. They pumped money into our economy. The broadcast company made money, the tv manufacturer made money, the retail outlet that sold the tv made money, the bar owner made money, the bartender made money, and the consumer got the product they desired.

And that domino effect occurred thousands of times across this country every Sunday for twenty-two weeks. Add on the fact that most Sundays three games are on tv, and you have 9 hours of programming that people want to see. If we take away the exemption, isn't it likely that each individual market will choose and purchase the one game most compelling to the fans in that market. You lose two-thirds of the product right there. Will the sports bars be able to bring in the money, if they are only displaying the same product you have at your house?

And without getting into a whole big thing about Baseball, is Congress all of the sudden an investigative and enforcement branch? If people are breaking LAWS about using steroids, don't call Congress, call the POLICE. They are the ones who arrest people for breaking laws. Congress makes them, someone else enforces them. No one would be perjuring themselves - lying to Congress under oath - if Congress would stay out of it.

A lot of rambling and justification is present, but not necessary. Keep the government out of free enterprise. It ain't free 'cuz it doesn't cost nothing. It's free 'cuz this is America. Shouldn't Congress be passing laws deciding whether or not to exercise it's exclusive right to declare war?