The problem with Rush is that its his job to take on all of life’s partisan issues and problems. Not only is it his job to take on these issues and problems, its key to his success that he be very opinionated about whichever issues he feels are important to him and/or will cause his very large audience to tune in. Given that we will never know what the “next big issue ” in this world that Rush will be discussing on his show is, its impossible for the NFL to even try to predict or gauge the impact on the NFL’s business if something controversial, or even worse yet, something nationally polarizing happens. There is an unquantifiable risk that comes with the size of Rush’s audience. The wrong thing said on the show, even if its not spoken by Rush himself, about a sensitive national or world issue could turn into a Black Swan event for the NFL.
Thats a huge risk that is not commensurate with the value a minority investment in a franchise brings.
Exactly. Especially since there is little doubt that an owner/ownership group will materialize without Limbaugh’s involvement.
Being “very opinionated” isn’t the issue. It’s being inflammatory and offending large segments of the population with those opinions that is the problem. Having strong opinions is part and parcel of being powerful. Plenty of very opinionated people own football teams and other corporations that are sensitive to such things. See the Whole Foods CEO John Mackey for a perfectly fine example of such.
Again, “very opinionated” isn’t even remotely the reason. It’s the actual *content* of these opinions which scares the living begeezus out of his fellow investors. He’s a polarizing figure and uses his strong opinions to polarize to serve his ratings.
Effective treatment of the disease requires correct analysis of the symptoms. Rush is a disease, dude. He’s eating your party alive.
Comment by Hal — Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
I don’t disagree in general–mostly the issue is one of word choice.
And at the moment, I don’t have a party, to be honest.
Forget race, or made-up quotes, Mark Cuban hits the nail on the head:
I thought the made up quotes were the most interesting part of this whole episode.
According to the link, at least one of the quotes came from a prank rewriting of Rush’s Wikipedia page. No news organization would have run with quotes like those about anybody but a conservative. But if it confirms the idea that conservatives are soulless bigots then it must be true.
I especially liked the way Sanchez backed off using the quote — first he brings up Rush’s denial as a way to call him a bigot once more. Later he backed off via twitter (with one more opportunity to editorialize):
i’ve know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he’s right tho. we didn’t confirm quote. our bad.
So, calling somebody a bigot using a fake quote isn’t divisive?
Comment by Buckland — Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
I, in no way. defend the fake quotes. However, I have listened to enough Rush to know that he has said more than enough to create the needed controversy for things to have played out like they did. No fake quotes were needed.
[...] than able to turn Rush away on their own. Rush’s chances at being a minority NFL team were almost non-existent in the first place, but by turning this into a personal crusade, they have made Rush our Conservative martyr. We now [...]
Glenn Reynolds (who notes he never watches NFL football) endorses this boycott of the NFL over the Limbaugh business.
Teflon of Molten Thought writes:
Since Roger Goodell wants to bend over for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other bigots and race-baiters among the sportswriter community by shafting Rush Limbaugh, we ought to return the favor by punting the NFL this season.
I have cancelled my DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket package (including the Supercast). I will not watch ONE MINUTE of NFL games or coverage this season—including the Super Bowl.
And I challenge you to join me.
Let’s show Roger Goodell who REALLY runs the NFL—the fans.
I am guessing that this won’t make an iota of difference.
Indeed, knowing what a big NFL fan Limbaugh is, I have little doubt that Limbaugh himself will be watching this weekend.
(And again: I am bemused that so many conservatives are upset that a set of businessmen would make a business decision about their private property, i.e., the Limbaugh would bring undo and unwanted attention to the league, so why fool with it? More to the point, it was the groups seeking to buy the team that dropped Limabugh, not the NFL, although I still think he would have lost a vote had it reached that stage.)
First they came for Rush Limbaugh, but I did nothing, because I wasn’t Rush Limbaugh . . .
/scarcasm
Comment by B. Minich — Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 10:17 am
The fact that news outlets published quotes falsely attributed to Limbaugh is the issue here.
I assume many people are calling for a boycott of the NFL because the NFL bought the false quotes, hook, line, and sinker.
You can say all you want about Limbaugh’s chances to have actually attained an ownership stake in the St. Louis Rams organization, but that doesn’t make these news outlets anymore ethical.
Comment by Anonymous Person — Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
[...] say is, good riddance!For sensible conservative takes on Limbaugh and the NFL, see James Joyner and Steven L. Taylor.For an utterly insane take on the whole thing — and on how “we are all Rush [...]
Not only will I boycott the NFL which I have watched every Sunday, Monday and Thursday for years, but I’m also going to boycott any advertisers who are sponsors. This is a permanent decision on my family’s behalf.
Comment by S. Lord — Monday, October 19, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
It will probably be a full time job keeping track of all of said sponsors…
I agree with S. Lord, #4, the local colleges in my area have excellent teams. I will neither purchase Seahawk tickets, watch the NFL games, nor knowingly purchase products that they advertise.
Comment by S. Anthony — Thursday, October 29, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
ESPN is reporting that Rush Limbaugh as been dropped from an investment group that is in the process of attempting to buy the St. Louis Rams. Limbaugh has received a lot of attention (much of it negative) in recent days because of his interest in being part owner of an NFL franchise. On balance, I would say that in regards to Limbaugh: if one makes a living as a provocateur, then one ought not be surprised if people are sometimes provoked.
This story is not about free speech (as some are making it out to be, see, for example, here). It is very much a business story and, believe it or, a story about voting rules.
On the business side I would make two quick points. First, the NFL is extremely image conscious and Rush makes a living going out of his way to say things that make somewhere between 30%-60% of the population mad on a daily basis (depending on what he is talking about). As such, it is hardly a shock that some NFL owners are a bit skittish about welcoming him into their ranks.
The second business point I would make is that this is a case of pure capitalism at work: private owners making decisions concerning with whom they are willing to do business. Conservatives really have no ideological grounds to object if the NFL owners have found Limbaugh too controversial for their business tastes. Heck, if Major League Baseball thinks Mark Cuban is too controversial, it is hardly a shock that there was pushback on Limbaugh from the NFL.
All of this does boil down, however, to the voting rules, as institutions do matter. To wit: for a purchase to be approved, 75% of the league’s owner have to agree on the sale. There are 32 teams, meaning 24 had to say yes, but much more importantly, only 9 had to say no. One of the simple facts that is often ignored by casual observers about super-majority rules is that they empower the minority substantially.
It was already known, before any formal process had started, that the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, Jim Isray, was going to vote against any ownership involving Limbaugh. As such, only 8 more votes were needed to block such a purchase. Given, again, the image-conscious nature of the NFL and the fact that the likelihood is high that other buyers can be found, those 8 votes were no going to be hard to muster. Put another way: knowing the negative publicity that Limbaugh can generate, the odds were always quite high that 9 or more owners would vote against him.
By the way, my guess is that the majority (maybe even a super-majority) of NFL owners probably find Limbaugh’s basic political views thoroughly acceptable (or, certainly, tolerable). However, they were always going to make a business decision on this topic. As such, forget the media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or even Roger Goodell, this was pretty much DOA from the word go. Limbaugh is controversial and businesses tend to not like controversy (especially when they can get what they want without it).
As such, forget the media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or even Roger Goodell, this was pretty much DOA from the word go.
One other group that may have been opposed that might go into the “business decision” argument: the players.
Given Limbaugh’s embrace of problematic racial tropes, I would think that the mostly-black NFL workforce might also have some reservations about him being an owner.
The nice thing about American capitalism, however, is that there are other football leagues that could use an injection of investment from a successful businessman like Limbaugh–the UFL, Arena, etc…
Hell, if Mike Ditka could be an owner of an Arena team, it would be hard to believe that they would reject Limbaugh. They also are in dire need of cash to get the league back up next year!
Comment by Ratoe — Wednesday, October 14, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
[...] Stephen Taylor points out in the NFL it only takes nine votes to block someone from joining the ownership club. Unlike previous potential owners Rush has a [...]
[...] Steven Taylor points out that the NFL is institutionally conservative on such matters: First, the NFL is extremely image conscious and Rush makes a living going out of his way to say things that make somewhere between 30%-60% of the population mad on a daily basis (depending on what he is talking about). As such, it is hardly a shock that some NFL owners are a bit skittish about welcoming him into their ranks. [...]
I suppose one could quibble over whether the formation, by incumbent capitalists, of leagues which then develop institutions (such as voting rules) to decide which new capitalists can enter their business is “pure capitalism at work.”
Comment by MSS — Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 11:42 am
[...] the point, it was the groups seeking to buy the team that dropped Limabugh, not the NFL, although I still think he would have lost a vote had it reached that [...]
[...] PoliBlog | I would say that in regards to Limbaugh: if one makes a living as a provocateur, then one ought not be surprised if people are sometimes provoked. This story is not about free speech (as some are making it out to be). It is very much a business story and, believe it or not, a story about voting rules. On the business side I would make two quick points. First, the NFL is extremely image conscious and Rush makes a living going out of his way to say things that make somewhere between 30%-60% of the population mad on a daily basis (depending on what he is talking about). As such, it is hardly a shock that some NFL owners are a bit skittish about welcoming him into their ranks. The second business point I would make is that this is a case of pure capitalism at work: private owners making decisions concerning with whom they are willing to do business. Conservatives really have no ideological grounds to object if the NFL owners have found Limbaugh too controversial for their business tastes. Heck, if Major League Baseball thinks Mark Cuban is too controversial, it is hardly a shock that there was pushback on Limbaugh from the NFL. Ta-Nehisi Coates @The Atlantic | Let’s be very clear about what we’re debating–Rush didn’t lose because he’s pro-Life, because he doesn’t support the public mandate, or because of his stance on Afghanistan. Rush lost because he once claimed that Donovan McNabb, a quarterback who in ten seasons has never thrown more interceptions than touchdowns, and is one of the greatest quarterbacks of his generation was being overpraised because he was black. Rush Limbaugh lost because thinks slavery had some merit. Rush Limbaugh lost because he compared NFL players, en masse, to gang-bangers. Rush Limbaugh didn’t lose because he’s a conservative. He lost because he’s a white populist. The American Prospect | Limbaugh’s “political views” weren’t the problem. His racial views were the problem. The players and NFL officials who spoke up didn’t complain that Limbaugh was a Republican, they didn’t even complain about his “views.” They complained about actual things he said about black people that made him an inappropriate candidate to own a team in an organization with such a large contingent of African Americans. The NFL is an organization made up of a lot of people who make a great deal of money — I would guess that on average, management and ownership probably skews Republican. But it’s also an organization made up of a lot of black people — and while the right was focused on debunking racist things Limbaugh didn’t say, they pretty much ignored Limbaugh’s record of racist commentary, which includes not only a habit of comparing black athletes to gang members but a general hostility toward black people. Limbaugh only recently suggested that having a black president encouraged black children to beat up white children — he’s also compared President Obama’s agenda to “slavery reparations,” used epithets to reference his biracial background, and compared Democrats responding to the concerns of black voters to rape. In the fevered swamps of National Review, where they’re still defending William F. Buckley’s support of segregation, this kind of behavior is described as Martin Luther King like. [...]
(Of course, that was obvious after the debacle against the Eagles last season, and we all knew we would have to suffer through a mediocre season before Jerry decided that yes, indeed, he has to pull the trigger.)
It seems to me, the folks wearing white coats from Terrell State Hospital need to spend a few hours with Jerry today. See, either Jerry has lost his mind or he thinks the fans in Dallas are so dumb they will fill his new billion-dollar stadium regardless of the product on the field or the man running the team.
That’s the only conclusion you can draw because if Phillips keeps his job after this season, Jerry should never, ever fire him. Phillips will never do a worse job than he did this season.
Ever.
[...]
it’s hard to talk tough about taking folks to the woodshed, when Phillips, who managed a 13-3 team with Super Bowl expectations so poorly that it didn’t even make the playoffs, remains the coach.
This group of arrogant faux stars played with a sense of entitlement, in part, because Phillips provided a plethora of ready-made excuses for their flaws, when he should’ve been challenging his underachieving players to perform better.
Indeed.
One thing has been clear in numerous games (today’s, last week’s against the Ravens, not to mention the first game against Washington, as well as those against the Bengals, Rams and Cardinals), this team has frequently been ill-prepared to play. The coaching staff hasn’t gotten them ready and Phillips frequently makes excuses, rather than taking players to task. He looks befuddled on the sidelines every week.
Another thing that is quite concerning: while everyone had Jason Garrett as an offensive genius last year, it would appear that Tony Sparano (now head coach of the AFC-East winning Miami Dolphins, after being 1-15 last year) may have been the real brains behind last year’s offense.
The question now is whether Jerry will do a 180 on Phillips and fire him–or if Wade will decide it is time to retire.
Regardless, things very much feel like the “bad old days” with this team after a couple of years of hope. That is to say starting with Switzer’s second year through the Gailey and Campo administrations: listless and under-achieving with Jerry acting like the next big deal (e.g., trading for Jerry Galloway, trading up to get Quincy Carter, signing Pacman Jones or trading for Toy Williams) will be The Piece that completes the SuperBowl puzzle. Jerry wasted Aikman’s remaining years by chasing off Jimmy Johnson and now he is poised to squander the pool of talent currently assembled. He came to his sense briefly with the Parcells hire, and Bill got the organization going in the right direction, but one Big Bill left, Jerry went back to his old ways and here we are: home for the playoffs.
One of the things that has absolutely baffled me this season is how Wade Philips looks perpetually confused while on the sidelines. Doesn’t matter if he’s winning, losing, whatever - he just looks like he has no clue what is going on.
I envision this internal conversation happening weekly (or more!)
Philips: “Ummm, what am I doing here anyway? Why are all these guys in white uniforms around me, running in and out onto a field and playing some sort of game with an oblong ball? What is the object of this game? How do I win? And why do they pay me if I don’t know the answers to these questions? Also, who is that TO guy, and should I do something with him?”
Seriously, Philips doesn’t inspire confidence at all. Even with the Cowboys up for most of the game against the Steelers, every time they cut to a shot of Philips, I knew Pittsburgh would win the game. And while I am one of those who can’t stand the Cowboys (I’ll never forgive you guys for beating the Steelers in 1995 and being so annoyingly cocky while doing so), I remain baffled that Philips remains employed, and say that the league would be better off with a competent Head Coach in Dallas.
I’ve said it before, and I am more convinced of it than ever: Wade Phillips must go. Not only was there that ridiculous back-to-back 77+ yard runs allowed last week, the Cowboys don’t appear ready to play today (and this is hardly the first time that has been the case this season).
Being “very opinionated” isn’t the issue. It’s being inflammatory and offending large segments of the population with those opinions that is the problem. Having strong opinions is part and parcel of being powerful. Plenty of very opinionated people own football teams and other corporations that are sensitive to such things. See the Whole Foods CEO John Mackey for a perfectly fine example of such.
Again, “very opinionated” isn’t even remotely the reason. It’s the actual *content* of these opinions which scares the living begeezus out of his fellow investors. He’s a polarizing figure and uses his strong opinions to polarize to serve his ratings.
Effective treatment of the disease requires correct analysis of the symptoms. Rush is a disease, dude. He’s eating your party alive.
Comment by Hal — Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
I don’t disagree in general–mostly the issue is one of word choice.
And at the moment, I don’t have a party, to be honest.
Comment by Steven L. Taylor — Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Well, if this whole escapade results in the Rams going back to LA or Cleveland where they belong, I’ll be happy.
My opposition to Rush was that he was going to keep the team in St. Louis–a mistake.
Comment by Ratoe — Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Indeed. Plus, the Rams need to wear the colors they won the super bowl in - the nice looking blue and yellow. I don’t like the shiny blue and gold.
Comment by B. Minich — Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 10:15 am
[...] Why Rush Limbaugh was never going be be part-owner of an NFL Team. Related: Rush Limbaugh’s persistent [...]
Pingback by Links of the Day - 10/16/2009 | Heretical Ideas Blog — Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 11:59 am
I thought the made up quotes were the most interesting part of this whole episode.
According to the link, at least one of the quotes came from a prank rewriting of Rush’s Wikipedia page. No news organization would have run with quotes like those about anybody but a conservative. But if it confirms the idea that conservatives are soulless bigots then it must be true.
I especially liked the way Sanchez backed off using the quote — first he brings up Rush’s denial as a way to call him a bigot once more. Later he backed off via twitter (with one more opportunity to editorialize):
So, calling somebody a bigot using a fake quote isn’t divisive?
Comment by Buckland — Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
I, in no way. defend the fake quotes. However, I have listened to enough Rush to know that he has said more than enough to create the needed controversy for things to have played out like they did. No fake quotes were needed.
Comment by Steven L. Taylor — Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
[...] than able to turn Rush away on their own. Rush’s chances at being a minority NFL team were almost non-existent in the first place, but by turning this into a personal crusade, they have made Rush our Conservative martyr. We now [...]
Pingback by Dashing Limbaugh’s Dream | One Fine Jay — Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 9:18 pm