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).
Sphere: Related Content
October 14th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
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!
October 15th, 2009 at 12:25 am
[...] 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 [...]
October 15th, 2009 at 8:25 am
[...] 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. [...]
October 15th, 2009 at 11:42 am
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.”
October 15th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Oh, no doubt, one could quibble.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
[...] 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 [...]
October 16th, 2009 at 12:54 am
[...] also about the free market — remember, that thing the right supposedly worships?: On the business side I would make two [...]
October 16th, 2009 at 8:05 am
[...] 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. [...]